Chestnut Lodge Wargames Group
Thanks for the review Nick. One thing about the ganging up point that I did not really address properly at the time is that we played this like a boardgame with each player building their own empire. Really they are parts of factions that will be trying to do well as a whole not necessarily on every map. If you do get clobbered you might end up becoming someone’s junior on another map or a floating politician rather than an aspiring warlord. There are systems for generating support out of thin air if you cooperate as a party/faction/team.
If you become politically isolated & militarily squished then maybe the revolution is not for you! however to give people a bit more game I do have a couple of spare maps where the marginalised can go & fight it out.
Guys, I was with you when you were talking about you want to have “meaningful decisions” in a game but to change historical accuracy so that “we would always choose to sacrifice historical accuracy if it would increase the available meaningful decisions” just ain’t right.
By sacrificing historical accuracy you are using history as chrome for a game with meaningful decisions.
For me “meaningful decisions” give player’s confidence that their actions will have an effect, that other players are treated the same. But I do not want “meaningful decisions” to mean there are optimal caculations to make, unless they were available to the historical characters. For example a modern game about logistics, lots of optimal calculations that were made by military officers. And for a counter example I have played an excellent game about the Celtic way of war. We won our “game” if we boasted, showed off and did acrobatic stunts on our chariots in front of the enemy. Meaningful historical simulation; not a calculation in sight.
Perhaps I am being greedy, but I want both in a game. Neither is worth sacrificing.
You must log in to post a comment.