Often in games of this class the early game is fascinating and then by the late midgame you are staggering under the logistical weight of managing several hundred units, and suddenly it’s not fun anymore. I liked Warlords better than the alternatives because the designer made some smart simplifying assumptions about unit management and generation. The goal was simple: take over the world. Castles generated income, which could be used to fund more armies (and to support them you had to pay upkeep for your existing troops). 8 kingdoms each started with a single castle, a hero, and an army. The original Warlords, which had both Mac and DOS versions, took place on a large continent named Etheria. So one core game mechanic can be used for many different vibes.įor my money, the best in class of these games was the Warlords series. Change the trolls into cavalry and now you’re in the Napoleonic era. Change the artillery pieces into men in funny hats and the tanks into trolls, and it’s a “fantasy” game. Draw pictures of artillery pieces and tanks on the chits, and it’s a World War II game. One feature of this sort of game is that the theme is more or less completely disconnected from the mechanics. In my college years, I enjoyed XConq, which was a very thorough (though baroque) implementation. There have been hundreds of implementations of these throughout the years. Empire had supply points (cities) which could be captured, that could produce a variety of units with different capabilities (land, sea, air) and different attack and defense values.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |