Game: Struggle of Empires

Image

sauceybugger — 2008-11-12T04:17:45+00:00

Useful information sheet

Image

sauceybugger — 2008-11-12T04:16:36+00:00

Tile Descriptions Sheet

Image

sauceybugger — 2008-11-12T04:15:20+00:00

Front of rulebook

Thread: Re: Making the Leap from Gameplayer to Gamer a little less Scary

tommynomad — 2008-10-31T10:27:40+00:00

ZirkvandenBerg wrote:
This review is so captivatingly written that I'm tempted not to talk to you any more - let's just correspond instead!

Thanks for the kind words. But if we only correspond, how will we keep up our tradition of losing to teenagers?

And in truth, there are few people I'd rather spend 6 hours around a game table with than you.

Thread: Re: Making the Leap from Gameplayer to Gamer a little less Scary

ZirkvandenBerg — 2008-10-31T03:22:22+00:00

A great angle on reviewing which I found really easy to follow - not too much technical detail without interpretation and opinion. I like that.

The game still looks daunting though, especially since I'm not even 5'8".

P.S. This review is so captivatingly written that I'm tempted not to talk to you any more - let's just correspond instead!

Thread: Re: Customized SoE - Wanted also to improve the look & feel of the tiles

ckremer2 — 2008-10-28T16:08:16+00:00

go here :
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/files/boardgame/all?username=Za...

Image

Konrad — 2008-10-27T21:15:06+00:00

Weekend play.

Thread: Re: Struggle of Empires -- Session Report

gschloesser — 2008-10-24T14:35:13+00:00

Fury wrote:
I don't understand the final scores. Going from memory, I thought that the Unrest leader loses 7 points and the 2nd Unrest leader loses 4 point (plus if you have 20 plus Unrest you cannot win).

How did you deduct the Unrest?

That is correct. If more than one player ties for the most unrest, they both lose 7 points. Likewise, if two or more players tie for the second-most unrest, they all lose 4 points.

Thread: Re: Struggle of Empires -- Session Report

Fury — 2008-10-24T14:13:10+00:00

I don't understand the final scores. Going from memory, I thought that the Unrest leader loses 7 points and the 2nd Unrest leader loses 4 point (plus if you have 20 plus Unrest you cannot win).

How did you deduct the Unrest?

Pete S.

Thread: Re: Struggle of Empires -- Session Report

gschloesser — 2008-10-23T12:09:18+00:00

mejustjustin wrote:
This review made me depressed. It sounds so fun. But I have no board game buddies nor the time nor the space to expand my already too big collection and play. :/ I hope one day to get this game or find a gmer that does have it and get active in it; I'm a Euro Geek.

PS - In the middle, you say "Jim outbid me". Which Jim is this? the English or the Spanish one? xP

That would be the "English" Jim!

I hope you find a group, as it really does allow one to make some great friends and enjoy some great games.

Thread: Re: Struggle of Empires -- Session Report

mejustjustin — 2008-10-23T11:52:32+00:00

This review made me depressed. It sounds so fun. But I have no board game buddies nor the time nor the space to expand my already too big collection and play. :/ I hope one day to get this game or find a gmer that does have it and get active in it; I'm a Euro Geek.

PS - In the middle, you say "Jim outbid me". Which Jim is this? the English or the Spanish one? xP

Thread: Re: Struggle of Empires -- Session Report

wytefang — 2008-10-23T02:33:35+00:00

Thanks for the session report, I've heard good things about this game and I'm hoping to acquire it someday.

Thread: Re: Struggle of Empires -- Session Report

StyxParadox — 2008-10-22T23:33:22+00:00

Nice job Greg. I just got the game today through a trade. I am looking forward to a chance to play the game.

Thread: Struggle of Empires -- Session Report

gschloesser — 2008-10-22T20:28:26+00:00

When it became apparent that we would have six players for our game night, I began surveying the games in my collection that best accommodate six players. My eyes settled on Struggle of Empires, a game I adore, but haven’t played in quite some time. So, I re-read the rules at lunch in hopes that the group would be interested in playing. Much to my delight, they were!

I have a full review of the game on the Geek. If you want more detailed information about the game, please check it out.

Our assembled group of six players assumed the leadership of their countries:

Jim McDanold: Spain
Mark Sliwoski: France
Ryan Sliwoski: Holland
Kevin Bender: Russia
Jim Ferguson: England
Greg Schloesser: Prussia

With the presence of two “slavery” markers in the initial set-up, it was no surprise that three players opted to place ships off the coast of Africa, hoping to quickly place new control markers. Of course, they went quickly, as did the two population markers.

I concentrated my efforts in South America and East Indies, as well as a few countries in Europe. I ignored North America and the Caribbean for the entire game, and only later entered Africa. I managed to stay out of hostile wars for the first two turns, but my leader status entering the final turn cast a large target on me in the final war.

The leader board was very tight following the first war, with the top four players all within two points. Jim McDanold lagged far behind, and his deficit only continued to increase as the game progressed. Jim blamed this on his uncanny poor luck with the dice, and he commented more than once following a poor dice roll that this was the reason he tried to avoid games with dice.

