Game: Age of Mythology: The Boardgame

Image

Hininsul — 2008-10-14T18:10:07+00:00

cards from the spanish edition of the game

Image

Hininsul — 2008-10-14T18:09:30+00:00

Shot from the spanish edition

Thread: Re: Playing 5-6 players without the expansion

marhawkman — 2008-10-08T15:26:33+00:00

My playgroup usually substitutes poker chips for resource cubes. they usually come in similar colors too. Those are really the main issue anyways. Terrain doesn't come up often. As he said buildings have a large supply.

Thread: Re: Another combat variant idea to make powerful attack cards useful.

marhawkman — 2008-10-08T15:04:31+00:00

I dislike the idea of giving the attacker first choice. It totally removes the surprise factor and allows the defender to summon all of their anti-type units to counter your attackers.

I don't like the idea of diminishing the size of the defending army.

I like the idea on ties. I've tried that one and it works great without any rules conflicts.

Thread: Another combat variant idea to make powerful attack cards useful.

larienna — 2008-10-06T21:23:12+00:00

I am currently using these variant:

- Cards are picked randomly during duels
- Ties makes both unit withdraw to their base.

Now My new idea is:

- The defender always defend with 4 or 5 units (not sure yet).
- The attacker select his units first without hiding anything.
- then the defender select his units.

This way, there does not seem to be much rule conflict with cards.

Gods like "Ares" would still give 8 to the attacker and 6 to the defender whatever the buildings. OR if it's too bad, if only gives the attacker 8 units.

Any comments?

Thread: Re: Variants found on BGG that I intend to use plus a new one.

quozl — 2008-10-01T17:10:19+00:00

I think the game works fine as is.

Thread: Variants found on BGG that I intend to use plus a new one.

larienna — 2008-10-01T13:32:51+00:00

I read almost all the thread on BGG regarding variants. I made a selection of variants instead of trying to design my own. There is just a few variants I have designed which are based on other variants. They will be marked with New. There is 1 totally new variant which will be marked as Completely new and explained at the bottom.

General
- Great temple: Count as 2 buildings when trying to destroy.

- Start the game with 2 house and 2 villager. (PC variant)

- new Random victory cube placement. Roll a die to determine where to place the cube: 2,3,4,5 indicate to place a cube on card 1,2,3,4. When Rolling 1 you place a cube on the card with the less amount of cubes. When Rolling 6 you place cubes on the card with the most amount of cubes. (easier by rolling dice)

- new Favor trade: You can trade only 1 VP cube per trade card and you must take it from a victory card. (I want the game to last 10 turns, stealing cubes from victory is the only way to influence it)

- Age specific combat units as listed in PC game variant.

- Supply: each house support 1 villager and 4 units.(following PC variant)

- new Gods Power: Players take all the gods token/cards. Each of these gods are one time use. When changing age, you lose all your unused god cards and get 3 new ones. (Gives a reason not to change age, does not remove favor cubes from the game's economy)

Battle
- Ties makes both units withdraw from the battle ( using only 6 to hit increase the occurence to happen)

- When dueling, both players draw a card randomly from your opponent's deck and resolve battle. (prevent min maxing bonus)

- Completely new: Defender separate their army between the city, land and cube reserve, attacker select a target to attack. (more details below).

Scoring
- If both player ties for a victory card, split the cubes evenly (makes sure all VP cubes are used except maybe wonder).

- New Most battle won: Get a token each time you win a battle. The player with the most battle won wins the "last battle won" reward. (add symmetry to the victory conditions)

- New largest army: Units are worth: 1 for mortal, 2 for myth, heroes are worth 2,3,4 according to their age. (to balance unit cost/strength)

- First player get 2/3 of the cubes + extra, 2nd player get 1/3 of the cubes. (create closer VP scores)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The variant which is completely new is this one. The objectives are:

- Make high attack cards worthy.
- Remove the step where you must chose units hidden.

The rules are simple

- Player decide to attack by playing a card but does not call the location but he create his army.

- defender distribute his troop among the 3 place to defend : city, land or cube reserve. He his not forced to assign all his troops.

- the attacker choose which area he wants to attack. A battle takes place between the attacker and the army in the attacked location.

So what do you think. I really want more comments about the last rules explained in details.

Thread: Re: Playing 5-6 players without the expansion

larienna — 2008-09-30T16:40:37+00:00

I have big cubes at home. I could make these worth 2 ressource each and leave the terrain and buildings tiles as they are and it should be playable?

Thread: Re: Playing 5-6 players without the expansion

jeffwolfe — 2008-09-30T15:44:57+00:00

By the end of the game, resource cubes are scarce even with a full supply, so I think playing with a shortage would be problematic. Perhaps the tile shortage would be workable if you could scare up a few extra cubes.

