I dont want to pay a fortune for this oldie but I wanna PBEM it. Anyone here has it, with a CB module for it and knowledge of the game and willing to organize a game? It would be awesome
:mmm:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/download/2h7qwzz2k9/PaxBrit.zip
?
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2009, 04:21:38 AM
I dont want to pay a fortune for this oldie
You will.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 11, 2009, 05:48:09 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2009, 04:21:38 AM
I dont want to pay a fortune for this oldie
You will.
I meant that I will not buy it. Period. I own games I have chance to play f2f when I retire. Like Bitter End. PB is not one of those games.
But it just screams for RPGish Languish play. It could be a classic.
Oooo! I had Pax back in the day. Freaking weird triangle pieces.
Never even seen it but would probably play.
I own it--actually bought it for something like $20, in shrink, from a store that had various, old games marked down.
The game is a bit imbalanced in Britain's favor, from what I hear, and there's a decent amount of bookkeeping to be done...
Quote from: Habbaku on June 11, 2009, 10:20:01 AM
The game is a bit imbalanced in Britain's favor, from what I hear, and there's a decent amount of bookkeeping to be done...
I am happy you volunteer for the task! ^_^
:P
Much like Napoleonic Wars and France there has to be pressure on Britain or else they run away with it. Only played once though.
Okay so BGG appears to have everything needed, we would still need to read the rules and stuff of course. My biggest problem right now is that the cyberboard is just freakishly fucking fugly. A better version should be found, but in the meantime, can we muster seven players?
I
II, but I need to read the rules.
*needless to say if Jaron or FB play, I won't.
Quote from: Viking on June 11, 2009, 11:55:55 AM
II, but I need to read the rules.
III, but I need to read the rules.
Speaking of which, anyone got a link to the preferred rules version?
BGG has it. But I am still having doubts a bunch of noobs like us could handle the game with the CB module. Don't tell me none of the grognards here have a proper module! :mad:
And what about grumbler he ran the Twilight Struggle PBEM games he should have this game nailed.
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2009, 01:09:42 PM
And what about grumbler he ran the Twilight Struggle PBEM games he should have this game nailed.
I didn't care much for this game when it came out, but mine was certainly not an opinion that was widely shared (it won the CR award at Origins that year).
And it was
Thunder at Twilight. :P
But, yeah, I am interested in even a reasonably bad game of the era, so count me in.
I make it grumbler: IV and me: V.
oh lol yes thunder at twilight :Embarrass:
If you are going to play Pax Britannica remember this, because it is vital: if the game ends in the first turn, or the second, or probably the third too, Queen Vicky wins, and wins big, because she starts with a massive VP advantage; even if Britain is guilty of starting the Great War and has to pay the penalty for it, Vicky will still win... the name of the early game is 'don't give the Brits the slightest excuse, they will use it'.
Personally I like the game, own a copy, and have played it f2f many times, but even so I have to admit some things just don't make any sense...
I've never played it (who has?), but for some reasons I have two copies of the board game.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 11, 2009, 04:34:16 PM
I've never played it (who has?), but for some reasons I have two copies of the board game.
You wanna share?
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2009, 10:28:03 AM
I am happy you volunteer for the task! ^_^
Those signed up thus far are the sorts I enjoy playing with. I've never played before, but my hard copy should make it significantly easier to keep up with the paperwork, all the same.
does that maek me : vI ?
Quote from: Viking on June 11, 2009, 05:08:37 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 11, 2009, 04:34:16 PM
I've never played it (who has?), but for some reasons I have two copies of the board game.
You wanna share?
Originally I was thinking about throwing away my extra copy, but then I remembered almost getting stoned to death on languish when I said I had thrown away my copy of
Fifth Frontier War.
You should never throw away any game, ever, because you may be able to get cash for it.
Except Kriegspiel.
The CB is ugly, but looks functional. And upside-down.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 11, 2009, 07:16:40 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 11, 2009, 05:08:37 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 11, 2009, 04:34:16 PM
I've never played it (who has?), but for some reasons I have two copies of the board game.
You wanna share?
Originally I was thinking about throwing away my extra copy, but then I remembered almost getting stoned to death on languish when I said I had thrown away my copy of Fifth Frontier War.
You WHAT!!?!?!?!?!
:ultra:
Okay, so I'm more of a Traveller nerd than a grognard, but still! :angry:
I threw away twilight struggle, paths of glory, War of the Ring, and Arkham Horror last week. :P
Quote from: Jaron on June 11, 2009, 11:22:47 PM
I threw away twilight struggle, paths of glory, War of the Ring, and Arkham Horror last week. :P
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi34.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd130%2FJasonvonEvil%2Fkhaaaan.jpg&hash=9c0242287828ce5ef8798242514c11caec210938)
You could have at least offered to give them away for shipping, you dick.*
*Not that I believe you anyway, but still.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 11, 2009, 05:45:27 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 11, 2009, 10:28:03 AM
I am happy you volunteer for the task! ^_^
Those signed up thus far are the sorts I enjoy playing with. I've never played before, but my hard copy should make it significantly easier to keep up with the paperwork, all the same.
does that maek me : vI ?
