Game: 7 Ages

Thread: Re: How long does a 2 player game take?

Eric Brosius — 2008-08-28T02:21:20+00:00

John, you can play for a fixed period of time, and that time could be 4 hours, so yes it can be done. This means you just stop when it's time to stop and count the score then.

Also, it's possible to start the game in any one of the 7 Ages. With 2 players it probably takes a bit under 1 hour per turn track box, so it could take 50 hours or so if you start in Age 1 to finish the whole game, or maybe 7 hours if you start in Age 7 and finish.

Thread: How long does a 2 player game take?

johnclark — 2008-08-28T02:03:01+00:00

I have read enough here to decide that 2 player 7 Ages is worth trying, provided it can be done in 4 or less hours - is that possible?

Thread: Re: How difficult this game is?

Gameluis — 2008-08-26T16:22:46+00:00

I finally ordered it today and hopefully will be at my home tomorrow. I will let you know my opinion as soon as I am able to play. Thanks, guys!

Thread: Re: How difficult this game is?

kissybooboo — 2008-08-25T16:31:32+00:00

Gameluis wrote:
Thanks to everyone for your advice!

7 Ages is fiddly, complicated and long. I love civilization building games (Advanced Civ is the greatest game ever designed IMNSHO). You also need a really large table. The game has a lot of problems with it, but there is a gem of a game in there waiting to be errated-out and made beautiful with enough house rules.

Depending on the number of players and how fast your group plays, expect a full campaign game to take between 10 and 20 hours of play.

Thread: Re: The expansion

Harry Rowland — 2008-08-25T01:56:08+00:00

morkin wrote:
Harry Rowland wrote:
We ... are currently working with our programming team to incorporate these new features in our computer 7 Ages game which is also planned to be released in 2009.

Please provide your programmers with copy of NPG v2.0, it is great for debugging. Also, full sequence of play may be useful to them.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/info/26407

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/info/33761

Thanks for this Zeljko, will pass it on to our programming team.

Regards
Harry

Thread: Re: The expansion

Harry Rowland — 2008-08-25T01:52:47+00:00

tankwallace wrote:
How many hours do you think a long history game would take to play in the computer version if played against the AI?

I haven't played the whole game yet myself but based on the testing I have done it will be a lot faster than playing against human players. All your bookkeeping is done for you and there is zero down time so the biggest limiting factor is how quickly you can think. In my case perhaps 5 to 10 hours in total now but increasing rapidly as I get more and more bewildered with decrepitude.

Thread: Re: New Trade & Progress system

Harry Rowland — 2008-08-23T00:44:20+00:00

ck07 wrote:
Harry, all,

Finally we settled on "initiator gets the value of the card they played" (i.e., instead of winner, loser, or choice).

Interesting, I'll suggest it to our group.

Regards
Harry

Thread: Re: New Trade & Progress system

Harry Rowland — 2008-08-23T00:42:34+00:00

the drin wrote:
I should play my weakest card in order to maximise the difference and maximise my profits

You get the value of your card played not the difference in value between the cards.

Regards
Harry

Thread: Re: design question & latest errata

Harry Rowland — 2008-08-23T00:39:05+00:00

Interesting Chaim, one of our expansions is a religious one and we will take your experience vis Islam and Buddhism in the expansion.

Regards
Harry

Thread: Re: design question & latest errata

Harry Rowland — 2008-08-23T00:37:12+00:00

aran wrote:

2 main comments about our game

1. in the 5 player game it is very hard to finish the game. when ever someone is about to win, it is easy to prevent him from going over the 49 progress level or win with Internet, because the rest of the 4 players play cards accordingly (Revolution and so on)
Also there is always another world war, we are in the third and there will be more I am sure.

2. It is almost impossible to strategicly win the game, when ever someone is a head the rest are after him and some else is ahead and so on. so at the end someone will win and it seems aboit about luck.

