Game: War! Age of Imperialism

Thread: Re: Origins and Ancestory of a game...Plus, Fun game to play if you work with the rules!

GreyLord — 2008-08-05T15:46:35+00:00

To tell the truth, the three year old didn't play on this one. She'd love to, trust me, but this is one of those that we didn't need her, and I wasn't too keen to let her play on this one.

We had her play Galactic Emperor the other day until another one of my friends got there, and with her, it can be interesting to see what reactions she would have and what she will do. It was ours (that particular groupp) and her first time playing that game and normally she doesn't get the rules that well on a first play. But she was just playing a holdover spot for one of the guys until they got there. She didn't do to hot on that one overall. She normally is okay with grasping the concept of War, but she get's bored easily if she isn't practicing death dealing to her enemies on a massive scale.

This is one game that probably moves too slowly for her to really appreciate. She'd go off and start playing war with all the figures as she got bored with it, and then maybe start declaring war on the rest of us...but not using the rules. As she got more bored, we'd have to worry about the modern world injecting itself onto the 1800's as a world shattering Earthquake or Thermo Nuclear War wiped us out!

Actually, I don't know how she'd respond to this one, this is one we've never had her play. Knowing her style of play, she likes faster paced games, so she might get a little bored, though she WOULD love the plastic figures. Heck, I love the plastic figures, and I'm a lot older then 3!

Thread: Re: Origins and Ancestory of a game...Plus, Fun game to play if you work with the rules!

Philip Thomas — 2008-08-05T14:04:47+00:00

How did your 3-year old cope with this one?

Thread: Re: Origins and Ancestory of a game...Plus, Fun game to play if you work with the rules!

Eldard — 2008-08-05T12:46:51+00:00

Good review, Sean. Thanks.

I happen to be one of those gamers who think this W!AoI is an excellent game and a lot of fun to play. I didn't find the rules as complex as you apparently did, and I don't have any problems with the rule book.

The game has combat, exploration, and innovation, and I think it really captures the flavor of the period.

As you note, the word "war" in the title is a bit deceptive and should've been left out. As in real life, wars are costly. It's far better to build a military capability that maneuvers to leverage your influence on opponents without having to fight. In that way, that military continually gets stronger and consequently, increases its ability to influence.

Perhaps the best game I've seen played was by a guy who started down around Australia with a solid strategy, maneuvering his armies and navies so as to always be in a threatening position when he negotiated with other players. He won without having fought any of the other players, and by cleverly negotiating with them so that they never formed a 2 or 3 player alliance to stop him before he got too powerful. It was a very effective and, I think, realistic national strategy.

Thread: Origins and Ancestory of a game...Plus, Fun game to play if you work with the rules!

GreyLord — 2008-08-05T03:38:34+00:00

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 The War Game: World War Two 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 )

Thread: Re: Was this game screwed?

desertfox2004 — 2008-06-04T21:13:32+00:00

Philip Thomas wrote:
The game was pretty much a disaster- almost unplayable out of the box, clunky, unpredictable in very bad ways...

I don't think it has much resemblance to Civilisation- although I have not played the latter. War! is partly about exploring and finding treasure and/or hostile natives, partly about building an economic engine and partly a wargame. The exploration game can see one player find riches straight away unguarded or with only a handful of defenders, while other players blunder into native armies twice as numerous as their own. The economic engine really suffers from the decision not to provide a tangible currency with the game. The wargame is on a par with Risk.

At the most complex level of the rules there is a 'tech tree' element, but the tech tree is entirely 19th century technology. The initial techs are called things like Rifles 1, Industry 1, Science 1. The final techs are called things like Rifles 3, Industry 3, Science 3...

As much as I like Phillip, I have to completely and absolutely disagree with his opinion here! This game is one of our game group's favorites. We play basic rules only and I can't ever remember coming across a rules issue (of course, no one in our group is a rules lawyer, so that may be a factor), and we LOVE the unknown aspect of the hidden natives and resources. It adds a great fun factor to the game! Also, the wargame is superior to Risk, as it actually takes into consideration differences in infantry, cavalry, artillery, and combined arms armies. I rate this one quite high and would play it anytime.

Thread: Re: Was this game screwed?

adreeve — 2008-06-04T20:55:06+00:00

I disagree that it was unplayable out of the box, but I understand fully (and don't dispute) what both of the previous posters have said.

I do agree that there are some 'holes' in the rules that led to us having to 'interpret' them. I don't recall being at too much of a stand still over them. We also only played the basic and intermediate versions and never used the tech tree in the advanced version.

The game also had a computer version come up that forced them to shore up the rules and I recall that (and the FAQs resulting from it) helped with many of our questions. I've played the computer version as well.

Unquestionably the game has it's share of luck where one player might keep hitting large native tribes while another gets more than their fair share of resources. I don't think that's terribly different than a lot of other games with random tile placements.

W:AOI could certainly have used more polish, but I think it also is a good example of the progression of a game designer. Glenn's later works are considered quite a bit better than his earlier works such as this title.