BGG has, among other tools, an excel spreadsheet which auto-calculates income and VP, you just need to set the owner and status of an area. So it should be fairly easy. I am reading the rules. It sucks that A-H is controlled by the German player, while USA is a separate player. But oh well. Since people are more motivated when they have their roles known, I say we should have random country assingment.
Players so far are:
me, Viking, Ulmont, Grumbler. Delirium, Habbaku
We need one more. For the interested, the playable countries are UK, France, Germany (plus A-H), Italy, Russia, Japan, USA
Quote from: Jaron on June 11, 2009, 11:22:47 PM
I threw away twilight struggle, paths of glory, War of the Ring, and Arkham Horror last week. :P
idiot
I count three guys who own the game but don't want to play it, that's slightly ominous.
Quote from: Delirium on June 12, 2009, 02:22:50 AM
I count three guys who own the game but don't want to play it, that's slightly ominous.
:lol:
it's not like you have an abundance of games about great power conflicts of 1880-1914, so I think we should give this one a try.
People should read these rules:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/24545 (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/24545)
I nominate Habs to be nominal GM.
I was just going to ask which rules we would use. As long as we use the same ones we should be okay. :P
Okay I read the rules, it does not include specific administration calculations, but those are present in habbaku's paper-based rulebook, and are supposedly handled automatically by the excel spreadsheet we will be using.
I am eager to decide who plays what so the 7th should apply asap!
Habs thought Berk might play, obviously not a 100% guarantee, but still.
You could randomize countries for the six of us and then number 7 will get what's left.
Oh my god, it's hideous.
I think we should just leave Italy to be last country of choice, in case we don't get a 7th.
For the lurkers: victory determination goes as follows: you get income from each area you have some degree of control in (from interest through influence and protectorate etc. to control), depending on that degree of control and the area itself. End of each turn, the amount of money you are left with is divided with your VP divider (depending on country), and you get the result as VP. So an Italy or Japan playing slow -in theory- should not get behind in the VP race while the big ones are scrambling to build and conquer stuff.
You also get bonus VPs for stuff like a north-south or west-east route accross Africa, and building the Panama Canal.
So, using the ACTS dice thrower, I will distribute the countries.
Order of players are:
Tamas, Viking, Ulmont, Grumbler. Delirium, Habbaku
Order of countries:
UK, France, Germany, USA, Russia, Japan, Italy (to be handed to 7th)
Since Habbaku may end up performing GM tasks, I think he should not get Great Britain, who are supposed to meddle basically everywhere, and start the game by already winning it. So he will be excluded from the first roll which is:
Request: 5-sided die x 1
1
Oh lol fuck no, I play the UK!
Second to go is France, Habbaku is in play of course:
Die roller results:
Request: 5-sided die x 1
4
Delirium is France!
Here comes Germany:
Die roller results:
Request: 4-sided die x 1
2
Ulmont is Germany!
Viking, Grumbler, and Habbaku are in race for USA:
Die roller results:
Request: 3-sided die x 1
1
Viking is USA!
So that leaves Grumbler and Habbaku for the roll on Russia...
Die roller results:
Request: 2-sided die x 1
2
Habbaku is Russia, which makes Grumbler Japan!
Summary:
UK: Tamas
France: Delirium
Germany: Ulmont
USA: Viking
Russia: Habbaku
Japan: Grumbler
Italy: ?
Would like to play some shit like that, but not only would I introduce a major n00b factor; all your online game threads have massively discouraged me from trying anything like that. :P
Quote from: Syt on June 12, 2009, 06:59:30 AM
Would like to play some shit like that, but not only would I introduce a major n00b factor; all your online game threads have massively discouraged me from trying anything like that. :P
In what way? :P The only one which crashed to the ground had Viking, Marty, Jaron and FB in it.
If Berkut refuses the Italy spot currently on reserve for him, you are welcome to join. :)
Quote from: Delirium on June 12, 2009, 04:20:03 AM
Oh my god, it's hideous.
The CB? Yes, but after you read the rules you realize its perfectly functional.
Well, if you want to have any chance of a strategical view of the map you need to use half scale, but then a lot of features are blurred or disappear altogether. :bleeding:
Coupled with what people are saying on the CSW forum (among them that France and Germany can't win and that the physical gameboard and pieces are subordinate to the real game which is negotiation) I'm very sceptical of this. At this point I'd say it's Habbaku's vouching for it that keeps me interested.
Edit: I see now that he never played. :pinchL
:lol: come on dude. It looks to be very much like HiS but with less rigid gameplay mechanics and more left to player interaction. I am not sure yet if it is good or bad, but coupled with the theme, which is the coolest possible, like, evah, it worth a try.
I can see *a lot* of problems related to a negotiation-based game, heavy on player interaction, when it's an interweb cast of 7 Languish players over different time-zones; and the game is pronounced broken and/or dead on CSW.
If you find a different player, take him instead, I'll need to ponder this for a while.