I would very much like to hear your thinking about it

Aran

1. We have never found that a problem as the leader is furiously trying to end the game and other players tend not to have the right cards to stop him/her.

2. It is sometimes difficult to turn a lead around which is why the balance between take that cards having too much effect and too little is such a balancing act. As mentioned above, the more we weaken the effects the more difficult it will be to stop the runaway leader. But I agree the game can be very close in the end although usually the player (or couple of players) who have played the best over the game are those in the mix to win even if they get pipped at the post.

Regards
Harry

Thread: Re: design question & latest errata

Harry Rowland — 2008-08-23T00:33:17+00:00

morkin wrote:

I wanted to develope a combat system for solitaire play:
ac greater ac tied ac smaller
AF greater AN D all D/2 D/2 D/4 D/2
AF same D/2 D all A/2 D/2 AA A/2
AF smaller A/4 A/2 A/2 A/2 AA DN

Explanation:
In rows are attacker forces compared to defenders.
In columns is attacker card compared to defenderer.

Since text editor shifts all columns, first expresion is related to attacker, second to defender. For example, if attacking force is smaller than defending and randomizer cards are equal, both attacker and defender lose half the number of attacking units. All roundings 0.5 and more go up, other go down.

The situation with superstacks you have now. The worst are superstacks with strategist. I suggest one change to the rules - an empire can always build unlimited number of units in its capital. In that way, empire defending from marauding superstack can prepare defence - its own superstack.

Interesting idea zeljko, how did it play?

Regards
Harry

Thread: Re: Is Elephant considered to be cavalry for all purposes?

Harry Rowland — 2008-08-23T00:24:56+00:00

Elephants are cavalry for all purposes. If you can't build them because you have a no cav symbol and haven't traded with a cavalry empire you can still place them in your force pool, you just can't build them.

Regards
Harry

Thread: Re: 6/28/2008 errata?

Harry Rowland — 2008-08-22T23:45:44+00:00

The 2006 errata is the latest.

Regards
Harry

Thread: Re: The expansion

npilgaard — 2008-08-22T10:07:27+00:00

Harry Rowland wrote:

We are looking at 3 themed expansions now; classical, modern, and religious; with the religious including a few new religions (animism, Judaism, Sikhism and atheism all strong contenders).

3 expansions - sounds great!
Regarding religions:
- animism probably shouldn't be fit for more developed cultures/empires- maybe only allow some (tribal oriented) empires to get animism, or have animism discarded at certain progress levels/artefacts.
- Judaism: (don't remember if this has been mentioned earlier) although it have had a very significant impact on the religious content of Christianity and Islam, imho the impact on world history as presented in 7A is much less significant (main exception is the the Israel state after WWII). So I would suggest that Judaism doesn't work like other religions regarding spreading out to be a world religion by being adopted, but that it instead is limited to a few empires (ancient Israel and modern Israel, if you plan to add these - but again, they are indeed very small compared to the grand scale of world history, so I am not sure that they will fit in well in a game such as 7A).
- Polyteism: I would like to see this, representing all the old polytheistic religions, such as the Greek, Egyptian or Viking myths and religious beliefs.
- Christianity: imho this religion is a little to powerful atm. In many games almost all empires adopt it (unless being very expansionistic (sp?) or gaining GP for being islamic, in which case Islam is preferred), if nothing else then to avoid receiving a disorder every turn. So I would suggest to decrease the power of the 'place disorder'-ability a little: it doesn't work against empires that have gained Enlightenment (see below - or if not including such an artefact then instead no Christian disorder against age 6 or 7 empires). Or maybe reduce it by: in order to place a disorder marker the Christian empire has to pay money equal to the target area's income value (i.e. the money goes to the Church)

Harry Rowland wrote:

There will also be enough units for an extra 9 civilisations (3 per countersheet, with one countersheet in each expansion) for a grand total of 24 empires which gives you an equal number with 2,3,4,6 & 8 players. There will be an extra set of player markers in each expansion so up to 10 players can now play (or up to 5 with double markers each). You want competition? You can't handle competition!

