| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| kduke |
Posted - 30 Nov 2003 : 20:02:34
Well, "is it or isn't it?" The site looks like the game is in production, but doesn't say anything about how to get it.
Is the game finished or not?
Looks wonderful.
I'm anxious to see the 7YW one described on the home page too. |
| 8 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Bubslug |
Posted - 04 Apr 2004 : 10:10:41
M. Verlaque: Thank-you for your detailed answers to my convoluted questions. The errata and rules updates found elsewhere have been most helpful as well.
I'm beginning to appreciate the difference between the "Napoleonic Dynasty" event and the "Joseph" event and the game plays quite well with them as they are currently written. Maybe I would have chosen a different title for the Joseph card to avoid the potential confusion to those more familiar with the actual history. Napoleon was under a lot of pressure to find "situations" for his many relatives and his plan to put his brother on the throne of Spain was just one element of that. All of which to explain why I was confused to learn that the card is only playable by the Coalition. But I most happily accept your assertion that this boardgame is to be treated as a game rather than a simulation. The card titles, references to events, artwork etc. are perhaps better appreciated as being there simply to provide the "feel" of the era that the game is based upon.
Several playings, after the one that triggered my questions, have not dampened my enthusiasm for this excellent game. Congratulations once again!
Cheers, RJY |
| Renaud Verlaque |
Posted - 25 Mar 2004 : 00:34:31
"M. Verlaque: Congratulations on a very fine 2-player strategic/operational level game set in the Napoleonic era! The publisher is particularly to be complemented on the component quality and artwork!"
Thanks.
"The lineage to GMT's "Napoleonic Wars" is apparent, as well as to Avalanche's "Soldier Kings."
Actually, I don't see more lineage than the fact that they are all wargames, and NW is on the very same topic.
"1) The diplomatic "meta-game" is intriguing; but, of the games of this type (viz. the ones previously referred to) the shifting of diplomatic status of the majors/minors seems to be much more fluid...almost bewilderingly so at times. The number and frequency of appearance of the diplomatic event cards would seem to be the explanation for that. Perhaps, because of my experience with the others in this genre, I'm not used to the way powers can flip from ally to neutral to enemy in a brief span of game cycles. Was this intentional? For example, I feel that Russia...the historic French burial ground...should be more resistant to this sort of thing than is the case at present."
Perhaps, but Napoleon played a diplo card on Russia in 1807, making her a French ally, she then became for all purposes and intentions neutral (Coalition diplomatic card play) before Napoleon violated her neutrality, turning Russia into a Coalition member. In some games, the diplo cards will play a greater role than in some others. The goal of the game was not to be the best simulation but a good, short ame with reasonable historical flavor. I think the game produces more reasonable outcomes than, say, NW because of its 2-player nature. This being said, I offered some optional rules (see talk.consimworld.com and www.grognard.com) to reduce the luck factor due to the cards.
"2) The details of how the "detachable" provinces work still give me a little trouble and I'm not entirely sure why this feature was considered necessary to the game, considering the abstract nature of much of the rest of the design choices (such as the role of navies, economics etc. ). The rules suggest that Tirol, for example, will become insurgent anytime that Austria joins the coalition, or itself becomes insurgent. Is it literaly true therefore that an insurgent marker is placed there anytime a similar one, or a coalition marker, is placed in Austria (regardless of what, if anything, in terms of units/markers, was in Tirol up to that point)? I specifically wonder if an insurgent marker would be placed alongside a coalition marker in Tirol on the occasion of Austria going (back?) to the coaliton, without having gone through the insurgency stage, in the example of Tirol being liberated before Austria itself (perhaps to reflect the difficulty France would have exerting any more diplomatic pressure on it?). What is behind the statement that the detachables "usually" go back to the original owner?? What specifically would prevent this?
If a detached Saxony is conquered by the Coalition but Prussia is not part of the Coalition, Saxony could not be reattached to Prussia, for instance.
If detached, and therefore a French dominion, Tirol insurrects when Austria joins the Coalition. You can place an insurrection marker there. If a French (or ally) corps is already occupying Tirol, or occupies it soon after, the insurrection marker stays but is replaced with a French dominion marker in the next insurrection phase.
"3) It is implicit but not explicit in the rules that insurrection events are not playable on French Allies. Is this the case?"
