New Version

Newly released Conquest of the Empire by Eagle Games.
User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

New Version

Post by Flashman » Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:30 pm

Larry asked what I'd like in a new version.

Just finished first draft of a map, still needs sea zones and straits marking.

Much more to follow!

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: New Version

Post by Imperious leader » Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:25 pm

oh no....
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Wittman
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 6:24 am
Location: Hereford, England.

Re: New Version

Post by Wittman » Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:42 am

Outstanding work Flash.
I like it.

Wittman
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 6:24 am
Location: Hereford, England.

Re: New Version

Post by Wittman » Wed Aug 14, 2013 5:29 am

I hope land movement will be two territories, not one though.

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Re: New Version

Post by Flashman » Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:35 pm

Land movement will be as far as you like within connected friendly territories (it will be assumed that roads connect all adjacent Roman provinces; much as rails connected all land areas in 1914 Europe).

A few words about the general concept I have in mind. This is a very broad approach, but bear in mind that Larry's original game could easily be accommodated within the same game package. Similarly to the Eagle Games edition, there can be the "Classic" COTE, and the "Epic" version I'm suggesting here.

Consider the inflation mechanic, which worked twice to increase unit prices in the original game. This was indeed an important factor in the decline of the Empire, but hardly within a single lifetime, which is what the "last man standing" scenario suggests.

But what if each player represents a dynasty of Roman grandees over the entire course of the Empire, their fortunes rising and falling over the years?

Suppose we divide the time into three "eras" of 200 years, giving us:

I (100BC - 100AD) Expansion

II (101 - 300) Consolidation

III (301 - 500) Decline

The two inflations occur between the eras, giving a different character to each; in Era I Roman units will be cheap, and conquests of barbarian provinces fairly easy. In Era II Rome will be able to make the odd gain here and there, but for the most part will be defending the frontier and holding back the tide of invaders. Finally in the 3rd Era the balance will tilt towards the barbarians, who are likely to overrun large areas of the Empire.

A few other changes are suggested by the history, for example in Era III the Empire might be divided west/east to allow two different Emperors and Capital Cities, while more barbarian units will be drafted into the Legions.

A few notes on the map:

The areas named in capitals are barbarian spawning/holding areas. These are off-limits to the Roman legions, as they are considered too underdeveloped and distant from Rome to be practical as provinces.

Any number of barbarian tribes can co-exist within them, though they score no points for staying there. The grey "border" regions represent potential Roman conquests, even though very few of them were occupied and then not for very long. Barbarians can move into these and score points for them, but only one tribe may stay there at any time.

The Huns are the exception to other barbarians; they appear in the Steppe area at the beginning of Era III, other barbars can co-exist with them only by paying tribute!

I intend to add Persia as another off-limits region, this conquest was always beyond Rome, though they frequently exchanged border provinces.

The thick borders might have some effect; the Rhine-Danube line may incur a penalty for barbarians to cross into the Empire; the Alpine line protecting Italy for any invader attempting to move into Italy by force.

Control of Legions & Barbarian tribes is essentially by holding cards; at the start of the game the Legions are dealt randomly (and evenly) to the players, barbarian tribes are picked up from the event card deck.

The dynastic sequence I'll outline later, but for now I'll get on with SZs & straits.
Last edited by Flashman on Sat Aug 17, 2013 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Re: New Version

Post by Flashman » Sat Aug 17, 2013 2:09 pm

A few thoughts on the pieces; how important is it to potential buyers that each type of combat unit has its own sculpt - or is this what Larry's games are all about?

Lets say one of the best ideas from 1914 is borrowed - you always have to have an infantry left after eliminating all other combat units. Good.

So using an infantry to top each stack, just use different coloured chips to represent the cavalry and artillery (I already use this system in 1914 to save space and time).

One step further is to add more Generals per player, and stipulate that each stack must be topped by a General or Caesar, eliminating the need even for infantry units.


I see road pieces as obsolete, since it is much simpler and authentic to assume that all adjacent land regions within Roman control are connected by roads.

You can only use roads that your own faction built? What!


Another thing that seemed illogical to me was the option to "destroy" cities under your control; what is the historical justification for this?

I prefer that every time a region containing a city is taken by force it is sacked - that is it is reduced by one step, and the corresponding value is taken by the victor in loot. With the exception of Roman armies marching on Rome, this seems to have been standard practice; a General who tried to stop his troops plundering a captured city risked being lynched.

I like four levels of settlement; fort, town, city, capital, each one a step up from the last, settlements growing one step each round subject to certain limits. I would say all of them are "fortified", that is towns grow initially within the fortifications of an army camp, and the defences naturally grow with the expanding town.

The number of capitals (1 or 2) and cities would be limited by the pieces provided.


If the game retains all the individual combat units, why not add the Battle-Board system similar to Eagles Games other productions, strangely absent from COTEII.


Bye the bye, has anyone even seen a Roman themed version of Monopoly? Was thinking of mocking up a board...


Edit: Interesting reading Larry's original rules: Elite infantry, 4 levels of city (as I've independently suggested!) and tactical battles fought in columns - sometimes the original ideas are the best!

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/7 ... aesars-pdf

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Re: New Version

Post by Flashman » Tue Aug 20, 2013 5:49 pm

Wondering if its best to return to the original use of generic coloured combat units, rather than the colour-coded Eagle Games pieces?

What about auxiliaries; the original idea of heavy infantry (legionaries) and light infantry (Aux) suggests this, while another possibility is Aux represented as missile troops.

Finally divided Lugdunensis; by squashing Aquitaine a bit it doesn't look too bad.
Attachments
map3.1gif.GIF
map3.1gif.GIF (167.42 KiB) Viewed 8598 times

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: New Version

Post by Imperious leader » Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:10 pm

It looks nothing like the prototype map. Nothing except it's they are both from Earth, Sol system.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests