Potential Quartermaster General tournament at UK Games Expo 2016

A volunteer (unaffiliated with Halesowen Boardgamers) is considering running a team-based Quartermaster General tournament at this year's Game Expo. Would anyone be interested in competing and, if so, do you have a preference for the day (Fri, Sat or Sun) and length of tournament (2 rounds over 4 hours, or 3 rounds over 6 hours)?

Players wanted for Kingdom of Kiralysag and Mistfall

I'm looking for a 4th player to join Dave F, Gordon and myself tomorrow (Wednesday 13th) in the second playtest of Kingdom of Kiralysag.

I'll also be bringing Mistfall, a co-operative fantasy-themed game, to be played and voted on for the UK Games Expo awards. As I'll be playing Kingdom of Kiralysag, I won't have time to explain Mistfall, not that I've had time to read the rules yet myself. But anyone is welcome to play the game, ideally someone having read through the rules beforehand. It is possible that I'll be bringing the game the following Wednesday too.  

Voting for UK Games Expo Awards - Simurgh (and Mistfall)

UK Games Expo awards prizes every year for the best boardgame in one of a number of categories. For the 2016 awards they are likely to receive 120-130 games to assess, and several have already been sent to them by the publishers. I've offered to help by bringing games to Halesowen Boardgamers. Each game needs to be rated by around 8 people in total - ideally I'd find that many over two sessions at Halesowen, but even a single play with 4 would help towards assessing the game. The first game I'll bring is called Simurgh - a fantasy-themed worker placement game that should play in 1-1.5 hours. I'll bring it along to the next two or three sessions. All you have to do is play the game then give it a rating from 0-5 in five categories.

Another game from the same publisher called Mistfall has also arrived - it is a co-operative fantasy-themed game. If anyone is particularly interested in trying this, then I may be able to bring it along in early January.

Game Preview: Kingdom of Kiralysag

Kingdom of Kiralysag is a mid-weight euro game for 3-5 players. It is a retheme and redesign of a game of mine from a few years back set in medieval Hungary. After the Mongols had devastated the Kingdom in 1241, the Kings decide to repopulate the land with guests invited in from Western Europe. The various peoples - Saxons, Bavarians, Walloons, Flemish, Italians - work together to establish and grow settlements, while competing to dominate them. The game worked quite well, but was a little dry. By retheming to a fictional kingdom I have been able to introduce more variety e.g. with a random succession of kings, rather than the fixed order of the original historical game. I decided to go the whole hog and make it a fantasy kingdom with various races available to players. The game design is ready but now I'm working on the graphics, with the aim of having a play test kit finished for January.

A game of Kingdom of Kiralysag takes place over four Reigns. The four kings are selected randomly out of a total of eight. Each king has different attributes - Militaristic, Mercantile, Religious, Cultured - that affect the composition of the decks of Action Cards and Event Cards that are used for each Reign. In a 4-player game there are up to 6 Rounds per Reign (a king may die early, reducing the number of Rounds). At the beginning of each Round the next two Event Cards are placed face up. Then each player purchases an Action Card from among a row of 8 face up cards, which is then replenished. Each card has an inherent cost in coins and favour and an additional cost depending on its position - this mechanism will be familiar from Suburbia or Through the Ages. An Action card enables a player to settle 2 meeples among the 11 settlements in the Kingdom, "upgrade" an existing settler with a profession such as Merchant or Knight, or build a Temple or Ship in a suitable settlement. At the end of the Round the two events are resolved. Some of these events enable players to gain favour from the king and a small number of Victory Points. Other events impose a cost on players. Income is generated at the end of each Reign. A settler in a poor settlement may not provide any income, while a settler in a wealthy settlement may provide one or two coins. Merchants, Innkeepers, Temples and Ships generate additional income. Scoring occurs at the end of the 2nd and 4th Reigns. This consists of majority scoring for each settlement and also, in the final scoring, for money.

