$35.00
Recommend
18 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Falling Sky: The Gallic Revolt Against Caesar» Forums » Sessions

Subject: My second real play - 52 BC scenario rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Michal K
Poland
Otwock
Mazowieckie
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hello Everybody,

today I would like to share with you session report from my second real game. For session report on first one please have a look here: "My first real play - 54 BC scenario"

We played in similar group as previously (me, Jacek, Kuba and Konrad) and decided not to change factions we had in initial game.

The idea was to choose scenario which we can play within one evening - so we chosen 52 BC scenario, short version (30 events max, 2 winters). The question was will Belgae be in any way in position to have active play in that game? As future will show, definitely yeas!

The initial set-up was like this:

What has happened I will depict with below map, which shows final situation at the end of the game:


YEAR 52 BC
(1) The year started with Romans concentrating in Mandubi and Bellovaci. Third army was awaiting in Provincia, to sweep through Arverni lands. And then Arverni struck: devastating both Mandubi and Bellovaci and completely preventing any offensive moves by Rome in that year. As Aedui I started to worry, as too weak Rome is not good for me, so with Trade I managed to supply Roman players with enough resources to survive that...

(2)Belgae, acting quietly, sneaked into Britannia and Treveri, starting long road to 16 victory points. They also evacuated Sugumbri which later on opened nice possibility for Aedui. (well, you ask Aeudi? Here? well, you will see )

(3)Last but not least, Aedui started constant move toward East. Taking over Sequani, building Citadel there and Ally (much thanks to Subdue special action, which helped to eject Arverni) not only gave a great region to them, but also put them in position to withstand Germans attacks, move farther East and control Supply Line.

All in all, that was pretty calm year. You would not be able to say it about next one...

YEAR 51 BC
(4) So Arverni moved before Rome can react and took over Mandubi. In Bitruges they were not so lucky, as my citadel withstood attack. All in all, that was my tactic to have enough warbands next to citadels / allies so even if battle is lost (which was almost always in Aedui case) my precious allies are not touched. And after such battle, use next turn Subron to help to recover in region where I lost...

(5)Roman changed tactics and attacked from South, completely Dispersing Arverni home region. That was brilliant maneuver, and helped greatly stabilize situation for Romans.

(6)My Aedui continued their march East - placing another two allies in German provinces. And although my warbands were smashed in Sugumbri by Belgae, ally was saved!

(7)Romans continued their march from South. I scarified one of my moves exactly for the reason to allow Romans battle in Pictones and Veneti - removing 3 Arverni allies by Roman hands were getting me closer to victory than any other move which I could make at that moment... They took the bait as it was also 3 VPs for them

(8)And then the great battle ensued - it lasted 3 turns, involved around 30 Arverni Warbands, 14 Roman units, special abilities on Roman side (Balearic Slingers and Legio X) and finished in mutual decimation. Arverni were hoping to get some legions but did not managed to. That is why you so so few Arverni warbands on the map at the end of the game.

(9)And then Belgae moved to Arverni thanks to Migration event, Winter came, and Belgae won.

WAIT! Those dispersed markers, don't they reduce value of province? YES, they do! However, we realized that only on the next day and corrected final scoring which is looking like this now:

1.Aedui (me), -2 VP
2.Belgae (Konrad), -2 VP
3.Arverni (Kuba), -4 VP
4.Rome (Jacek), -5 VP

However, if Konrad had known he will not gain any points, he woudl for sure do another action. Anyhow, that was fun and we managed to play full game.

Our next goal is to play full 54 BC scenario. We are of opinion that scenario where almost all (70 out of 72) events are available and situation on board not set initially (not too dense ) would be perfect to try our imagination and shape Gaul incompletely new way...

For this we would need much more time than 52 BC short version, so planning to find appropriate date & time started...
21 
 Thumb up
2.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Volko Ruhnke
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks Michal, and to your whole group, for the beautiful readout!

I hope you guys will enjoy the full length 54-50BC game.

Best, Volko
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michal K
Poland
Otwock
Mazowieckie
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Volko wrote:
Thanks Michal, and to your whole group, for the beautiful readout!

I hope you guys will enjoy the full length 54-50BC game.

Best, Volko


Thanks for encouragement! We will for sure play 54-50 which would be, I am sure, a lot of fan too!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Viet Tran
msg tools
mk20336 wrote:


WAIT! Those dispersed markers, don't they reduce value of province? YES, they do! However, we realized that only on the next day and corrected final scoring which is looking like this now:



im glad you posted this! I was just about to clean up my game with a Belgic victory until I decided to read some session reports. Belgae had 17 victory points -2 from dispersed tribes so they ended up with 15... the game continues.

The first time I thought the game was going to end it was

Rome -8
Arverni -1
Aedui -3
Belgae 0

When the game ended it was

Rome -2
Arverni -2
Aedui -1
Belgae -1

I completely thought Rome was out of it and even as the game turned a bit Rome was kinda just sitting back trying to recover and somehow while the other 2 factions were trying to take down Belgae because they thought he was winning they just happened to be revealing subdued tribes for Rome.

I was really surprised to see how much the game shifted from one winter to another.

Anyway thanks for your session report! It helped me catch some of my mistakes =)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michal K
Poland
Otwock
Mazowieckie
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Glad I can help!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sébastien Schmutz
Switzerland
Fribourg
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Excellent AAR,thank you. I have planned a session at 4 players with the same scenario, 30 cards. I was a bit in worries about the weakness of the Belgae but it looks ok as you show it. I will tell my friend that the situation is not so desesparate as it looks like. How long did this session take in total (without rules explanation and setup )?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michal K
Poland
Otwock
Mazowieckie
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Seb283 wrote:
Excellent AAR,thank you. I have planned a session at 4 players with the same scenario, 30 cards. I was a bit in worries about the weakness of the Belgae but it looks ok as you show it. I will tell my friend that the situation is not so desesparate as it looks like. How long did this session take in total (without rules explanation and setup )?


Hello,

thanks! As for the lenght, it was our first game so it took us around 3 or 4 hours (it was some time ago, we were not so proficient with the game). You can for sure play that scenatio within 2 hours with experienced group.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sébastien Schmutz
Switzerland
Fribourg
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I told the group to book 5-6 hours so it should be ok, although some can sometimes get the syndrom of analysis paralysis as diagnosed by a mate on another forum
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michal K
Poland
Otwock
Mazowieckie
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This is what happened in our game at the beginning - we tried to "slightly motivate" the strugglers and it eventually worked out
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.