Thread: Playing 5-6 players without the expansion

larienna — 2008-09-30T13:07:26+00:00

Would it be possible to play the 5-6 player game without the expansion considering that:

- You have units for 6 players

- you have 6 boards

- In a 4 player game, 2 players share their cards. So 6 players could also share their cards.

- You have permanent cards in double.

the only things that might be missing

Cubes: Not sure if you have enough cubes, else that might a component to supply as extra. Else it could create material shortage which could be interesting.

Buildings: Yes there is only 4 of each building, but like in puerto rico, no everybody can buy all buildings. So in total, there might be enough buildings.

Terrain: Some terrain are scarcier than the others according to the number of terrain slot available. I calculated the total number of tiles and locations: desert and hills will have more locations than the tiles available. Fertiles arrive sharp and all the others have excess.

By thinking about it, having more limited buildings, terrain and cubes could be a way to influence other players since in a 5-6 player game, you cannot attack all the players. So a way to block them would be to steal their terrain or building. It's only the cubes that I am not sure if it's actually a good idea to have a shorter amount.

What do you think?

Thread: Re: Flogging a dead horse - Yet another battle line variant

Gronak — 2008-09-27T18:35:44+00:00

>
"Select a Forum:", under "Gaming Related" choose "Recommendations". You can then lay out your quandry,
>

Thanks; I am along way from figuring out all the nuances in the Geek site.

Like the Quickbar -- what's that good for? I'm just opening Tabs in one browser window when I'm comparing various games.

Thread: Re: Pondering the "Official" 2d6 combat variant

Sphere — 2008-09-27T16:58:42+00:00

Why even worry about historicity in a game about Mythology? If I'm going to accept Frost Giants and Scorpion Men, I can deal with Norse cavalry and Egyptian elephants.

Thread: Re: Flogging a dead horse - Yet another battle line variant

squash — 2008-09-27T16:53:46+00:00

sigmazero13 wrote:
Hmm, I don't know how I missed this thread Looks like an interesting variant - I'll have to give it a try!!!

I do have one question, though:
squash wrote:
Egyptians

Wadjet – When an encounter in which a Priest is in either the FRONT LINE or in SUPPORT is about to begin, a Wadjet may be taken from anywhere on the battle board except the FRONT LINE in order to replace him. The Priest is then placed in the RESERVE box.
Was this an intentional change? Unless my copy is different, in the rules as currently written, the Wadjet can trade places with a Pharaoh, not a Priest. Was it intentional that you made the Wadjet use it's ability with a Priest in this variant? If so, I'm just curious as to why?

Oops!! Good catch - thanks very much for pointing this out to me! I've corrected this in the thread, and have submitted a new file with the correction as well.

Thread: Re: Flogging a dead horse - Yet another battle line variant

squash — 2008-09-27T16:52:31+00:00

Gronak wrote:
>>>
Exception: If a supported unit is fighting against a unit who does not have support, the supported unit will win if there is a tie
>>>

You have it backwards -- the SUPPORTED unit should lose, because the unit being supported has _already_ benefited from extra dice. If the combat had been resolved without that support, it would have lost.

I would leave it as a tie; perhaps retreating both units backwards one row. I'd have winners advance one row (trailing their Support along).

Thanks for your thoughts! I mainly did it that way because I wanted to somehow represent the fact that a larger army should have an advantage in the battle.

Gronak wrote:

***

As a longtime miniatures player, I'm looking for a rule mechanism where the combats are more than a factor-matching contest. I don't need them to be over with more quickly; I want the feel of a tabletop battle where I can maneuver.

Before reading this idea, I was thinking the same sort of thing, where you have a gridded surface. Each player lays down his cards face down, and then they are flipped. You could add Fog of War where you need to Scout to see the cards.

I want to have maneuver -- sliding the cards from one cell to another to outflank or reinforce.

Actually, I'd be happiest with a way to translate the card values into armies I can play using my favorite miniatures rules.

I really want the boardgame to be a campaign setting that can be completed in a few hours.

Given that this set of rules is said to have purposeful, "strategic" combat, instead of being combat oriented, it might fit the bill.

From reading the descriptions, the block game Wizard Kings might have a lot of what I'm looking for, except it seems to be a pure operational combat game. There's no strategic reason for going to war, no economics or civilization advancement.

BattleLore using the Command and Colors system looks interesting as a "lite" miniatures game, but I have so many figures already and rules that are better that I can't see investing in it.

I'm in the mood to buy something... I'm comparing so many boardgames that I don't know where in the Forums to post a discussion about my quandry.

