Game: Italia

Thread: Nations represented in Italia I & II

Ladislaus — 2008-11-18T20:53:33+00:00

The following nations are represented in the game (in order of appearance* on the game board).

In Italia I:

Red Player
Greeks
Romans

Yellow Player
Celts
Samnites
Epirotes (4)
Numidians (6)
Populares (10)

Blue Player
Etruscans
Carthaginians
Illyrians
Cimbri (8)
Optimates (10)

In Italia II:

Blue Player
African Romans
Huns (2)
Avars (4)
Byzantium (5)

Yellow Player
Visigoths
Sardes
Ostrogoths (4)
Lombards (6)

Red Player
Western Romans
Berber
Franks (5)
Patrimonium (6)

Green Player
Vandals
Foederati (2)
Burgundians (6)
Arabs (7)

*Starting turn is indicated in parenthesis, if not available on the first turn.

Thread: Re: Question: Naval Supermacy

Belisarius88 — 2008-09-18T01:17:51+00:00

My first interpretation of the rules was also that naval supremacy required double the number of enemy ships in adjacent sea areas to that sea area adjacent to the battle! After looking at the map though I decided that they must have meant adjacent to the land area.

Thread: Re: Is it possible to play Italia with two players?

tico — 2008-07-22T11:25:37+00:00

Suggested setup for two does generate some degree of problems (at least when we tried).

It is really tough to set up game for two but let's see...

Thinking it over, it seems to be best to think the game as nations in succession and north and south separately.

Hence, At the beginning it is imperative that in North, West Romans oppose Visigoths, Huns and Foedeorati. Later it is quite important that who controls West Romans (now out of play) controls major invaders, Ostrogoths and Franks, who in turn end the empire of Visigoths. To make North more unstable, Avars and Burgundy must oppose Franks.

Obviously Patrimonium should be on opposing side to Foedeorati.

Ostrogoth empire is most likely brought down by Byzantium and they should not be on same side.

In south, Vandals must oppose Sardes and Berbers must oppose Vandals to undermine them and gain control over Africa. African Romans must oppose Vandals and may gain support from Berbers to reduce Vandal threat.

Vandals should be out of Africa before Arabs arrive and question remains if Byzantium and Arabs should be on different side or not.

Now layout would be as follows:

Green (player 1)
- Vandals
- Foedeorati
- Burgundy
- Arabs

Blue (player 1)
- Avars

Yellow (player 1)
- Ostrogoths
- Lombards

Red (Player 1)
- West Romans

Red (player 2)
- Berbers
- Franks
- Patrimonium

Yellow (Player 2)
- Sardes
- Visgoths

Blue (player 2)
- AF Romans
- Byzantium
- Huns

Scores from each nation could be counted together.

Thread: Re: campaigns

tico — 2008-07-21T12:00:16+00:00

jurdj wrote:
I've now played Italia I three times and I'm not sure the addition of the campaign submechanism is a Good Thing. It adds considerable complexity, with lots of opportunities for mistakes and misinterpretations as well as analysis paralysis.

Actually, I'd say that this is probably finest and most smooth flowing feature of the game. It seems quite intuitive and it feels correct enough in historical terms.

Of course successful campaign may change the face of the map entirely for a moment but that is one of the great things. Empires rise and fall. If game turn is assumed to be something along lines of 25 - 30 years each, a lot can and will happen.

Image

LCMH — 2008-06-25T13:29:59+00:00

Marius saves Roma at the verge of Hannibal's campaign attack.

Thread: Re: question: campaigns in turn 10 of Italia I

Philip Thomas — 2008-06-21T19:10:30+00:00

Because in a campaign a) you only move one stack (the one with the leader in it) and b) the other players get reaction moves.

Trust me, it really is one move by Blue's stack, then one by Yelllow's, then one by Red's.

