Back in April I briefly mentioned we had played a couple of games of Antike. And as always here is my late list of things we played wrong during the game.
It appears that we did not play the movement and combat portion of Antike correctly after reading the rules and looking at some conquest combat examples on BGG. Some of the things I caught:
1. There are two phases to a Maneuver on the Rondel, a Movement Action and a Conquest Action. Each one requires a movement "point" to conduct. During Movement Actions you can move units but then you may also battle enemy units (Legions and Galleys) in the region you just moved into. These movement/battles are not simultaneous so you could clear a region of enemy units first to allow further movement through that region with other units in the same Maneuver action. Secondly you may conduct a Conquest Action following the Movement Action. This is how you convert enemy cities. This is important as in the beginning, before anyone has purchased Wheel, Roads, Sailing, and Navigation, it would take you two Maneuvers to convert an enemy city; the first one to move into it and battle any enemy units and then the second maneuver to conquer the city itself provided you had any survivors and sufficient strength! This makes researching the bonus movement type Know-Hows very important!
2. When not trying to Conquer an enemy city (during the Conquest Action of the Maneuver), ie battles after Movement - Legions only eliminate Legions and Galleys only eliminate Galleys. This is another important subtle distinction especially for coastal cities. For example, if an enemy city is occupied by both Legions and Galleys (only possible in coastal regions) and you move a fleet of Galleys into the region the subsequent battle will only eliminate enemy Galleys and leave all Legions unaffected. Provided you had any Galleys remaining from the battle and suffcient strength you could then conquer the city during a later Maneuver or during this Maneuver provided you had movement points left over for your surviving Galleys. When doing a Conquest Action, the restriction of "Galleys eliminate Galleys" and "Legions eliminate Legions" doesn't apply.
3. I don't think we violated this one but it could have come up. Legions may not be built in regions that are completly bordered in blue, ie Islands. At first thought one may think I would never do that since they would not be able to leave the island (Galleys don't transport Legions in the game) but you may do it to add more defenders to an island especially if all your Galleys have been built and are on the map elsewhere.
That's about it but these little rules discoveries just made the Maneuver portion of the game a little bit more interesting.
Showing posts with label Ancients. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ancients. Show all posts
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Happenings for the past 3 months
Not much gaming going on lately, other than some light games with the family. The last face to face wargame I played was a 3-player playtest of Successors III with Nevin Ball and Mark Simonitch back on March 15th. Mark said we would do it again once he has his new map and counters ready. Mark has been posting his map and counter work recently on consimword and it is looking very nice. Prior to that we did a 5-player game of Age of Empires III at Mark Bausman's house,on March 1st, but that is about it for face to face. Oh we did get in two back to back games of Antike back on February 17th. The first one was 5-player and the second 4-player. I enjoyed the game and ended up picking up a copy but haven't played it since.
I did finish off the last novel of the main series of David Weber's Honorverse, At All Costs about a month ago. I didn't know if I wanted to start reading his sub-series works but decided to pickup one of his newer novels, Off Armageddon Reef, the first book in his Safehold series. The next book in the series isn't due out till later this year; I'm looking forward to it.
I then read 1632 by Eric Flint and Von Neumann's War by John Ringo and Travis S. Taylor.
Since I didn't have a chance to get to the bookstore my wife brought me a couple of books from her workout place; I guess they have some sort of paperback loan library. I ended up reading one of them, Deep Fire Rising, by Jack Du Brul. I enjoyed it and may look for more of his books in the future but for now I just picked up 1633, the second book in Eric Flint's Ring of Fire series.
I did finish off the last novel of the main series of David Weber's Honorverse, At All Costs about a month ago. I didn't know if I wanted to start reading his sub-series works but decided to pickup one of his newer novels, Off Armageddon Reef, the first book in his Safehold series. The next book in the series isn't due out till later this year; I'm looking forward to it.
I then read 1632 by Eric Flint and Von Neumann's War by John Ringo and Travis S. Taylor.