If you go to the "Forums" section on the front page, click on the blue "Post >>". Then at the top of the page, where it says "Select a Forum:", under "Gaming Related" choose "Recommendations". You can then lay out your quandry, and you might be surprised at some of the recommendations you get from other users.

I'll start you off by suggesting you take a look at Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! - Russia 1941-1942. I haven't yet had the pleasure of playing it, but it seems like something new and interesting that you might enjoy.

Thread: Re: Flogging a dead horse - Yet another battle line variant

sigmazero13 — 2008-09-27T14:36:30+00:00

Hmm, I don't know how I missed this thread Looks like an interesting variant - I'll have to give it a try!!!

I do have one question, though:
squash wrote:
Egyptians

Wadjet – When an encounter in which a Priest is in either the FRONT LINE or in SUPPORT is about to begin, a Wadjet may be taken from anywhere on the battle board except the FRONT LINE in order to replace him. The Priest is then placed in the RESERVE box.
Was this an intentional change? Unless my copy is different, in the rules as currently written, the Wadjet can trade places with a Pharaoh, not a Priest. Was it intentional that you made the Wadjet use it's ability with a Priest in this variant? If so, I'm just curious as to why?

Thread: Re: Pondering the "Official" 2d6 combat variant

Gronak — 2008-09-27T08:35:39+00:00

IMO they didn't have enough elephants to make them a large part of their army; they were a rare curiosity.

Thread: Re: Pondering the "Official" 2d6 combat variant

Sphere — 2008-09-27T03:18:06+00:00

Gronak wrote:
Just to be pedantic -- Elephants in Egypt ARE a mythological occurance.

Era dependent I'll grant you, but not mythological. The Ptolemaic Dynasty certainly used elephants, probably of the now extinct North African sub-species.

Thread: Re: Pondering the "Official" 2d6 combat variant

Gronak — 2008-09-27T00:23:06+00:00

Just to be pedantic -- Elephants in Egypt ARE a mythological occurance. Why on earth did the designers give elephants to the Egyptians !!! ???

Thread: Re: Flogging a dead horse - Yet another battle line variant

Gronak — 2008-09-27T00:08:13+00:00

>>>
Exception: If a supported unit is fighting against a unit who does not have support, the supported unit will win if there is a tie
>>>

You have it backwards -- the SUPPORTED unit should lose, because the unit being supported has _already_ benefited from extra dice. If the combat had been resolved without that support, it would have lost.

I would leave it as a tie; perhaps retreating both units backwards one row. I'd have winners advance one row (trailing their Support along).

***

As a longtime miniatures player, I'm looking for a rule mechanism where the combats are more than a factor-matching contest. I don't need them to be over with more quickly; I want the feel of a tabletop battle where I can maneuver.

Before reading this idea, I was thinking the same sort of thing, where you have a gridded surface. Each player lays down his cards face down, and then they are flipped. You could add Fog of War where you need to Scout to see the cards.

I want to have maneuver -- sliding the cards from one cell to another to outflank or reinforce.

Actually, I'd be happiest with a way to translate the card values into armies I can play using my favorite miniatures rules.

I really want the boardgame to be a campaign setting that can be completed in a few hours.

Given that this set of rules is said to have purposeful, "strategic" combat, instead of being combat oriented, it might fit the bill.

From reading the descriptions, the block game Wizard Kings might have a lot of what I'm looking for, except it seems to be a pure operational combat game. There's no strategic reason for going to war, no economics or civilization advancement.

BattleLore using the Command and Colors system looks interesting as a "lite" miniatures game, but I have so many figures already and rules that are better that I can't see investing in it.

I'm in the mood to buy something... I'm comparing so many boardgames that I don't know where in the Forums to post a discussion about my quandry.

Thread: Re: new civs?

marhawkman — 2008-09-11T07:26:06+00:00

*Pokes topic with stick*

Thread: Re: Primeras impresiones, en español

jrescan — 2008-07-18T00:14:17+00:00

Yo no lo he probado con batallas definiendose con 5s y 6s, tal vez eso ayude o al menos eso dicen en el foro.

Thread: Re: House Rules

marhawkman — 2008-07-11T06:22:46+00:00

Rukasu wrote:
New house rules:

The Wall must be the first building destroyed after a battle, unless your opponent has a Siege Engine Workshop. In that case, he may destroy any one building if you have a Wall, or any two buildings, like normal, if you do not have a Wall. Any abilities on characters that "negate Walls and Towers" still work: so if a Dwarf survives, and the Norse player has either a Siege Engine Workshop or Nidhogg, he may destroy any two buildings, even if there is a Wall.

The Tower has an added special ability: whenever you use an explore action, you may exchange a revealed tile with a random one from the pile.

