Ah, you're doing this one. It was designed by the Rahmans, who are much better known for Divine Right. But also, Alan Moon, had started working for Avalon Hill at this time and was involved in its development. He would later become well known for a lot of very popular games, including the Ticket to Ride series. I think the setting is meant to be Georgian rather than medieval, but the presentation is sort of vague. I played this several times, partly because we were always looking for multi-player strategy historical games, which were much rarer back then. There was a variant in The General that added more tables of things characters could do, which made things a little more interesting, but still did not fix the basic problems. I had forgotten that characters had an Ability rating by the time I made Founding Fathers, unless I remembered subliminally? Really the Ability in my game is a rename of the Military rating in The Republic of Rome, but changed to a more general term because not every problem is a war.
Excited about this one. I couple of years ago, I tried to create a vassel module for this game without ever playing it. Really kind of screwed the pooch on that one. It will be interesting to watch a game of if. Might even inspire me to try again. Was always interested in the game, but only came as close as advertisements and an ocassional article in The General.
Hi. My comment is mainly a request about something else. I was wondering if you can do a short segment, comparing the writing qualities of vintage and modern game "rule books". I know you probably have read thousands and thousands of pages about tabletop wargames and it seems to me, there are still some serious issues about the basic text instructions in rule books that are still difficult to read, to understand, to follow, or at least always lead to some misinterpretations of how a game should be played. I wonder why this is so? Would appreciate very much if you can share some of your experience, about the good, the bad, and the ugly side of rule books. Thanks.
I've put a fair amount of my personal tastes into various vids on the subject. It's an interesting topic, but I don't know if I want to spend the effort (much more than usual) in really giving it its due. It would involve fishing out examples all over the place. Ten years ago, I woulda eaten up the idea though. :P
I have a an old copy of this on my shelf (gathering dust). In the past, I've been really intrigued by the political fantasy theme of the game, and have attempted to play it a few times but I found the rules pretty hard going and clunky. I think there is a good game somewhere in this though - perhaps a re-print or more streamlined version of the game can be considered for the near future?
Ah, you're doing this one. It was designed by the Rahmans, who are much better known for Divine Right. But also, Alan Moon, had started working for Avalon Hill at this time and was involved in its development. He would later become well known for a lot of very popular games, including the Ticket to Ride series.
I think the setting is meant to be Georgian rather than medieval, but the presentation is sort of vague. I played this several times, partly because we were always looking for multi-player strategy historical games, which were much rarer back then. There was a variant in The General that added more tables of things characters could do, which made things a little more interesting, but still did not fix the basic problems. I had forgotten that characters had an Ability rating by the time I made Founding Fathers, unless I remembered subliminally? Really the Ability in my game is a rename of the Military rating in The Republic of Rome, but changed to a more general term because not every problem is a war.
Excited about this one. I couple of years ago, I tried to create a vassel module for this game without ever playing it. Really kind of screwed the pooch on that one. It will be interesting to watch a game of if. Might even inspire me to try again. Was always interested in the game, but only came as close as advertisements and an ocassional article in The General.
It's an interesting idea, and I really do think it influenced some of the later games.
Jane...that harlot...
Interesting, never even heard of this one. Any game with a "foppish looking dude" is worth a look in my book.
Hi. My comment is mainly a request about something else. I was wondering if you can do a short segment, comparing the writing qualities of vintage and modern game "rule books". I know you probably have read thousands and thousands of pages about tabletop wargames and it seems to me, there are still some serious issues about the basic text instructions in rule books that are still difficult to read, to understand, to follow, or at least always lead to some misinterpretations of how a game should be played. I wonder why this is so? Would appreciate very much if you can share some of your experience, about the good, the bad, and the ugly side of rule books. Thanks.
I've put a fair amount of my personal tastes into various vids on the subject. It's an interesting topic, but I don't know if I want to spend the effort (much more than usual) in really giving it its due. It would involve fishing out examples all over the place. Ten years ago, I woulda eaten up the idea though. :P
I have a an old copy of this on my shelf (gathering dust). In the past, I've been really intrigued by the political fantasy theme of the game, and have attempted to play it a few times but I found the rules pretty hard going and clunky. I think there is a good game somewhere in this though - perhaps a re-print or more streamlined version of the game can be considered for the near future?
It needs significant reworking to be particularly good, IMO.
I had exactly the same thought, and-regrettably-experience.