Game design news: This Cursed Rock

This time I'm presenting an early preview of a game by another budding designer, Jim Falkus, who you may have met when he came to the club in August. You can find some details about the game on his blog. In brief, it is a 2-player game recreating the Great Siege of Malta by the Ottomans in 1565. Despite the theme, it is not a wargame, as witnessed by the lack of hexes or defined areas on the game board, which was designed by me! The game takes place over about 20 turns. At the start of every turn each player draws an event card, most of which can be retained for later use. Then each player selects four action cards from their deck of 12 to use during the subsequent Action Phase. There are four types of card: Move, Build, Morale and Combat. Finally there is an Assault Phase, during which the Turkish player may attempt to seize one of the fortified areas on the board. Wooden cubes are used to represent the various types of military pieces: gun batteries, Janissary units, Turkish infantry units, Knights of St John and Spanish infantry units. There are also wooden Personality Discs and various types of markers for gun platforms, additional fortifications, siege equipment and divine intervention!

The game is still under design with early playtesting likely to start later this year. I would hope that it can make an appearance in Halesowen early in 2016.

Game design news

Cromwell is still very much in active playtesting, especially as I have redesigned the cards (each player now has a deck) and created a scenario starting in 1644. However, many years ago I designed a Lord of the Rings-themed block wargame which I may resurrect if there is any interest...

Given the theme and associated copyright issues, it is a game that is extremely unlikely to ever be published, so it is destined to be no more than a very limited edition "fan game". It did receive some playtesting back in the day and showed some potential, but definitely needs a spruce-up in terms of graphics as well as streamlining of the rules - probably a few dozen hours of my time - and the purchase of new blocks. Based on a short passage in Lord of the Rings Appendix A, it is called "The Long Winter" and is set during the Third Age 2758. For scale and complexity it is comparable to the Columbia block games East Front or Victory in Europe. It features 160 blocks, 5 nationalities (Gondorians, Rohirrim, Corsairs, Dunlendings, Easterlings) which can be played by 2-5 players, both land and naval battles, siege combat, supply trains, weather. There is no magic and it is strictly humans, but there is personal combat between leaders to give it a bit of high fantasy feeling.

Call for playtester

It might seem like a modest proposal to call for a single playtester, but I already have an interested party (Steve H) and the game is 2-player! The game is called Cromwell and I have been developing it on and off for more than 3 years now. It is a block wargame very much in the mould of other Columbia Games titles such as Hammer of the Scots, Crusader Rex, Richard III, Texas Glory and Julius Caesar.  In its current form it has already undergone 10 playtest sessions and everyone who had played it has enjoyed it. I have recently resubmitted it to Columbia Games, but it is likely to be a month or two before they get round to considering it and in the meantime, the more playtests it undergoes the better.

I'll bring it to a Wednesday session and, while I could play it myself with Steve H, it would be better for him to face an opponent who is also new to the game. Please let me know if you are interested. Ideally you'll already have played another block wargame or, at the very least, be familiar with some board wargames. I'd say it is low-to-mid complexity for a wargame - which would put it in heavy Euro game territory - being a little more complex than the other Columbia titles mentioned above and certainly a step up from the likes of Command & Colors.

More information about the game can be found on my bgg profile and the game map, block label graphics and some photos in my gallery.  

Advanced Civilisation 8 November 2014

On 8 November 6 of us gathered at the Stag for a day of Advanced Civilisation (well actually an afternoon and evening).

Power Grid 100

As noted in my post for 30 July, we have just played the 100th. game of Power Grid, which is the most played game at the club. I thought I'd look back and come up with a few statistics.

Nations Revisited

Okay, I admit, I have played nothing but Nations at the Halesowen club since I got my copy of the game. But it does seem to be popular and there have even been some repeat visitors besides myself. The last game on Wednesday 9th was long and difficult, proving that Nations continues to be something of a brain-burner even after a few plays. Here are my thoughts on the game, and a few tips on how to play, based on 4 plays, half of them 4-player and the other half 5-player.

A game of Nations is never going to be short - all of our games have fallen between 2.5 and 3 hours in length. There seems to be no significant difference between 4- and 5-player games. The rules themselves are fairly straightforward and seem to be easy for new players to grasp. I continue to recommend that new players use the 'A' (generic) side of the player boards, as the 'B' (nation-specific) sides increase the difficulty of play due to players starting with fewer resources and having only 4 spaces for Buildings and Military rather than 5.  I cannot yet judge how balanced the 'B' sides are, but I'd be surprised if any of them gives more than a small advantage over any other - however, in any given game it is possible that a particular nation will benefit more than others due to which Progress cards become available. The impression has arisen that China is more difficult to play than the others, but I note that the only time it featured in a game, the player (Dave F) had the most convincing win we've seen so far: 45 points versus 35 for the second player. We have been using the handicapping system by allowing newbies to play as Chieftains (4 resources per Growth phase) and more experienced players as Princes (3 resources). I don't know how much difference this makes, but as I've won my last couple of games as a Prince, I should probably try King next time.

In terms of tips, it is difficult to generalise both because each game is different and because this is more of a tactical than a strategic game (at least compared to Through the Ages). A key area of play is in adapting both to the available Progress Cards and to the tactics of other players. All of the resources are important and there is no clear winning strategy. However, I can make the following comments:
- Military is possibly more influential than other factors. In any case, it impacts on many different aspects of the game. Having a high Military places you favourably in turn order, makes you less vulnerable to Wars, and enables you to collect Colonies. It is also significant in terms of Events (see below).  Furthermore, having at least one worker on a Military card enables you to purchase Battles. The disadvantage of a focus on Military is that is costly - it will probably generate negative resources, and every worker on a Military card is one less worker on a Building generating resources. It is very difficult, and probably not advisable, to be the player with the highest Military throughout the game - you should be prepared to focus on other factors when necessary. On the other hand, being the player with the lowest Military is risky. At the very least, if you have low Military then you should probably compensate by having a high Stability as this mitigates the effects of lost Wars and potentially enables you to pick up benefits from Events.
- Stability brings fewer benefits than Military, but it does have its uses. The two most significant are in Events, and in enabling a player to take workers off the Population Track. It shouldn't be forgotten that it acts as a tie-breaker in determining player order.
- Food and Stone are both vital. However, an excess of either will not necessarily provide any benefit. These resources are important throughout the game. The requirement for Food increases as famines become ever more severe. Food also plays a role in events: some events reward the player with the most Food, while many events impose their cost in Food. Finally, generating plenty of Food enables you to take workers off the Population track. The requirement for Stone also increases during the game as deploying workers becomes more costly with Buildings/Military from later ages. Of course, Stone becomes more important if you want to focus on constructing Wonders.  
- Money is perhaps not as vital as Food and Stone, but a lack of money significantly restricts your options for taking Progress Cards. As the cost of Progress Cards does not increase through the game, players tend to have more money in later ages than at the beginning. It is particularly important to have spare cash in the Industrial Age in order to pick up cards that will give you Victory Points.
- Personally I regard Books as the most important of all the resources. At least, my focus on Books has stood me well in all the games I have played. Books do nothing besides give you Victory Points, but they do provide a lot - up to 12 VPs in a 4-player game and 16 VPs in a 5-player game, plus a few VPs at the end when they are summed with all of the other resources. Players should certainly keep track of how many Books other players are generating each turn, and be aware that some Wonders and Events can generate a one-off increase in Books.
- It is, without a doubt, not easy to get new workers into play. Besides the cost in Food or Stability, there is the penalty of not being able to take resources. However, the benefits are commensurate - don't forget that each deployed worker provides 1 or 2 VPs at the end of the game.
- Events. As Steve H. learned to his cost - you simply cannot afford to be the last player in both Military and Stability! Almost three-quarters of events concern Military or Stability. Roughly a third of events penalise the player who is lowest in one of these two factors - this rises to just over half of events in the Industrial Age. Food is also quite important for events - about a quarter of events concern Food, either rewarding the player with the most, penalising the player with the least, or imposing a cost in Food.