Entering the final war, I held an eight point lead over my nearest competitor, Holland. I tried my best to insure that Prussia and Holland were on the same side in the impending war, but ultimately Jim outbid me, placing his nation at odds with Prussia. Fortunately, I made him pay dearly for this, and his lack of money ultimately cost him as he tied for second place with the most unrest, costing him four points at game’s end.

After a failed first attempt, England did succeed in ousting my Prussian forces from South America, but I did manage to offset this by grabbing second place in the Mediterranean, costing England valuable victory points. Russia made a strong run for supremacy by maneuvering into scoring position in several countries, but fell just short. Prussia reigned supreme!

Round-by-round scores:

Round 1: Russia 23, Holland 23, Prussia 22, England 21, France 17, Spain 11
Round 2: Prussia 47, England 39, Holland 38, Russia 35, France 35, Spain 22
Round 3: Prussia 65, Holland 59, Russia 57, France 55, England 51, Spain 35

Finals (after deductions for unrest): Prussia 61, Russia 57, Holland 55, France 48, England 47, Spain 35

Ratings: Greg 9, Mark 8, Jim Ferguson 8, Kevin 8, Ryan 7.5, Jim McDanold 4

Thread: Re: Banking Tile

Brave Sir Robin — 2008-10-13T03:28:09+00:00

ptd99uk wrote:

Also, if you are broke & want to initiate an attack (which costs 1 gold)

I believe the rules say that an attack costs 2 gold.

You're right. It's corrected now! I wrote this early Sunday morning, I should think carefully about quoting rules from memory in that state again.

Thread: Re: Banking Tile

punkzter — 2008-10-12T21:04:44+00:00

I pretty much figured this was the case. Thanks for the quick response!

Thread: Re: Banking Tile

ptd99uk — 2008-10-12T20:21:42+00:00

Also, if you are broke & want to initiate an attack (which costs 1 gold)

I believe the rules say that an attack costs 2 gold.

Thread: Re: Banking Tile

Brave Sir Robin — 2008-10-12T17:31:58+00:00

No. Banking only is relevant when you (the gov't) want to pay for something, and don't have the funds for it, i.e. deficit spending. If you bid 4 when determining alliance, (and have to pay), and you only have one gold, then under normal circumstance, you would simply keep the one gold and take two unrest, because of the rate 2 gold=1 unrest. With Banking, with the exchange of 3 gold=1 unrest, in the same circumstance, you'd pay your 1 gold & take 1 unrest.

Also, if you are broke & want to initiate an attack (which costs 2 gold) you would take 1 unrest, and 1 gold from the bank. It has nothing to do w/ other ways of getting unrest, like losing troops.

The tile just represents greater efficiency in moving debt around, so it is not felt so harshly on the 'landed gentry.' If it were around today, the US would need a truck load of Banking Tiles.

Thread: Banking Tile

punkzter — 2008-10-12T15:37:04+00:00

Does the banking tile give you 3 Gold when you take unrest for losing a military unit?

Image

offwater — 2008-10-10T09:43:54+00:00

box bottom

Thread: Re: SoE vs Conquest of the Empire

iamspamus — 2008-09-30T10:52:05+00:00

I have both and only play SOE.

Jason

Thread: Customized SoE - Wanted also to improve the look & feel of the tiles

ijonesfr — 2008-09-26T17:24:57+00:00

Hello Everybody,

I woudl like to have the document will helps me to print the cards like the photo inside the album named "Customized SoE - Wanted also to improve the look & feel of the tiles".

I don't know who post it, but it could be very nice if I can have the document to print my own cards

Thanks for your help,
Cheers,
Stef

Thread: Re: Anybody interested in online play via vassal

punkzter — 2008-09-19T00:04:46+00:00

To start up an old thread, I just got SoE and have not yet played. I would love to learn (I have read the rules) using Vassal if anyone would be willing to get a PbEm game going...or even a live game sometime.

Thread: Re: SoE vs Conquest of the Empire

Prince of Moskova — 2008-09-10T16:10:39+00:00

ronglass wrote:

I enlarged and laminated our SoE map as we almost always play with 7 and felt the map a bit undersized for good multi-player use. About 30" wide now and looks great on the table.

I need to do that!

SoE is the better of the two.

Thread: Re: Can you help out in the auction?

dkeisen — 2008-09-10T15:36:15+00:00

This is not only permitted, but a fundamental part of the game. It's what makes the auction so interesting.

Thread: Re: SoE vs Conquest of the Empire

ronglass — 2008-09-10T15:35:57+00:00

SoE by far. Though I have both and play both, some of the CoE mechanics are a bit weird as theres so much map that does so little.

I enlarged and laminated our SoE map as we almost always play with 7 and felt the map a bit undersized for good multi-player use. About 30" wide now and looks great on the table.

Ron

Thread: Re: Can you help out in the auction?

ronglass — 2008-09-10T15:31:46+00:00

We also allow it but only the bidding player can actually "pay". Its usually something like " I'll bid a 5 and pay 3 if you other guys on my team will toss in 1 each". Only once has a helping "teammate" changed his mind on contributing, and we simply looked at bidder and said he had to pay full amount or his bid failed. He and his other teammate forked up 1 extra each and totally abandoned the reneging player that war phase. No calls for allies were answered, at all.
Ron

Thread: Re: backing out of a declared attack

ronglass — 2008-09-10T15:26:03+00:00

Agree with other posts. Any pre-decision kibutzing is just that, but until cost is paid and attack declared, there can be NO attacker call for allies. If allies back out, fail to get the message in time, or simply don't understand what language its being asked in (all creative reasons for saying "Que? No spreken ze English"), or if suddenly defender allies show up when defender calls for allies, attack must still be made.
Ron

Thread: Re: Where I can buy?

rsolow — 2008-09-10T05:50:03+00:00

Renato99 wrote:
Does anyone know if some on line store has it in stock?