I liked the novel mechanic of having to declare war against an opponent and thus giving them first strike.

Glad to learn about the variant rules, though... I'll have to check them out!

Thread: Re: Was this game screwed?

entner — 2008-06-04T20:33:38+00:00

I agree with Philip, the game out of the box is broken. There is a lot of randomness in terms of the resources to be found versus the native strength protecting those resources. I too like to tinker with rules, and this one (like many of the Eagle Games' titles) lends itself to that (many others have as well, which are available at various places on the web). An old version of my variant rules is posted at the grognard's site at http://www.grognard.com/variants1/aoi.doc -- I'll post an updated version of them here on BGG in case you're interested in them.

To answer your other questions, the pieces are great, except that the ships have a hard time standing up. They are very similar to the pieces for Eagle Games' The Civil War game, in terms of size and poses. I'm not very familiar with the board version of Civilization, so I can't really compare them.

Thread: Re: Was this game screwed?

Philip Thomas — 2008-05-12T20:42:16+00:00

The game was pretty much a disaster- almost unplayable out of the box, clunky, unpredictable in very bad ways...

I don't think it has much resemblance to Civilisation- although I have not played the latter. War! is partly about exploring and finding treasure and/or hostile natives, partly about building an economic engine and partly a wargame. The exploration game can see one player find riches straight away unguarded or with only a handful of defenders, while other players blunder into native armies twice as numerous as their own. The economic engine really suffers from the decision not to provide a tangible currency with the game. The wargame is on a par with Risk.

At the most complex level of the rules there is a 'tech tree' element, but the tech tree is entirely 19th century technology. The initial techs are called things like Rifles 1, Industry 1, Science 1. The final techs are called things like Rifles 3, Industry 3, Science 3...

Thread: Was this game screwed?

Przemo — 2008-05-12T20:31:17+00:00

First of all I'm fan of Eagle Games and Glenn Drover.
I'm especially grateful for all those games I twisted my mind in order to repair the mechanics. To be honest I started amending rules of Civilization some four years ago and I'm still not done with it - but every single game, with some new rules is a real adventure... Thank You Glenn!

My question is about War! Age of Imperialism - is it playable? what's the quality of pieces? does it have something in common with Civilization (with special regard to mechanics).

I'd be very grateful for answers since the game is not available in Poland.

Greetings

Image

l10n0fjudah — 2008-04-27T22:29:12+00:00

Beautiful Board

Thread: Re: Was considering this in a trade... is it worth getting?

Trenchbroom — 2008-04-16T06:06:51+00:00

My game group enjoys it, but it does need some modification to the rules to make it fun. We usually split up the natives into three groups (easy, medium, & hard) and then count them out to get an even mix for each continent. That way you are not stuck with 10+ or worse natives all around you right from the beginning. We also throw out the tech tree (interesting but too much math and once someone gets high up on the tree it's hard to pick them off) and just give a bonus for schools; starting with your third school owned you get to roll a d6 at the beginning of every battle that will give you a +1 battle modifier for each unit in the battle. Basically with three schools you have to roll a "1" to get the +1 modifier, four schools you can roll a "1" or "2", five gives you 50% odds, etc. This way the schools have some impact besides building advanced troops and you still desire to build/conquer them. We've also thought about doing something similar for harbors and ships too.

I'd give the game a 5 as written in the rulebook, a 7 for the computer version (with the math taken care of it's quite fun), and with the right mix of house rules it could be an 8 or better. If you are a player that doesn't like to deviate from the printed rulebook it probably is not for you but if you like to tinker to get the right dynamic I think it is worth picking up in trade.

Thread: Re: Was considering this in a trade... is it worth getting?

mwdalrymple — 2008-03-04T19:08:08+00:00

Its just so upsetting when it has so many lovely bitz just that alone makes it tempting.. but I guess good bitz doesn't make it fun.

I just need to find someone willing to trade away their copy of Twilight Imperium or something.

Thread: Re: Was considering this in a trade... is it worth getting?

JVKhoury — 2008-03-04T17:28:41+00:00

[Stephen King Character New England Accent]
It's been done before--what you're thinking. But the game you get back in the mail ain't the one you put in. The Indians knew that--that's why they stopped playing it when the resources went sour.

Don't do it Stotch!

Sometimes, Doom is better . . .
[/Stephen King Character New England Accent]

Thread: Re: Was considering this in a trade... is it worth getting?

Philip Thomas — 2008-03-04T17:27:32+00:00

Not a good game in my view- for the reasons above. Also the game was designed to be one of those base games which is 'fixed' by the first expansion. Trouble is, the game tanked so badly they cancelled the expansion.

The expansion would have included an extra map showing North and South America, and also paper money (at the moment you have to conduct money calculations using paper and pencil). Small things which wouldn't save the game in themselves. The expansion might have included some new rules and possibly a functioning historical scenario with the USA as one of the nations. Alas, we'll never know.

Thread: Re: Was considering this in a trade... is it worth getting?

JVKhoury — 2008-03-04T17:19:47+00:00

It's a TERRIBLE game.