Lol - well, I doubt that we will see many 10 player games
But the idea of 5 empires with double markers sounds interesting - will probably require some experienced players, though...

Harry Rowland wrote:

We are planning to release the kits in the middle of next year (after the release of the Matrix edition of World in Flames: the computer game) and are currently working with our programming team to incorporate these new features in our computer 7 Ages game which is also planned to be released in 2009.

Looking very much forward to this.
Thanks for your continual development of this game - and for letting us know about your plans, and not least for listening to ideas etc. from the players.
And thanks for designing such great games - you (and co-designers) have provided me with countless hours of excellent entertainment (both WiF and 7A).
Well, that must be enough 'thank you's for now

Harry Rowland wrote:

I'll keep you informed as we progress. In the meantime please keep up with the great ideas.

A few more:

- Suez and Panama-canals: since it is the age of the empire moving through the canals that determines whether they are available it can (easily) lead to a situation where another empire can sail through a canal while the controller of the canal areas can't.
One solution could be to treat the canals as artefacts (like the blue ones, but accessible to everyone once they are built, providing the controller allows so)

Some ideas on Governments:

-Democracy: it seems that in many games, once Democracy is developed (often during the first 2-3 ages), it quickly spreads, partly because of its benefits (especially regarding the 'free' WC) and partly because there tend to be few other worthwhile governments available. Also, I only rarely see changes in governments afterwards - thus Capitalism, Communism etc., even when they become available usually can't compete with Democracy.
I understand that Democracy is available almost right from the start of the game to represent the Democracy of Athens (I assume), but due to the issues mentioned I would suggest doing a few adjustments. Maybe something like:
Introduce an Enlightenment artefact (somewhat similar to the Renaissance artefact - prerequisites could be Renaissance, age 5 and maybe a Ph leader (?). Industrial revolution and Univ. suffrage would now require Enlightenment. The empire that first receives the Enlightenment artefact advances 1 free progress)
Democracy would then require Enlightenment (only the Greeks would allowed Democracy from age 2)

Other Governments could be introduced to make up for this lack of Democracy in the first four ages. Perhaps something like this (with potential to 'upgrade' from one government to another, see below):

- Theocracy: requires a religion (not animism). Benefits: +1 GP when an Artefact is built in the theocratic empire or other empire with similar religion; each Re leader: +1 GP/turn (or maybe this is to much potential extra glory - otherwise just improve theocratic Re leader abilities in some way).
Penalty: empire cannot voluntarily change religion; Theocracy government is automatically removed if empires loses or changes its religion, and disorder is then placed in all cities.
Theocracy removed when gaining Enlightenment

- Tribalism: On Barbarian empires: gains money equal to area 'income value' when an area is conquered from another empire (this will allow barbarian empires to rebuild units without having to maintain control of a lot areas in a rather 'un-barbaric' (but empire-building) way)
Non-barbarian empires: pays no maintenance, but only half income ( and additional benefit?).
Tribalism removed when gaining Renaissance

- Monarchy: when a name leader dies, or when advancing to a new age and at least one leader has just died of old age: pick a free random leader (redraw on 'no leader') and place in capital.

- Absolutism: additional glory conditions: most artefacts +1 GP, largest power in the world (land+sea): +1 GP.
Penalties: end of every turn: absolutist empire pays 3 money or loses 1 GP (rulers' expensive courts, palaces, art objects etc.)

- Feudalism: (iirc this has been mentioned earlier in some thread, but here goes anyway) needs an improvement, imho - as it is the halving of income makes it to weak compared to other governments (except for barbarians - but historically they have a social structure entirely opposite of the vassal-structure of Feudalism... ). 2-income areas with 1 unit provides same net-income with Feudalism as without, and 3+ income areas provide less. Only if an empire has large army and few areas it gains a benefit (and only a limited benefit due to not having many areas to gain income from). The reduced cost of certain units help, of course, but all in all I think that most players view Feudalism as the weakest of the Governments, and thus don't adopt it.
So maybe let fertile areas provide full income, or let all areas provide full income but instead no city-income (representing the peasant-based economy of most Feudal societies) (or maybe no city-income from other cities than the capital).