CLS Games (BGG User RSOLOW) has it posted for sale in the BGG marketplace along with an extensive collecton of Martin Wallace's other titles:

Liberté
Brass
Tinners' Trail
Toledo
Perikles
Conquest of the Empire
Railroad Tycoon

Renato99 wrote:
PS: any news from a new print?

FRED Distribution has the publising rights to the game, but after speaking early today with their operations manager, Keith "Snarky" Blume, we can tell you that a reprint will definitely not happen this year. 2009 is a possibility, but FRED Distribution has so many great titles lined up for next year, that it might end up being 2010 before we see another printing of it.

Image

melee — 2008-08-22T09:48:36+00:00

Mazurkon III, Poland

Image

BudFox — 2008-08-19T01:29:40+00:00

SOE Championship Game at Gen Con Indy 2008 - Trophy with the game in the background

Image

BudFox — 2008-08-19T00:08:44+00:00

Gen Con Indy 2008 Struggle of Empires Champion

Thread: Re: backing out of a declared attack

VonRoo — 2008-08-18T20:26:00+00:00

Yes we often will banter about "will you help? or won't you?" before the Attack is declared. Declaring the attack is simply stating your intent and then handing in the money.
We're pretty cut throat though.
~VR

Image

Wim Goezinnen — 2008-08-15T14:44:53+00:00

Image

Wim Goezinnen — 2008-08-15T14:40:30+00:00

Thread: Re: Where I can buy?

rgmnetid — 2008-07-29T00:49:51+00:00

BGG Marketplace?

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geekstore.php3?action=viewitem&...

Thread: Re: Where I can buy?

DocStryder — 2008-07-29T00:19:28+00:00

Check here at Boardgameprices.com

http://www.boardgameprices.com/game.aspx?id=101390

Thread: Where I can buy?

Renato99 — 2008-07-29T00:12:10+00:00

Does anyone know if some on line store has it in stock?

Thanks

PS: any news from a new print?

Thread: First real game

Vidarrr — 2008-07-22T11:35:10+00:00

The story of this game starts a while ago when I was visiting my friend J, and he said "You know, I don't really own any games, we always play someone elses games". So, we went to the local game store, decided on Struggle and played a 2-person game that we quickly deviced some interesting 2-player rules to (two nations each, add the VP:s together at game end, add a neutral country just to be able to mess up the alliance structure).

That was some months ago and now we had gathered the usual bunch ++ to play the game for real. One of our regulars was just back from Greece and used that as an excuse not to play. His loss. Players were:

Me, V. Likely the most fanatic gamer in the bunchand the only one AFAIK hanging out at BGG. Playing time has dropped considerably though since moving out of town and getting a kid (second on the way too). I played Holland.

My brother, A1. Kindly opened his home. At three years younger, he has had to suffer a lot in games with me. Has travelled with and without me to a lot of conventions. He played Russia.

My sister A2 At ten years younger, she wasn't allowed to play games with us for a long time. Now she is. She played Austria.

My brothers girlfriend and co-host of the game, T. She claims almost always losing against my brother when they play, but I had never played with her before. She played Britain.

Our long time friends O and J. I have known J since I was 7 and O since I was 17. They are both difficult opponents. O played France, J played Spain.

In the first war, the spanish alliance was born (Spain, Holland, Austria) and fought the rest. Holland started with a two tokens in Central Europe and one in the Baltic so I decided to go hard in Europe and built "Fortress Warsaw" to defend, and armies in Baltic to attack. This went well and I dominated Both Baltic and central Europe and got stray points elsewhere. I also managed to buy two army training tiles which was very useful. In other news, France was leading on points, but spread thin. Britain dominated the Carribean and was strong in North America and the Med too. Austria went for Germany but lost elsewhere. Spain bought diplomatic service and allied with Portugal to dominate East Indies and have footholds in lots of places.

Second war. Same alliances as in the war. I cleared Baltic and Central Europe totally from other players but got kicked out of South America by France who made that his power base. Britain overran southern Europe and looked like my main contender. Russia tried to break into the Baltic, but the brave defenders beat signinficant odds and he didn't get even a toehold. I also pushed my armies into Germany and became the second largest power there after Austria. After two wars I was leading a few points ahead of Britain, who had a reasonable distance to France in third.

Third war and alliances finally shift. England France keeps their gamelong alliance (making it hard for anyone else to break into North America btw) but as the third wheel, Holland appears. This is a good setup for me as I can enslave my way into Englands carribean holdings and she can'tkick me out. Same things happen and I enslave my way into Fances South America. I think both Britain and France should have tried to enslave too. Both to get some points and to stop me. Spain does fight me and kicks me out of Africa and reduces me to second place in Germany, Russia, with swedish help finally gets into the Baltic but the undefended tokens in Estonia win some battles at staggering odds so he only goes to draw the top spot there. It's too little too late. I win, with Britain in a secure second place. Austria makes a high-odds attack on France in the med as a last play. It works, and the failed counterattack by France (who has crashed and burned and gotten high unrest and thus being forced into government reforms), makes sure Austria claims 5th place, just ahead of France. There was much rejoicing.

