Friday Night Gaming: Conquest of the Fallen Lands, War on Terror
September 11, 2009
After taking a week off for Pacificon, the usual suspects got back together for a couple of games. This summary comes late because I found myself writing full reviews of the games which I then decided to excise.
Conquest of the Fallen Lands
I've been eyeing this game for a while, so when I heard that Merwin had picked it up, I immediately requested it. This is an area control game with a medieval theme. Among the points in its favor is a randomly generated playing field, quick game play, no direct player conflict but lots of indirect conflict, and no randomness beyond the cards you draw. There are two versions of the rules: the basic game and the advanced game. We chose the basic game because the online comments (follow link, above) indicated that it was faster, better for more players (we had 5), and less prone to analysis paralysis. In the future, we may try the advanced game, but I'm very happy with the basic game.
Though heavy on tactics, early decisions on which followers to recruit(soldiers, craftsmen, or wizards) can affect your overall strategy. For my part, I was dealt a beginning hand with powerful spells which needed 3 wizards to use. Since I could only recruit 1 follower per turn, I simply couldn't afford it. I jettisoned my magic-based cards and ended with a hand very dependent on soldiers and craftsmen. This trend continued until the last turns of the game. However, without wizards, I was drawing fewer cards, which limited my options and ability to expand in the end-game.
Ian and I started in the middle of the board while Merwin, Brian, and Robert were on the edges. Somehow, Ian and I expanded in two different directions and weren't in conflict with each other. He did, however, ended up fighting for territory with the other three. His craftsmen-centric force was a clear threat while Brian and Merwin had a ton of cards. I won a squeaker, mostly because I was left alone.
War on Terror
Being that it was "nine-eleven" and all, Merwin had threatened to pull out this game. And he did. I managed to read the primary rule book, but not the one that details what all the cards do, not realizing that it also explained how some of the major actions, like declaring war, work. We worked our way through the vagueness of some key rules and even forgot a semi-major one that might have helped me during the two times I was (randomly) declared the Axis of Evil.
I respect the game for what it is. It's like Risk combined with Settlers of Catan (except there is only one resource: oil). In addition to the player units, there are also neutral terrorist units which can be deployed in enemy territory. So while sponsoring terrorists are the only way to strike at opponents when you don't share a common border, other players can use those same terrorists against you later on. Thematically, it's clever and as a 90-minute game, it would be a gem. But it took the 5 of us over 3 hours. By then, we were practically begging for it to end.
Brian started in North America, which ended up having the best (randomly distributed) oil reserves by far. Ian started in South America, but was wiped out early when Robert nuked him. Ian then took over as "the Terrorist Player" but was perhaps too cash-strapped to use them effectively. I spend most of my time in Africa and Southern Europe. Robert focused on Asia and Eastern Europe. Merwin focused on Australia and Nowhere (Antarctica); he was the second player to "turn terrorist," though I still don't know exactly why he did it.
In a key point (for me), I had a card which would cost another player money (120 to 180 Million). I told Brian and Robert that I wouldn't use it on the player who payed me the most. Brian bid 50 mil. Robert threatened retaliation. I played the card on Robert. He nuked me the next turn. But he was kind: he only took out my European holdings (including by best city) rather than the entire African continent. I was able to recover, but Brian was already well on his way to victory.
Actions are card-driven. The number of development actions is based on a die roll. Combat is based on dice. Resource location is random and which regions pay out each turn is based on dice. There are both strategic and tactical decisions, but too much is out of your control. As I said, shorter would be better. As it is, I think Merwin will trade it.
After taking a week off for Pacificon, the usual suspects got back together for a couple of games. This summary comes late because I found myself writing full reviews of the games which I then decided to excise.
Conquest of the Fallen Lands
I've been eyeing this game for a while, so when I heard that Merwin had picked it up, I immediately requested it. This is an area control game with a medieval theme. Among the points in its favor is a randomly generated playing field, quick game play, no direct player conflict but lots of indirect conflict, and no randomness beyond the cards you draw. There are two versions of the rules: the basic game and the advanced game. We chose the basic game because the online comments (follow link, above) indicated that it was faster, better for more players (we had 5), and less prone to analysis paralysis. In the future, we may try the advanced game, but I'm very happy with the basic game.
Though heavy on tactics, early decisions on which followers to recruit(soldiers, craftsmen, or wizards) can affect your overall strategy. For my part, I was dealt a beginning hand with powerful spells which needed 3 wizards to use. Since I could only recruit 1 follower per turn, I simply couldn't afford it. I jettisoned my magic-based cards and ended with a hand very dependent on soldiers and craftsmen. This trend continued until the last turns of the game. However, without wizards, I was drawing fewer cards, which limited my options and ability to expand in the end-game.
Ian and I started in the middle of the board while Merwin, Brian, and Robert were on the edges. Somehow, Ian and I expanded in two different directions and weren't in conflict with each other. He did, however, ended up fighting for territory with the other three. His craftsmen-centric force was a clear threat while Brian and Merwin had a ton of cards. I won a squeaker, mostly because I was left alone.
War on Terror
Being that it was "nine-eleven" and all, Merwin had threatened to pull out this game. And he did. I managed to read the primary rule book, but not the one that details what all the cards do, not realizing that it also explained how some of the major actions, like declaring war, work. We worked our way through the vagueness of some key rules and even forgot a semi-major one that might have helped me during the two times I was (randomly) declared the Axis of Evil.
I respect the game for what it is. It's like Risk combined with Settlers of Catan (except there is only one resource: oil). In addition to the player units, there are also neutral terrorist units which can be deployed in enemy territory. So while sponsoring terrorists are the only way to strike at opponents when you don't share a common border, other players can use those same terrorists against you later on. Thematically, it's clever and as a 90-minute game, it would be a gem. But it took the 5 of us over 3 hours. By then, we were practically begging for it to end.
Brian started in North America, which ended up having the best (randomly distributed) oil reserves by far. Ian started in South America, but was wiped out early when Robert nuked him. Ian then took over as "the Terrorist Player" but was perhaps too cash-strapped to use them effectively. I spend most of my time in Africa and Southern Europe. Robert focused on Asia and Eastern Europe. Merwin focused on Australia and Nowhere (Antarctica); he was the second player to "turn terrorist," though I still don't know exactly why he did it.
In a key point (for me), I had a card which would cost another player money (120 to 180 Million). I told Brian and Robert that I wouldn't use it on the player who payed me the most. Brian bid 50 mil. Robert threatened retaliation. I played the card on Robert. He nuked me the next turn. But he was kind: he only took out my European holdings (including by best city) rather than the entire African continent. I was able to recover, but Brian was already well on his way to victory.
Actions are card-driven. The number of development actions is based on a die roll. Combat is based on dice. Resource location is random and which regions pay out each turn is based on dice. There are both strategic and tactical decisions, but too much is out of your control. As I said, shorter would be better. As it is, I think Merwin will trade it.
Labels: Other Games
posted by Patrick at 10:41 PM
<< Home