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2009, 02:57:41 AM
People should read these rules:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/24545 (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/24545)
And then these are the tables we should use, I guess (same author)? http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/24546
Quote from: ulmont on June 12, 2009, 08:35:29 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2009, 02:57:41 AM
People should read these rules:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/24545 (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/24545)
And then these are the tables we should use, I guess (same author)? http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/24546
Yeah.
And Del, the prevailing opinion I encountered is that the game is more suited for PBEM than F2F, something I can easily believe, seeing how it still has a PBEM community. Perhaps the naysayers were F2Fing it.
Great White Fleet anybody?
NEWSFLASH: I have found a 5MBs large CB box for this game! It lacks a scenario file, and I can't open it at work, but will report back. If we do start this game, it should not be hard to make a scenario file.
Well the gamebox is not that ugly, but ain't that special either. I say we go with the small fugly one.
So where is Berkut, and where can we start? Del, you wanna' play :P
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1513
I'd rather play that when the new edition comes out. ;)
I simply love Republic of Rome, but I find it to be very tedious in PBEM.
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2009, 01:12:55 PM
I simply love Republic of Rome, but I find it to be very tedious in PBEM.
I had a fun time playing RoR online...oh wait that never happened because someone dropped out but never said anything...
:D
Me? No way.
Okay so is this game dead before it even started?
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2009, 03:03:12 PM
Me? No way.
Okay so is this game dead before it even started?
No it wasn't you, but I left out the culprit so as to protect the guilty and to make you look bad. :hug:
Quote from: Barrister on June 11, 2009, 11:07:19 PM
Okay, so I'm more of a Traveller nerd than a grognard, but still! :angry:
FFW had one of the worst reps for single-player games going, because of the mechanics. I found that, with a few rules changes, and a set of die roll lookup tables, it was outstanding as a solo game, and it was always outstanding as a FTF game.
Few understood it, though, and so it ended up in a lot of trash heaps.
I wish someone would resurrect the entire series.
GRUMBLER ARE YOU STILL GAME?
Damn you guys don't let me put down the whip even for a moment.
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2009, 03:03:12 PM
Me? No way.
Okay so is this game dead before it even started?
I am still In Like Flynn.
Of course, I was nuts enough to do TaT, so that's a given.
I am giving serious thought to TaT4 if this doesn't work out. The summer looks boring right now, and we have FB as the perfect Serbia, and a delightful mix of people for the various parties in the majors.
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2009, 03:23:56 PM
GRUMBLER ARE YOU STILL GAME?
Damn you guys don't let me put down the whip even for a moment.
Whow! I just got home from my high school's graduation,and you are yelling at me? :lol:
As I said, I am game.
Quote from: grumbler on June 12, 2009, 03:29:10 PM
I am giving serious thought to TaT4 if this doesn't work out. The summer looks boring right now, and we have FB as the perfect Serbia, and a delightful mix of people for the various parties in the majors.
:mmm:
Indeed. Putting Jaron, FB, and Martinus in the Balkans could actually work out pretty historically. :D
Quote from: grumbler on June 12, 2009, 03:30:37 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2009, 03:23:56 PM
GRUMBLER ARE YOU STILL GAME?
Damn you guys don't let me put down the whip even for a moment.
Whow! I just got home from my high school's graduation,and you are yelling at me? :lol:
As I said, I am game.
It was more like in the general direction of all the players :P
Quote from: grumbler on June 12, 2009, 03:29:10 PM
I am still In Like Flynn.
I just used the same expression chatting with jaronious! :o
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2009, 03:31:14 PM
Indeed. Putting Jaron, FB, and Martinus in the Balkans could actually work out pretty historically. :D
Yep. They would agree for about 4 seconds, and then rip each others' lungs out.
Think of all the near-ideal conservatives, liberals, and socialists on the forum. Then you will understand why I think TaT could be a whole shitload of fun here.
Of course, the idea that Languishites would keep up with the game is the major turnoff. :(
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2009, 03:35:21 PM
I just used the same expression chatting with jaronious! :o
Well, we can just pretend I didn't say that, then! :D
Quote from: grumbler on June 12, 2009, 03:36:53 PM
Of course, the idea that Languishites would keep up with the game is the major turnoff. :(
I know. :(
TaT would work wonderfully with the Languish community, but people here have serious commitment issues.
What is TaT?
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2009, 03:43:45 PM
What is TaT?
Its a PBEM game about the same period like Pax Britannica, it was made by Grumbler, and is quite excellent. The only drawback that it needs like what, 16 players to make it really work, as the major powers have 3 political parties each (the players share roles, one is PM, other runs the military, third is foreign minister).
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2009, 03:43:45 PM
What is TaT?
Thunder at Twilight. It was a colonial/Victorian PBEM game I and some others ran back in the 1998 through 2000 (three different iterations) that was purely web/PBEM based. Excel spreadsheets for budgets, and that sort of thing.
Nominally 26 players, with 3 players (Conservative, Liberal, and Nationalist) per major country, with goals that were both competitive and cooperative, two players (Coneservative and nationalist) for the mid-powers, and single players for the minor powers.
Heavily driven towards goal-achievement, as opposed to national power achievement, and lots of rndom events to spice things up. Newspapers would be published, budgets passed, colonies established, wars fought, the whole shebang. It was suposed to be role-playing, and was.