The world after the wars:

Holland. Sole masters of central Europe and southern Baltic, and some of east Germany I envision a sort of Polish/Ukrainian/Lithuanian kingdom around fortress Warsaw with dutch advisors... Also strong presence in the carribean.

Russia. Estonia and Latvia became part of the empire as well as all of India. + Alaska

Britain. Canada, Strong in Carribean. All of Italy allied with England and they have most of the Ottoman as well.

France. South America. Period.

Austria. Most of Germany (+ Corsica)

Spain. East indies, some of southwestern Germany, a sprinkle here and there in the americas.

I wonder how the napoleon wars would have worked out with this setup???

Great fun was had by all, and everybody wanted to play again. The game took roughly 5 hours including rules explanation.

Thread: Re: Problem with 'spoiler' players

t0dd — 2008-07-08T17:46:28+00:00

Mondoron wrote:
according to the rules, a player's nation is out of the game as soon as you hit 20 unrest

I don't think this is correct. I believe the rules only say to check unrest at the end of the game. Where in the rules do you see otherwise?

Thread: Re: An abbreviated learning game of SoE (7 players)

Jagerfox — 2008-06-26T19:40:50+00:00

wolfpack95 wrote:
Jagerfox wrote:
kilroy_locke wrote:
[Looks like somebody's been reading about strategy...

Always! I see you are a fellow reader too!...

Alton,
Ah...now I get what you were talking about, eg. Boom, Rush, Turtle, etc.

Your application of those terms were incorrect.
I did not "Rush" in the first war. I had the third lowest unrest total by the end of our game. According to the strategy article that you read, a "rusher" amasses VPs at the expense of unrest. THAT did not happen. Nearly all of my unrest came from taking Industry tiles, not from war or borrowing money.

I tend to agree with your describing my play as "turtling" (according to the article), except I play the entire game as a "turtler".
How many battles did I fight during our game?
Four. You fought three times as many battles as I did, Alton.

You played (and play) a "Boom" strategy throughout the game. The problem with that strategy is that it is a square peg in a round hole when you have players like myself, John and Chris N. You put yourself so far into the hole with the VP leaders that you can't overcome the VP deficit in the last war. I watched this repeatedly with some of my AP students. They are conditioned by war games (and perhaps U.S. history) to amass troops for the "big push". They could never catch me.

Just remember the turtle's mantra: "Slow and steady wins the race".
...And I have.
(More egging on for the next game )

Well I'm glad to see you finally got your head out of your shell my Turtle type friend... I'm looking forward to our next FULL game of SoE and by the way I'm bringing my recipe for Turtle soup... Hmmm Hmmm Good! Remember to bring some saltines...

Thread: Re: An abbreviated learning game of SoE (7 players)

wolfpack95 — 2008-06-26T15:18:18+00:00

Jagerfox wrote:
kilroy_locke wrote:
[Looks like somebody's been reading about strategy...

Always! I see you are a fellow reader too!...

Alton,
Ah...now I get what you were talking about, eg. Boom, Rush, Turtle, etc.

Your application of those terms were incorrect.
I did not "Rush" in the first war. I had the third lowest unrest total by the end of our game. According to the strategy article that you read, a "rusher" amasses VPs at the expense of unrest. THAT did not happen. Nearly all of my unrest came from taking Industry tiles, not from war or borrowing money.

I tend to agree with your describing my play as "turtling" (according to the article), except I play the entire game as a "turtler".
How many battles did I fight during our game?
Four. You fought three times as many battles as I did, Alton.

You played (and play) a "Boom" strategy throughout the game. The problem with that strategy is that it is a square peg in a round hole when you have players like myself, John and Chris N. You put yourself so far into the hole with the VP leaders that you can't overcome the VP deficit in the last war. I watched this repeatedly with some of my AP students. They are conditioned by war games (and perhaps U.S. history) to amass troops for the "big push". They could never catch me.

Just remember the turtle's mantra: "Slow and steady wins the race".
...And I have.
(More egging on for the next game )

Thread: Re: An abbreviated learning game of SoE (7 players)

Jagerfox — 2008-06-26T12:50:05+00:00

kilroy_locke wrote:
[Looks like somebody's been reading about strategy...

Always! I see you are a fellow reader too!...

Thread: Re: An abbreviated learning game of SoE (7 players)

kilroy_locke — 2008-06-26T12:45:23+00:00

Jagerfox wrote:
Oh! Please… It would have been a different game had there been three wars. Britt did a typical Rush Strategy in the first war and jumped to a 24-point lead. In the second war he took on the turtle strategy, which cut his lead by half to the second place player (Alton) at the end of the second war. If one takes away the nine VP that were earned by the Industry tile (which Britt had taken all three) that lead would have been just four VP. Had there been a third war the Rush strategy of Britt would have slow to a stop having no Boom army or Industry tiles left to take. The Boom Strategy of Alton (which needs three wars to work) would have cut Britt’s control markers down and left him scoring much less VP in the end game… and the winner would have been… who knows. But I would have loved to see that game played to the end. From now on the first question I’m going to ask all SoE players is will you be able to play the game to the end…
Looks like somebody's been reading about strategy...