The Market works as normal, except that it also allows a player a free trade action at the end of the round provided they have a Trade card to play. However, unlike a trade action performed during the turn, this action costs the number of resources listed on the trade card played, and can not be used with the Great Temple to convert god favor into VP. You also cannot activate any god powers when you use a Trade card in this way.I like! Walls, towers, and markets are things I never bothered with. Why? they just don't do enough to matter most of the time. This makes them worthwhile.

Thread: Re: House Rules

Rukasu — 2008-07-09T00:01:20+00:00

SybotCB wrote:
Rukasu wrote:
A House rule that I no longer remember is one: split the victory points on a card if two players tie. Leave 1 if there is an odd number.

I think I should just edit my post and condense all these other rules into it...though for some reason I hate seeing the little 'Edit' line at the bottom of posts.

Probably all that werewolf we play. Edit's are viewed suspiciously.

I am condensing your house rules and using them for out first game coming up this week.

Awesome, I hope you enjoy it! They battles can still drag a bit, but I wouldn't change it up too much before you get a hang of the system. How many people are you planning on playing it with? Best with three or four, never tried two or five (but I suspect, while long, the five player would be better than the two).

Thread: Re: House Rules

SybotCB — 2008-07-08T21:45:25+00:00

Rukasu wrote:
A House rule that I no longer remember is one: split the victory points on a card if two players tie. Leave 1 if there is an odd number.

I think I should just edit my post and condense all these other rules into it...though for some reason I hate seeing the little 'Edit' line at the bottom of posts.

Probably all that werewolf we play. Edit's are viewed suspiciously.

I am condensing your house rules and using them for out first game coming up this week.

Thread: Re: Attack card variant

marhawkman — 2008-06-24T14:42:51+00:00

Hmm... It screws with the effects for inequal battles.

They'd still be workable, but probably a LOT more powerful.

I LOVE the idea concerning Ties. My personal idea is that tying units simply leave the battle entirely and return to your reserves in the holding area.

Thread: Attack card variant

jttm — 2008-06-24T04:06:41+00:00

Yeah, yeah another one. You can just skip this if you're sick to death of the attempted fixing.
I was reading the latest combat variants again, and I still think that while forming a battle line will speed up the dice-rolling process, it won't speed up the army selection process (i.e. which unit to place next on the line).

So here is my proposed variant (hopefully, no one has written this before):

1) The Attack card value no longer references the unit limit
Instead, it will refer to the difference in army sizes. The most basic Attack (4) card, means that a player can only attack someone whose army has either 4 more units or 4 less units than his/her own. (e.g. If player A has an army of 8, and player B has an army of 3, player A cannot attack player B with an Attack (4) card. He will need an Attack (5) card or higher.)

Hopefully this will solve 2 problems; firstly it will make an Attack (7) card more powerful than an Attack (4) card. In the original rules, the higher attack cards didn't really favor the attacker. Secondly, it will prevent players from consistently ganging up on the guy with no army (if players are truly evil, he's the easiest target for stealing stuff from).

2) Unit Limit for each battle is now always 3
Hopefully, less choices means quicker decision time. Battles are conducted as per the rules (except for ties).

3) Ties exhaust units
If a unit ties with another during battle, they both survive (exceptions excluded - like Medusa), but can no longer participate in the battle.

And the battles go on until a player retreats or does not have a unit to attack or defend with. What do you guys think?

Thread: Re: Flogging a dead horse - Yet another battle line variant

squash — 2008-06-18T16:34:39+00:00

Cruelsader wrote:
Wow! That was a quick reply considering that the thread has been inactive for about a month.

I actually get a notification in my GeekMail every time someone adds a comment to this thread! But then I got busy and forgot that I was going to reply to your latest comment...

Cruelsader wrote:

My biggest concern with the AoM is the complexity of unit match, which slows down recruiting and battle. Your variant seems to speed up some aspects of the battle, which is a very good thing. However, the basic complexity remains. I wish that someone would take the trouble to come up with an elegant modification that would preserve the variety in units. I know that your aim is to minimize changes - I just could not keep it to myself.

User "Psauberer" had made a recommendation for a table to use a single die roll for combat and another user had replied with a link for a file with the table, but now that file doesn't seem to exist (or at least I can't find it anywhere): http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/30620

Cruelsader wrote:

Speaking of fidelity to the original, isn't supporting a bit too good? You write that in your opinion a larger army should have a slight advantage. In the original, numbers mean much less than the ability to second-guess and the variability of units.

Most combats will have the same number of units on both sides, since an Attack card shows the number of units that both sides may fight with. It is only if one player has an Armory or a special god card where you might have an uneven number of combatants. And depending on how the match-ups occur, you might not even get a bonus from your support unit!

