"Dweeb" wrote in message news: <9vi3vf$6or$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... I thought I'd make some comments about this game while it was still fresh in my mind. We played two games of this using the "standard" rules and normal setup. The game is actually a fairly standard conquer-the-world type game, "Advanced Risk" was what a few people called it. Some others noted a marked resemblance to the computer game "Sid Meier's Civilization". The complexity level is comparable to Axis and Allies. Players basically just pick starting countries and armies and fight. Note that there is a "Historical Scenario" that may be more interesting to some wargamers. As has been mentioned, the graphical presentation of all the Eagle games is spectacular. This makes it VERY easy to lure players and onlookers alike. The components actually have a few problems: -The map, while huge, is not really big enough. Large armies will not fit in most spaces and the game provides no "army" markers. -It is nearly impossible to tell the "Cavalry" from the "Leaders". We took the black horses from the ACW set to help with this. -The round chips which define the size of the "Native Armies" each have a number. There is apparently NO way to tell a "6" from a "9". We just decided they were all "6"s, but I'm sure this is not the designer's intent. I thought this was kind of unbelievable. -There are not even close to enough "Building" pieces, and the rules do not state if the mix provided is the limit. The game mechanics are standard move-and-attack. Battles are resolved by roll-offs. Using the Standard rules, battles must be fought to the death, which we thought was a little silly. The game goes through two rounds of move-and-attack followed by a building round. The Building aspect of the game is kind of interesting. The arrangement of the cities, factories and railroads is an important consideration for maximizing income. There are also strategic aspects to the placement of cities, schools, and ports as certain units can only be built at these spots. Players "explore, expand, exploit, exterminate" in classic computer-game fashion. One rule players seemed to like requires players to "declare war" on each other at least 1 turn before attacking. All players felt there are problems with the rules as written and with the gameplay. Comments included: -Native armies can be VERY powerful, and each "unexplored" country at the start of the game has one. Furthermore, any native army not completely destroyed will rebound to full strength for the next attack. This, combined with the no-retreat rule, could cost a player many many turns of army building in a single battle. -It seems there is not much reason to attack fellow players until nearly all the native populations are suppressed, and this can take many hours. Further play might reveal that this is an incorrect stategy. -The no-retreat rule kind of insures that when players DO fight, one or both player's armies will be decimated, leaving the door wide open for a rollover, which may be by an opportunistic third player. -The "first" player will be first in ALL building and move-and-attack rounds for the entire game - a minor quibble. In addition, there are a number of rules holes that we needed to patch by mutual agreement. Having said all this, we actually had a pretty good time playing the game. This type of game is easily understood should fit well with many gaming groups, particularly the Axis-and-Allies crowd. A few miniatures players at our club thought they might pick it up just to have the pieces. The standard scale will allow them to be easily used for other purposes, as well as allowing other minis to be incorporated into the game. There is also the prospect of "House Rules". If we play again, we will probably be using the "Historical Scenario" and we will DEFINITELY be including a retreat rule. "Brady Severns" wrote in message news: <3C1D46F9.DED305E5@earthlink.net>... Dweeb wrote: > The game is actually a fairly standard conquer-the-world type game, > "Advanced Risk" was what a few people called it. Some others noted a marked > resemblance to the computer game "Sid Meier's Civilization". The complexity > level is comparable to Axis and Allies. Players basically just pick starting > countries and armies and fight. Note that there is a "Historical Scenario" > that may be more interesting to some wargamers. My group has played the basic and standard as well. We had a lot of fun. Another favorable comparison is to GTG's old "Grand Imperialism" game. It often felt like that. There's also an element of "Pax Britannica" in the way you need to keep track of resources and builds, but it's not as heavy as Pax. A couple new players to the standard game picked things up right away. > > As has been mentioned, the graphical presentation of all the Eagle games is > spectacular. This makes it VERY easy to lure players and onlookers alike. Agreed. The toy factor is huge and all the pieces (except for the ships and civic structures) are 1/72 scale. A little big, IMO, but you get a big map... > The components actually have a few problems: > -The map, while huge, is not really big enough. Large armies will not fit in > most spaces and the game provides no "army" markers. True. The game should have offered some Army markers like they do in the ACW game (in the form of standard bearers). My complaint about the maps in both games is that the margins of the map