Since I didn't have a chance to get to the bookstore my wife brought me a couple of books from her workout place; I guess they have some sort of paperback loan library. I ended up reading one of them, Deep Fire Rising, by Jack Du Brul. I enjoyed it and may look for more of his books in the future but for now I just picked up 1633, the second book in Eric Flint's Ring of Fire series.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
North Texas Wargamers Gameday - July 21
Another meeting of the North Texas Wargamers this Saturday. Brian considered cancelling it as the Dallas Games Marathon was held on the same weekend but there were enough of us who could not attend the marathon long enough to justify the expense so we met for our usual time slot 11-6PM. The following games were played:
Command and Colors: Ancients
Al Hay
Greg Blanchett's daughter Emily
I heard that Al was schooled at least three times by Greg's daughter.
Wings of War: Dawn of War
Al Hay
Emily
Mervyn Dejecacion
Mervyn picked this up today at Game Chest after I bought his copy of Stonewall in the Valley from him. I had almost picked up a copy myself yesterday. Now I can play Mervyn's copy.
Twilight Struggle
Steve Gallob - United States
John Boone - Soviet Union
I had heard good things about it on Consimworld and Boardgamegeek and had considered purchasing it many times but never had. After playing it I can see why it is so popular and has bumped up a notch on my "must buy" list.
The game portrays the post World War II Cold War between the two major superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States. The game covers the ~45 years of cold war in 10 turns with each turn composed of 6(early years), 7(middle year) or possibly 8 action rounds lead off with a special simultaneous card play round called the Headline phase where each card's event is resolved if possible. After the Headline phase each player, starting with the Soviet, alternates playing cards until all action rounds are complete after which there is a check for possible scoring do to military operations conducted during the turn, then getting ready for the next turn.
The engine that drives the game, as in all card driven games (CDGs), are the cards and as in most card driven games the players have the choice to either play the card for the Operations Point (OPs) value or the event.
All the events are influenced from the long history of the Cold War and are marked indicating which side can play the card for the event either the Soviet player, the US player or both players. Unlike other card driven games, Twilight Struggle adds a novel twist in that a card that is played by your opponent for the Operations Points whose event belongs to the other player causes the event to also occur with the player who played the card deciding the order the card is resolved either the operations first then the event or vice versa. I believe this is the first time this mechanism has been used in a CDG and adds greatly to the tension in the decision making process. You may have quite a few cards in you hand whose events belong to the other player and having to decide when to play them and in what order they are resolved is sometimes quite exciting to say the least. Fortunately the game adds another novel mechanism whereby you can "dump", not use for OPs or the Event, one or possibly two of these cards - the Space Race Track.
Twilight Struggle abstracts the space race between the two super powers using a track that records the important milestones of space achievement during this time period. In order to advance on the space race track, one plays one of your cards for that round and then rolls the die. If the die falls withing the required range you get to advance, if not, you remain where you are; either way the card is still spent. As you progress up the Space Race track usually the first player to the new level is rewarded either with VPs or some special ability they can use until the opposing player catches up to your level. In our game neither one of us progressed farther than "Lunar Probe".
If one plays a card for Operations Points these points can be spent on one of three activities, placing influence, attempting a coup within a single country, or attempting to realign the government of one or more countries, up to the operations point value. If using the operations points for influence each Operation Point translates to one point of influence in a country (if not controlled by the other player) that can be applied to that country in order to sway it towards your ideology. Each country has a stability rating.
The higher the number the more stable the country is and the harder it is to switch sides once it falls under control of one of the players. The stability rating is the minimum amount of influence one side needs in that country before it controls the country. Both sides can apply influence to the same country and this is what usually happens especially in battleground countries as each side fights to control it. If this is the case then the influence needed to control the country is the stability rating plus the influence applied to the country by the other player. In addition, once a country is controlled the non-controlling side must then spend OPs points on a two OPs for one influence point basis in that country.