They are playable on French dominions and French-occupied neutrals. It seems excessive to have define what cannot be done, when you define what can be done.
"4) The "Joseph" event card transforms a French ally into a dominion but states on the card and in the scenario folder that it is only playable by the Coalition player. Logic and history would suggest that this event should be only playable by the French player. This stratagem certainly rebounded on Napoleon but it was their own doing! Considering that you wanted to highlight the two-edged sword nature of dominion vs. allied status for the French, would it not seem more consistent and accurate for the French player to have to be the one to decide whether to play this card as an event or not? Or, at least, shouldn't either side be able to play it?"
Indeed, it could have been playable by both sides, and to tell you the ****h I am not sure if that wasn't the way it was in my playtest rules, but if I have to choose, I'd rather make it a Coalition play only card.
"5) The rules state that immediately upon becoming a member of the Coalition, home corps appear in accordance with the reinforcement schedule. In the case of a state with only one area, and that area could already host a french army, does the potential corps still appear and trigger a battle, or does the area for placement have to be free of enemy units as rule 9.4 states?"
It depends on the reason why the country is joining the Coalition. If it is after its neutrality is violated, it is explicitly said that the corps may appear in a region occupied by the French. If it is after a diplomatic card play, I'd say that the corps cannot be deployed as per rule 9.4, therefore the Coalition player would be foolish to play the diplo card if that is the case.
"What if the state in question already has an insurgency marker on it...does that alter the situation?"
No.
"Since the placement must await the final moves of the army which triggered the status change, it is possible that all areas in a multi-area state could be filled."
Yes, but no difference since we're looking at the case of neutrality violation.
"Rule 11.5 gives an example of a home corps appearing in the same area as an enemy corps and triggering battle."
Indeed.
"If there is a non-enemy occupied space available does it have to be used or is it always possible to place home corps in area(s) with enemy armies?"
The latter- see above.
"Is it only in the case of a neutrality violation that this is possible or can it also occur through the change in status resulting from the play of diplomatic events?"
The former - see above.
"I realize I have asked a lot of questions, but I hope you take this as a sign of my genuine interest in the game and that my intention is not just to be nit-picky. I look forward to playing this game more in the future and also look forward to a lot of lively discussion around it. Perhaps someone should be thinking of establishing a FAQ link to this excellent board-game."
Thanks. No problem. I am also working on true living rules incorporating the errata and clarifications, although this will have to be without the illos.
|
| Bubslug |
Posted - 09 Mar 2004 : 11:13:59
It's been a week. Right...not a good place to ask questions or obtain information. I found the FAQ I spoke of elsewhere and some queries have been answered, except about the play of "Joseph." Was sure it would show up as errata. If there is a card that lets either the French or the coaliton player create dominions (Napoleonic Dynasty), why is there a card that also creates a dominion but is only playable by the coalition? I think an explanation would be helpful in understanding the intent behind the wording as it stands. Particularly in the light of the fact that it was Napoleon's idea to restore Joseph to the throne of Spain in the original instance (bad idea though it might have been), it seems odd and inconsistent not to let the French have their way with him in the game, if that's how they want to play their cards!! BTW, I don't particularly care who takes a swing at answering this question..I would just be curious at anyone's kick at an explanation. Amongst ourselves, we treat it as a card either player can play as an event. Tell me why that's not right?!?
Cheers, RJY |
| Bubslug |
Posted - 29 Feb 2004 : 02:15:47
M. Verlaque: Congratulations on a very fine 2-player strategic/operational level game set in the Napoleonic era! The publisher is particularly to be complemented on the component quality and artwork!
The lineage to GMT's "Napoleonic Wars" is apparent, as well as to Avalanche's "Soldier Kings." These are however, as you have noted, multi-player games and are long, long games to play. Recognizing that you wanted to be somewhat original, I think your blending of the card-driven mechanic with the feel of a more traditional wargame, has resulted in a highly playable boardgame that can be completed by two experienced folks in an evening. The game has just become available in North America and my experience is therefore limited, but a few initial observations and questions:
1) The diplomatic "meta-game" is intriguing; but, of the games of this type (viz. the ones previously referred to) the shifting of diplomatic status of the majors/minors seems to be much more fluid...almost bewilderingly so at times. The number and frequency of appearance of the diplomatic event cards would seem to be the explanation for that. Perhaps, because of my experience with the others in this genre, I'm not used to the way powers can flip from ally to neutral to enemy in a brief span of game cycles. Was this intentional? For example, I feel that Russia...the historic French burial ground...should be more resistant to this sort of thing than is the case at present.