Additional idea: 'Upgrading' government: requires that no disorder markers are present in empire: replace an existing government with a new one (all the usual requirements for this new government must be fulfilled). Place a disorder marker in capital (or home area if no capital). +1 GP (in addition to the usual 1 GP for green artefact). Following can be upgraded:
Tribalism -> Monarchy
Tribalism -> Theocracy
Monarchy -> Feudalism
Monarchy -> Absolutism
Feudalism-> Absolutism
Such upgrading-gamemechanics would allow for more changes in the governments, instead of the tedious way of removing and adopting, with all the disorder etc. caused by this - in my experience, because of those significant disadvantages only very, very rarely do empires change governments (or religions). and this leads to very static government(/religion) development in the individual empire, quite contrary to history.

This could also be helped with a small addition to the Revolution event card: if played along with a government card: allows to change government in the target empire (in addition to the usual effects of the revolution card - no progress penalty if played along with Communism).

That's all I could think of for now - maybe more will turn up later

Regards
Nikolaj

Thread: Re: Return of the Nit-Pickers...

jonjac — 2008-08-21T21:40:25+00:00

ck07 wrote:
Our group couldn't find anything in NPG/NPG 2 on limits to when you can convert an action to a Pass. Harry Rowland covered it in a forum and you, in a reply to me re Alliance showing that we had been doing it wrong, seemed to rely on the Rowlands post.
How did you play it before?

The rules say:
Usually, players will be able to perform the same action simultaneously. When it matters (e.g. when empires close to each other are both manoeuvring), the player with the turn marker turns over their action marker and does that action first, and then the other players follow suit in clockwise order after that player has finished.

You can always decide not to turn over a marker, in which case your empire instead misses its go.

And the alliance event is played on a player who has just turned over it's action marker.

Thread: Re: Return of the Nit-Pickers...

ck07 — 2008-08-21T15:40:30+00:00

Something missing: Our group couldn't find anything in NPG/NPG 2 on limits to when you can convert an action to a Pass. Harry Rowland covered it in a forum and you, in a reply to me re Alliance showing that we had been doing it wrong, seemed to rely on the Rowlands post. But if you are looking for items for NPG 3 .....

Btw, we have a file that merges 2006 rules, errata, discussions here, NPG/NPG 2, and our own house rules in a single 30-odd page document. Contact me at ck07@lehigh.edu if you (or anyone) would like it.

Thread: Re: Is Elephant considered to be cavalry for all purposes?

ck07 — 2008-08-21T15:35:43+00:00

I think Daniel is granting here that the interpretation proposed in NPG 2 re "Equine fever" is actually a proposed rule change.

So is the Sanga example, although on that one I agree with him.

Thread: Re: Top 10 tricks

ck07 — 2008-08-21T14:38:32+00:00

Thought I saw an erratum somewhere on this. Yet another thing I can't find ....

Don't know what others think, but I certainly would not want to allow this card to be used as (virtually) the equivalent of Volcano.

Thread: Re: 6/28/2008 errata?

ck07 — 2008-08-21T14:20:06+00:00

Harry Rowlands referred to it one of the fora here. Or, at least, I *thought* I saw that .....

Thread: Re: Money transfer during trade

the drin — 2008-08-18T15:41:20+00:00

I just remembered!

I had promised GeekGold (an unspecified amount) to anyone who could find a gap in the rules that hasn't been covered in the Nit-Pickers' Guide. So ... [insert mouse-clicking sound effects] ... here's some for Zeljko.