Another use for OPs are coup attempts. Only one coup may be attempted per card play. The operations value of the card is used as a die roll modifer to the coup die roll. The die roll plus OPs value is compared to twice the stability rating of the country. If this total is greater then the coup is successful. The difference (die roll + OPs value - 2xStability Rating) is the number of influence removed from the opposing players influence in the country. If there is any of this difference left after removing all of the opposing player's influence the remainder is added to your influence in the country. As you can see, countries with high stability ratings are more difficult to have a successful coup in. If a coup is attempted in a country that is a "battleground" country the coup also affects the level of the DEFCON Track by decreasing it one level closer to Nuclear War. "Battleground" countries are those countries that were historically important during the Cold War period usually because of its strategic location or resources, IE Oil. They are used during scoring rounds to determine who has more control in a region and hence who gets the most victory points for that region during a scoring card play. Coup attempts also increase the value of the Military Track by the Operations Point value of the card used for the coup. Players also score victory points at the end of the turn if one side has failed to accrue military operation points at least equal to the current DEFCON level. For example if the DEFCON level is three and one side has 5 military operation points and the other side has two the other player would effectively net a +1 VP since the other side missed the DEFCON level by one point. The third use of Operations Points are Realignment Rolls. Realignment Rolls are used to reduce enemy Influence in a country. Each Operations Point allows one Realignment Roll in one or more countries. A realignment is less severe than a coup as it allows you, if successful, to only remove the opposing players influence but not add to your own.
A game can end one of four ways, going the full ten turns (winner determined by final score), one side gaining enough victory points at the end of a turn for an automatic victory, one side causing Nuclear War (that side loses), or by play of the Event Card "Wargames" if you satisfy its condition. Victory Points are scored for the various areas when their respective scoring card is played by a player during the action round and at the end of turn 10 when all areas are scored to determine a final victory point score.
As one can surmise the various tracks, influence, coups, realignment attempts, and events all interact in an elegant way making playing the game both a thought provoking and enjoyable experience.
I had never played before so Steve gave me the Soviets. In the game the Soviets have the early advantage but as the game goes on more pro-US cards are introduced into the mix. The cards are divided into an early, mid, and late war deck with mid and late year cards added as the game progresses. The game went the full ten turns with the Soviets coming out on top at (minus) 14 victory points. As each turn is made up of multiple action rounds, I could not possibly remember all of the goings on but some of the memorable moments from the Soviet perspective are included below.
Great Moments in Alternate Soviet Cold War History -
1. Soviets having complete Control of the Middle East during a Middle East scoring round.
2. A successfully played Arab-Israeli War converting a strong (influence 5) US controlled Israel to Soviet control after first converting neighboring Lebanon and Jordan (Egypt was already Soviet) to Soviet control.
3. Having a strong hold on North and South Korea along with Vietnam in Asia.
4. Having and playing "Terrorism" immediately after Steve played "Iranian Hostage Crisis" there by causing him to randomly discard two of his cards instead of one.
5. Being able to play "Aldrich Ames" on Steve as my Headline card of turn 10. This allowed me to view his hand and arrange his cards in the order I wanted him to play them.
As a first time player the board was a little busy for me but it was a very enjoyable game.
Marne 1918: Friedensturm
Paul Borchers
Brian Marrs
This is a new game by the French company Hexasim covering the World War I German offensive in May-August 1918.
A Victory Lost
Mark Simonitch
Greg Blanchett
Covers the Russian offensive Operation Saturn and continues through van Manstein's famous "backhand blow" on the Russian front of World War II.
World War II: Barbarossa to Berlin
Walter McGovern
Sean Harris
European theatre coverage of World War II from the Spring of 1941 to the collapse of Germany's war machine in 1945, if it goes that long.
Command and Colors: Ancients
Al Hay
Greg Blanchett's daughter Emily
I heard that Al was schooled at least three times by Greg's daughter.
Wings of War: Dawn of War
Al Hay
Emily
Mervyn Dejecacion
Mervyn picked this up today at Game Chest after I bought his copy of Stonewall in the Valley from him. I had almost picked up a copy myself yesterday. Now I can play Mervyn's copy.