Thread: Re: question: campaigns in turn 10 of Italia I

Lawrence Hung — 2008-06-21T18:31:15+00:00

Philip Thomas wrote:
Each nation takes it in turn to make 1 move of a campaign. I believe that a nation can pass during its turn (spending no money) and then move again later, but I could well be wrong.

I beg to disagree as of this interpretation of the current wording of the rules. The rules say turn 10 is a "series of campaigns" (as opposed to a "series of movement"). I take it to mean that each force with a leader conduct a campaign and thus a campaign is a continuous movement as long as the power has money to spend (for the cost of 1 gold), instead of 1 move as it goes. A power can pass when he doesn't want to conduct another campaign move, or when it no longer has any money in the bank.

I may be wrong but Andreas could shed the light on this. If it is only 1 move of a campaign, how does it different from the 1 move in an ordinary turn where movement phase finishes when a (or each) force completes its movement?

Thread: Re: What races/ armies are present?

Uesugi Kenshin — 2008-06-17T10:04:26+00:00

Very nice, thanks.

Thread: Re: What races/ armies are present?

heli — 2008-06-17T03:13:21+00:00

Huns, Byzants, African Romans, Avars; Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Sardes, Lombards; West Romans, Berbers, Franks, "Patrimonium"; Foederati, Vandals, Burgundians, Arabs

Thread: What races/ armies are present?

Uesugi Kenshin — 2008-06-16T23:59:19+00:00

I am interested in getting this game. It looks great. I'm curious what races/ armies are present in the Italia 2 game?

Thread: Re: Question: City Rebuild and Stacking Limit with Generals

Lawrence Hung — 2008-05-19T16:34:03+00:00

Oh yes! Of course you are very right to both stacking limit and leader rules. I forgot that leader 1-turn only rule buried in the reinforcement rules.

Thread: Re: Question: City Rebuild and Stacking Limit with Generals

Philip Thomas — 2008-05-19T15:14:38+00:00

The general only boosts stacking limits while attacking, not after combat. So one unit would die.

edit: also, I'm not sure if you have noticed that Generals from the previous turn are removed from play at the beginning of that nation's next turn unless their card specifies they continue to be in play.

Thread: Re: Question: City Rebuild and Stacking Limit with Generals

Lawrence Hung — 2008-05-19T00:46:49+00:00

No, they arrive Lilybauem at different time. Anyway, after delcaring the place as capital, I think Lilybauem can stack up to 5 units (+3 clear +1 general +1 capital). So they are still safe.

Thread: Re: Question: City Rebuild and Stacking Limit with Generals

Philip Thomas — 2008-05-18T16:42:39+00:00

You do not control vacant areas unless it says so on your card. Killing your last man to build a city will therefore not allow you to win points for the city, unless you move more troops in from elsewhere...

You can have 5 units plus a leader attacking a clear area after movemnent. Additional leaders do not give extra stacking bonuses, but you can always attack with 1 more than the stacking limit of the area- so with 4 against clear areas- and then the leader is +1 during combat.

However, after combat, the stacking limit in the area is not affected by the leader and so you could only have 3 units in the area, or 4 if you declared it your capital. Again the second leader is irrelevant. And in all stacking cases cities are irrelevant.

How did you get 2 Carthaginian Generals in a single turn anyway?

Thread: Re: question: campaign sea transport

Philip Thomas — 2008-05-18T16:34:43+00:00

Thankyou Ken.

Thread: Re: Question: Naval Supermacy

Philip Thomas — 2008-05-18T16:33:44+00:00

Yes, especially as many land areas link to more than one sea area...

Thread: Re: campaigns

Philip Thomas — 2008-05-18T16:28:37+00:00

Can any nation use this rule to launch a campaign voluntarily by paying 1 gold? Or is it only allowable to specific nations who have major campaign in their nation cards e.g. Hannibal (Carthage) and Phyrrus (Epiroates)?

Only nations listed as having campaigns have campaigns. And those nations only have the specific campaigns listed. There is no generic 'pay to launch a campaign' action.