Thread: Re: An abbreviated learning game of SoE (7 players)

wolfpack95 — 2008-06-26T04:17:40+00:00

Jagerfox wrote:

"If we had played a 3rd war, you would never have caught up to me, especially if we were on the same side." You are both right and wrong... right I would not have caught you... I would have passed you and wrong we would not have been on the same side. But in the end I guess we will truly never know... will we.

Now this is what makes gaming with friends so much fun!

Prepare for a Victory Point beatdown...unless Chris N. sticks it to us first.

Next Tues cant get here quick enough...after we play our next game of TI on Sat.

Thread: Re: An abbreviated learning game of SoE (7 players)

Jagerfox — 2008-06-25T20:38:22+00:00

wolfpack95 wrote:
Jagerfox wrote:
Oh! Please… It would have been a different game had there been three wars. Britt did a typical Rush Strategy in the first war and jumped to a 24-point lead. In the second war he took on the turtle strategy, which cut his lead by half to the second place player (Alton) at the end of the second war. If one takes away the nine VP that were earned by the Industry tile (which Britt had taken all three) that lead would have been just four VP. Had there been a third war the Rush strategy of Britt would have slow to a stop having no Boom army or Industry tiles left to take. The Boom Strategy of Alton (which needs three wars to work) would have cut Britt’s control markers down and left him scoring much less VP in the end game… and the winner would have been… who knows. But I would have loved to see that game played to the end. From now on the first question I’m going to ask all SoE players is will you be able to play the game to the end…

Good write up on the game session, but don’t judge ones strategy in a short game if it doesn’t have a chance to bloom or in this case BOOM… Regardless it was a Good Win Britt. I'm looking forward to the next game... Hmmmmmm...

Alton,
You've played the same strategy in every session of SoE, and it does not work. It did not work for France during the reigns of Louis XIII and Louis XIV (around whose reigns this game spans), and it does not work in SoE.
You concentrate on building a gigantic army that sucks time and money from the real focus of the game, victory points. Good luck in the next game with the same strategy. If you keep nailing that square peg into the round hole, I am sure that it will fit eventually.

If we had played a 3rd war, you would never have caught up to me, especially if we were on the same side. My lead dropped in the second war, not because of "turtling", but due to my picking and choosing my battles carefully. Meanwhile, you spent round after round shipping 2 armies from South America to the Continent. Maybe by the third war, your slug-like behemoth would have gotten there. I lost one (!!!) unit all game, yet mustered 54 points in two wars with only five military units. Discount the Industry tiles if you wish, but they are part of the game and essential to victory. There is a reason why Great Britain created one of the world's greatest empires, (without the world's strongest military---but leading the Industrial Revolution).

Any way, I always look forward to the next game. I've given you plenty of fodder to stick it to me in the next game and let Chris N. win the game!!!

I throw my glove at your face you slimy limey… and I’m glad you have had such success playing with the AP kiddies… However of the four games we/I have played the first was a learning game (So really what strategy did any of us have?) for all us. The second and fourth were cut short (There goes late game strategies)… and the third was really a great game between Chris, you and I, which btw you won. So yes I’m looking forward to the next full game of SoE at game-night and to see just how both of our strategies play out on the board… it should be a good game… as long as there is no King-making going on… and as far as this comment goes...

"If we had played a 3rd war, you would never have caught up to me, especially if we were on the same side." You are both right and wrong... right I would not have caught you... I would have passed you and wrong we would not have been on the same side. But in the end I guess we will truly never know... will we.

Thread: Re: An abbreviated learning game of SoE (7 players)

wolfpack95 — 2008-06-25T15:13:17+00:00

Jagerfox wrote:
wolfpack95 wrote:
Despite being an abbreviated game, I achieved my sixth straight SoE win.
So I guess my question is: have you been gaming around on me?... and here I thought we were best gaming buddies...

Hey, what are you? My wife?!?
You do remember that I sponsor a Games Club for my high school students?
Add three SoE games played there.

BTW SoE is a great teaching tool in the classroom. Most of my game clubbers came from my AP Euro class, where I used games, like SoE, to help simulate different parts of history.

Thread: Re: An abbreviated learning game of SoE (7 players)

wolfpack95 — 2008-06-25T05:20:31+00:00

Jagerfox wrote:
Oh! Please… It would have been a different game had there been three wars. Britt did a typical Rush Strategy in the first war and jumped to a 24-point lead. In the second war he took on the turtle strategy, which cut his lead by half to the second place player (Alton) at the end of the second war. If one takes away the nine VP that were earned by the Industry tile (which Britt had taken all three) that lead would have been just four VP. Had there been a third war the Rush strategy of Britt would have slow to a stop having no Boom army or Industry tiles left to take. The Boom Strategy of Alton (which needs three wars to work) would have cut Britt’s control markers down and left him scoring much less VP in the end game… and the winner would have been… who knows. But I would have loved to see that game played to the end. From now on the first question I’m going to ask all SoE players is will you be able to play the game to the end…

Good write up on the game session, but don’t judge ones strategy in a short game if it doesn’t have a chance to bloom or in this case BOOM… Regardless it was a Good Win Britt. I'm looking forward to the next game... Hmmmmmm...