I was amazed to find that Tamas had actually played in it, given the odds that a member of such a small group as the TaT players (and he was one of the key ones) would ever find themselves part of such a small community as this one.
Don't suppose you still have the rules (if there are such) lying around, grumbler? Or is it a purely role-played game?
I know I'm at least curious to find out more, from the basics you've given.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 12, 2009, 03:55:52 PM
Don't suppose you still have the rules (if there are such) lying around, grumbler? Or is it a purely role-played game?
I know I'm at least curious to find out more, from the basics you've given.
PM me an email address, and I will send you the rules. I would be thinking of you more as a GM than a player, if it came down to it.
The game is pretty GM-heavy. The last three iterations had 3 GMs for 26 players.
Oh sounds cool and very intense!
PM sent.
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2009, 03:41:15 PM
TaT would work wonderfully with the Languish community, but people here have serious commitment issues.
I've said this before, but I think you're underestimating the reliability of several people on here. My short-list of reliable players (IE, people that would not bail inexplicably) :
Habbaku (I count!)
Beeb
Martinus
Berkut
Tamas
Delirium
grumbler
Katmai
CountdeMoney (Just kidding)
garbon
Kleves
Ulmont
Ehrie
Viking
That's a fairly large list of players available, assuming the interest is there.
Thank god you didn't put my name on there.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 12, 2009, 05:01:51 PM
Thank god you didn't put my name on there.
Who are you again?
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2009, 03:07:21 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2009, 03:03:12 PM
Me? No way.
Okay so is this game dead before it even started?
No it wasn't you, but I left out the culprit so as to protect the guilty and to make you look bad. :hug:
:Embarrass:
Quote from: Habbaku on June 12, 2009, 04:29:15 PM
I've said this before, but I think you're underestimating the reliability of several people on here. My short-list of reliable players (IE, people that would not bail inexplicably) :
Habbaku (I count!)
Beeb
Martinus
Berkut
Tamas
Delirium
grumbler
Katmai
CountdeMoney (Just kidding)
garbon
Kleves
Ulmont
Ehrie
Viking
That's a fairly large list of players available, assuming the interest is there.
That is., alas, far short of what is needed. I could probably get ten or more players by advertising amongst those who have expressed interest in the last ten years, but they wouldn't be Languishites and the delta would be critical and not in the good sense.
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2009, 04:14:36 PM
Oh sounds cool and very intense!
It was very cool and very intense. Germany won every game but one, alas. Germany could win by avoiding a general war, and also by only allowing a general war she could win.
The problem with this persistent problem is that it was probably true. Basing games on history can be an issue for balance.
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2009, 04:29:06 AM
...which makes Grumbler Japan!
In case it has been forgotten, I am totally onboard with this. Even if there is no capital G in grumbler. :P
Quote from: Habbaku on June 12, 2009, 04:29:15 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2009, 03:41:15 PM
TaT would work wonderfully with the Languish community, but people here have serious commitment issues.
I've said this before, but I think you're underestimating the reliability of several people on here. My short-list of reliable players (IE, people that would not bail inexplicably) :
Habbaku (I count!)
Beeb
Martinus
Berkut
Tamas
Delirium
grumbler
Katmai
CountdeMoney (Just kidding)
garbon
Kleves
Ulmont
Ehrie
Viking
That's a fairly large list of players available, assuming the interest is there.
I've bailed out of two or three games in a rather weak manner. :sadblush:
My problem is fairly simple, if stupid: these days I find it hard to sit down and really grasp the rules in short order. And any time someone wants to start a PBEM game they want to start yesterday. I then get embarassed and hide.
Who am I kidding - there's no "if" about that being stupid.
Also depending on the system and websites involved I may be blocked from work access.
Thunder at Twilight sounds absolutely fascinating. If you actually gathered up 26 players I would be game. That being said someone needs to hold my hand through learning the system - and I mean hold me hand like a three year old crossing the street.
Once I have the rules down pat I should be good. The fact that it sounds more roleplayish also sounds cool.
Quote from: Barrister on June 12, 2009, 05:49:47 PM
:sadblush:
I do wish the smiley code was changed back to this. :hug:
Quote from: grumbler on June 12, 2009, 05:09:37 PM
the delta would be critical and not in the good sense.
I am unfamiliar with this term in any sense.
Quote from: Barrister on June 12, 2009, 06:08:18 PM
I am unfamiliar with this term in any sense.
Delta means 'change" in scientific-ese. Sorry.
Quote from: grumbler on June 12, 2009, 06:20:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 12, 2009, 06:08:18 PM
I am unfamiliar with this term in any sense.
Delta means 'change" in scientific-ese. Sorry.
I'm familiar with that (5 years on my B.Sc. finally pays off!), but "the change would be critical, and not in the good sense" - I still can't quite figure that out. I thought maybe the whole thing meant something.
But it doesn't make any real difference, and I'm not trying to give you a hard time.
Quote from: Tamas on June 12, 2009, 03:32:30 PM
It was more like in the general direction of all the players :P
Still in.