Twilight Struggle
Steve Gallob - United States
John Boone - Soviet Union
I had heard good things about it on Consimworld and Boardgamegeek and had considered purchasing it many times but never had. After playing it I can see why it is so popular and has bumped up a notch on my "must buy" list.
The game portrays the post World War II Cold War between the two major superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States. The game covers the ~45 years of cold war in 10 turns with each turn composed of 6(early years), 7(middle year) or possibly 8 action rounds lead off with a special simultaneous card play round called the Headline phase where each card's event is resolved if possible. After the Headline phase each player, starting with the Soviet, alternates playing cards until all action rounds are complete after which there is a check for possible scoring do to military operations conducted during the turn, then getting ready for the next turn.
The engine that drives the game, as in all card driven games (CDGs), are the cards and as in most card driven games the players have the choice to either play the card for the Operations Point (OPs) value or the event.All the events are influenced from the long history of the Cold War and are marked indicating which side can play the card for the event either the Soviet player, the US player or both players. Unlike other card driven games, Twilight Struggle adds a novel twist in that a card that is played by your opponent for the Operations Points whose event belongs to the other player causes the event to also occur with the player who played the card deciding the order the card is resolved either the operations first then the event or vice versa. I believe this is the first time this mechanism has been used in a CDG and adds greatly to the tension in the decision making process. You may have quite a few cards in you hand whose events belong to the other player and having to decide when to play them and in what order they are resolved is sometimes quite exciting to say the least. Fortunately the game adds another novel mechanism whereby you can "dump", not use for OPs or the Event, one or possibly two of these cards - the Space Race Track.
Twilight Struggle abstracts the space race between the two super powers using a track that records the important milestones of space achievement during this time period. In order to advance on the space race track, one plays one of your cards for that round and then rolls the die. If the die falls withing the required range you get to advance, if not, you remain where you are; either way the card is still spent. As you progress up the Space Race track usually the first player to the new level is rewarded either with VPs or some special ability they can use until the opposing player catches up to your level. In our game neither one of us progressed farther than "Lunar Probe".
If one plays a card for Operations Points these points can be spent on one of three activities, placing influence, attempting a coup within a single country, or attempting to realign the government of one or more countries, up to the operations point value. If using the operations points for influence each Operation Point translates to one point of influence in a country (if not controlled by the other player) that can be applied to that country in order to sway it towards your ideology. Each country has a stability rating.
The higher the number the more stable the country is and the harder it is to switch sides once it falls under control of one of the players. The stability rating is the minimum amount of influence one side needs in that country before it controls the country. Both sides can apply influence to the same country and this is what usually happens especially in battleground countries as each side fights to control it. If this is the case then the influence needed to control the country is the stability rating plus the influence applied to the country by the other player. In addition, once a country is controlled the non-controlling side must then spend OPs points on a two OPs for one influence point basis in that country.
Another use for OPs are coup attempts. Only one coup may be attempted per card play. The operations value of the card is used as a die roll modifer to the coup die roll. The die roll plus OPs value is compared to twice the stability rating of the country. If this total is greater then the coup is successful. The difference (die roll + OPs value - 2xStability Rating) is the number of influence removed from the opposing players influence in the country. If there is any of this difference left after removing all of the opposing player's influence the remainder is added to your influence in the country. As you can see, countries with high stability ratings are more difficult to have a successful coup in. If a coup is attempted in a country that is a "battleground" country the coup also affects the level of the DEFCON Track by decreasing it one level closer to Nuclear War. "Battleground" countries are those countries that were historically important during the Cold War period usually because of its strategic location or resources, IE Oil. They are used during scoring rounds to determine who has more control in a region and hence who gets the most victory points for that region during a scoring card play. Coup attempts also increase the value of the Military Track by the Operations Point value of the card used for the coup. Players also score victory points at the end of the turn if one side has failed to accrue military operation points at least equal to the current DEFCON level. For example if the DEFCON level is three and one side has 5 military operation points and the other side has two the other player would effectively net a +1 VP since the other side missed the DEFCON level by one point. The third use of Operations Points are Realignment Rolls. Realignment Rolls are used to reduce enemy Influence in a country. Each Operations Point allows one Realignment Roll in one or more countries. A realignment is less severe than a coup as it allows you, if successful, to only remove the opposing players influence but not add to your own.
