Medieval society had law and order just like today. You couldn’t just march into your neighbour’s estates and take his castle by force - you’d become an outlaw.
Examples:
The Hundred Years War (France vs England)
Dispute between the Capetians and Angevins over who had the best claim to the Crown of France.
Wars of the Roses (York vs Lancaster)
Dispute between two cadet branches of the Angevins over who had the best right to succeed the extinct senior branch on the throne of England.
Battle of Nibley Green (between a couple of minor nobles)
Dispute between the Talbots and Berkeleys over who had the right to succeed to the Lisle inheritance.
This continued up till the modern era, with the War of the Spanish succession and so forth. Before the French Revolution, this is what wars tended to be about. Whether its about claiming an entire kingdom, or just a few local manors, people fought over exactly the same thing on the scale of their social status.
Taking possession of important estates, therefore, was much more about physically eliminating rival bloodlines than besieging castles.
Not to mention that, as most medieval strategy games seem to forget, THERE WERE NO STANDING ARMIES. Everyone just went home at the end of the campaign season, and harvested their crops. Get ready to remove all your units from the board at the end of each turn.
Depends on what part of Europe you’re talking about :wink:.
I’m fine with capture the castle, I’d rather not discuss marriage with my buddies over a board game :-P
Believe me, you’d be fighting over the heiresses when you saw what huge tracts of land they have, as well as the odd castle, a ship or two and even a title if you’re especially fortunate.
Basically, heiresses become wards of Parliament, so giving them in marriage to your nobles is a privilege of political power, which is gained by land ownership, which is gained by marrying heiresses, on so on and so forth.
Ultimately, with the right marriages and by backing the winning side in battle you may just get your family of in-bred county gentry onto the throne itself.
It’s hard to tell if A&A WWI 1914 will open the door to more WWI-based games, but here’s another thought on the subject. With WWI about to be covered by the new game, and with WWII well covered by the previous ones, could this open the door to future games based on conflicts during the inter-war period? The Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 would be one possibility. So would the Japanese incursions into China which began in 1931 with the annexation of Manchuria and culminated in the outbreak of full-scale war in 1937. There’s also the Russo-Japanese border conflicts of 1938 and 1939, thought these were fairly limited affairs. Closer to WWI, there’s the Russian Civil War of 1917-1922 and the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1921, which could be rolled into a single game – perhaps even with the Turkish War of Independence of 1919-1923 tossed in at the margins. Personally, I don’t think it’s very likely that we’ll see any A&A games based on these wars: they were on a much smaller scale than WWI, and look at how many decades it took Larry to designing a game around that conflict. But it would be nice to have a chain of games spanning the period from 1914 to 1945. Playing them consecutively at a weekend gaming convention would be an interesting exercise.
@CWO:
It’s hard to tell if A&A WWI 1914 will open the door to more WWI-based games, but here’s another thought on the subject. With WWI about to be covered by the new game, and with WWII well covered by the previous ones, could this open the door to future games based on conflicts during the inter-war period? The Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 would be one possibility. So would the Japanese incursions into China which began in 1931 with the annexation of Manchuria and culminated in the outbreak of full-scale war in 1937. There’s also the Russo-Japanese border conflicts of 1938 and 1939, thought these were fairly limited affairs. Closer to WWI, there’s the Russian Civil War of 1917-1922 and the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1921, which could be rolled into a single game – perhaps even with the Turkish War of Independence of 1919-1923 tossed in at the margins. Personally, I don’t think it’s very likely that we’ll see any A&A games based on these wars: they were on a much smaller scale than WWI, and look at how many decades it took Larry to designing a game around that conflict. But it would be nice to have a chain of games spanning the period from 1914 to 1945. Playing them consecutively at a weekend gaming convention would be an interesting exercise.
Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that Larry Harris will produce an “Axis & Allies” based game without the USA in it. He hasn’t yet, not even a small scale game like battle of the bulge or Guadalcanal. Which, on one hand, I can understand since the US is probably their biggest market for these games. How many people here would buy a “Spanish Civil War game”? Probably not many.
