Struggle of Empires

Played this for the first time last night. There is a lot of stuff in this game I like, but a lot of it could have been done differently and come out a lot better. The alliance system was really cool, and reminded me a little bit of Cosmic Encounter, only more rigid, which I found to be very very cool. The risk-like combat, power tiles, area majority and economic game underneath were bland, but work as an interesting way to get you to the meat of the game, which is a diplomacy like system of alliances.

I was lukewarm on the game as a package, but it definitely had a couple of neat things going for it. Sort of a cross between Imperial and Diplomacy with a heavy dose of typical martin wallace ass thrown in. Why does this guy think every game needs a mechanic for you to go into debt, no matter what it is?

Anybody else played it? Thoughts?

How are slaves handled in this game? Wasn't there some kind of controversy over this issue?

I didn't find any controversy. They exist in several forms from what I can remember. I only played once and didn't have any control markers or armies in the colonies, so I didn't use them.

There are plantation markers in the colonies. Stick a navy in africa, and you can turn the plantation markers into a control marker for yourself.

There is a slave revolt chit you can choose. This lets you make a backhanded attack using slaves. It is cool because you can use it to attack your allies, which normally isn't allowed. Your armies can't combine with the slaves.

There is also a slave trade money chit I think? That one just gives you cash for every control marker you have in a certain area, maybe africa? I was playing Prussia, and concentrated on controlling the mainland.

I think this is a really good game, Wallace's best overall. The production is trash (it's Warfrog, all right) but there's some cool mechanics and plenty enough aggro to go around. The alliance thing was dismissed by some as gamey, but it really kind of works out in that you can diplomatically outmanuever (and outspend) folks you don't want to fight with. It's one of the best Eurogames out there, I really would like to play it more.

CONQUEST OF THE EMPIRE 2nd edition was basically SoE with Eagle Games production and a Roman theme. But it just didn't work as well for some reason.

I really liked the alliance thing but thought the rest of the game could have used some work. I guess I'm the minority?

I dunno, I think it all works out pretty good...I've played with some really aggressive, mean spirited players and it can be a pretty brutal game.

I know what you mean about it needing work though...it has that classic Martin Wallace "almost there" feeling throughout. It does kind of lack the polish it needs to really be one of the great ones.

Gosh, it's been like four years since we broke this out...it needs to get played again soon.

Michael Barnes wrote:

CONQUEST OF THE EMPIRE 2nd edition was basically SoE with Eagle Games production and a Roman theme. But it just didn't work as well for some reason.

I've played both games. Conquest of Empire is cool because of the bits but I think Struggle of Empires works better because it's easier to move armies around. Also, in Conquest of Empire there is a huge number of points in Rome so that ends up being a key spot vs. Struggle of Empires were the areas are more balanced. Both games can get pretty cut throat. Either way I'm itching to play either game. I haven't played either game in about 2 years.

KingPut wrote:

Michael Barnes wrote:

CONQUEST OF THE EMPIRE 2nd edition was basically SoE with Eagle Games production and a Roman theme. But it just didn't work as well for some reason.

I've played both games. Conquest of Empire is cool because of the bits but I think Struggle of Empires works better because it's easier to move armies around. Also, in Conquest of Empire there is a huge number of points in Rome so that ends up being a key spot vs. Struggle of Empires were the areas are more balanced. Both games can get pretty cut throat. Either way I'm itching to play either game. I haven't played either game in about 2 years.

Pete...organize something that's closer to DC than Philly and I'll be there. Own 'em both and haven't had a snowball's chance in hell to play either...

Cool it looks like we'll play some Struggle of Empires May 1st or 2nd at Game Days in Maryland. I'm sure well be able to get IgannaDitty, Big Bien, Malloc or Malloc's brother Bobbytweeks will join us.

SoE is one of my favorites. I love the alliances system and find it really adds a lot to a multiplayer conflict game (resulting in less "dogpile on the leader" moves).

It's also my favorite Wallace game. The limited number of actions on your go make things very interesting and tough and limit how much you can do without telegraphing your intentions to everyone.

The rules are rather muddled though. I've created a rules notes file on TOS with a player aid attached that I think helps things out greatly.

If I can manage to attend Trashfest on May 1st I can bring this along and teach it.

Chad

Michael Barnes wrote:

I think this is a really good game, Wallace's best overall. The production is trash (it's Warfrog, all right) but there's some cool mechanics and plenty enough aggro to go around. The alliance thing was dismissed by some as gamey, but it really kind of works out in that you can diplomatically outmanuever (and outspend) folks you don't want to fight with. It's one of the best Eurogames out there, I really would like to play it more.

CONQUEST OF THE EMPIRE 2nd edition was basically SoE with Eagle Games production and a Roman theme. But it just didn't work as well for some reason.

The biggest issue with Conquest is that all the action kind of "smashed" up to the center of the board, making confrontation one big "Cold War"(e.g. Player A won't attack player B, because it'll weaken them both so that play C can mop up on both).

And the actions were random draws instead of a static selection.

But besides those minor quibbles, I really enjoyed C.o.t.E with the new ruleset.