A game can end one of four ways, going the full ten turns (winner determined by final score), one side gaining enough victory points at the end of a turn for an automatic victory, one side causing Nuclear War (that side loses), or by play of the Event Card "Wargames" if you satisfy its condition. Victory Points are scored for the various areas when their respective scoring card is played by a player during the action round and at the end of turn 10 when all areas are scored to determine a final victory point score.
As one can surmise the various tracks, influence, coups, realignment attempts, and events all interact in an elegant way making playing the game both a thought provoking and enjoyable experience.
I had never played before so Steve gave me the Soviets. In the game the Soviets have the early advantage but as the game goes on more pro-US cards are introduced into the mix. The cards are divided into an early, mid, and late war deck with mid and late year cards added as the game progresses. The game went the full ten turns with the Soviets coming out on top at (minus) 14 victory points. As each turn is made up of multiple action rounds, I could not possibly remember all of the goings on but some of the memorable moments from the Soviet perspective are included below.
Great Moments in Alternate Soviet Cold War History -
1. Soviets having complete Control of the Middle East during a Middle East scoring round.
2. A successfully played Arab-Israeli War converting a strong (influence 5) US controlled Israel to Soviet control after first converting neighboring Lebanon and Jordan (Egypt was already Soviet) to Soviet control.
3. Having a strong hold on North and South Korea along with Vietnam in Asia.
4. Having and playing "Terrorism" immediately after Steve played "Iranian Hostage Crisis" there by causing him to randomly discard two of his cards instead of one.
5. Being able to play "Aldrich Ames" on Steve as my Headline card of turn 10. This allowed me to view his hand and arrange his cards in the order I wanted him to play them.
As a first time player the board was a little busy for me but it was a very enjoyable game.
Marne 1918: Friedensturm
Paul Borchers
Brian Marrs
This is a new game by the French company Hexasim covering the World War I German offensive in May-August 1918.
A Victory Lost
Mark Simonitch
Greg Blanchett
Covers the Russian offensive Operation Saturn and continues through van Manstein's famous "backhand blow" on the Russian front of World War II.
World War II: Barbarossa to Berlin
Walter McGovern
Sean Harris
European theatre coverage of World War II from the Spring of 1941 to the collapse of Germany's war machine in 1945, if it goes that long.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Face to face gaming drought and Hannibal preview
In a bit of a gaming drought this week. I did get to see my 5 month old niece and nephew this past weekend so that was a plus.
I'd also like to give a big congratulations to Mervyn Dejecacion's newest addition to his family this past Friday. Welcome to the world Charlotte Grace Dejecacion.
I came across this on ConsimWorld and thought I'd cross post it since I've pre-ordered a copy: Hannibal: Rome vs Carthage reprint graphics. These really look top notch! The rule book front cover looks very cool with the leather effect.
I'd also like to give a big congratulations to Mervyn Dejecacion's newest addition to his family this past Friday. Welcome to the world Charlotte Grace Dejecacion.
I came across this on ConsimWorld and thought I'd cross post it since I've pre-ordered a copy: Hannibal: Rome vs Carthage reprint graphics. These really look top notch! The rule book front cover looks very cool with the leather effect.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Successors III and Friedrich
Mervyn and I went to Mark Simonitch's house today for some Saturday afternoon wargaming. We started off with a Successors' III playtest and then finished off with a quick game of Friedrich. The random general distribution was a follows (Lysimachus and Leonnatus are not used in 3-player games):
John Boone : Antipater and Peithon
Mervyn Dejecacion: Perdiccas and Craterus
Mark Simonitch : Ptolemy and Antigonus
As I started with the lowest VP total at start I chose Mervyn to go first and I would go last. The first turn was pretty much a land grab using the looser rules for placing garrison markers in the 3rd edition. Now you are not limited to only placing garrison markers within 2 movement points of your garrison markers that existed before the start of the Tyche segment. This makes it possible to string them out from markers just placed. Additionally each marker need only be within 2 MPs of one just placed. After claiming most of the areas in turn 1 The victory points were Mark - 21, John - 22, and Mervyn in the teens but he ended up with the most Legitimacy. All players still had Champion status.