Thread: Re: Flogging a dead horse - Yet another battle line variant

Cruelsader — 2008-06-11T21:42:37+00:00

Wow! That was a quick reply considering that the thread has been inactive for about a month. The rules are much easier to follow now, thanks!

The variant seems interesting. I will probably give it a try next time I play AoM if the group agrees. (However, this may take many months - AoM is not the top game in our list)

My biggest concern with the AoM is the complexity of unit match, which slows down recruiting and battle. Your variant seems to speed up some aspects of the battle, which is a very good thing. However, the basic complexity remains. I wish that someone would take the trouble to come up with an elegant modification that would preserve the variety in units. I know that your aim is to minimize changes - I just could not keep it to myself.

Speaking of fidelity to the original, isn't supporting a bit too good? You write that in your opinion a larger army should have a slight advantage. In the original, numbers mean much less than the ability to second-guess and the variability of units.

Thread: Re: Flogging a dead horse - Yet another battle line variant

squash — 2008-06-11T15:49:55+00:00

Cruelsader wrote:
P.S. I recommend cutting the details in the rules. (You could add some clarifications as comments). It complicates reading and the effect on clarity is minimal. Plus it scares people away.

There! I've added a bunch of headings within the body of the rules, and have even used several coloured letters to "illustrate" some examples. Hope that makes it easier to read!

Thread: Re: Flogging a dead horse - Yet another battle line variant

squash — 2008-06-11T15:21:26+00:00

Cruelsader wrote:
Hmm...does not your system put a defender in a serious disadvantage? A normal attack involves 4 units per side. There will be no supporting units. The defender is forced to select their units first and the attacker can choose the best match-up.

Actually, sorry for the confusion, but this is not the case at all! The defender will pick the first unit and the attacker will choose the first match-up, but then the attacker must choose a second unit and the defender will then choose the second match-up.

The defender must then choose the third unit and the attacker will choose the third match-up, and finally, the attacker must choose the fourth unit and the defender will choose the fourth match-up (although the fourth won't be much of a choice if each player only has 4 units!).

So in this case, the attacker will have a slight advantage because he/she will get to choose the first and third match-ups, while the defender will choose the second, with the fourth simply being the 2 remaining units. I hope this helps to clarify!

Cruelsader wrote:
P.S. I recommend cutting the details in the rules. (You could add some clarifications as comments). It complicates reading and the effect on clarity is minimal. Plus it scares people away.

Thank you - I very much appreciate your constructive criticism, as it helps me to write better rules. I chose to explain everything as fully as possible so that there would be no confusion (and apparently I even failed at that ). What would help immensely are some illustrations, but perhaps I'll break the rules up with a couple of headings, and see if that makes them more readable. Thanks again for your advice!

Thread: Re: Flogging a dead horse - Yet another battle line variant

Cruelsader — 2008-06-11T12:30:29+00:00

Hmm...does not your system put a defender in a serious disadvantage? A normal attack involves 4 units per side. There will be no supporting units. The defender is forced to select their units first and the attacker can choose the best match-up.

P.S. I recommend cutting the details in the rules. (You could add some clarifications as comments). It complicates reading and the effect on clarity is minimal. Plus it scares people away.

Thread: Re: new civs?

marhawkman — 2008-05-28T14:40:38+00:00

What about the ones you posted already? (page 2)

1 and 4 would be great for city and resource areas.

Unit area: http://www.astro.uu.nl/~anders/Images/Mexiko/MexicoCity_Muse...

For terrain, maybe a picture from one of these? (I didn't actually do a very long search)

http://www.playa-escondida.com/news/riviera_nayarit.php
http://www.lib.uci.edu/libraries/exhibits/meso/mesolandscape...
http://www.girr.org/vacation_diaries/mexico_panama_2006/jung...
http://www.adios-travel.com/countries/mexico/oaxaca.htm
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/...

Thread: Re: new civs?

Caesar — 2008-05-28T12:16:53+00:00

What about Aztecs Board?
Ant ideas about "City map", "Terrain map" "Unit Area" and "Resource Area"?
Any image is welcome to fit into my board tempalte. (see celtic and other)

Thread: Re: new civs?

Caesar — 2008-05-28T12:14:50+00:00

marhawkman wrote:
thoughts on your earlier Celtic units:

Wolfhound needs to cost more, at least 2 maybe 3. an ability that can give it a power of 5 is nothing to sneeze at. O_O

Firehorse, too cheap for the ability, add one to the cost.

white bull, That is weird... as weak as it is though it's not really bad. Maybe make it warrior? you don't have a warrior myth.

Also the resource production for the celts needs a few changes, IMO anyways. It has too much wood because of an over abundance of forests. -2 forest +1 desert +1 mountain.

Now I'll fix Celtic Units, following your directions.