Looking back on the results of our games, I see that scores vary from 28 to 48. Breakdowns for the individual categories (min. and max. scored) are as follows:
Game VP (markers): 4-21
Colonies: 0-5
Wonders: 0-10
Buildings and Military (workers): 6-16
Resources: 7-14
The winning players have always had a good mix of VPs from the various categories. The following are the minimum scores obtained by any of the game winners in each of the categories:
Game VP: 13
Colonies: 2
Wonders: 1
Buildings and Military (workers): 12
Resources: 8
I suppose the message from this is that you should be aiming to have at least 13 Game VPs by game end (bearing in mind that you begin with 3-7 VPs): ie. gaining from Books, Events, and Golden Ages, and avoiding losing from Wars, Events, and lack of resources. Though I should note that in our last game Mark R almost won with only 7 Game VPs!

Nations: Shorter Name, Shorter Play Time, a 'Through the Ages' that comfortably fits into a Wednesday session

A few weeks back I decided to start buying Eurogames again after a break of around three years. A quick bit of research on Boardgamegeek gave me a long list of possible contenders for my first purchase. The criteria for the game(s) were: published within the last couple of years; not owned by other club members or, at least, not regularly brought to the club; mid-to-heavy weight; either by a designer I like or with a theme that attracts me. Of course, I also wanted a game that I could play at the club, so it had to appeal to other members. A quick consultation with Gordon helped me to narrow down the list and I chose Nations and Bruges. The latter is not currently available in the English-language edition from Games Lore or, indeed, from other board games shops in the UK. I've long become accustomed to playing games in various languages, but I deduced that a German-language edition of a game with a significant amount of card text might prove a barrier to others being willing to give the game a try. That left Nations to become my first new non-wargame boardgame since I repatriated myself to this sceptred isle, this precious stone set in the silver sea, this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.

Last Wednesday, no sooner had Steve P handed over my copy of Nations, I received an enthusiastic request for a game from Steve himself. It only remained to convince Dave F and Steve H to postpone the conclusion of their Twilight Struggle, a task no harder than snatching candy from a sleeping babe, and we had a suitable complement of four players. No wait, Andy has spotted the game and asks to join us. Four becomes five and, standing like greyhounds in slips, straining upon the start, the game's afoot!

If you are familiar with Through the Ages, then you'll recognise much about Nations. For those who are inexplicably ignorant of that Czech masterpiece, I'll attempt to describe its Finnish younger sibling. Nations belongs to that time-honoured genre: the civilization game, which has its origins in the board game of the same name by Francis Tresham (the computer game of the same name postdates the board game by more than 10 years, though its author, Sid Meier, claims that he his game wasn't inspired by Tresham's earlier magnum opus). However, unlike games such as Civilization, Antike and Sid Meier's Civilization (the board game of the computer game), Nations does not feature a map. Instead the focus is on a set of cards which are available for purchase by the players and which represent advances in technology and military might, advisors, colonies, wonders to construct, wars to wage, and the one-off bonuses of battles and golden ages. Thus the game is, in a way, like an advanced version of Saint Petersburg or London. Nations lasts 8 rounds, representing 4 ages - there is a different set of cards for each age. Each player has workers, some of which begin in the resource pool available to be deployed (NOT placed - this is NOT a worker placement game!), while others are on the population track, yet to be born. Each player also begins with some Resources: gold, food, stone and a few VPs (they can be lost!). A score board is used to mark not scores, but the game round, player order and the level of each player's Stability, Military Strength, and Books. 