In turn 2 Mervyn picked me to go first and I started a campaign in the 6 VP province of Greece but it was cut short when Antipater had to return first to Macedonia (after first defeating the Greek Army) to deal with the Autariatae and then Thrace to face the threat of Antigonus who moved into the Hellespontine. Peithon sat for most of turn 1 and 2 in Atropanene facing a threat from offshoots of Perdiccas' army. Mervyn sent Craterus to Phoenicia to contest some of Mark's holdings while starting Perdiccas' march towards Pella with Alexander's body. Seeing this Mark used his naval dominance (3 fleet points vs 1 each from Mervyn and I) to attack Perdiccas (11 strength) in Celaenae (From Tyre through Cyprus, Pamphylia, and on to Celaenae). After asking Mervyn "you only brought 11 strength points into my province?", Mervyn rolled an 11 and defeated Ptolemy's and Antigonus' (Mark) army of 19 strength points sending them both to the displaced box. I decided to go after Perdiccas with my 18 strength (oops only 14 after the Royals refused to fight) vs Mervyn's now 10 strength army. A few die rolls later and victory was ours as Perdiccas went to the displaced box! I now had AlexIV, Heracles, and the body. It was now Mervyn's turn and he sent Craterus against me but now I had the legitimacy lead and his Royals sat out the fight. In the end I was the only one with Major Generals still on the map. On my final card play of turn 2 Antipater returned to Pella with the body and won the game with 19 Legitimacy points. The game ended so quickly we had time for another so we set up Friedrich. I would like to play this one again as we didn't get a chance to see/use most of the new cards.
Some of the differences in Successors III I remember:
1. Map changes in Europe for Greece, Aetolia, and Macedonia
2. Approx dozen new cards with changes to existing cards
3. Looser garrison marker placement with Tyche cards
4. Using Tyche card Ops value to move a general. Number of Ops is number of movement points. [Edit] Actually this is how it is done in 2nd edition and currently in the playtest. Mark had mentioned before about using the OPs number as a movement die roll. So if you had a 3 rated general playing a 4OPs card would allow him 4 MPs, a 3 OPs card would give him 3 MPs and a 1 or 2 OPs card would give him 2 MPs. This version is what I was thinking about.
5. Asia Minor fleet requires control of only Caria.
6. Legitimacy for burying Alexander's body is tallied different. If buried outside of Pella you still earn 2L but it is now tied to the location, so you can lose it! If buried in Pella you get an additional 8L that you can't lose.
7. There is a new heir for Antipater, that has the same rating, when he dies on turn 3. Can't remember his name.
In Friedrich the sides were randomly drawn:
John B : Prussian/Hannover
Merv D : Russia/Sweden/France
Mark S : Austria/Imperial Army
Merv and I had not played the game since BBG Con 2006 and Mark had not played it even longer. This game ended before we even made it to the third card deck, turn 4? I believe. As I have won with France twice I'm always watching out for him when I play Prussia so I was weaker than I should have been on the Austrian front. Too aggressive play on my part allowed Austria to surround my 9 strength point army (in diamonds) and destroy it when I could not retreat. The Imperial Army then finished off my 8 strenth point army again in diamonds when I had no more diamonds to defend. With 17 points of army strength gone and no army in the immediate vicinity of Austria to defend objectives we called the game.
Maybe one day one of us will have played enough times to win with Prussia.