Thread: Re: new civs?

Caesar — 2008-05-28T12:13:45+00:00

Updated version.
Now all errors should be FIXED
]]>

Thread: Re: new civs?

marhawkman — 2008-05-28T11:32:26+00:00

My personal plan is to come up with a way of making printable "paper minis". IE pictures on paper that you cut out and fold to make them stand up.

Thread: Re: new civs?

stjase — 2008-05-27T15:20:50+00:00

Just a quick note to say that I'm very interested in the direction this is heading, and I am following the progress. Sometimes its hard to tell if anyone is being appreciative, so now you know at least one person is!

It would be really cool if there were some minis out there that could be used for the new civilizations...

Thread: Re: new civs?

marhawkman — 2008-05-22T08:29:24+00:00

Alright I redid the chart, Lemme know what you think.

I might have to email it... I guess you'll have to send me a geekmail for that.

Thread: Re: new civs?

marhawkman — 2008-05-21T09:02:59+00:00

Dangit.... I left out something.

My Errors: The Tepoztopilli warrior is supposed to have the "+4 v Heroes" ability.

your errors: Spawn of Cipactli is 4F, 3W, not 3/3.
you spelled "Cipactli" as "Chipactli"

Good Job (seriously I like it)

EDIT: thoughts on your earlier Celtic units:

Wolfhound needs to cost more, at least 2 maybe 3. an ability that can give it a power of 5 is nothing to sneeze at. O_O

Firehorse, too cheap for the ability, add one to the cost.

white bull, That is weird... as weak as it is though it's not really bad. Maybe make it warrior? you don't have a warrior myth.

Also the resource production for the celts needs a few changes, IMO anyways. It has too much wood because of an over abundance of forests. -2 forest +1 desert +1 mountain.

Thread: Re: new civs?

Caesar — 2008-05-20T14:50:18+00:00

Here it is my preview of Unit List...
Let me know yuor opinions about this!!!

]]>

Thread: Re: new civs?

marhawkman — 2008-05-20T08:26:45+00:00

I haven't playtested it. But you could just use the equivalent(ish) egyptian unit figures. Hmm.. that gives me an idea as to what to do later today. (playtest)

I'm not really sure what some should look like, Wikipedia was my main source and it didn't have pictures of some of them.

So just for reference:

----Myth units:
Ahuitzotl - Wadjet

Spawn of Cipactli = Scorpionman

Cihuateteo - Phoenix

Nagual - Anubite

Nahual - Sphinx

Tlaltecuhtli - mummy

----Legendary heroes:
Quetzalcoatl = priest

Kukulcan = pharoah

Popocatepetl = son of Osiris

----Mortals:
Atlatl soldier = elephant

Tepoztopilli warrior = (spearman)

Aztec Archer = Chariot archer

Thread: Re: new civs?

Caesar — 2008-05-19T17:49:05+00:00

Do you manage to use original game pieces? (i.e. miniatures)
or to use some other?

If you give me some unit pictures I could create unit reference sheet in the meanwhile.

Thread: Re: new civs?

marhawkman — 2008-05-19T17:10:55+00:00

Where are people hiding????

Anyways, I'm done with the Aztec units now. Feel free to comment whenever you quit hiding. and yes there is no mortal Cavalry. The Aztecs simply didn't have any. Yes I also gave them an Archer Myth unit. this is pretty much all we need for the Aztecs, except figures, but those are kinda hard...

----Myth units:
Ahuitzotl - a man-eating water-dwelling dog-monkey with a hand on its tail
:Warrior, 5
+4 v Cavalry
+2fo when this wins in battle
3Fo, 1Fa = 4T

Spawn of Cipactli (the caiman/fish monster at the foundations of the earth)
:Giant, 7
+4 v Mortals, +2 v Warriors, negates walls and towers
4Fo, 3w = 7T

Cihuateteo-the spirits of human women who died in childbirth (mociuaquetzque)
:Flyer, 6
+4 v Giant Killers
"throw" attack (seduce would be more apt here)
2G, 3Fa = 5T

Nagual - a tutelary animal or vegetable spirit
:Cavalry, 5
+4 v Archers
2fo, 2fa = 4T

Nahual - a shapeshifting sorcerer or witch
:Giant Killer, 5
+6 v giants
Special: you may swap this with Tlaltecuhtli
2G, 2Fa = 4T

Tlaltecuhtli - a toad goddess
:Archer, 5
+4 v flyers, +3 v warriors
Special: you may swap this with Nahual
2Fa, 2W = 4T

----Legendary heroes:
Quetzalcoatl
Classic Hero 5
+4 v Myth
3Fo, 3G = 6T

Kukulcan
Heroic Hero 6
+4 v Myth
Special: If attacking a production area you may steal an additional resource unit for each unit of yours left after winning,
3fo, 3W = 6T