Alton,
You've played the same strategy in every session of SoE, and it does not work. It did not work for France during the reigns of Louis XIII and Louis XIV (around whose reigns this game spans), and it does not work in SoE.
You concentrate on building a gigantic army that sucks time and money from the real focus of the game, victory points. Good luck in the next game with the same strategy. If you keep nailing that square peg into the round hole, I am sure that it will fit eventually.

If we had played a 3rd war, you would never have caught up to me, especially if we were on the same side. My lead dropped in the second war, not because of "turtling", but due to my picking and choosing my battles carefully. Meanwhile, you spent round after round shipping 2 armies from South America to the Continent. Maybe by the third war, your slug-like behemoth would have gotten there. I lost one (!!!) unit all game, yet mustered 54 points in two wars with only five military units. Discount the Industry tiles if you wish, but they are part of the game and essential to victory. There is a reason why Great Britain created one of the world's greatest empires, (without the world's strongest military---but leading the Industrial Revolution).

Any way, I always look forward to the next game. I've given you plenty of fodder to stick it to me in the next game and let Chris N. win the game!!!

Thread: Re: An abbreviated learning game of SoE (7 players)

Jagerfox — 2008-06-24T16:37:10+00:00

wolfpack95 wrote:
Despite being an abbreviated game, I achieved my sixth straight SoE win.

Hey! I was interested in knowing about your previous SoE victories... The last one I remember playing you in was in July 2007, which was the only win you had of the three games we have played together in, Chris N. won one and John B. was winning the other when we had to quit playing early… I hate not playing to the end.

So I guess my question is: have you been gaming around on me?... and here I thought we were best gaming buddies...

Seriously I look forward to the next game... let me know. Let's play!

Thread: Re: An abbreviated learning game of SoE (7 players)

Jagerfox — 2008-06-24T14:04:32+00:00

Oh! Please… It would have been a different game had there been three wars. Britt did a typical Rush Strategy in the first war and jumped to a 24-point lead. In the second war he took on the turtle strategy, which cut his lead by half to the second place player (Alton) at the end of the second war. If one takes away the nine VP that were earned by the Industry tile (which Britt had taken all three) that lead would have been just four VP. Had there been a third war the Rush strategy of Britt would have slow to a stop having no Boom army or Industry tiles left to take. The Boom Strategy of Alton (which needs three wars to work) would have cut Britt’s control markers down and left him scoring much less VP in the end game… and the winner would have been… who knows. But I would have loved to see that game played to the end. From now on the first question I’m going to ask all SoE players is will you be able to play the game to the end…

Good write up on the game session, but don’t judge ones strategy in a short game if it doesn’t have a chance to bloom or in this case BOOM… Regardless it was a Good Win Britt. I'm looking forward to the next game... Hmmmmmm...

Thread: Re: An abbreviated learning game of SoE (7 players)

kilroy_locke — 2008-06-24T13:54:51+00:00

Great report, Britt! I hate that I couldn't make it.

The last game I played ended early as well (just after the start of the 3rd war). We had played for 4 and a half hours (with the last alliance bidding phase taking about 30 minutes alone), and had to quit when the room we were playing in at MACE closed up. I won that game as well using your "low profile" strategy (people looked at me like I was crazy when I took the Industry tiles).

The strategy is really strong, but I still don't see how people haven't caught on enough to disrupt you early sometime in the last 7 freaking games! Its weakness appears to be that you really have to fly under the radar early, because if others decided to make a concentrated effort to attack you, then you're pretty screwed. I guess no one has caught on to that yet, though...

Thread: Re: An abbreviated learning game of SoE (7 players)

Vyolynce — 2008-06-24T12:35:14+00:00

wolfpack95 wrote:
Desiderata wrote:
wolfpack95 wrote:
Chris probably would have preferred less die rolling, though. Josh did, too.

If he lost all his battles, then it makes me wonder what kind of odds he was using in his attacks. I try not to attack until I have at least a +2 combat strength than my enemy. I've seen some players attack when the odds are 50/50, which to me is a gamble.

Edit: I think the combat mechanics of the game make the randomness of die results less frustrating.

Chris's initial attacks were +1 or +2 against Jen's British. Towards the end of the game, Chris made attacks with equal numbers or at one less strength. Frustration may have gotten the better of him towards the end.

Plus on at least one occasion I mistook my Fort token for an Army token. D'oh! By that point however I knew I was toast, so I was just screwing around. Even though many of my rolls came up doubles or 1-difference, I don't think it was the randomness that did me in. It certainly didn't help, though. :P

In my mind, I was really taken out of the game early by an oversight in the rules explanation: I'm fairly certain that maintenance was never mentioned until the end of the first war rolled around, and I wound up losing all of my gold -- which of course just led to more unrest down the road. Had I known about that ahead of time I would have planned things much differently.

Thread: Re: An abbreviated learning game of SoE (7 players)

mejustjustin — 2008-06-20T12:22:27+00:00

but despite the numerical advantage, Russia lost the battle,

Sounds like history to me

Nice report. I would like to have seen some extra reminders, as I was constantly scrolling up to see "Which country was Chris again"?

But good session report.

Thread: Re: backing out of a declared attack

kracken — 2008-06-20T03:40:29+00:00

talrich wrote:
SoE Rules on attacks wrote:
Players can discuss before an attack is declared whether they are willing to co operate but no deal made is binding.