One of the worst aspects is the random, blind distribution of both resources and native peoples. Less than half [1/3?] of all production chips will actually produce a resource, but you won't know what until AFTER the natives have been put down. The natives vary wildly in strength, so you can have the scenario where one player battles to the death for a worthless province while another walks into a wealth-stuffed area where he the locals only resistance consists of throwing flowers at his feet.

God it's frustrating. The one, and only time we played this we determined to house rule x, y, and/or z. Sold it off before we ever bothered to figure it out.

P.S. They included THREE rule sets, but not one of them is worth a damn. Perhaps if they had focused their energy on ONE really good effort rather than 3 subpar ones?

Thread: Re: Was considering this in a trade... is it worth getting?

mwdalrymple — 2008-03-04T17:03:14+00:00

Its that bad as a game? Damn. I guess that is good to know. Thanks I was just looking on trading some 40k and or WFB for it. i guess i should save that stuff for something else then.

I love games with great production value.. that is just unfortunate that the rules are that bad.

Thanks for all the advice!

Thread: Re: Was considering this in a trade... is it worth getting?

Hammy — 2008-03-04T16:41:14+00:00

I sold my copy at the games auction last week. I regret having bought it and IMO have wasted a load of money on it.

The game has some nice components (although the map has some areas that are far too small) but as a game I loathe it.

In a multi player game there has to be some reason to fight. In War! essentially you want everyone else to fight and you to just make hay while they wittle each other away.

I would avoid.

Thread: Re: Was considering this in a trade... is it worth getting?

mwdalrymple — 2008-03-04T15:18:26+00:00

There are other things that I would rather play as a computer game.. hmmm.. interesting thoughts.

I guess the big draw back from the game is the heavy amount of accounting.. that sounds tedious.. that is draws that much away from the fun of the game.. sounds like it would be better to get a copy of adv. civilization or something.

Personally, I love ameritrash games (with euro rules mixed in). I have been looking for some big box games with hordes of great bitz to play with. this was just one of many that came up for a possible trade (warrior knights and attack+attack expansion as well).

Thread: Re: Was considering this in a trade... is it worth getting?

Rastak — 2008-03-04T11:29:30+00:00

I haven't played the boardgame but I agree, the computer adaption is very good.

Thread: Re: Was considering this in a trade... is it worth getting?

dbmite — 2008-03-04T11:18:44+00:00

I own the game. I got it a few years back for $30 new. It is full of components that will take hours to pull apart carefully. The board is humongous and just barely fits on a standard size table. You may need a second side table to hold all of the other components.

It includes three sets of rules. The basic and standard rules are ok. The advanced rules are the way to go, but there is so much bookkeeping and bland dice rolling that the fun is over after only a short time.....and the game is long!

However, the computer version of the game is great! It handles all of the number crunching for you. It has fun sound effects and nice graphics. The AI can be pretty challenging as well. Check to make sure it runs on your system though. (On the Mac, it won't run on Leopard and Eagle says it has no plans to update it. However, it will run on System 10.3 and 10.4)

In the end, the computer version is fun, the boardgame is not.

Thread: Was considering this in a trade... is it worth getting?

mwdalrymple — 2008-03-04T03:25:55+00:00

I have an opportunity to acquire this in a trade. What are peoples opinions on this game? Is it worth getting?

I read the one review, but wanted a second opinion. Do people still play this? Is it any fun?

Thread: Re: Components List

EppoKleppo — 2008-02-24T23:45:47+00:00

It's the same with my copy. I've read on an old forum that the company counted the number of pieces based on the number of items on the runners as they were shipped. For this reason, the artillery (wheels were seperate on the runners) count for a lot. Even then the number was not correct (816 would be too low).

Thread: Re: Components List

hannibal twin 8 — 2008-02-19T14:42:28+00:00

That is exactly what I got too. Can't be the cardboard chits. There are 180 of those, and we're only missing 84. Must have been a mistake on the box.

Thread: Re: Limited Edition?

hannibal twin 8 — 2008-02-18T23:38:38+00:00

Funny.
I've got got Limited Edition #34, also signed by Glenn Drover and Paul Niemeyer, and two other signatures I can't make out.
I too got mine on ebay, so I have no idea what it's all about.

Thread: Re: Rules?

BubbaLove — 2008-02-05T20:13:14+00:00

Sadly, the above link no longer works.

Thread: Re: Tao of Gaming Review

Morpheus Alpha — 2007-12-30T02:44:19+00:00

New user + old threads = wasted effort. Well, I hope not. :-p

War:AoI is a game I've enjoyed playing with my friends. I've played half a dozen or so games now, and I've encountered some of the problems that have been mentioned in the fine review above. I think that the game itself is too beautiful to simply sit on my shelf, so I'd worked on some variant rules to make things a little easier and a little more fair.