The campaigns simulate things which wouldn't work using a Major invasion. Brittannia manages just fine with Major Invasions, so there is no need for a campaign. For example, the Romans took quite a long time (a century or so) to get to Scotland, it would be inappropriate to have them arrive there by campaign.

The important thing to realise about campaigns is that you can sack a city for 4 gold during a campaign and use the gold to finance more campaigning. By this means your campaigns can go a long way. Of course, this is another reason not to have campaigns in Brittannia- Britain was a much less urbanised area than Italy at this time.

Thread: Re: campaigns

perfalbion — 2008-05-18T15:41:51+00:00

The campaign rules won't work for Britannia for one simple reason - there's no treasury. In Italia, you're purchasing units with money, and that allows you to bank gold if you choose to do so. In Britannia, you're growing population organically by holding areas and breeding. So you can't amass a treasury to fund a campaign in the way Italia does.

I haven't had a chance to play Italia as yet, but it strikes me as more appropriate for this game than for Britannia. Britannia is about taking land for the purposes of settling and establishing lasting control for a people to settle in. Italia is more about the struggle of different nations to achieve military dominance over a larger geographic region. The campaign mechanism is a very interesting way to simulate this while making a player make interesting choices (do I buy units now, or save cash to extend my campaign to the maximum?).

I don't see the campaign mechanism working in Britannia as a result. The major invasions are more than enough to capture the ebb and flow of the invading nations, and create a simple system for new forces in population growth.

Where the campaign "concerns" me in Italia is precisely what you pointed to - that it will be more complex and prone to mistakes. But given the greater military emphasis of the game, it could be an excellent addition. I'm looking forward to my first chance to play.

Thread: Re: Three ruling questions after playing twice

perfalbion — 2008-05-18T15:34:31+00:00

You need to read the cards. If it says "At any time" then you'll score points any time (attacking or defending) that a unit of that nations causes a casualty of the right type. If it says "during your turn," then you'll only score when you attack.

Thread: Re: question: retreat

perfalbion — 2008-05-18T15:32:53+00:00

Because there's no further combat occurring, therefore there is nothing to retreat from.

So if you're planning on going in with a massive, overwhelming force, you must take some care to make sure that you're not likely to cost yourself some forces if you wipe out the defenders in a single round. Or to minimize your losses if you do.

Thread: Re: question: campaign sea transport

perfalbion — 2008-05-18T15:30:32+00:00

I think you're mis-reading Phillip's reply. He's not saying "you can disembark into a different land area in reaction movement, and then those units can make a further reaction move into the area where combat occurs."

He's saying "You can disembark into the area where combat occurs and and any other units adjacent to the combat area may also react into the area where combat is occurring."

Thread: Question: City Rebuild and Stacking Limit with Generals

Lawrence Hung — 2008-05-18T14:48:54+00:00

Can Estrucans score the VP by rebuilding the ruin into city with the removal of the remaining only infantry unit? Do they still control the area after the rebuild without a unit in the area?

After movement, there are 2 Carthaginian Generals and 5 units on Lilybaeum (a clear area) with a city. Do they exceed the stacking limit?

Thread: Re: Question: Naval Supermacy

Lawrence Hung — 2008-05-18T14:42:53+00:00

The sea areas adjacent to the sea area from which the battle land area links to. I think it should be sea areas adjacent to the land battle area only.

Thread: Re: question: campaign sea transport

Lawrence Hung — 2008-05-18T14:41:18+00:00

Philip Thomas wrote:
In a Move to Battle, units in a fleet adjacent to the area where the battle is taking place can disembark into that area, at the same time as units on the land in adjacent areas move in.

You can't disembark and then Move to Battle.

edit: the point I was making is that, in this instance, disembarking does not use up the player's full move for that reaction move, because he also gets to move other units in from areas adjacent by land (and indeed he could disembark from more than one sea zone if both were adjacent to the battle area.

