Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Battles of Westeros» Forums » General

Subject: Historic scenarios rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Pelle Nilsson
Sweden
Linköping
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
One thing I really enjoy about the books is the slowly revealed background story of things that happened before the events of the first book. Is any of the covered in the game and/or expansions (so far)? Many epic wars and battles in the history of Westeros, it would be a waste to only game the ones that occur in the time-span of the books. Or maybe that is saved for later expansions?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xavier A. Perez
Argentina
Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires
CABA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The problem is that the Houses featured so far, although they are probably the right ones because they are the ones fighting in Westeros at the time of the books, don't really allow for that.

Battles from the last two wars before the War of the Five Kings, Robert's Rebellion and the Greyjoy Rebellion, were fought with Baratheons, Lannisters and Starks at the same side, so it would require armies for either the Targaryen or the Greyjoys to make them happen (or some ally of them like the Tyrells or Martells, but that wouldn't make much sense as a next house to come up, the Greyjoys I think are the most likely because of their somewhat independent involvement in the Wot5K, making for possible scenarios against Starks, Baratheons and Lannisters.)
2 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christoph Breitkopf
Germany
Hannover
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The problem with introducing more and more houses is that the commanders and units need distinctive features.

In the core set, Lannister and Stark are rather similar. The most basic units (infantry, cavalry and archers) are even identical - they only play slightly different because of different command cards. That's ok for the core set, and certainly makes it easier to achieve play balance.

If FFG would introduce more houses, however, giving them all very similar units would be rather boring - in that case, you could just take your Starks, give them Tyrell names, and be done.

They took care to make Baratheon different enough that they add new flavor and elements to the game (for example, morale becomes more important).

I think however, that quickly introducing too many new things can also be problematic. Even the core set alone made for very enjoyable games, and the plethora of keywords, abilities and rules introduced in the expansions can sometimes be overwhelming. So there is the challenge of keeping new houses distinctive without overburdening the game with rules or risk changing its whole character.

Don't get me wrong - I'd certainly like to see new expansions. But I'd prefer these to be distinctive and carefully designed and playtested, and that takes time.

As mentioned above, if I desperately wanted to play something not covered by the existing units, I'd just do the re-labeling myself. The Baratheon smugglers and maybe some Tribes units could certainly be used as Greyjoys or even wildlings beyond the wall. Starks would make very convincing Night's Watch units, and so on.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pelle Nilsson
Sweden
Linköping
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You would need some Lord Commanders for the Black Watch as well of course, to not have to lead them with Stark commanders. Plus they need some (up to and including book 3)
Spoiler (click to reveal)
wights, giants on mammoths, Others
to fight, and there are many different tribes of wildlings described in the books that could be included in the mix.

Targaryens need some
Spoiler (click to reveal)
dragons
at least. How is that not more interesting than the variations of infantry and cavalry mostly seen in the expansions so far?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Dreske
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Spoiler (click to reveal)

There would be no need of dragons for a Targaryen expansion. They had been long gone, so most of the important historic battles were fought without them, all the rebellion stuff and so on.
The very early battles _with_ dragons were just like "fly over, burn all" anyway.
And for the present / upcoming battles: Dragons hardly take part at all, let alone being actually commanded. Of course we dont know what will happen, but up until now, i guess we do not need dragons fpr Targaryens.


And of course thats interesting, but as Chris said, i'd rather have those well designed and playtested, and with only light additions / changes in rules but a distinctive look and feel. If this takes time, no problem.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christoph Breitkopf
Germany
Hannover
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pelni wrote:
How is that not more interesting than the variations of infantry and cavalry mostly seen in the expansions so far?

I'm almost afraid of those being added, as I think that fitting them into the game mechanics and flavor will be a real challenge. (BTW. I have no idea why you consider these as spoilers - all mentioned in the first book).

Also, it might actually be less interesting to people who prefer to see BoW mostly as medieval combat. The news of Melisendre being in Baratheon caused some doubts before we saw the actual rules. They seem to work quite well, but do add a big fantasy aspect to the game (same for Thoros of Myr, to a lesser degree).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pelle Nilsson
Sweden
Linköping
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Fantasy in a fantasy game does not sound too wrong to me.


As I said in the other thread Im out of here until done reading all the books. When I saw first episode on tv all I knew was the show title and that it was fantasy of some kind. Never want more info than that before watching/reading something. But I guess anyone as allergic to spoilers as I am knows to not look at a game based on the series before having seen/read much of it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christoph Breitkopf
Germany
Hannover
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pelni wrote:
Fantasy in a fantasy game does not sound too wrong to me.

Well, there's fantasy, and there's fantasy... But I don't want to spoil you

Quote:
As I said in the other thread Im out of here until done reading all the books. When I saw first episode on tv all I knew was the show title and that it was fantasy of some kind. Never want more info than that before watching/reading something.

Ah, got it now. That way, even a name might spoil some of the flavor. Sometimes I feel the same about art exhibitions - even the slightest bit pre-event info makes me feel I'm not going in there as unbiased and open as possible. Enjoy the books! (BTW, make sure you also read the "Dunk and Egg" novellas).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pelle Nilsson
Sweden
Linköping
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As I finished book five, before I returned here to read more about the game, I looked up the series page on wikipedia (that unfortunately managed to include quotes from the author spoiling bits from the beginning of book six!) and also Martin's home page. On the former I learned about those novellas (yes, I have to read them now, obviously) and on the latter I learned about this book planned for next year:

http://www.georgerrmartin.com/grrm_book/worldoficeandfire/

Looks like it will be a very good source for historic scenarios, if we can just get the figures and cards needed to play (or better: some somewhat more generic expansions... will be difficult to find much use for any specific commanders).
 
 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.