Rules Variants

Have some glass beads... As the sale of Manhattan Island showed, a little glitter can go a long way toward improving relations. The typical house rule that we have used to help when one is surrounded by tribes of potentially hostile natives is to offer a little financial incentive to them. The rule I've used is that a player may pay on a sliding scale to try to improve his chances of overcoming the natives' resistance to joining the empire. A player could save cash to use to buy gifts at the following rate; to add a +1 to the die roll, spend 1 credit. A +2 costs 3 credits (1+2), a +3 costs 6 (1+2+3), and so on. Luck still played a role, but the odds of overcoming the largest and most hostile natives were better. And in the long run, a player would usually rather pay 10 credits for a +4 to the die roll instead of having to buy another explorer next turn to send right back into the grinder.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Mercy Rule Another problem mentioned before is the limited options for expansion due to being surrounded completely by hostile tribes. Our solution for this was that, if the first three territories that were explored by a player were all inhabited by tribes with a power of 9+, the three native chits are picked up and three lower numbered chits are chosen (usually one of 4-6, one of 6-8, and one of 8-10) and randomly reseeded face down. It's an annoying delay perhaps, but it is better than having one or more players left out of the game.

Guaranteed Expansion The other solution I had for this which had mixed reviews was to have a stack of sixes set aside, and when placing tribal chits around civilized areas, to pick up enough random chits to seed around each players empire, and then make sure one 6 went into the mix, so there would be an easy conquest for each player.

What Are You Fighting For? There was nothing as discouraging for a player as finding a blank resources chit after they had finally beaten that 12++ down. In situations where an explorer had convinced a native tribe with a value of 10 or higher to join the empire, we drew two more random resource chits and the player got to choose which one stayed in the new territory. Better odds of a good result, and still a chance for nothing.

Endgame Variants

Ask Not For Whom The Bell Tolls... The one way we had of avoiding the mad dash for x victory conditions on the last turn was by the random game length. This usually involved me setting an alarm to go off at some point in the future, and then hiding the alarm clock. Once the alarm sounded, we had until the end of that year to be done, and from there we figured out who was the winner. However, this could still leave some players with more time to scramble for the last few victory points, so we usually combined it with...

Quick! To the BatCalculators! I made a secondary deck of cards out of 3x5 index cards. Each of them either had a victory condition listed on it with a point value or it was blank. Before we started the game, each player other than me drew a card blind from the deck and slid it into an envelope without looking at it. Once the game was at an end, we opened the envelope and discovered what factors would decide who technically won. Sometimes the decision was military in nature, for example "Score three VPs for each cannon in your army." Sometimes it was territorial, for example "Score five VPs for each territory you control." Sometimes it was financial, for example "Score two VPs for each City and Port you control." Often it was several of these conditions, so we had to quickly calculate how many points we had and then mock the player with the lowest total, because that's what friends do. :-p
There were 40 cards in the deck as I recall (I lost the deck in one of my moves), and about 1/4 were blank. There were points assigned for each listed item on a card, although some were actually random point values, such as "roll a die and each Factory is worth that many points." For military units, I usually had fixed VP values; 1 for infantry, 2 for calvary, 3 for cannon, and 4 for leaders. Resources might be equal to their point cost, or just a set number of points each, and so on.

These are some of my house rules. We had others as well, but these are the ones we used the most often. If anyone has any interest, send me any questions or thoughts and I'll be happy to discuss more.

Thread: Re: Limited Edition?

Philip Thomas — 2007-12-12T16:04:08+00:00

Well the game kind of sank without trace after being published. They never got round to making the expansion for it... I doubt there are that many copies still around. However, I never heard of a Limited Edition.

Thread: Re: Limited Edition?

Azzarc — 2007-12-12T16:00:02+00:00

Yeah the eBay auction did not mention anything about being Limited Edition. I figure first production run, or may be convention sales.

Thread: Re: Limited Edition?

baradifi — 2007-12-12T05:32:39+00:00

wow i think i saw that item and almost bid, i dont remember seeing ltd edition. must be 1st production run?

Thread: Limited Edition?

Azzarc — 2007-12-11T06:14:11+00:00

I just bought War! Age of Imperialism from eBay, opened but unpunched. I get it and look at it. I noticed inside the box lid there is a sticker that says "LTD. EDITION #35" and then elsewhere inside the lid are 4 signatures in gold ink. One looks like Glenn Drover, another looks like Paul Niemeyer, the other two I can not tell who they are.

So I am wondering, does this Limited Edition have anything extra in it? And who are the other two signatures?

Thread: Re: A great bargain! (Or not... ?)

baradifi — 2007-12-05T07:45:04+00:00

What did you ever decide?

Thread: War! Age of Imperialism microbadges available

bill_andel — 2007-02-15T15:13:46+00:00

Natives

Resources

You can get them here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/browse/microbadge/2334

Thread: Re: Rules?

BobMaysJr — 2007-02-06T12:32:28+00:00

Here's a link to them on Eagle's site:
http://www.eaglegames.net/products/downloads/WAR_Rules.pdf
I'm glad you asked the question, since now I'll have the rules in case anything happens to mine!

Thread: Re: Rules?

Thomas_de_Monet — 2007-02-06T05:46:48+00:00

I own the game - drop me an e-mail and I'll send you a scan of the rules.

Cheers!