Agreed. But if the player was only discussing an attack, asked for help from his ally, was refused, and all done before the attack was declared (i.e. still in discussion), then he would be able to make another action instead.

Thread: Re: An abbreviated learning game of SoE (7 players)

wolfpack95 — 2008-06-19T17:08:29+00:00

Desiderata wrote:
wolfpack95 wrote:
Chris probably would have preferred less die rolling, though. Josh did, too.

If he lost all his battles, then it makes me wonder what kind of odds he was using in his attacks. I try not to attack until I have at least a +2 combat strength than my enemy. I've seen some players attack when the odds are 50/50, which to me is a gamble.

Edit: I think the combat mechanics of the game make the randomness of die results less frustrating.

Chris's initial attacks were +1 or +2 against Jen's British. Towards the end of the game, Chris made attacks with equal numbers or at one less strength. Frustration may have gotten the better of him towards the end.

I follow the same strategy that you do and try to attack with +2 or better.

There was one battle during the game where Kat's Autrians were +3 against Alton's undefended control marker in the Ottoman Empire. IIRC Kat tied Alton, and she rolled a 7---two casualties and no win either!
We had a lot of 7's rolled in last night's game.

Thread: Re: An abbreviated learning game of SoE (7 players)

Desiderata — 2008-06-19T16:50:02+00:00

wolfpack95 wrote:
Chris probably would have preferred less die rolling, though. Josh did, too.

If he lost all his battles, then it makes me wonder what kind of odds he was using in his attacks. I try not to attack until I have at least a +2 combat strength than my enemy. I've seen some players attack when the odds are 50/50, which to me is a gamble.

Edit: I think the combat mechanics of the game make the randomness of die results less frustrating.

Thread: An abbreviated learning game of SoE (7 players)

wolfpack95 — 2008-06-19T15:54:42+00:00

The summer is great if one is a teacher because of the additional free time, and last night I had the opportunity to play boardgames for a second consecutive night at my FLGS, Hypermind! in Burlington, NC. After playing (and losing again) Race for the Galaxy, several players arrived, and we pulled out Struggle of Empires. Alton and I had played before, but it had been several months since our last games. Chris I., Chris' wife Kat, Jen, Josh and Bruce had never played. I passed around cheat sheets that I had made for my AP European History classes. (I use SoE as a teaching simulation for the periods between the Wars for Austrian and Spanish Succession and the Seven Years War.) Alton gave a quick tutorial, and we got started.

We randomly picked our nation states. Alton was France, Kat was Austria, Chris was Russia, Jen was Great Britain, Bruce was Prussia, Josh was Spain and I was the Netherlands. After placing our initial counters, Alton had a strong concentration in South America. I had majority influence in North America and the German states. Josh was strong in India. Jen was focused in the Baltic. Bruce was concentrated in the Mediterranean states. Kat was strong in the Caribbean, and Chris was strongest in Central Europe. We placed our starting forces and bid for our turn order and alliances. I started the bidding after rolling to see who was the 1st player. I promptly put my Dutch in the first spot in Alliance A. After brief wrangling and bid increasing, I won that spot for 4 gold. The rest of the bidding yielded the following alliances for War 1: Netherlands, Spain, Russia vs. France, Austria, Britain and Prussia.

I opened by taking Banking and turning the Pop chit in N. American into a Dutch influence marker. Alton (France) consolidated his hold on S. America by enslaving the local population, and he took Mercenaries. Austria (Kat) vacated India before Spain (Josh) began attacking the neutral indigenes and her influence marker. Great Britain (Jen) began building armies and navies, and Prussia (Bruce) consolidated in the Mediterranean by building new forces there and attacking the locals. Russia (Chris) explored his options in Central Europe. Our newbies were tentative in the first round, but quickly got the hang of things by round 2.

In round 2, I took Industry to jump up 3 VPs and attacked Jen's control marker in the East Indies. Alton began building up his armed forces (like always) in South America, while adding more control markers. Alton was clearly establishing a base from which to project French power (but this would cost him later). Kat also focused her forces in the Caribbean, while Chris attacked Jen in Central Europe. I supported my ally, but despite the numerical advantage, Russia lost the battle, and I took my only casualty of the game. (I quickly learned not to aid Chris in battle. He lost EVERY battle throughout the game!) Josh sent more soldiers into India, and Bruce strengthened his position in the Mediterranean.

The last game rounds of War 1 were similar to the first two rounds. Chris continued to beat his head against the Central European wall, losing battle after battle against Jen's outnumbered British, collecting lots of unrest along the way. Josh unsuccessfully battled against Jen and Bruce. Jen failed to knock out the pesky Baltic defenders, while building up her naval and land forces. I replaced my only casualty and added Logistics and Army Training. Jen and Alton had taken numerous Army Training tiles. So I was worried about future fighting with them. Thankfully, that never happened. Alton was master of S. America, but not much else. Kat focused on her rum supply in the Caribbean, and Bruce continued to eat olives in the Mediterranean.

At the end of the first war, I led with 24 VPs. Alton was second, and our newbies were tightly bunched between 10 - 15 VPs. Jen began the bidding in War 2. After receiving our income and paying our maintenance, several players grumbled about their growing stacks of unrest. Apparently, building armies was fun, but paying for them is not. My whopping (sarcasm alert!) five military units did not draw attention to the Dutch nor cost me much money, but with Logistics, it became very effective in rapidly responding to any threats.