I can understand your points mostly but not the latter one on those who have just disembarked and then move into battle. I think they should stop after disembarkation. They could not move into the battle area because the disembarkation itself is considered a complete movement. Others in other land areas still could continue the reaction move into the battle.

Thread: Re: Question: Naval Supermacy

Philip Thomas — 2008-05-18T08:53:08+00:00

By the way, what did your other alternative reading even mean?
"all adjacent sea areas"- adjacent to what, if not the land area where the battle is taking place? The sea area from which the units disembarked? But you can have more than one of those, if you bring in units from different directions...

Thread: Re: question: campaign sea transport

Philip Thomas — 2008-05-18T08:46:46+00:00

In a Move to Battle, units in a fleet adjacent to the area where the battle is taking place can disembark into that area, at the same time as units on the land in adjacent areas move in.

You can't disembark and then Move to Battle.

edit: the point I was making is that, in this instance, disembarking does not use up the player's full move for that reaction move, because he also gets to move other units in from areas adjacent by land (and indeed he could disembark from more than one sea zone if both were adjacent to the battle area.

Thread: Re: Question: Naval Supermacy

Lawrence Hung — 2008-05-18T08:29:09+00:00

The rules should be better reworded then.

Thread: Re: question: campaign sea transport

Lawrence Hung — 2008-05-18T08:28:25+00:00

Ah, I see. I thought you said the disembarking units could go into the other area to battle, not in the same area where they are disembarking. They should stop where they disembark and battle, right?

Thread: Re: Living Rules?

Lawrence Hung — 2008-05-18T08:23:02+00:00

The designer seems to have no intention now to post the living rules. But I find the 2-pages summary very useful from Walter de Vor. Get it here from BGG.

Thread: Re: Italia 1 questions

Lawrence Hung — 2008-05-18T08:18:19+00:00

On point 3, I take it as the designer intent to creat such a super stack to defend as I find the campaigning rules powerful to wipe out all the areas in a row of movement, as long as you have the gold, of course.

Thread: Re: question: retreat

Lawrence Hung — 2008-05-18T08:00:16+00:00

Mod-Games wrote:
You may only retreat if there are still enemy units in the area.

Sounds a bit unusual to me. If the area can hold for a battle of this size, why the attacker can't retreat afterwards to avoid over-stacking if they have already killed off all the enemy units?

Thread: Re: Three ruling questions after playing twice

Lawrence Hung — 2008-05-18T07:54:16+00:00

Mod-Games wrote:
1. Leader is killed.
2. You get only points for units you killed, not for units other nations killed.
3. You target the types, not the individual units.

Kind regards

Andreas

On point 2, does it score only when it is the nation turn as attacker? Do you score when you are defending?

Thread: Re: Question: Naval Supermacy

Philip Thomas — 2008-05-18T07:49:36+00:00

The sea areas counted are those adjacent to the land area where the battle is taking place.

Thread: Re: question: campaign sea transport

Philip Thomas — 2008-05-18T07:48:28+00:00

Its a logical consequence of the Move to Battle rules: all units in areas adjacent to the battle can move in. This includes units in a fleet adjacent to the batte.

Thread: Re: question: campaign sea transport

Lawrence Hung — 2008-05-18T07:42:16+00:00

Really? That would be a powerful reaction move then. I don't recall anywhere in the rules saying that. Can you point us where to?

Thread: Question: Naval Supermacy

Lawrence Hung — 2008-05-18T07:21:53+00:00

To achieve naval supermacy, does it require twice the no. of fleets to the all adjacent sea areas or just the sea areas which are adjacent to the land in battle? The latter makes more sense but the former is implied more by the words as written in the rules.

Thread: Re: campaigns

Lawrence Hung — 2008-05-18T07:10:37+00:00

I found the campaign rules a good thing although I am not sure we played it right. Can any nation use this rule to launch a campaign voluntarily by paying 1 gold? Or is it only allowable to specific nations who have major campaign in their nation cards e.g. Hannibal (Carthage) and Phyrrus (Epiroates)?

