A friend once betrayed me in a game of risk (or whatever the nuclear war equivalent is), my vendetta followed him all night and it was particularly in Goldeneye that he learned his stern lesson.
It’s quite good, but I have never been able to find six people willing to sit through the 5+ hours it takes to explain the rules and play the first game. It also suffers from the same problem common to most strategy war games - once you start losing, it’s a long, painful slog 'til the end.
It’s worth mentioning that with four or five players, there’s a bunch of unoccupied territory in the south, that can be easily captured by anyone close, giving them an early lead, it’s a lot more balanced with six players.
In your first game, get used to using boats as stepping stones to allow your armies to move large distances and you’ll be able to surprise your opponents by threatening a straight-forward attack, and then hitting them in the rear as they move troops to defend against your feint. Very fun to pull off, although I’ve never got close to winning.
Based on Diplomacy? And here I thought Kingmaker would be a more appropriate inspiration, just as the Wars of the Roses inspired Game of Thrones. Yeah, getting six people together to play a complicated, all day game is difficult. We used to manage every once in a while for Civilization or Advanced Civilization, but I’ve only managed to get people together to try and tackle Republic of Rome twice.
make a digital version so I can play on my PC!
games are frequently organized through the /r/AGOTBoardGame subreddit.
were you at least able to save rome from carthage?
I adore this game. Definitely one of my favorite strategic board games. It bears noting that there is a 4 player expansion for the game that shortens game play time considerably. I have also found that early leads for the Baratheons and Martels equalize pretty quickly. I, for one, have found the Greyjoys to be a fun family to play.
I just can’t get past the fact that it CLEARLY should have been called A Board Game of Thrones.
Or “Game² of Thrones.”
I think I made the one time I played end early when in reply to a plea for help was well I can tell I am not going to win so may as well make sure you don’t win either to the player who till that point had been a major pain.
Um…that’s pretty much what the Mad King Aerys tried to do.
Never did figure out who to fear more: The Carthaginians or Scipio.
An awful lot of calls “For the Good of Rome”, where at least 2/3rd of the players were forgetting to pronounce the first two letters of the last word.
A fine game, but in a dozen games, Rome has only once made it out of a first age both alive and a Republic.
Maybe this is just my neurosis talking, but I’ve seen several games of various types based on “A Song of Ice and Fire”, and each time I find myself puzzled at the idea of a game based on an incomplete story. In particular. how do you have a game about the competing factions, when much of the tension in the story revolves around how we aren’t sure of what all the factions are, or even what the factions we do know of are doing?
I’ve played this a couple times; and the author is right about the length of games. Granted, we were going a bit slowly as we didn’t know exactly what we were doing, but the games ended up being around six? seven? eight? hours. The game’s not bad, but I can’t help but feel that it suffers from a little too much complexity.
I see two good ways.
Make it a prequel, based on known ‘history’.
Shrug and don’t worry so much. As an interactive medium, it’s never going to 100% meet canon anyway so embrace the wrongness in the name of fun. (Civilization’s ‘Gandhi with Nukes’ approach).
I don’t feel its the complexity that is its downfall, but the ending criteria.
Without a mechanism to accelerate the chance of taking over (think cards in Risk, etc.), there’s too much of “Bring down anyone close to winning”.
I enjoy the game, but I think it needs an ending rule. Typically, these are something like:
After n (2-3?) hours, at the end of each game turn, roll a pair of dice. On a 12, the game ends and determine the winner. The next turn it’s an 11. Then a 10…, and so on.
Means that you don’t know when the game will end so you can’t make a 1 turn rush. But puts a time limit on the game.
That’s a good point and a good idea, although I assume you mean that on an 11 or above, the game ends. It’s definitely true that whoever is close to winning gets stomped on. On the other hand, the cards mechanism in Risk is what seems to be its most complained-about “feature,” as it makes everyone hold onto their cards as long as possible to get the max number of armies. That said, I haven’t played enough Risk to know whether this really damages the game or not.
You’re over-thinking it. These games are never (rarely?) based on canon, but more of an “what-if” interpretation of the game. The Battlestar Galactica board game allows any character to theoretically be a cylon, regardless of what actually happens on the show.