Popocatepetl
Mythic Hero 8
+4 v Myth
Special: Once per battle, you may destroy a mountain after Popocatepetl destroys an enemy unit in combat. (only if attacking terrain?)
4G, 4W = 8T

----Mortals:
Atlatl soldier
Mortal Giant-Killer 3
+1 v Mortals
+6 v Giants
1Fo, 1W = 2T

Tepoztopilli warrior (spearman)
Mortal Warrior
+3 v Cavalry
1G, 1W = 2T

Aztec Archer
Mortal Archer
+4 v flyers
+3 v Warriors
1Fo, 1G = 2T

unit cost total: 17Fo, 13g, 10Fa, 14W
---Terrain
Aztecs : 2 desert, 4 forest, 3 swamp, 4 fertile, 2 hills, 1 mountains.
resource--> 4.7Fa, 6.4Fo, 4.1G, 7W: 22.2T

Image

Howitzer_120mm — 2008-05-17T15:34:36+00:00

The color buildings (by Ceaser) in a plastic box for quick access

Image

Howitzer_120mm — 2008-05-17T13:25:22+00:00

Storage Solution

Thread: Re: new civs?

marhawkman — 2008-05-15T13:28:50+00:00

God cards are ready for review!

----gods:
Tezcatlipoca "Smoking Mirror" (night sky, the night winds, hurricanes, the north, the earth, obsidian, enmity, discord, rulership, divination, temptation, sorcery, beauty, war and strife.) (change though conflict)
: Attack card (3), you may use two more units in this battle, 3Fa (2Fa?) (Semi copy of Ares)
Old idea: destroy any building BEFORE combat, (if you win?) after combat you may choose to build a building(you must pay for it).

Huitzilopochtli (war god, postponer of the apocalypse, sacrifices were made to him to postpone the apocalypse.)
: Attack card (8), For each enemy unit eliminated in this battle, you may remove a victory point from one of the victory point cards, 4Fa. (these points get returned to the bank)
Alternate idea: Sac a mortal unit to kill one of the opposing units in battle

Xolotl (associated with lightning and benevolently with death)
: Attack(7), the first of your units defeated in this battle returns to the battle instead of being removed, 1Fa (copy of Isis)

Chantico (goddess of home and possessions)
: Build 3, 1Fa, All buildings cost 1 less, (semi copy of Nephthys)

Itzpapalotl ("clawed butterfly")
: Explore T=P, 1Fa, Other players do not get to select a tile. (copy of Baldr)

Nanauatl (sun god, sacrificed himself to provide light for mankind)
: Free Trade, fourth action, 1Fa

Tlaloc (water god, associated with rain, hail, thunder, and fertility)
: Gather R/T, You gather a second resource type or terrain type as well, 1Fa.

Quetzalcoatl "feathered serpent" (knowledge)
: Next Age, Draw a terrain tile at random, you may put in an empty slot or replace an existing terrain tile with it, 1Fa.

Tonatiuh (sun god of the modern age, was sacrificed to for sunlight)
: Next Age, 1Fa, you may sacrifice units to pay for part of the Advancement cost.

Coatlicue, ("The Mother of Gods")
: Recruit 4, Free Hero(current age), 2Fa (copy of Osiris)

Mextli (a god of war and storms)
: Recruit 5, you may sacrifice a mortal unit to obtain a free myth unit.

Cochimetl (trade and merchants)
: Trade +4, 1Fa(copy of Forseti)
---------------
So what do you guys think?

Thread: Re: new civs?

marhawkman — 2008-05-15T11:47:04+00:00

Hehe, Yeah yeah, I've made a decent start on the Aztecs. About half done I think. Now for a giant mass of semi-random data, I analyzed the differences between the random action decks in stock and made some interesting conclusions. These might be useful for assisting Caeser in making god cards for the Celts. (hint, hint, it's all they lack)

Data:
---------------
Card type totals are all identical. Although Greeks have 11 god cards while egypt and Norse have 12. Also, none of the races has more than three god cards of a certain type.

Card type Totals: 8 attack, 7 build, 5 explore, 8 gather, 4 next age, 7 recruit, 6 trade.

"averages" by card type:
Attack: 7*2, 5*2, and 6*4. (sort of, Heimdall(norse), is technically a 4)

Build: 2*2, 3*3, 4*1, and a special.

Explore: "T=P+2"*2, "T=P"*2, and a special.

Gather: at least 1 special, the rest are Gather all

Next Age: 1 or 2 special, 2-3 regular

Recruit: 3*2, 4*2, 5*2, and a Special, Egypt has Bast(6) instead of a second 5.