Stu

Thread: Re: Rules?

bill_andel — 2007-02-06T04:52:04+00:00

Not any more they don't!

Did anyone download a copy of them before they got taken off Eagle's site?

Image

Tydiden — 2007-01-28T16:10:19+00:00

Map board area chits. 3 types - resource, no resource and number of natives.

Image

Tydiden — 2007-01-28T16:06:49+00:00

Baged area chits and non-player specific miniatyrs.

Image

Tydiden — 2007-01-28T16:04:23+00:00

Contents of a extra miniatyr box.

Image

Tydiden — 2007-01-28T16:02:23+00:00

Advanced rules chart.

Image

Tydiden — 2007-01-28T16:00:35+00:00

Technology chart.

Image

Tydiden — 2007-01-28T15:59:00+00:00

Game with the 3 extra minityr boxes.

Thread: Re: Components List

Data Mogul — 2007-01-23T08:17:31+00:00

Hm, that might be the case. However, in the meantime I sold my copy of the game. Thanks for the thought though.

Thread: Re: Components List

MetalGuitarist — 2007-01-23T07:00:24+00:00

I just came up with the exact same piece count that you did. I wonder if they decided to add the cardboard chits to that figure?

Image

Tydiden — 2007-01-14T17:03:21+00:00

What about if you move this army here instead and attack him instead of me....

Image

Tydiden — 2007-01-14T16:47:22+00:00

Red player is trying to take Island.

Image

Tydiden — 2007-01-14T16:29:44+00:00

Maybe he will make his move soon...

Thread: Re: Tao of Gaming Review

Bubslug — 2007-01-14T07:09:16+00:00

This is a pretty old thread but here goes anyways. Our group has also played this a couple of times and basically gave up on it for many of the same reasons stated here. I think there is a good game in there as well and we never got around to trying our ideas, so I'll offer them here in case someone may have tried them and can provide feedback, or may wish to give them a go.

Many have noted the disconnect between the size of the native resistance and the prize uncovered via the "treasure" chit. As there are many more chits of both kinds provided than there are provinces to seed, why not try drafting the chits so that there are a greater percentage of decent resources (only a few "nothings"), and reducing the number of high number native chits that can make it to the table. As it is the draws are completely random and the results can be hideously tough for some and too simple for others with a completely opposite result in booty. Make the pool smaller and cull the chits to provide more reasonable results.

Never mind the advanced game and stick to the standard rules; or, if you must, judiciously include some of the advanced features that enhance the game rather than weigh it down in complexity.

Finally, a suggestion regarding something that might be workable regarding the end game problem which involves using a set number of turns with semi-variable actual end turn determination. By way of illustration, say ten turns is the median game end. On the ninth turn, roll 1D6. On a roll of 5 or 6, the game ends there. Anything less, move on to turn ten. At the end of turn ten, roll again. This time a roll of 3,4,5 or 6 will end it. If you get to turn 11 then game will definitely end at that point. That way, the timing of the end of the game is in some doubt and the usual last turn sillyness avoided to some degree.

I would like this game to work, if for no other reason that I really like what Glen Drover tried to do with Eagle Games, and would like what did get published to form a lasting legacy for him (a bit melodramatic I suppose, as he's still very much in the gaming business, but Eagle was like a breath of fresh air while it lasted).

Thread: Production Point Question

ggiersch — 2006-08-18T20:22:32+00:00

Howdy!
In the FAQ I noticed that each region owned by a player that does not have a building in it is worth 5 PP's instead of the "0" printed on page 6. This was for the basic rules. On page 18 of the rulebook under the Standard Rules, each region without a building on it is worth 0 PP's. I'm curious if that is really the case. I ask because many of the playing aids say that each region owned by a player is worth 5 PP's for the Advanced Rules. Of interesting note, I can't even find a section in the rulebook for this under the Advanced Rules at all. Can someone point me to an official FAQ where this is addressed?

Thread: Re: Rules?

galeninjapan — 2006-08-15T06:11:43+00:00

The Eagle games website should have the rules.

www.eaglegames.net

Thread: Rules?

greek2me — 2006-08-15T06:05:37+00:00

I bought this game years ago and have since lost the rules. Can anyone give me a link or a scan of them?

Thanks!
Greek

Thread: More historical scenarios

Philip Thomas — 2006-02-04T22:58:20+00:00

I don't claim these are playable or even balanced...
Note all scenarios have players start with a school in their capital. Income is always 20 or more while the player has a school. (thus permitting Japan to build buildings, if he builds an engineer).

1830: Britain as 1886 except no Railroad in India and no troops in Nigeria, Egypt, Kenya, Western Australia, South Australia, North Territories, Queensland. Starts with Industry 1, and an Explorer in New South Wales.

France as 1886 except no troops in Mauritania or West Africa or Annam. Starts with Education 1.

Germany does not exist.

Russia as 1886 except no troops in Kazakhstan or Turkestan and no Railroads at all.