Thread: Re: Top 10 tricks

the drin — 2008-08-18T15:32:44+00:00

ck07 wrote:
#9 doesn't work; the affected empire will Pass. Denying an empire a desperately-needed Manouver hurts but it's obvious, not tricky.
No, the Alliance event happens after the action is announced, i.e. after the action marker is turned over. At that point, it's too late for a voluntary "pass".

Thread: Re: The expansion

morkin — 2008-08-18T08:42:56+00:00

Harry Rowland wrote:
We ... are currently working with our programming team to incorporate these new features in our computer 7 Ages game which is also planned to be released in 2009.

Please provide your programmers with copy of NPG v2.0, it is great for debugging. Also, full sequence of play may be useful to them.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/info/26407

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/info/33761

Thread: Re: How difficult this game is?

Gameluis — 2008-08-17T21:35:21+00:00

Thanks to everyone for your advice!

Thread: Re: How difficult this game is?

Petri — 2008-08-17T19:39:06+00:00

The basic rules are really simple, but a couple of things to consider:

- There are lots of small rules (leaders, religions, governments, artefacts). It is very useful to remember these rules, because otherwise it takes a lot of time to check from the rulebook again and again. However, even the very experienced players don't always remember what's the prerequisite of Radio technology and so on...

- Calculating glory can take some time due to global glory conditions. I like the glory calculation process, but it takes time to learn to do it quickly.

- Calculating income can be quite annoying when your empire has lots of areas and a lot of special rules and artefacts are in play.

It is very useful to have a group where everyone knows the rules well. If you always have to check what the others are doing the game flow won't be very fast. But in a good group this is one of the most enjoyable games I've played!

Thread: Re: The expansion

tankwallace — 2008-08-17T07:25:33+00:00

How many hours do you think a long history game would take to play in the computer version if played against the AI?

Thread: Re: How difficult this game is?

tankwallace — 2008-08-17T06:51:53+00:00

I was just able to get my unpunched copy for $54 here in the marketplace, thanks Umber.

It's not as complex as Europa Universalis, but can be confusing if you just breeze through the rulebook. I recommend giving the rulebook a good reading and if your game group has one or more rules lawyers have them pick through it.

All in all I think it's a great game if you have the space to leave it up and walk away from it and come back to play it for several game sessions.
The campaign game from age one can take around 100 hrs with 7 players. If you like a shorter game there is an easy way to do that also.

I've enjoyed every long campaign played and have won none.

But Steve, we do have two people with a doctorate in the group and still disagree at times with the rules. LOL.

Thread: Re: How difficult this game is?

Gameluis — 2008-08-16T11:15:27+00:00

Thanks again... I think I will finally try the game. I hope it won´t disappoint me, it is expensive...

Thread: Re: How difficult this game is?

rnijholt — 2008-08-16T10:39:35+00:00

The rules are not that difficult. I summarized the beef of the game, the actions, onto 2 pages (sorry, currently in Dutch only).

However, a lot of information that you need is actually in other parts of the game. For instance, you do need to have the artefact summary handy, since artefacts (which in this game is the term that covers religions, governments, buildings and technologies) play such a large role. The most irksome thing about this otherwise quite interesting game are the double-sided chits. With a different item on each side, you are often searching through a whole bunch of them before you find that particular leader or artefact that you are looking for.

Speaking for myself, it is actually the extreme long length of the game that puts me off. It might be good to just set a time limit and then just see whoever has the most collective VPs (the combined VPs for all your empires).

Thread: Re: How difficult this game is?

Gameluis — 2008-08-15T17:29:39+00:00

Fargofootball wrote:
But yes, a doctorate would be useful in understanding them....

Really? That doesn´t encourage me to buy the game...

Thread: Re: How difficult this game is?

Fargofootball — 2008-08-15T15:48:07+00:00

Gameluis wrote:
Thanks, Darrell. It seems a little challenging, but I´m really interested in the game. I only hope I don´t have to obtain a doctorate to learn the rules.
As for the rest, I like long, multi-player games, so at least for this I won´t be disappointed.