Thread: Re: Another Viewpoint: A Victim of Geography

Noscapio — 2008-03-05T20:08:20+00:00

I haven't played any of Britannia or Hispania, but a few games of both Italia I & II.
In I there is less roaming about with strong new factions that eliminate all former nations, and Carthago and Rome will be able to grow strong enough to not feel threatened all the time. In II Northern Italy is a very unsafe place to be, but the southern part can be much more quiet. At first we didn't use this much, but now that my group is aware of it, many more nations set up there, even though it is harder to reach.

Thread: Proud offshoot of Brittannia

jurdj — 2008-02-27T22:33:38+00:00

This does not live up to a real review.

Played my third game of Italia last weekend.

There´s lots of things to like about Italia. If you loved Brittannia, this is a worthwhile offshoot. It offers two different games, a pre-empire three player game and a post-empire four player version. Both have the epic scale and the long play time you are accustomed to. The game doesn´t reveal itself easily. Unlike Brittannia, the events and reinforcements are not noted on the gameboard so there´s a lot of referring back to the nation cards to see what´s going to happen and where points can be scored, and thus opportunity for analysis paralysis. Production values are high although the rulebook suffers from similar weaknesses as the original.

We played the three player version and even though two had played before quite some time was taken up by going through the rules. Ruleswise, the game has developed a bit, mainly by the addition of campaigns, which are linked to leaders, who can continue to roam the board as long as they got money to pay for it. This makes for quite dynamic play, but adds a lot of extra and complicated rules. This ruined the turn 10 climax for us on two occassions. Everyone will decide for himself whether it´s worth it.

Also, armies are no longer increased by population, but by income. There´s special units like elephants, knights, consular legions and fleets. Towns are sources for extra income and victory points, but also the target for raids (ie extra income and victory points).

In the three player game the nations are distributed as follows:

Red: Romans/Greeks/Roman senate
Yellow: Samnites/Kelts/Epirotes/Mauretanians/Populares
Blue: Carthaginians/Illyrians/Etruscans/Cimbri/Optimates

The game for the Red player is interesting as the Romans are very powerful but have to build their position carefully, especially as they will be the bucket to be kicked at the end of the game. ALso their towns are targets for raiding nations. It's a long term view.

For the blue player, the game also has long term issues, especially trying to make the Etruscans and Illyrians survive while scoring some points. This also goes for the yellow Samnites. The Carthaginians should score a good number of points, but it is never as strong as Rome and cannot threaten retalition in the same way. Later in the game the Cimbri and Optimates offer interesting campaigns.

The yellow player has to have a more opportunistic attitude. The Celts have their moments, but must watch their back as well as their front. The Epirotes make for a fun campaign with the option to go for glory (with the risk of Phyrric victory) or wedge into a niche of the board for longer term value. And the Populares offer a climactic final to the game.

The game has a delicate three way balance, where it is unwise to drive one nation too deep into the mud, because you waste too much resources on it, only to the benefit of the third player. A case in this game was the decision of the Greeks to abandon southern Italy and engage the Carthaginians. While it wrecked the Carthaginian position and scoring, in the end it just benefited the Samnites and the Mauretanians, while the Epirotes drove the dagger deep in the Greek back to take Sicily.

A similar case I've seen is too much pressure on the Etruscans by the Celts, who then find themselves overstretched against the Romans and without sympathy from the blue player.

So apart from the cardboard counters, Italia is a proud descendant of one of the great AT titles of all time. Complexity, combat, dice, assymetry and a good deal of theme despite the abstractions and generalisation that are required when several centuries are compressed into a few turns. And yet you have to also provide the dynamic great campaigns. All in all, I think Italia accomplishes that. That means good replay value, especially since there are two variants and each player has a different set of challenges.

Otherwise, we all agreed that the flow of the game is much better than in Brittannia. Everybody is actively involved all the time.