Quote from: grumbler on June 12, 2009, 03:53:35 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 12, 2009, 03:43:45 PM
What is TaT?
Thunder at Twilight. It was a colonial/Victorian PBEM game I and some others ran back in the 1998 through 2000 (three different iterations) that was purely web/PBEM based. Excel spreadsheets for budgets, and that sort of thing.
Nominally 26 players, with 3 players (Conservative, Liberal, and Nationalist) per major country, with goals that were both competitive and cooperative, two players (Coneservative and nationalist) for the mid-powers, and single players for the minor powers.
Heavily driven towards goal-achievement, as opposed to national power achievement, and lots of rndom events to spice things up. Newspapers would be published, budgets passed, colonies established, wars fought, the whole shebang. It was suposed to be role-playing, and was.
I was amazed to find that Tamas had actually played in it, given the odds that a member of such a small group as the TaT players (and he was one of the key ones) would ever find themselves part of such a small community as this one.
Heh, reminds me of when I played
Gladius et Pilum when I lived in Germany in the late '80s via PBM.
Doing a brief read-over of the TaT rules; I am very amused that the election of socialists really does turn into a domino effect. :lol:
I can't see myself mustering the patience for this game.
Quote from: Delirium on June 12, 2009, 02:22:50 AM
I count three guys who own the game but don't want to play it, that's slightly ominous.
Pax Britannica is a very good game (with some nasty loopholes that I bet many players never noticed). But it's an awful simulation... Just one example: first turn usually involves Great Britain bullying everyone to get the Belgian Congo, Tanganika (Belgian Congo and Tanganika are extremely profitable and worth many VP to build railroads across Africa), Egypt, and some other valuable real estate across the globe, and there is nothing anyone can do about it, because Britain will obliterate any alliance of two countries and an axis of three would trigger the Great War and a complete British victory.
And did I mention France and Germany usually become best buddies, Alsace-Lorraine be damned?
So Del are you out? :(
I'm definitely up for a multi-player game with you guys, I just have a very bad feeling about this game.
If you're all dead set on trying it I guess I'm on though.
Is this still on?
Quote from: Viking on June 13, 2009, 10:52:06 AM
Is this still on?
Yes. I say we keep Italy as an NPC country and start.
I am making a scenario for the less ugly CB board so I can start up the game and send it out.
Can I be: Ottoman Empire?
Quote from: ehrie on June 13, 2009, 01:18:23 PM
Can I be: Ottoman Empire?
No, they are NPC. You can be: Italy. Want to?
I think I'll be a spectator for this one. If you really can't get an Italy and need one to round ut the game count me in.
Quote from: ehrie on June 13, 2009, 01:35:09 PM
I think I'll be a spectator for this one. If you really can't get an Italy and need one to round ut the game count me in.
He can't. Most people have been lukewarm about the game thus far.
I'm pretty lukewarm myself about it looking at the comments on the net. It really does look like the Engliah player does whatever the hell they want and everybody just has to sit there and take it.
Quote from: ehrie on June 13, 2009, 01:35:09 PM
I think I'll be a spectator for this one. If you really can't get an Italy and need one to round ut the game count me in.
Your enthusiasm matches the grand average of the players, :D
I'll be sending out the files in about 30 minutes or so but I dont expect a fast start, so feel free to take a look at the rules (link is about 3 pages back) and decide if you want Italy.
Quote from: ehrie on June 13, 2009, 01:48:02 PM
I'm pretty lukewarm myself about it looking at the comments on the net. It really does look like the Engliah player does whatever the hell they want and everybody just has to sit there and take it.
From the few session reports I read on BGG, it seems UK can be kept in check most of the time
I have sent out a big-ass e-mail to everyone except grumbler who will have to PM me his address. As I said its big so if anyone fails to receive it, let me know.
Quote from: ehrie on June 13, 2009, 01:48:02 PM
I'm pretty lukewarm myself about it looking at the comments on the net. It really does look like the Engliah player does whatever the hell they want and everybody just has to sit there and take it.
Yes... and no.
First, time changes everything; in the early game the British Empire(TM) is undefeatable, but the late game is very different (and Russia can laugh at the British fleet during all the game. early, middle, and late); if the other great powers have done their work, by the late turns they will have fleets and alliances enough to defy Britain (that's part of the whole Franco-German entente problem - both countries have a very powerful incentive to be friends in this game, namely, Great Britain)
Second, Victory points in this game are divided by a national fixed amount, and the British is the highest. The Old Contemptibles can paint red half of the world map, have the biggest, meanest fleet, etc, etc, and still lose while tiny Italy with its far lower handicap can win the game with a handful of poor colonies and some money (you can buy VP with money in this game).
Yeah, sometimes Italy is actually pretty easy to play 'cause you can just take the scraps that nobody else wants and buy cheap victory points. The Italian income divisor to buy VPs is 2, the British divisor is 50 IIRC (I own the game but don't have my copy handy, i.e., it's still at my mom's, and I haven't actually played it in years--like since the 80's)
Lets get rolling with events and minor power activity, so we have a context to work with. In other words: lets see if this will get the game rolling or it dies.