If I'm not mistaken aren't the rules "only" 12 pages long?
(Don't flame me, please....)
But yes, a doctorate would be useful in understanding them....

Thread: Re: How difficult this game is?

Gilby — 2008-08-15T14:54:12+00:00

DarrellKH wrote:

The real kicker for this game is how long it will take, if you try to play a game through all seven ages. Also, it is less suitable for smaller numbers of players, as the board does not "shrink", as it does in AoR.

It actually works quite well with smaller numbers. Each player has more civs in play. Also, the need to play more cards tends to get trade and progress played more, leading to a faster game.

Thread: Re: How difficult this game is?

Gameluis — 2008-08-15T14:21:37+00:00

Thanks, Darrell. It seems a little challenging, but I´m really interested in the game. I only hope I don´t have to obtain a doctorate to learn the rules.
As for the rest, I like long, multi-player games, so at least for this I won´t be disappointed.

Thread: Re: How difficult this game is?

DarrellKH — 2008-08-15T12:20:23+00:00

I would say it's a little more difficult than Age of Renaissance, only because there's a bit more you have to deal with every turn.

The real kicker for this game is how long it will take, if you try to play a game through all seven ages. Also, it is less suitable for smaller numbers of players, as the board does not "shrink", as it does in AoR.

Thread: How difficult this game is?

Gameluis — 2008-08-15T11:56:12+00:00

I like games like Civilization, History of the World , Age of Renaissance or Struggle of Empires very much and am considering buying 7 Ages. Can someone tell me... is it similar to the ones I have mentioned? Is it more difficult?
Thanks!

Thread: Re: 6/28/2008 errata?

jonjac — 2008-08-15T08:29:23+00:00

Oh, my bad. Sorry... didn't see the 8 in the year...

Thread: Re: 6/28/2008 errata?

PacoHolliday — 2008-08-14T23:30:34+00:00

Because Chaim Kaufmann is referring to a 2008 errata and I couldn't find one on the ADG website.

Thread: Re: 6/28/2008 errata?

jonjac — 2008-08-14T21:36:23+00:00

Yes. What about it?

Thread: Re: 6/28/2008 errata?

PacoHolliday — 2008-08-14T21:24:47+00:00

I don't get it... This is a 2006 errate, isn't it?

Thread: Re: 6/28/2008 errata?

jonjac — 2008-08-14T18:37:34+00:00

There is such an errata (well, almost).

http://www.a-d-g.com.au/download/7Ages-errata_25Mar06.pdf

http://www.a-d-g.com.au/

Thread: 6/28/2008 errata?

ck07 — 2008-08-14T14:04:18+00:00

I *THOUGHT* that I saw a reference in one of these fora to a set of errata dated 6/28/2008--although I admit I can't find the post again.

Am I dreaming?

Thread: Re: Top 10 tricks

ck07 — 2008-08-14T13:58:15+00:00

Our group prohibited #7 (glory for eating your own empires). We read all cards that say "glory for [achievement at any time other than Harvest Glory]" as requiring that the achievement be against another player's empire.

There is a smaller variant of #7: you don't have to Discard an empire if you eat it yourself.

#9 doesn't work; the affected empire will Pass. Denying an empire a desperately-needed Manouver hurts but it's obvious, not tricky.

Thread: Re: design question & latest errata

ck07 — 2008-08-14T13:48:00+00:00

Our group has no problem with the current combat system. It is true that it is nasty to single units ....

We think forts under-powered. So we made them worth +3 starting in Age 3 (stone castles but no arty) and +4 in Age 5 (Vauban). We have though of maybe letting tanks reduce the value a bit ....

We think there is a problem with the distribution of religions on cards; 2 of the 3 Islams and 1/3 Buddhisms are on very high value cards likely to be used in other ways:
-Islam: Gold Mine/7/Modern Chinese; Time Ripples/7/Romans; 3rd is Alliance, which is not bad either.
-Buddhism: Vizier/7/English; other two are Silver Mine and Uprising).
There is not a comparable problem with other religions or with governments.

