Warrior Knights, A Game of Thrones, or what?

Thinking of getting a game to bridge that wait for Runewars. We loved Chaos in the Old World, and TI3 and sometimes even Starcraft. What should we get to satisfy that multiplayer DoaM urge before the big daddy comes out to play?

I haven't played AGOT, but I really enjoy Warrior Knights. Kinda how Starcraft strips out all the other 'stuff' out of a DOAM game, and focuses almost completely on the combat, WK has alot of focus on the other 'stuff'. you don't have big enough (or enough!) armies to just stamp across the map squising people. You do that, but have to put some emphasis on the legislature, the church, and overseas cities. I use the expansion as well, and it really helps with the 'static' feeling of the armies. the double-move (forced march or something) gets your armies across that map in a hurry, making people feel less safe.

the King variant is awesome too. crown the king and see if he can hold the throne.

I have only played it with 5 or 6 players

If Chaos in the Old World, TI:3, and Starcraft can't tide you over while you wait for a game to come out within the next six months, your urges are probably too out of control to be satisfied with any game.

Well, actually. A friend of mine wants to buy a boardgame and it's going to be his first purchase. He's been enjoying our gaming sessions and wants to contribute something to the gaming pool. He loves multiplayer games since he likes the diplomacy aspect and the misdirection of it all. He says 2 player games don't have enough manuevering for his tastes.

I have played both, AGoT just the once, and prefer Warrior Knights by a wide margin. lj1983 sums up most of what is good in the game - I like it because it is a DOAM game but also because it has all those various other elements thrown in; finance, politics/diplomacy, events, troop hire & payment.

I think you can sum up the difference between the basic premise of both games, (I'm sure I will be corrected if I'm talking shit) it's whether you prefer Risk/A&A (WK) or Diplomacy (AGOT).

There was a trashdome that matched up these two games.

fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_kune...ew&catid=32&id=23334

That should give you a pretty good overview.

clockwirk wrote:

There was a trashdome that matched up these two games.

fortressat.com/index.php?option=com_kune...ew&catid=32&id=23334

That should give you a pretty good overview.

AGoT only won because it was fought during the time Octavian was stalking Mr.Skeletor here and put a 'man love' vote in for whatever Frank voted for.

For what it's worth. I enjoy Diplomacy, but hate A Game of Thrones.

Deciding between these two games is definitely more a question of taste than quality.

If you can, get both and decide for yourself.

I think AGoT is an awesome game. There's shitloads of tension both while planning and executing orders, there's ample room for scheeming, and the board can quickly become very crowded and thus ripe for strife. But the game is best with 5 players unless you invest in either Clash of Kings (6 players) or A Storm of Swords which has a new board for a four player game.

mjl1783 wrote:

If Chaos in the Old World, TI:3, and Starcraft can't tide you over while you wait for a game to come out within the next six months, your urges are probably too out of control to be satisfied with any game.

Did DDJ just join FAT?

Both games are full of win. Depends on what you are after.

AGOT has minimal randomness and no chaos. It's a tighter, much more focused and tense game. Negotiation is paramount, but unlike that shitfest diplomacy you the game gives you the tools to play your way out of getting ganged up on and a good play can hold out on their own, so its not all about backstabbing. The base game plays ONLY with 5, expansion 1 with 6 and expansion 2 with four.

Warrior Knights is a lot more chaotic and a bit more forgiving. It's also a lot more wide, with all sorts of sub systems going on within the main game - politics, paying wages, hireing troops, funding expenditions, kissing the churches ass etc. Still the game can be brutal, especially in ones where money is tight - nothing more fun than continually forcing a wages faze and watching your opponent spew when he can't pay his men and they tell him to fuck off.

AGOT is more like a battle of the minds, generals embarking on a long campaign trying to out strategise each other. WK is more of a juggling act, using the different levers to screw your opponents and pushing forward when you have an advantage.

Did DDJ just join FAT?

How in the bloody blue fuck does that statement make me DDJ?

Granted, taking the phrase "Thinking of getting a game" to mean "I'm thinking of getting a game" was a pretty wild assumption on my part. Still, when someone asks what game would satisfy them while he waits a few months for a game to come out, and then lists three perfectly good games he owns in a similar vein (one of which just came out), the reasonable suggestion would seem to be to play the damn games he's already got until the one he actually wants is released.

mjl1783 wrote:

Did DDJ just join FAT?

How in the bloody blue fuck does that statement make me DDJ?

Because it's the same type of waste-of-a-post deadbeat garbage that he fills the game forums with.
The dude asked for a game recomendation, not for someone to come here and act like his fucking mom.

This place is filled with nerds that buy too many games. If you find such a concept so rediculous go hang out in chit chat.

Thanks for the help guys, read through the Trashdome and we're hitting up Warrior Knights. I guess the meeples killed AGoT for us. Hahaha.