John Boone : Antipater and Peithon
Mervyn Dejecacion: Perdiccas and Craterus
Mark Simonitch : Ptolemy and Antigonus
As I started with the lowest VP total at start I chose Mervyn to go first and I would go last. The first turn was pretty much a land grab using the looser rules for placing garrison markers in the 3rd edition. Now you are not limited to only placing garrison markers within 2 movement points of your garrison markers that existed before the start of the Tyche segment. This makes it possible to string them out from markers just placed. Additionally each marker need only be within 2 MPs of one just placed. After claiming most of the areas in turn 1 The victory points were Mark - 21, John - 22, and Mervyn in the teens but he ended up with the most Legitimacy. All players still had Champion status.
In turn 2 Mervyn picked me to go first and I started a campaign in the 6 VP province of Greece but it was cut short when Antipater had to return first to Macedonia (after first defeating the Greek Army) to deal with the Autariatae and then Thrace to face the threat of Antigonus who moved into the Hellespontine. Peithon sat for most of turn 1 and 2 in Atropanene facing a threat from offshoots of Perdiccas' army. Mervyn sent Craterus to Phoenicia to contest some of Mark's holdings while starting Perdiccas' march towards Pella with Alexander's body. Seeing this Mark used his naval dominance (3 fleet points vs 1 each from Mervyn and I) to attack Perdiccas (11 strength) in Celaenae (From Tyre through Cyprus, Pamphylia, and on to Celaenae). After asking Mervyn "you only brought 11 strength points into my province?", Mervyn rolled an 11 and defeated Ptolemy's and Antigonus' (Mark) army of 19 strength points sending them both to the displaced box. I decided to go after Perdiccas with my 18 strength (oops only 14 after the Royals refused to fight) vs Mervyn's now 10 strength army. A few die rolls later and victory was ours as Perdiccas went to the displaced box! I now had AlexIV, Heracles, and the body. It was now Mervyn's turn and he sent Craterus against me but now I had the legitimacy lead and his Royals sat out the fight. In the end I was the only one with Major Generals still on the map. On my final card play of turn 2 Antipater returned to Pella with the body and won the game with 19 Legitimacy points. The game ended so quickly we had time for another so we set up Friedrich. I would like to play this one again as we didn't get a chance to see/use most of the new cards.
Some of the differences in Successors III I remember:
1. Map changes in Europe for Greece, Aetolia, and Macedonia
2. Approx dozen new cards with changes to existing cards
3. Looser garrison marker placement with Tyche cards
4. Using Tyche card Ops value to move a general. Number of Ops is number of movement points. [Edit] Actually this is how it is done in 2nd edition and currently in the playtest. Mark had mentioned before about using the OPs number as a movement die roll. So if you had a 3 rated general playing a 4OPs card would allow him 4 MPs, a 3 OPs card would give him 3 MPs and a 1 or 2 OPs card would give him 2 MPs. This version is what I was thinking about.
5. Asia Minor fleet requires control of only Caria.
6. Legitimacy for burying Alexander's body is tallied different. If buried outside of Pella you still earn 2L but it is now tied to the location, so you can lose it! If buried in Pella you get an additional 8L that you can't lose.
7. There is a new heir for Antipater, that has the same rating, when he dies on turn 3. Can't remember his name.
In Friedrich the sides were randomly drawn:
John B : Prussian/Hannover
Merv D : Russia/Sweden/France
Mark S : Austria/Imperial Army
Merv and I had not played the game since BBG Con 2006 and Mark had not played it even longer. This game ended before we even made it to the third card deck, turn 4? I believe. As I have won with France twice I'm always watching out for him when I play Prussia so I was weaker than I should have been on the Austrian front. Too aggressive play on my part allowed Austria to surround my 9 strength point army (in diamonds) and destroy it when I could not retreat. The Imperial Army then finished off my 8 strenth point army again in diamonds when I had no more diamonds to defend. With 17 points of army strength gone and no army in the immediate vicinity of Austria to defend objectives we called the game.
Maybe one day one of us will have played enough times to win with Prussia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)