Its okay if you are not finished with rules yet, we will need time for negotiations anyway.
I am rolling in the CB game file, replay file will be provided
HEADLINE NEWS 1880-1883
A period of violence over the world!
UNREST IN THE PHILIPPINES!
The local population has risen against Spanish rule! All spare units of the Spanish military will embark to defeat the rebels
UNREST IN GREECE!
Will it turn into civil war? The Great Powers, if any dares, have the chance to assert Control over Greece if they move units there and restore order.
UNREST IN PANAMA!
As with Greece, the chance is provided to quickly assert control of this country which could be an ideal site for the great canal crossing the American continent.
-------------------
MINOR POWER ACTIVITY
Since I could not stop rolling 5s and 6s (hence all the unrest events), no minor power activity happened this turn.
-------------
So next up is Movement/Status Change phase.
Post here your purchase and placement of status markers and military units, and movements
There is no turn order, so just read those rules and go ahead.
BTW I see no reason to limit private negotiations during this phase, let me know if you object.
You guys suck <_<
So how about a game of Origins? :P
Seriously, I need my imperialism fix.
Age of Renessaince has been mentioned, it may very well be good but looks to be almost as abstract as a German game.
This game was DOA.
Age of Renaissance is like a super-charged (not Pax) Brittania, taking the basic mechanisms and applying them to a renaissance mercantile theme. There's some clunky unbalanced elements, I prefer its successor Manifest Destiny.
I don't agree with that assessment at all about AoR. It has much more in common with (Advanced) Civilization than anything else. You buy units to attack spaces and build cities. Cities produce resources that yield money when the right cards are played. You use money to buy technologies which give you advantages in game.
Action is first in a round of playing cards, then in a round of activating forces. Play order is determined through the number of units bought, fewer units gets the chance to act first, but obviously has less force to apply.
Cards can be resources (giving money according to the number you control), events (like gunpowder) and characters (cheaper tech).
It is an excellent game face-to-face, it's what we always play down at the club when we want a cut-throat multi-player game that can be finished in less than 8 hours (usually 6).
It is very abstract, and that coupled with the fugly cb box keeps me in doubt. But there is an ACTS module, so if people want to try it I'm game, the rules aren't that complicated. Six players, can be played with five.
If you play Origins, I call CroNegroid Man
I haven't ever played Advaanced Civ and it's been years since I've played Civ so you may be right as far as a comparison. The rest of my statement stands. Manifest Destiny is the quicker (almost 1/3 the time), cleaner, more balanced version of AoR.
I would not mind trying Manifest Destiny. I am kinda sure its not a great game, but it looks to be good, and now I want theme, not abstraction.
Quote from: Tamas on June 15, 2009, 01:43:27 PM
I would not mind trying Manifest Destiny. I am kinda sure its not a great game, but it looks to be good, and now I want theme, not abstraction.
AoR and Manifest Destiny are equally abstracted, however the distance of time has AoR seeming to fit the theme better. Although I'd love to see a redo of AoR with the improvements of MD as it is a much nicer production.
I own Manifest Destiny, although I haven't played it. But judging on its looks, compared to Age of Renaissance, I wonder what you mean by nicer production? From what I can see MD is pretty simplistic.
Anyone here owns Assyrian Wars? I remember that everything for it is available online except for campaign setup, and it looks quite nice.
By the way, I am still looking for 3 unfortunate souls, I mean brave volunteers to test my CB module for Lords of renaissance. Here is a review of the game:
QuoteObject:
The time period is 1460 to 1499. Each player starts as the Duke of his European duchy, operating a Bank or merchant company speculating in the silk trade and acting as a military or financial advisor to one of the great empires (England, Aragon, Papal States, Holy Roman, France, or Ottoman). The point is to get silk, from its depot at Azov on the Black Sea in the corner of the map, to your Bank which is somewhere in Europe, not necessarily in your home duchy. With money thus earned, the player may fund new ventures, the eventual object being to have the most money in personal treasury by the end of the game. The game ends at a predetermined time or for players who wish to avoid the famous "End-of-the-World Syndrome", an optional rules provides for a dice roll to check for a variable ending. Most games seem to run three or four hours, though diehards could probably easily go on for twelve.
Setup:
Your starting duchy is dealt randomly from one of seventeen possibles and each one is quite different. You could be Genoa or Venice which have certain natural advantages such as pirate fleets and strategic ports or you could be the Duke of York, with a Bank impossibly far away from the silk source. There are even a couple of duchies which do not have Banks, namely the magnates who control the supplies of silk and spice. If you end up playing one of these, your game experience will probably be quite different from that of other players, but certainly no less interesting. The designer deserves praise for taking this daring step in a game of this type, where usually every side is completely identical.
This is one of those games which, like SPI's Crusades, makes you wish you really could get enough gamers in the room to have every position played. If for no other reason than just to witness the ensuing historical chaos and dissension. Unfortunately five is the maximum number of players we've been able to come up with so far. But then, five is more than enough to get some interesting interactions going.