Europe as 1886 except Prussia 3 Inf 1 Cav 2 Art 1 Ship, City, Port. Germany 2 Inf, Factory. Remove 1 Cavalry and 1 Factory from Italy, and a 1 Port and 1 Ship from Austria Hungary. Remove the infantry from Kongo.

Japan is as 1886 without Factory.

1840: As 1830 except: Britain gets +1 Inf in Western Australia and Industry 1, France gets Education 1.
1850: As 1840 except: Britain gets +1 Inf in Queensland, Russia gets +1 Inf in Turkestan and a Railway in Trans-Ural. Britain gets Economics 1, France Education 2, Europe Industry 1.
1860: As 1850 excpet: Britain gets +1 Inf in Northern Territory and a Railroad in India. Europe gets a Factory and a Cavalry in Italy. Britain and France get Science 1, Europe Education 1
1870: As 1860 except|: Germany now exists- remove European forces from the German territories. Germany gets its full 1886 forces and starts play with Industry 1, Education 1 and Rifles 1; Britian gets +1 Inf in Nigeria and Southern Australia, France gets +1 Inf in Annam, Europe gets a Port and a Ship in Austria-Hungary. Russia gets +1 Inf in Kazahkstan and a Railway in Siberia. Britain gets Govt 1, France gets Economics 1.
1880: As 1870 except Germany gets Artillery 1, France Rifles 1 and Britain Artillery 1.
1886: See rule book but note this variant has added technology. Germany and Europe get Science 1, France Cavalry 1 and Britain Rifles 1.
1890: As 1880 except Japan gets Edu 1, Ind 1 and Rifles 1 Germany and Europe get Economics 1 Britain Education 2 and Russia Industry 1.
1900:As 1890 except Japan gets Artillery 1, France and Britain Science 2, Germany Govt 1, Eur and Rus Rifles 1 and +1 British Infantry in Sudan.
1910: As 1900 except Japan gets 1 ship and 1 Infantry in Korea, Germany +1 Ship in Prussia, Britain +1 Ship outside Great Britain. Japan and Britain and Germany get Battleships 1, France gets govt 1, Europe Education 2, Russia Cavalry 1
1914: As 1910 except +1 European Infantry in Tripoli. Japan and Europe get Science 1, Britain Trade 1, Germany Education 2, Russia and France Artillery 1.

Ottoman variant: Europe gets 2 Infantry, 1 City 1 Artillery and 1 Cavalry in Ottoman, 1 Infantry in Palestine, and 1 Infantry in Mesopotamia. If using this variant with the 1914 scenario, place a railroad in Mesopotamia as well.

Thread: Re: Age of Imperialism! Historical Scenario

Philip Thomas — 2006-01-24T20:24:39+00:00

Hmm. Is he on the geek?

Thread: Re: Age of Imperialism! Historical Scenario

runiago — 2006-01-24T19:46:27+00:00

I would be very interested in the scenarios you made up if you can find the time to post them. Thank you very much in that case.

I have mentioned the potential trade to the gent who is interested in the game. I pointed him in your direction if he wants to trade for it. I am not sure how many Euro-style games he owns as, much like myself, he is more of a wargamer, but I cannot say that for sure.

Thread: Re: Age of Imperialism! Historical Scenario

Philip Thomas — 2006-01-24T17:01:17+00:00

Yeah, for a while I made new Scenarios for each decade between 1815 and 1914. If you are interested I could dig them out of the cupboard the game is in (which I won't have access to until Saturday). The scenarios include optional Tech tree advances for the various nations as well. I even allocated a few Resources.

One idea I toyed with was making the Tech tree a fixed cost. Maybe 20 x the number of the advance? Not sure.

If your friend has any good eurogames I might be willing to trade him my copy of this- I have become totally fed up with it. Although it would probably take ages to reach the States.

Thread: Re: Age of Imperialism! Historical Scenario

runiago — 2006-01-24T14:35:08+00:00

Of course you are correct. As a game, the historical scenario has numerous issues, not the least of which are its contradictions with the game rules. But as a simulation of the decisions facing the various European nations, I think the game does a good job of putting you in Imperial shoes. Expand or die!

Even though I have not played the six player game, your comments about Japan are probably spot on. I am assuming that the historical scenario begins in the late 1880s. Britain did not occupy Egypt until 1882 and did not consolidate control of South Africa until after the Zulu War and the First Boer War (ended in 1881). France did not possess Annam until 1885-86. By that time, the Meiji industrialization of Japan was well under way and Japan was one of the, if not the single, fastest growing economies in the world. So something probably needs to be done with the initial setup to make Japan more competitive and to reflect their rapid economic expansion. Having an explorer would help because then they could begin the takeover of Korea, much like really happened.

Returning to Germany and the time frame, Germany did occupy three African colonies by 1884-85: Togoland, German East Africa, and German South West Africa. Some of the pressure for war in Europe would be alleviated by turning an empty province or two into German colonies in appropriate spaces.

Besides requiring a Declaration of War, players might institute a rules-binding Defensive Treaty. That is, a Declaration of War against Player A is the equivalent to a Declaration of War against Player B, if the players so agree. This to would make the decision to go to war more onerous if, say, declaring war on France would automatically bring Russia into the conflict.