The materials are of high quality (as are all Phalanx games), but greatly missing are the overview of the events in the game and a turn order (handily put on the board of Brittannia). edit in: Look in the files section here for the overviews. And you need more bags for the counters.

Thread: campaigns

jurdj — 2008-02-27T22:17:44+00:00

I've now played Italia I three times and I'm not sure the addition of the campaign submechanism is a Good Thing. It adds considerable complexity, with lots of opportunities for mistakes and misinterpretations as well as analysis paralysis. On the plus side, it is highly interactive and allows concentrated action for a short period of time to be accurately portrayed in the bigger framework.

I'm trying to figure out whether the campaign mechanism could have been used in Brittannia. Possibly for the Roman invasion (reducing it to one or two turns) and 1066.

Anybody else have thoughts on this?

Thread: Re: Another Viewpoint: A Victim of Geography

jurdj — 2008-02-27T22:13:38+00:00

The feel of Italia (I) is certainly different from Brittannia (can't tell about Italia II and Hispania yet, although I have it). The waves of Brittannia (and Maharadja, for that matter) are replaced by more permanent presence on the board. There's even considerable difference in play between the colours. The steady build up of Rome for red, the invasions of yellow and blue that is basically hanging on to dear life for most of the game.

Thread: Re: Question about massing areas

Philip Thomas — 2008-02-24T10:29:44+00:00

Not unless your nation card specifically says you can move into that massing area.

The 'have left' clause is because some nations get reinforcements (or sometimes the whole nation) in the massing areas. The reinforcements must have left the massing areas by the end of the turn (again unless your nation card says you can stay in a massing area0

Thread: Question about massing areas

Numskull — 2008-02-24T09:36:08+00:00

It's 4:30 AM and I'm reading the rules so that I'll be able to play Italia this afternoon after getting some sleep, so I apologize in advance if I'm missing an obvious answer to this question.

Section 9.1 states that Leaders and units accompanying them do not have to stop moving when they enter a highland area. Section 9.2 states that all units must have left the massing areas (all of which are highland areas) at the end of their nation's movement phase. So, assuming that the highland area contains no enemy units, is it possible for a stack of units with a Leader to move into, then out of, a massing area in a single turn?

Thread: Re: Another Viewpoint: A Victim of Geography

Philip Thomas — 2008-02-18T16:59:41+00:00

Well, Italia doesn't quite have people coming from all over the map. North and South are the main entry points- the map includes some of the North African coastline. On the other hand nations will cross the seas to the East and West of Italy- but they will tend to be nations already on the board, not invaders.

There is also action in all parts of the map. Some might say too much action- as indicated above. Differne nations have different priorities too- some get their Vps by raiding and killing, others by holding ground and building cities. Also, in Italia I Rome is really a very different nation from all the others.

As for Hispania, it fails quite badly on the 'people coming from all over the map' test. There are 3 places invaders come into Spain- the Pyrenees, the Straits of Gibralatar, and the eastern seaboard. North-west Spain sees litle action. On the other hand there are different priorities for the various nations (several earn Vps for leaving Spain) and once you've reached the late game the Christian and Moslem nations have different unit types as well.

Thread: Re: Another Viewpoint: A Victim of Geography

stevebritgimp — 2008-02-18T13:50:32+00:00

I really want to get this game, along with Hispania - and then do a complete run down on it when I've the time . I've never played either of them before, but obviously they are the next step up in terms of complexity from Brit. Feel is obviously the issue here - the map for Britannia seems just right, in that there are arrivals from all directions, action in all parts of the map, and different priorities in different parts of the map. I don't like games that just try to reproduce Britannia verbatim, and obviously that isn't the case here - but I really want to take a closer look.

Thread: Re: Another Viewpoint: A Victim of Geography

Philip Thomas — 2008-02-18T12:18:38+00:00

It is also a Chronology issue. In Brittania there are periods of 2 or 3 turns at a time in which almost no new invaders show up, allowing the existing nations to get established. In Italia (I and II) there seems to be something big happening almost every turn, which means long-term planning is difficult (and in some cases positively counter-productive- for example each city Carthage builds in North Africa in the early stages of Italia II is pretty much a free gift of 5VPs to the Romans on turn 7...).