Flow of the Game:
After each player finds out where they are, they get to choose which empire to align with. With six players or less, they control both the commercial and military resources of the empire. With more, and this must get very tricky, they control either one or the other, but not both, which must lead to plenty of competitive cooperation, or is that cooperative competition? Since empires control all the fleets and trade caravans, the strategy of choosing an empire mostly revolves around which one can help you get silk back to your Bank. In the early stages of the game, the Papal States, with its large fleet, is a good choice as is the Holy Roman Empire, which has many caravans. The Ottoman Empire, in a position to control most of the route to the silk, is formidable indeed and France, although it is further away, also has several caravans and makes for a good fourth-best choice. England is very far removed and Aragon's revenues are lacking.
On the first turn, it is generally true that no one player can command the transport necessary to deliver silk to his Bank. To do so, caravans and/or ships must be established in a contiguous path to construct a trade route. A negotiation round typically ensues, perhaps playing out something like this:
Venice/Papacy: OK, Genoa, with my 4 Papal fleets, your Pirate fleet and my Pirate fleet, we can bring silk as far as Taranto.
Genoa/France: OK, in return for your help with fleets, I will use France's caravans to bring the silk overland from there to our Banks and we'll each earn 3 gold per year.
Antwerp/HRE: You have a problem though – your caravans won't reach in time, but mine could. Tell you what, in exchange for me providing the caravans, how about if you use France's caravans to also bring silk to Antwerp?
Genoa/France: Done.
Russia/Ottoman: Not so fast – no one takes any silk out of Russia without my say so. Each of you pays me one gold. And next turn I'll have an army at Istanbul capable of closing the straits to trade. To ensure that I don't, I require that your fleets trade and pay customs duty at Ottoman ports wherever feasible (earning 3 gold per year from the game bank for the Ottoman empire).
Others: (amidst general grumbling) Agreed.
In future turns, as they make money, players will try to escape their obligations by use of their own empire's forces and thus realize greater profits for their personal duchies. At the same time, their empires will probably acquire independent lands giving them a greater stranglehold on trade and more profits. An important point is that imperial treasuries may not be shared with personal treasuries, although players will find ways of using the empire to enhance their own profits.
Turns are seasonal. Navies move during Spring and Summer turns while armies and caravans operate during Summer and Fall. Nothing moves during the Winter. But during each season, a card is turned up and placed up for auction to all duchies. Cards represent princesses, spies, pirates, assassins, painters, engineers, reformation leaders, heretics, explorers, and most importantly, new ventures, including voyages of exploration. Handled abstractly, players may discover India and the New World which provide new sources of silk, spice and gold. More mundane ventures include mines, plantations and predominantly, Edifices, such as libraries, printers and other money-making activities. These items need 6 gold plus two years to develop and a trade route to the proper supply, but thereafter bring in 3 gold per year. The following schematic of the various supplier relationships indicates the extent and variety of the different cards available: (note that previous upstream steps do not have to be operating and connected for the latest one to do so, for example, a Goldsmiths Guild connected to a Mine will produce regardless even if no Slaves are being provided to the Mine)
Silk --------------------------------------> Bank
Slaves ---> Shipbuilding Guild
| | |
| | ----> Mine ---> Goldsmiths Guild
| | | |
| | | -----> Arms & Armor Guild
| | |
| | --------> Metalworkers Guild
| |
| -------> Alum ---> Textile Guild
|
----------> Sugar
\
---> Edifice ---> Glassmakers Guild
/ \
Spice ---> Woolworkers Guild
The fact that the locations of these ventures is fixed as printed on the cards leads to further negotiations as the most efficient trade route must sometimes pass through the empires of one or more other players. The rules require that a player may not use his own safe, circuitous route if a shorter one is available using another player's pieces. Again, chiefly at issue are the customs duties paid to each city, and thus to the empire, along the route.
Empires also earn revenue from taxes levied on each city for the first few turns or so, thus encouraging empires to expand their borders. Even allowing for the fact that this was the period of consolidation for empires, this seems too easy to do. Unless a neutral city happens to have money, which is quite unlikely, an empire swallows it up without a fight.
Combat:
Combat works simply enough and conflicts tend either to be short and sharp, unless a large enough force can get into a city under siege. Each attacking army is composed of two steps and makes a "to hit" roll, destroying a step in the enemy force with 50% probability. Ownership of certain cards improves the chances. Sieges are similar, but probabilities are much lower and thus tend to take longer.
All armies are more or less the same, the only difference being whether they are Imperial or mercenary forces. With navies, an empire has an interesting choice between Round Ships which cost more, need not end in port and can be used for explorations, and galleys, which are twice as good in combat.
Thus, the details of combat itself are not all that interesting. What remains is the question of to what use to put the army. Or actually, the two armies as each player controls both an Imperial and a personal one.
Imperial armies generally go about gobbling up all the neutral duchies in sight, particularly in France as much of the country was not yet under direct royal control. Similarly, the Holy Roman Empire tends to take over the Church Lands lying in its territory and the Ottoman Empire uses its wealth to take control of the the Balkans, thus controlling the land as well as the sea route to silk. Admittedly, most of this consolidation is fairly historical, but it does seem rather too easy to accomplish. Usually when fighting a neutral duchy, there is no chance of anything unpleasant or unpredictable occurring.
