Here I Gave Up, More Nonsense and a Plea for Help

Once again I return to you with glorious news of my musings and wasting away. Nothing spectacular, and I wish I had a naked lady to replace the one I knocked off the front page with the last post. Sorry to disappoint, but I just don't have one handy!

 In Here I Stand news, my regular game group played the 1532 scenario once again this week. It ended with an overwhelming Protestant victory and a near English victory. I'm beginning to doubt the balance of the game as is, as it seems the English have to do very little to surge very quickly in the game, and the Papacy seems almost completely unprepared to deal with the Protestants even in 1532 when they should start making a come back! Consimworld doesn't seem to think this is the case, even going so far as to claim that the French have the hardest time. I'm more curious to see if the French/Hapsburgs/Papacy have been playing poorly or if it a balance issue.

I've played the French in the last few games, and it seems like success depends on an ability to construct Chateaus for easy VP but also to dabble in the New World and force a peace settlement in their advantage. The big problem is, with the English homecard freed by a successful heir, the French can't risk exposing themselves by excursions into Italy. The previous game went far smoother for the French, but this game saw me stalling out as I got tangled up in war with the English that didn't have a real winner. Diplomacy is key I think, as it is difficult to successfully prosecute a war without an ally or at least some lucky rolls!

 As for the English running away with the game, I've come to a solid conclusion to prevent their quick expansion; the Papacy should never be wiling to grant a divorce, even for a card. It frees the English too much when they should be forced to play the home card. The English won't do anything to help the Papacy in the long run, so it just seems like a bad idea. Maybe I'm biased as I've seen the English roll "6" for the first or second roll in at least 5 different games. 

The Hapsburgs need to have a free hand against the Protestants after the Schmalkadic league, so require the cooperation of the other players. Unless they manage a decisive victory against the Ottomans, they simply can't muster the might to push back hard enough on the Protestants. Without Catholic armies in Germany, the Protestants have pretty much free reign and the Papacy is too down-trodden to push back with much success. Apparently the last game (which I wasn't present for) was a Papal victory as the Hapsburgs rampaged across Germany wiping out the Protestant princes. Its a fine balancing act for the Hapsburgs, and I can see how they easily can lose focus on the big picture. In our game, the Ottoman armies crumbled after taking Vienna and the Hapsburgs captured all Hungarian keys before turning back to the religious struggle. With only 1 vp per key, I think this was a poor choice for his time, and he could have tried to secure Germany against the Protestants. Once again, it's difficult to say when and where someone should act, especially the Hapsburgs.

The Ottomans are good for new players, because they are relatively simple, but seem frustrating to play with their boom or bust cycles. If they expand too successful (i.e. multiple piracy successes, capturign Vienna, etc.) they began a target for a lot of nasty cards and potential military defeats. However, if the cards play out poorly for them, they are unable to successfully defend conquests or pursue effective piracy. 

 I'm still at a loss for the Papacy. What the hell can they do to win?

 Changing gears, I've run into some bumps with my Mars game. So I beseech you, oh dear reader, to help me with some ideas. The game needs to balance the individual actions of the characters with the larger scale actions of moving armies and tribes. The characters are really the focus of the game, so I need to make sure they are engaging. 

I've got an interesting concept for battles using a *gasp* battle board. I'm trying to avoid the amount of counting and annoyances I had with the previous design, but still want to keep the same basic concepts for the units and their variability. The battle portion of the game is not where I'm struggling, but I'm not sure how far to take it.

 Where I'm struggling is with characters individual actions. Right now, a character has 6 stats, three personal and three leadership. Personal stats are Combat, Maneuver and Intrige. Leadership stats are Command, Tactics and Strategy. The leadership stats are already pretty molded to fit my combat engine; command is the number a combat units an individual character can lead, tactics are compared between two leaders granting the difference as bonus combat dice to the superior leader, and strategy is the ability of a leader to choose the type of battle they will engage n which decides which of his combat units stats to use in a battle.

The personal stats seem pretty straight forward, but are where I'm struggling. Combat is for duels between characters or against monsters, maneuver (for lack of a better word at this point) is for the operation of aero-ships and avoiding obstacles and intrigue is used for assassinations, spying, etc.  I need the personal actions of a character to be more interesting than what model I have now. Presently, a duel between two characters would involve comparing their combat stats, and the superior character adds the difference to three dice and rolls against the defenders three dice. Numbers of "hits" (5's and 6's) determine the severity of the win or loss, either wounding or killing a character. This seems pretty bland.

How can I make personal actions more interesting? A dueling battle board? How can I deal with obstacles and mini adventures the character faces without just rolling dice and searching for successes? I've never played any rpg-ish board game other than Arkham Horror, so this is untrod ground for me. What games handle this well? How can I make it more fun?

 For some things, I've struggled by think I've come up with a better idea of how to implement them. For equipment, I don't just want players to get a card and equip it. I'm thinking that the better the equipment, the higher its "adventure rating" will be. Meaning, a character must complete an adventure of a certain number of points, and as a reward for succeeding, can get a nice shiny bit of technology. This is just an idea, but I thought it would at least be more interesting than "pay three radium and get an Omega-Ray Gun".

Ideas are always welcome, as are comments.

From recruitment demo