In c.10 games we have never managed to start Islam. So we'd like to see a change in the religions distribution.

(As a stopgap, we're allowing Religious Leaders to use Pope or Jihad to acquire any religion for which their empire would normally be eligible.)

Thread: Re: New Trade & Progress system

ck07 — 2008-08-14T13:35:54+00:00

Harry, all,

Our group didn't like the "newest and most improved" T&P system. Too complex. Like several posters here, though, we wanted to to upgrade the T&P action. We rejected the options involving an extra card (drawn from deck or kept from other player) as over-powered. Finally we settled on "initiator gets the value of the card they played" (i.e., instead of winner, loser, or choice).

FWIW we don't use Cadenced Progress; game takes too long already. We might not even if effect were to acclerate progress, though--extra complexity of choices involved might result in game still not going faster.

Thread: Re: Poker chips are your friend and other bookkeeping suggestions.

Harry Rowland — 2008-08-07T16:52:30+00:00

Funnily enough I can't convince my group either.

regards
harry

Thread: Re: The expansion

Harry Rowland — 2008-08-07T16:51:28+00:00

Thats the plan.

Thread: Two deck variant

morkin — 2008-08-07T08:01:03+00:00

For you with two sets, here is an interesting variant. I would like someone to test it.

Use both decks. Only limitation is that you cannot start an empire that is already active. Thus, empire in play does not prevent playing event on its card.

Thread: Re: The expansion

morkin — 2008-08-07T07:57:04+00:00

Can all expansion kits be played simultaneously?

Thread: Re: Poker chips are your friend and other bookkeeping suggestions.

morkin — 2008-08-07T07:45:18+00:00

Harry, I don't think it is a good idea to hide money. Too often it has to be revealed - for capitalism, harvest glory, etc. We keep other markers on cards so putting some markers under cards... I don't like it.

Thread: Re: Poker chips are your friend and other bookkeeping suggestions.

Harry Rowland — 2008-08-07T00:55:28+00:00

Lots of good ideas here. I try to get our gamers to use coins or chips for money too as I prefer to play that you don't know how much money each empire has (you stick the money under the card).

Regards
Harry

Thread: Re: Vassal Module design

Harry Rowland — 2008-08-07T00:53:06+00:00

"
My only concern is copyright issue. I would like confirmation from Harry that 7 Ages material may be copied for Vassal engine."

No worries zeljko thats fine, just make sure all our scanned material includes our copyright notice (© 2008, Australian Design Group).

Regards
Harry

Image

Rokkr — 2008-07-12T15:17:48+00:00

7 Ages - game in progress

Image

Rokkr — 2008-06-17T20:44:00+00:00

it takes many hands to play 7 Ages

Image

filwi — 2007-11-06T20:01:14+00:00

The Habsburgs, about to conquer an unresisting Europe.

Image

filwi — 2007-11-06T20:00:15+00:00

Australian Design Group (from left): Eric Schultz, Harry Rowland and Ray Sonsie at Essen '07

Image

Sancherib — 2007-08-12T14:15:40+00:00

2 players' game: end of Age 2 and only 4 empires!

Image

owll — 2007-07-25T18:49:20+00:00

Very thin plastic poster frame X 4 for entire Map.

Image

Pinkus — 2007-05-06T19:02:26+00:00

Ready to start with lots of material from this page and the rolled map from adg.

Image

McHaka — 2006-12-11T16:09:16+00:00

All the extra cards I've created compared to the original deck of cards. My cards are as wide as the original cards so they can be placed above or below to the empire card - or however you wish.

Image

McHaka — 2006-12-11T16:01:18+00:00

Invention cards. These really litter your empire space, but are helpful for new players.

Image

McHaka — 2006-12-11T16:01:11+00:00

Red artefacts, two versions of Internet (the gray one is used when playing an own variant), religions and governments. These can be used instead of those small counters.