In fact, the only possible deterrent to conquering every neutral in sight appears to be that while the Emperor is off conquering, another emperor may strike at his capital. On the other hand, to do so, a player would need to be positioned to strike as well as to have the ability to move at the right time (initiative varies depending on card acquisitions). But even if all can be arranged, it is doubtful just what can be accomplished. While the second emperor is attacking the first's capital, he may find his own under attack. And if the risk is high, the reward is generally low. Any new lands gained are added to the conquering empire and new monies are earned, but this probably means little to the empire which has probably run out of useful countermix already anyway. And such a double empire is sure to come under attack by all the remaining ones. Finally, the player holding such an empire becomes the leading target for Disalignment cards which dissolve a duke's link with an empire and put it for auction among all players.
More useful for players will be to try to increase the power and treasury of their personal duke. Rather than using an empire to attack another, if a player can gain enough followers to improve his stature, he can attempt replace an emperor to whose throne he himself has a claim, and take it for himself, mixing the empire's taxes and treasury with his own and absolutely preventing disalignment. Once a player can accomplish this, he seems to have a very good chance of winning, and as this can be difficult for other players to prevent – especially if the empire under attack is the player's own – the game tends to become a race to see who can be the first to manage it.
Some Conclusions:
In a way, however, this is almost anathema to the game system as the way players accomplish this is not closely tied to their other activities, i.e. moneymaking through trade and new projects. Thus players are forced to play two very different types of games within a single one, and carefully judge the best time to switch from the trade game to the conquest game. I am unsure of the effect of this on the game's reception. Over many years of gaming, I've noticed that game players tend to come in one variety or the other and it may be a fairly rare player who seems to enjoy both types of challenges. In particular, it may be a disappointing game for the player who has been the best trader the entire game to discover that he has been defeated by someone with enough soldiers and the daring to use them who snatches victory at the last moment.
On the other hand, this does offer a pretty atmospheric view of life in the Renaissance. It fact, historicity pervades this game. The variety of cards is immense and only a small fraction will ever be turned up in a single sitting, leading to lifelike unpredictability. All the resource and edifice locations are historical and extensive background notes are included. And, just like in real life, in this game, sometimes very good or very bad things can happen. It should be pointed out, that the breaks, good or bad, are usually not severe nor common, rather more of an occasional thing. Whole games can be played without any such occurrence, but then, the possibility is always there, lurking.
What designer Phil Eklund has given us is a view, albeit abbreviated, into Renaissance life itself. Sure you might start the game as the hapless Duke of York or get wiped out by the Black Plague, but then, history was like that sometimes. Players who want everything to be equal and fair might want to take another look at chess. As for me, whenever I want to imagine the feel of salt spray from the prow of a swift galley, sniff baskets of exotic spices or intrigue to dislodge an emperor from his throne, I'll break out Lords of the Renaissance. In fact, this game is almost as good as reading a novel and about how many games can you say that?
I have the introductory scenario basically ready, thats for 4 players and it is the full game except that starting Dukes aren't completely randomized, but rather, limited to the 4 easiest.
I would need to finish scanning the 15 or so other Dukes for a complete game.
I will keep dumping my boardgame spam here. Has anyone tried Conquistador, the old AH game? the whole thing is here ready for PBEM:
http://www.amarriner.com/conq/ (http://www.amarriner.com/conq/)
I mean AoR's production is nicer, but I like MD's rules better. So I'd like AoR redone with a rules set similar to MD but with AoR's production value.
So are there any games that someone wants to play that others might actually want to play? :P
Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2009, 05:12:35 PM
So are there any games that someone wants to play that others might actually want to play? :P
Nope :P
Assyrian Wars looks promising. It uses the core rules of Napoleonic Wars, with added historic flavor of different siege resolution rules, inclusion of mercenaries, and a tribute system.
And the CB has the campaign set up, rules and charts are available online.
Alright how the fuck about this? it can't take that long, and the period depicted is rather unique:
QuoteThe Campaigns of King David is Rob Markham's multi-player simulation of the struggle for supremacy in the biblical area of Israel and its immediate neighbors during the reign of King David. Two to five players attempt to achieve their victory conditions (control of cities). The game is 7 turns, each with 5 separate sections. Four of the sections play very quickly (Initiative Determination, Diplomacy, Drawing Phase Chits, and determining if
victory conditions have been met. The fifth section, Phases, has 12 Actions. Each Action consists of one specific type, movement/combat, obtaining resources, obtaining food, army maintenance and building, etc. The 12 Actions are chosen randomly with the first six shown face up, allowing the players to know the order. The remaining six are displayed face down, providing some uncertainty as to the next Action to occur. As there are 15 Action chits from which to choose, players never know exactly what will occur the second half of the Phase sections. Players must husband their resources and food to maintain their field armies, build and re-equip units, improve fortified cities, and wage battle.
Play is balanced, with each nation's victory conditions tailored to its historical situation. Game duration ranges from 3 hours for a two-player game up to 5-6 hours for a five-player game.