I was less concerned about turn order during War 2, but I wanted to make sure that Alton and I were on the same alliance. With his bloated armies in S. America, it was only a matter of time before he exported them to the German states to contest my superiority there. Things worked out in my favor. Alton and I became allies in War 2. Here was the breakdown by side in War 2: France, Netherlands, Spain and Russia vs. Britain, Prussia and Austria.

Josh tried to invade the Caribbean several times, but failed each time. Having a stranglehold in the Caribbean, Kat turned her attention towards the Ottoman Empire. I encouraged her to attack the undefended French control markers over the local Turk forces. She did so and failed time and again. At the least, this ensured that Kat's unrest kept growing, even if it did not reduce Alton's point standing. Chris continued hammering away at the British in Central Europe...losing over and over. Nearly all of Chris's unrest game from battlefield casualties. Bruce continued building his forces and did try to eliminate the pesky Baltic neutrals. Like Jen's several attempts, Bruce was defeated. Bruce did successfully attack one of the German states' locals, tying me for control markers there. Alton also followed through with his expected invasion of the German states. Without the ability to attack Netherlands because of our alliance, he attacked the German locals. Alton added two more control markers there during War 2 and took the lead in the German states. Alton exclaimed at one point that he was going to attack me next, but Chris reminded him that France and Netherlands were allied. What a shame (another sarcasm alert).

I was not willing to risk losing my soldiers. So I avoided conflict in the German states with the 3 and 4 strength chits. I sent soldiers into Africa and knocked out the 1 chit. This tied me with Alton and Josh in Africa. I lost my superior standing in Germany, but I replaced it with Africa, and I used my fleet in Africa to enslave N. Americans. Later I took the final two Industry tiles, adding 6 more VPs. Before the end of the war, I swept into the Baltic and eliminated the neutrals, which had been holding out since the first war.

Unfortunately, we had to end the game after War 2 because Jen had to leave. Because it was getting late, we decided to count up our final tally of VPs. After two wars, I had 54 VPs to win the game. Alton had 41 VPs. Jen had 35. Josh had 30. Bruce had 29. Kat edged Chris by 1 VP. Chris lost 7 VPs because he had the most unrest, 14. Bruce lost 4 VPs with 11 unrest.

Despite being an abbreviated game, I achieved my sixth straight SoE win. In each victory, I have played a small mobile force, using the alliances in my favor by keeping close competitors on the same side during the latter wars. No territory is sacred, and what may be lost in one place can be regained elsewhere. Also, I take advantage of the Industry tiles whenever I can grab them. I also limit the number of battles that I fight, trying to avoid battles where I have equal or slightly better numbers.

In every victory, my opponents root themselves to one territory for at least one or two wars, while building gigantic armies. No one worries about the guy with three armies, one fort and one fleet, but plenty of people worry about the player with eight or more armies and multiple fleets. The big army build strategies of Alton, Bruce, Jen, Josh and Kat cost them money, time and created conflict. Alton has used this strategy before, and he seems to think that he could overcome my double digit lead if we had played War 3, but it yielded the same results as previous games. My students have also used big army build strategies, and they have been defeated by the more nimble, less militarily powerful countries---which coincides with the history of the period.

Overall, SoE is a great game that I enjoy playing every time. Kat and Chris seemed to enjoy their first game of SoE. Chris probably would have preferred less die rolling, though. Josh did, too. Bruce expressed dislike that politics clouds the military conflict in the game. (Bruce had an unfortunate experience in my class game of Diplomacy---his Austria-Hungary was wiped from the map.) Alton suggested that SoE be played at least once per month, and I heartily agree!

Thread: Re: SoE vs Conquest of the Empire

wolfpack95 — 2008-06-19T14:30:44+00:00

CotE is a fine game, made better by the Wallace-inspired second rules...
BUT SoE is a much better game.

The gameplay in CotE can seem ponderous, while SoE moves quickly and fluidly. For example, a 7-player SoE usually lasts about 3 hours, while a full game of CotE can last nearly 6.

Personally (and you obviously tell this already), I much prefer SoE over CotE.

Thread: Re: backing out of a declared attack

talrich — 2008-06-19T13:09:25+00:00

SoE Rules on attacks wrote:
The attacking player asks for allies, then the defending player. Players ask for allies after the attack has been declared and paid for but before dice are rolled. Players can discuss before an attack is declared whether they are willing to co operate but no deal made is binding.
If he hasn't paid and declared, he can't place a binding call for allies (or have allies firmly against him). If he has paid and declared, then he has to go through with the attack.

I would also suggest that changing the location of the attack action is equally invalid since selecting the area is part of the attack declaration.

No backing out.

-Greg

Thread: backing out of a declared attack

Desiderata — 2008-06-19T07:09:26+00:00

We had a situation in our latest game where a player declared an attack, but then backed out after an ally agreed to help the defender. The player then cancelled the attack and did a different action, without making the original attack.

I argued that this doesn't seem right, but I couldn't back up my claim in the rules. I'm fairly certain that this is incorrect, but I didn't press it.

Can anyone point me to a reference in the rules or the FAQ that would support either position?

Thanks.