The game suffers most in trying to be a simple simulation of a complex situation, at least in my eyes. I purchase war games for their historicity and not necessarily just to command and conquer. I was expecting something more like Pax Britannica and less like Risk. In that sense, I was a little disappointed when I opened the box. But the game is still extremely fun to play and our game made at least one person want to purchase his own copy.

Thread: Re: Age of Imperialism! Historical Scenario

Philip Thomas — 2006-01-24T10:45:41+00:00

Yeah, the Historical Scenario has its problems. Worst in 6 players where Japan is utterly screwed. Germany can take out France easily (and thereby secure the Mediterranean Port), but then it faces Russia. Britain has the strongest position overall...

Thread: Age of Imperialism! Historical Scenario

runiago — 2006-01-23T20:07:47+00:00

We had a nice four player game of War! Age of Imperialism. If you are not familiar with it, W!AoI is sort of Axis and Allies meets Risk set in the mid 1800s. Each player takes a colonial power and attempts to rule the world. The basic game allows each player to choose territories for their empire, just like Risk. The historical setup provides for a reasonable representation of the Europe/Asia/Australia situation during the time frame indicated. We played the historical version. Chuck played Britain, I (Ed) had France, Greg had Germany, and John had Russia.

It is kind of funny that most of the game reviews talk about how there is little player interaction in the opening game because players are so spread apart. Those reviews are referring only to the basic game. In the historic game, France, Germany, and Russia are crowded together (big armies jammed into little areas) at game start. And in the four player version, there is no Austro-Hungarian Empire as a counterbalance in Southern Europe/the Balkans. As a side note, I think the generic "European" player provided in the five player game is a poor choice. It combines A-H, Spain, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands into a single player and besides be ahistorical really clogs up Europe. I would much rather see an Ottoman Empire player (weaker though it would be, it would fill a niche otherwise empty on the board).

Back on topic. Greg, John, and I, being who we are and well aware of our own game-playing tendencies immediately initiated a general European theater conflict. On the opening turn, the warmongering Germans invaded both Italy and Austria-Hungary as the French loudly hinted that such a move would leave the heartlands of Germany and Prussia open to an invasion. Not being deterred in the least by such feeble threats, the Great Grey War Machine swiftly added the two invaded states to the Reich. Diplomatic missives flew and Russia and France both declared war on the vile Hun.

The Germans immediately marched their main force across the Rhine and conquered France (I being utterly unable to roll a single number over 5 on two dice). The French government withdrew across the Mediterranean, exiled to Algeria where it could at least harass the Germans with the threat of a naval invasion from Northern Africa. Meanwhile, the Russian Army enjoyed huge success in the east, smashing the Germans repeatedly and eventually conquering Germany, Prussia, and Austria-Hungary as the turns proceeded. France-In-Exile briefly regained Paris only to see the City of Lights extinguished forever.

With German industry in the hands of the Czar, the Kaiser embarked upon what must be called Gotterdammerung. Around turn 3 or 4, the Germans began destroying all of Europe rather than see it in Russian hands, burning Paris, Danzig, and Koenigsberg to the ground, destroying the industrial Ruhr, and tearing up German railroads. This change in policy seemed to change German luck because the Germans began to win some important battles. In one last desperate act, the final remaining effective German force captured Moscow and St Petersburg and put them to the torch.

What was Britain up to you ask? Mostly, Britain observed an uneasy peace, assimilating China and Korea into the British Empire but having little luck in Central Asia. Around the time Germany began turning out lights all over Europe, Britain took a more bellicose stand, declaring war on Russia and attacking repeatedly into Kazakhstan. Russian luck held for a while as lonely soldati, with nowhere else to run, drove off much larger British forces or inflicted ferocious amounts casualties before being defeated.

By the end of game turn six (of a scheduled ten), the only city left standing outside the British Empire was Algiers. The French had had no luck expanding into Africa and other than sending the German navy to the bottom of the Atlantic had little effect on the course of events on the Continent. The Germans and Russians had no production available and both armies had taken a terrible beating, the Germans more so. The British possessed portions of Africa, all of Australia, the Indian subcontinent, about half the Far East, and had a sizable army in Central Asia. So by mutual consent the British were declared the winner and thus endeth the war.

All in all it was quite a fun game. But I will go ahead and point out some deficiencies I believe are in the historical scenario.

We sort of mixed and matched some of the advanced rules with the standard game. No one was too keen on doing all of the investment and invention stuff so we left that out. In turn, that meant sticking to standard combat in order to retain the School modifiers to the combat roll.

Some sort of immediate peace agreement or truce by the European powers is needed in order to have any chance of someone other than Britain winning. Either that or the players just need to have more sense than we showed. :-)

I think the initial setup needs to allocate at least one Explorer to each nation to give players something other to do than just go straight to war. In this sense the German player in particular is out of luck because he has nowhere to go other than Scandinavia, Italy, and Austria-Hungary. Germany almost HAS to take AH in order to gain a Mediterranean port and have access to Africa.