Trade: no real pattern, number of specials varies from 0-2, rest are cost 1
--------------

Some abilities are shared by different races, though the TYPE of card may vary. Some abilities are unique in that no other race has a similar ability.

---Shared by all abilities:
An attack card that increases the size of the attacking army, Egypt and greek give you 2 extra units, the norse version removes ALL size limits. Egypt and Greek are 3Fa, Norse is 4Fa.

Special (one sided) Explore, Egypt and Greek give you 2 tiles, norse does not let others select a tile. All are 1Fa.

---Shared (by 2) abilities:
Extra action, the type of card varies, Egypt has an Attack, Norse has Next age, 1Fa.

Destroy a building, Egypt is build that destroys any building for 1Fa, Norse is build that destroys an opposing building for 1Fa.

Free Hero, Egypt is recruit 4 2Fa, Norse is Next Age, 2Fa

+Fo per tile, Gather Food: Egypt is +2. Greek is +1, but prevents others from gathering. Both are 2Fa.

Others gather nothing: Greek is Gather Food, with a +1 to food production, 2Fa. Norse is Resource or Terrain, 1Fa.

+5 x, Gather r/T: Greek is +5 Fo. Norse is +5 G. Both are 1Fa.

Destroy production tile: Egypt is opposing food only, 1Fa. Greek is any, 2Fa.

2 Free mortal units: Greek is 2 Toxotes, recruit 4, 1Fa. Norse is 2 (any), recruit 3, 1Fa.

+4 trade: greek and Norse, cost 0, 1Fa.

---Unique Abilities:
Egypt:
Isis- resurrect+return to battle, attack 7, 1Fa
Nephthys- reduce build cost by 2(except houses), build 3, 2Fa
Set- trade production tiles, next age, 1Fa
Anubis- trade mortal units for mummies(1:1, up to 3), recruit 4, 1Fa
Bast- recruits mortals for 1 food, Recruit 6, 1Fa (the ONLY recruit 6 in the game)

Greek:
Aphrodite- remove 1 opposing unit from the battle to it's holding area, attack 6, 2Fa
Hera- Free House, build 3, 1Fa
Hades- sac a unit for any 7 resources, gather r/t, 1Fa

Norse:
Bragi- +1 dice, Attack 6, 2Fa
Tyr- gives Berserk, Attack 6, 3Fa
Thor- eliminate an opposing Myth unit, Gather R/T, 1Fa
Loki- Steal 5 resources from an opponent, cost 0, 2Fa
-----------
See? there are several patterns that emerge when you compare everything.

I might finish the Aztec god cards today or tommorrow.

Thread: Re: new civs?

Acoriano3 — 2008-05-14T13:39:11+00:00

yeah, seriously!!! Finish at least ONE CIV so we can see how it balances with the already existing ones....then maybe a 2nd one....and once you guys get good with balance you can tackle a few more. Let's not get ahead of ourselves (again!), gentlemen.

Thread: Re: new civs?

Caesar — 2008-05-14T13:27:10+00:00

My personal vote goes to 1st image... and YEAH Cherokee sounds great.
Maybe we should "end" the other before starting new ones.

Thread: Re: new civs?

marhawkman — 2008-05-14T12:45:03+00:00

Yeah, I don't really like 2 and 2 either. 1 and 4 are pretty nice though.

BTW this thread only seems to show up on the display of "active" threads.

what thoughts do you guys have on doing a civ for the cherokee?

Thread: Re: new civs?

dbc- — 2008-05-14T08:02:57+00:00

Good to see this project is moving forward again. But I nearly missed the info. Is it only my setup, or is there a problem with this thread? It does not appear under the recent messages on the main page, nor does it display properly on the game page.

Btw. the first and last picture above, looks great.

Thread: Re: new civs?

Caesar — 2008-05-13T19:22:23+00:00

Thread: Re: new civs?

Caesar — 2008-05-13T19:21:57+00:00

Thread: Re: new civs?

Caesar — 2008-05-13T19:21:25+00:00

Image

teaguewebb — 2008-05-05T02:16:21+00:00

3 player, good times!

Image

Howitzer_120mm — 2008-04-20T15:42:21+00:00

1 of each of the exploration tiles

Image

Howitzer_120mm — 2008-04-19T23:03:57+00:00

Trade Example- Pay 2 cubes, then trade at a 1-1 ratio for any other cubes

Image

Howitzer_120mm — 2008-03-07T22:39:38+00:00

Huskarl and Valkyrie

Image

Howitzer_120mm — 2008-03-06T23:32:54+00:00

The Archer Units

Image

Howitzer_120mm — 2008-03-06T23:06:33+00:00

Egyptian God Power Cards