aren't utilized well. Some staging boxes for the Army markers would work well here. > -It is nearly impossible to tell the "Cavalry" from the "Leaders". We took > the black horses from the ACW set to help with this. Great idea. We hit upon that as well. People that don't wish to go that route could paint the horse or mark the base with a black marker. > -The round chips which define the size of the "Native Armies" each have a > number. There is apparently NO way to tell a "6" from a "9". We just decided > they were all "6"s, but I'm sure this is not the designer's intent. I > thought this was kind of unbelievable. Aarrgghh! We noticed this, too. We discovered that on all chits the "+" marks were all to the right of the number. In case the 6 or 9 had no such, we tossed a die and marked the chit with a pencil. I'm going to mark my chits with a marker before I punch them out. > -There are not even close to enough "Building" pieces, and the rules do not > state if the mix provided is the limit. Hmm. Except for schools and forts, there should only be one civic structure (City, Train, Port, or Factory) to a space. > The game mechanics are standard move-and-attack. Battles are resolved by > roll-offs. Using the Standard rules, battles must be fought to the death, > which we thought was a little silly. The game goes through two rounds of > move-and-attack followed by a building round. The Building aspect of the > game is kind of interesting. The arrangement of the cities, factories and > railroads is an important consideration for maximizing income. There are > also strategic aspects to the placement of cities, schools, and ports as > certain units can only be built at these spots. Players "explore, expand, > exploit, exterminate" in classic computer-game fashion. One rule players > seemed to like requires players to "declare war" on each other at least 1 > turn before attacking. It does blunt the standard gang-on-the-leader tactic. Basically, the rule seems to encourage negotiation and relying upon a Casus Belli (cause for war) like Pax Britannica has. > All players felt there are problems with the rules as written and with the > gameplay. Comments included: > > -Native armies can be VERY powerful, and each "unexplored" country at the > start of the game has one. Furthermore, any native army not completely > destroyed will rebound to full strength for the next attack. This, combined > with the no-retreat rule, could cost a player many many turns of army > building in a single battle. Some armies are extremely powerful. The grace is that they'll never leap their fences to attack you. And there are plenty of weak armies in the game. (The mix is different in every game) By our second game, we learned that's it's to everyone's benefit to develop a strong core area with cities and factories (and at least one school) before setting off to conquer exotic lands. > -It seems there is not much reason to attack fellow players until nearly all > the native populations are suppressed, and this can take many hours. Further > play might reveal that this is an incorrect stategy. We played for three hours and managed to get most indigenous peoples on our side. A few powerful ones were left very much alone. In the last half-hour, we had a clear leader and I went after him. Some others joined in afterwards to assist when my tech was just a little low to make permanent headway. I was crushed but we all had fun! > -The no-retreat rule kind of insures that when players DO fight, one or both > player's armies will be decimated, leaving the door wide open for a > rollover, which may be by an opportunistic third player. I thought the standard (or maybe it's the advanced game) allows players a reserve so that they may retreat. I do know the rules allow players the option of using the combat system from either the ACW game or their upcoming Napoleonic release as an alternative to the one in the game. > -The "first" player will be first in ALL building and move-and-attack rounds > for the entire game - a minor quibble. We've decided to try random turn orders for future games. A bid system might not be bad, either. > In addition, there are a number of rules holes that we needed to patch by > mutual agreement. > > Having said all this, we actually had a pretty good time playing the game. > This type of game is easily understood should fit well with many gaming > groups, particularly the Axis-and-Allies crowd. A few miniatures players at > our club thought they might pick it up just to have the pieces. The standard > scale will allow them to be easily used for other purposes, as well as > allowing other minis to be incorporated into the game. We noticed it, too. Heck, buying any of these games will give you enough 1/72 scale pieces to play around with miniatures rules for the period they cover. Great review! Brady "Jeph Stahl" wrote in message news: ... > -The round chips which define the size of the "Native Armies" each have a > number. There is apparently NO way to tell a "6" from a "9". We just decided > they were all "6"s, but I'm sure this is not the designer's intent. I > thought this was kind of unbelievable. I asked Eagle Games about this problem. They answered the following: "We missed the underlining: We should have done it ourselves. However, if you are underlining, simply look on the front of the counter. The spear points should be pointing up." Hope this helps, Cheers, Jeph Stahl Great Lake Gamers