2) The details of how the "detachable" provinces work still give me a little trouble and I'm not entirely sure why this feature was considered necessary to the game, considering the abstract nature of much of the rest of the design choices (such as the role of navies, economics etc. ). The rules suggest that Tirol, for example, will become insurgent anytime that Austria joins the coalition, or itself becomes insurgent. Is it literaly true therefore that an insurgent marker is placed there anytime a similar one, or a coalition marker, is placed in Austria (regardless of what, if anything, in terms of units/markers, was in Tirol up to that point)? I specifically wonder if an insurgent marker would be placed alongside a coalition marker in Tirol on the occasion of Austria going (back?) to the coaliton, without having gone through the insurgency stage, in the example of Tirol being liberated before Austria itself (perhaps to reflect the difficulty France would have exerting any more diplomatic pressure on it?). What is behind the statement that the detachables "usually" go back to the original owner?? What specifically would prevent this?
3) It is implicit but not explicit in the rules that insurrection events are not playable on French Allies. Is this the case?
4) The "Joseph" event card transforms a French ally into a dominion but states on the card and in the scenario folder that it is only playable by the Coalition player. Logic and history would suggest that this event should be only playable by the French player. This stratagem certainly rebounded on Napoleon but it was their own doing! Considering that you wanted to highlight the two-edged sword nature of dominion vs. allied status for the French, would it not seem more consistent and accurate for the French player to have to be the one to decide whether to play this card as an event or not? Or, at least, shouldn't either side be able to play it?
5) The rules state that immediately upon becoming a member of the Coalition, home corps appear in accordance with the reinforcement schedule. In the case of a state with only one area, and that area could already host a french army, does the potential corps still appear and trigger a battle, or does the area for placement have to be free of enemy units as rule 9.4 states? What if the state in question already has an insurgency marker on it...does that alter the situation? Since the placement must await the final moves of the army which triggered the status change, it is possible that all areas in a multi-area state could be filled. Rule 11.5 gives an example of a home corps appearing in the same area as an enemy corps and triggering battle. If there is a non-enemy occupied space available does it have to be used or is it always possible to place home corps in area(s) with enemy armies? Is it only in the case of a neutrality violation that this is possible or can it also occur through the change in status resulting from the play of diplomatic events?
I realize I have asked a lot of questions, but I hope you take this as a sign of my genuine interest in the game and that my intention is not just to be nit-picky. I look forward to playing this game more in the future and also look forward to a lot of lively discussion around it. Perhaps someone should be thinking of establishing a FAQ link to this excellent board-game.
Cheers, RJY |
| Renaud Verlaque |
Posted - 23 Jan 2004 : 03:47:25
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Lord Gro[/i]
[br]Also, on p. 6 of the scenario book, where it says the French
TBM is +4 (middle of first column), shouldn't it be +3?
And at the top of the second column, shouldn't the French TBM
be +0, not +1? Have I misunderstood something?
Thanks,
Gro
In the first column, the French have a battle strength of 21, hence the +4 TBM, and in the second column, they have a battle strength of 6, hence the +1 TBM. |
| Flaymore |
Posted - 21 Jan 2004 : 15:39:28
Regarding your first question, you're perfectly right. There is definitely no other way to reorganize your troops. But keep in mind that you only have to pay once per stack. |
| Lord Gro |
Posted - 08 Jan 2004 : 18:03:05
Also, on p. 6 of the scenario book, where it says the French
TBM is +4 (middle of first column), shouldn't it be +3?
And at the top of the second column, shouldn't the French TBM
be +0, not +1? Have I misunderstood something?
Thanks,
Gro
|
| Lord Gro |
Posted - 08 Jan 2004 : 02:13:58
Is it correct that the only way corps can become "unspent" is
1) to discard a card during the Reinforcement phase, or
2) to discard a card after you win a battle (and don't pursue)
?
Thanks.
Gro
|
|
|
All Forums
Age of Napoleon