Thread: Another Viewpoint: A Victim of Geography

liberor13 — 2008-02-18T09:56:21+00:00

I'm not going to go into huge detail about this game, merely to give a more in depth view of my comments after my first full replay of this big-game!

I'm a big fan of Brittania, the influence behind this game and also a fan of Phalanx games. There production values are excellent and they produce one of my favorite games, "Age of Napoleon"

This game covers the history of Italy for some 1100 years in two games. Itallia I covers 300 BC -400 AD (the rise and decline of the Roman Empire) and Italia II covers 400 AD to 1000 AD

We played Itallia II. The game plays out in a reasonably fast playing and free flowing style. The rules, whilst not exactly clear in places, are generally easy to teach and to follow. The game is a lot of fun to have on the table, the pieces are a nice size and weight and the evocative illustrations add to the experience

But the game play just doesnt have the same "hook" that Brit has. Here is my feeling on why:
Its all a question of gepgraphy. Italy is a long and slim country and whilst I'm generally a fan of that as a concept, this game makes Italy quite a crowded battlefield that its hard to manouvere on. There are usually only battles in the same few places each turn and there was frequent conquest and then re-conquest when we played. Perhaps it isnt so bad in Italia I? I dont know. BUt in Itallia II it all bogged down quite fast.

I think its a good game in its own right, the two players who HADNT played Brit seemed to like it better than the two that HAD. Read into that what you like! But we did still get the same sense of the games history lesson quality which is a nice touch still. I'd recomend this game to fans of Brit with the warning that Italy is a harsh mistress and not an easy lady to please!

Thread: Re: Building new units for Carthage...

jurdj — 2008-02-02T10:43:57+00:00

I take it from the rules that produced units must be placed in North Africa. The special rule on the nation card requires they are built in N.A. It also conforms to [12.1] No land units.

It is different for reinforcements [7.2] which appear anyway (or limited by special rules)

Thread: Building new units for Carthage...

atrocity — 2008-01-31T21:19:18+00:00

If Carthage loses control of all of North Africa, can they then produce units elsewhere or must they retake an African land to do so?

Thanks.

Thread: Re: question: submission to Romans and Carthaginians

Mod-Games — 2008-01-30T11:19:36+00:00

Romans: Yes each time.
Carthaginians: if it is not on the card, they get no points for it.

Thread: Re: question: retreat

Mod-Games — 2008-01-30T11:17:43+00:00

You may only retreat if there are still enemy units in the area.

Image

Dimbus — 2007-01-08T04:20:45+00:00

Initial setup

Image

Ladislaus — 2007-01-01T18:10:04+00:00

A sampling of yellow (player) counters from Italia II. The Ostrogoths, Lombards, and Visigoths.

Image

Ladislaus — 2007-01-01T18:09:59+00:00

A sampling of green (player) counters from Italia II. The Arabs, Vandals, and Foederati.

Image

Ladislaus — 2007-01-01T18:09:55+00:00

A sampling of blue (player) counters from Italia I. The Carthaginians.

Image

Ladislaus — 2007-01-01T18:09:48+00:00

A sampling of red (player) counters from Italia I. The Romans.

Image

Ursus Corvus Lapis — 2007-01-01T02:37:27+00:00

Start of Italia 2. The Roman Empire is divided into two factions: Western Romans under Stilichio (brown) and Afro Romans under Bonifatius (blue). The Sardes on Corsica and Sardinia are already independent (1), and the fate is lurking in the North (Vsigoth

Image

oetan — 2006-12-06T10:19:06+00:00

Game map

Image

oetan — 2006-12-06T08:46:42+00:00

The start: when Rome still was a pesky city state

Image

oetan — 2006-12-06T08:46:30+00:00

Initial set-up Italia I