I was intrigued by the Singapore game on FMGs, but I haven’t jumped the gun because I’m not sure I can get anyone to play- I have a hard enough time to get people to play Axis & Allies WITH the US as it is.
Shogun is a considerable seller without the U.S. in it.
Shogun is a considerable seller without the U.S. in it.
You are right about Shogun, and you could argue Diplomacy too, but there aren’t many.
What about the Viet Nam war, the US was in that.
Oh.
Viet nam war could be made into a fun game, with helicopter rules or something like that. The US would have superior military, but fewer units- maybe some kind of home morale system affected by US troop losses? Would the Vietnamese/Chinese have human wave tactics? Perhaps you could change history and fight the war like it was a war and not a police action.
It would be hard to model a war in which the US forces never lost a significant battle, but was still forced to stop fighting.
I still would like a Napoleonic war based A&A with North America as a sideshow.
Have you seen War and Peace by Worthington Games? The price is a little steep and it doesn’t include North America, but it’s a A&A clone.
Have you seen War and Peace by Worthington Games? The price is a little steep and it doesn’t include North America, but it’s a A&A clone.
Looks interesting, but very few territories for maneuver.
Viet nam war could be made into a fun game, with helicopter rules or something like that. The US would have superior military, but fewer units- maybe some kind of home morale system affected by US troop losses? Would the Vietnamese/Chinese have human wave tactics? Perhaps you could change history and fight the war like it was a war and not a police action.Â
It would be hard to model a war in which the US forces never lost a significant battle, but was still forced to stop fighting.
I still would like a Napoleonic war based A&A with North America as a sideshow.
I don’t know if I’d call this a “major” engagement, but it is a significant battle the U.S. lost in Vietnam!
Viet nam war could be made into a fun game, with helicopter rules or something like that.� The US would have superior military, but fewer units- maybe some kind of home morale system affected by US troop losses?� Would the Vietnamese/Chinese have human wave tactics?� Perhaps you could change history and fight the war like it was a war and not a police action.�
It would be hard to model a war in which the US forces never lost a significant battle, but was still forced to stop fighting.
I still would like a Napoleonic war based A&A with North America as a sideshow.
I don’t know if I’d call this a “major” engagement, but it is a significant battle the U.S. lost in Vietnam!
Well, that certainly was a small engagement, but it doesn’t disprove my point that it would be a difficult war to manage in an A&A game.
Have you seen War and Peace by Worthington Games? The price is a little steep and it doesn’t include North America, but it’s a A&A clone.
Looks interesting, but very few territories for maneuver.
I looked too Wove, thank you.
I have got very interested in the Napoleonic struggle since the Total War franchise brought out Napoleon(maybe 3 years ago now). I also like the AAA Napoleon game.
Viet nam war could be made into a fun game, with helicopter rules or something like that.� The US would have superior military, but fewer units- maybe some kind of home morale system affected by US troop losses?� Would the Vietnamese/Chinese have human wave tactics?� Perhaps you could change history and fight the war like it was a war and not a police action.�
It would be hard to model a war in which the US forces never lost a significant battle, but was still forced to stop fighting.
I have a scenario I’m working on for Vietnam. It involves helicopter landings, infiltrating Vietnamese troops, and terrain difficulties. I have the map and rules pretty well done, just need to playtest it and refine the rules a bit. Also need to figure out victory conditions (probably use a morale system like you mentioned). I’d be happy to post it on this board if anyone’s interested (would that go in “House Rules,” or “Modifications?”).
Just make it a ‘hearts and minds’ game! With the bulk of forces being neutral units that begin to sway this way or that!
Irregardless… a VERY difficult concept for A&A.
Shogun is a considerable seller without the U.S. in it.
Isn’t Richard Chamberlain American? It wouldn’t have got made without an American playing then hero.
Shogun is a considerable seller without the U.S. in it.
Isn’t Richard Chamberlain American? It wouldn’t have got made without an American playing then hero.
He is, but plays an Englishman… ;)
With an American accent. Like Kevin Costner in Robin Hood.
Its getting to the stage than British actors who want to play heroes will have to do American accents. If American actors could learn British actors they’d get to play villains, which is more fun.
I like it when British play German officers in American movies……like Star Wars.
