I couldn't make it to the club yesterday, but Gordon won as Syracuse against William and Simon as Carthage. Mark said at one point a week or so ago that if the great powers continue to be unable to conquer anything, we might need to tweak the game. So far we have ruled that a draw counts as a victory for the defence, in that it forces the attacker to retire. Perhaps we should amend this so that if a great power manages a second draw against a province (not another great power), then a deal is struck and the province is assimilated voluntarily. Which doesn't preclude a later rebellion, of course. I mentioned this idea to Gordon and he wasn't convinced, but I think I'll moot it more generally before next week's game: Persia tries again to conquer Aegyptus.
I think 250 extra points for empires in every engagement.
ReplyDeleteits not too much, but it does reflect their ability to raise more stuff.
Except the Romans, of course.
Hi Mark, I see where you're coming from, but it does mean that some of the armies could become very large - look at all those Persians as it is! Not that I have a problem with that, since most weeks we play multiplayer anyway, so it would still be manageable in the space and time available. The problem with Romans is that the later development of the Polybian army costs over 2,000 points just for the legionaries, so any army we produce for a base of 2,000 points will be a fiddle of some kind. In fact, I've already done some work on that, based on four legions each of eight velites, sixteen hastati, sixteen principes, and eight triarii. With twenty-four average cavalry, this army stands at 1488 points, leaving enough left over to increase cavalry quality/quantity, or buy whatever local troops are available (e.g. Spanish infantry). Gordon is convinced that he knows how to beat the Egyptians, so he feels that we don't need to increase the fighting power of the Empire armies, but maybe we can have a discussion once we see how he gets on next week...
ReplyDeleteCheers
Paul