I think assigning resources and natives to starting colonial holdings is a good idea. The rules contain sections for simulating native uprisings and developing resources in conquered locations but none are put in place in starting-owned areas. So inciting the citizens of India to throw off the oppressive yolk of British is not really an option.

On the topic of assigning resources, I think it would almost be better to manually assign native and resource markers to the major non-controlled regions. In the four player game that would be places like Spain, Italy, Austria-Hungary, China, etc. Random assignment probably works fine for the Risk-like set up but I think the verisimilitude of the historical scenario is undermined by random assignment.

Someone needs to sort out the rules for buildings in a region. The rules state only one per (with some exceptions). However the historical scenario violates this rule for almost every nation. We went ahead and threw out the limit instead saying you were limited to one building of each type in a region.

Lastly, I would like a more complex combat system. The game designer mentions in the rules that if that is desired, use the combat system from Eagle Games' American Civil War. I think I would try to track those down and use them for the next game.

Thread: Re: Making it playable

Philip Thomas — 2005-10-20T08:06:06+00:00

Each turn there is a Production Phase and 2 Movement phases.In the Production Phase, the first step is to resolve Blockades. If a player is at war with another player and has a ship outside a port owned by that player, he can blockade that port, which removes it from revenue calculations (including the count of ports made to calculate income from other ports). Place the ship on its side to indicate it is blockading. In the next step, all players calculate revenue and announce it. If anyone has 300 or more in revenue, he has won the game. Turn order is determined by the person with most revenue going first, and so on. In case of a tie, roll for it. Players produce buildings and units and techs in turn order.

Exploration: Explorers move 2. When they end their turn in an empty area, they can check the resources there: Then they take a native counter from the appropriate pile. They look at the native counter and decide whether or not to attempt to pacify the natives. If they decide not, they place the native counter face down and the explorer's move stops. If they decide to attempt pacification, they roll 2d6 and if the total beats or equals the number on the counter they place a rifleman from their supply on the region. If they roll less than the number, the explorer is removed from the game.

Leaders can accompany explorers, and grant a +5 bonus to the roll for pacification. If the roll fails, the Leader can escape to a city owned by the player.

Buildings: Railways can be built in any region under the player's control, even if there is another production building there. Factories must be adjacent* to a City to function. Each City can support two Factories.

Movement: Each piece in each Movement phase can move to an adjacent* region once, except for Explorers, Leaders and Engineers which can move twice.

*Adjacent regions include regions adjacent to railways which connect in a continuous line to the starting region. A port is considered adjacent to any other ports contolled by the same player, provided neither port is blockaded.

Thread: Re: Making it playable

Philip Thomas — 2005-10-17T21:17:14+00:00

Metallurgy and Battleship Guns, thats what. Interestingly Battleship guns has 3 steps, Mettallurgy only 2.

Anyway, looking at the box stuff reminded me a few things. First: Stupid ending rules.

New rule: When a player has 300 production in one turn (not counting anything saved), the game ends. Players compare production (not counting anything saved). If there is a tie on that, count number of military units. If there is a tie there, count number of regions. If that too is a tie, the game is a draw.

For a quicker game- set the limit lower. You can also play to a time limit or number of turns if you like.

If you occupy an entire region you get 5 bonus PPs.

You can keep saved production (as in the errata). Inflation no longer affects current production, but it halves the value of any saved production.

Technologies cost 15 for level 1, 30 for level 2, and 45 for level 3. Paying is same as before. At Start of game each player gets 2 technologies of his choice, from the bottom of the chart. Education 2 may not be picked.

Forts in battle automatically roll 6s and can't be destroyed, instead belonging to the winner of the previous round.

Right, now Natives and Resources. Seperate the Natives into 7 piles. 1 pile consisting of 12++, 11++ and 10++ (A). 1 pile consisting of 12+ and 11+ (B). One pile consisting of 9++, 8++ and 7++ (C). One pile consisting of 10+ and 9+ (D). One Pile consisting of 8+ and 7+ (E). The other pile has everything else (G). Note that piles A-F have 6 tokens each.

At the starting allocation, give each people 1 resource of each value (12,10,8,6,4). After picking territories for their armies, they can place the resources face down in unoccupied terrirtories, taking it in turns. No territory can contain more than one resource. The remaining territories contain no resources. When a resource is found, take a Native token from one of the 7 piles. 12=A, 10=B,8=C, 6=D, 4=(E). For territories with 0 resources, take a Native token from pile G.

Thread: Re: Making it playable

Philip Thomas — 2005-10-17T17:26:36+00:00

Oops- forgot to add that retreat casualties are removed Artillery, Infantry, Cavalry, Leader. Making use of Artillery more risky.

Oh and ties lead to another round of combat, unless someone chooses to retreat.

The Science bonuses add 1 to dice rolled by the relevant unit (so Artillery get a +2 overall bonus) Ships battles are like land, but the ship technologies increase hps from 5 to 10, and then 15, and increase damage from 1d6 to 2d6 and then 3d6 (Can't remember what the techs are called...)