At the beginning of each round, cards from the current age are made available to be purchased (some cards from the previous round may also remain available). Then each player may either gain resources or move a single worker from the population track to the resource pool - the disadvantage of the latter is that each new worker born either decreases the player's Stability or requires Food each round. During his or her turn, a player may either purchase a card and place it on their Player Board, deploy a worker onto a Building or Military card on their Player Board, or hire an architect, which is used to build part of a wonder on their Player Board. At any time workers can be undeployed so that they can be deployed elsewhere. Each Building and Military card provides an increase, or possibly a decrease, in two things - which may either be instant (in the case of Military Strength and Stability) or accrue at the end of every round (Gold, Food, Stone, Books). These increases/decreases are multiplied by the number of workers on the card. Advisors, Colonies and Wonders may also provide such increases/decreases, while Battles and Golden Ages provide one-off gains in Resources or Books. Players continue taking turns until all have passed. Then comes a Resolution Phase in which new resources are produced, wars are waged (using a very abstract mechanism), an event is resolved and VPs are gained or lost (based on how many Books each player has).

The game ends after 8 rounds. Final scoring is calculated for each player by summing his or her VP tokens (accumulated during the game), VPs from workers on Buildings and Military, VPs from Wonders and Colonies, and 1 VP from every 10 Resources/Books/Stability/Military Strength.  

So how was our game? Well, the scores were fairly close, but Andy won thanks to an efficient production mechanism that saw his nation generating plenty of stone and gold. Despite having to explain (indeed, partly read) the rules, we finished a little after 11pm, making the duration a little under the "40 minutes per player" quoted in the rule book. All in all, Nations is a less complicated game than Through the Ages, much easier to explain, and also much shorter. Yet it retains the thematic richness (relatively-speaking: compared to the wargames I play, any eurogame is light on theme) and, quite possibly, the replayability, of its bigger brother. It is not necessarily a lighter game either, so it delivers a similar amount of heavyweight 'civ' goodness, but in a more steamlined package - a concentrated dose like a cup of espresso brewed from Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee!

My Thoughts on Eclipse

I've played Eclipse three times now and I think all Dave's points are valid; though I don't quite agree with all of them.

The things I really like about the game are as follows:

1) clarity - the rulebook is excellent, and the mechanisms are all designed to show the information you need in the situations where they are relevant. The system of wealth versus earnings is very simple, but brilliantly executed. More games could learn from this;
2) for a 4X game, it's really quick;
3) there are tough decisions every turn;
4) the traitor mechanism: the last player to break a treaty loses 2VPs;
5) modifying your ships is cool. I can have tachyon drives on my cruisers;
6) the flow of play during the action rounds is quick.

The things I don't like are:

1) what the hell are you doing for the first five turns? All that happens is you explore and try to build your tech to a level where you can compete with the Ancients or with other players when you meet them. It's fine, but it drags a bit;
2) because of this for a 4X game, combat doesn't tend to happen until later. If you fight early, you've used actions you could have used to research, so you'll be sorry later;
3) the traitor mechanism - the last player to break a treaty can't form another until an opponent breaks a treaty and takes the card. Whilst I can kind of understand the reasoning, this is pure artifice;
4) hey, wait a minute - I've discovered Tachyon Drives. I've can put them in my fighters and my cruisers, but I have to WAIT to take another action before I put them in my big ships...? Unless I have nanotech, of course;
5) the system of discounts for tech has no relevance to the type of tech being researched - for example, computer types do not all fall within the same tech-type, therefore there is no benefit to researching a Positron Computer (+2 attack) then a Gluon Computer (+3 attack). This is counter-thematic, if not plain idiotic;
6) combat is slooooooooowwww;
7) the turn order mechanism is rubbish.

My thoughts on Dave's issues (you did ask, didn't you? No. Oh well - sit back anyway) are as follows:

Exploration: it could be argued that real-world empires don't all start on an even footing; nevertheless, games are a construct. A little imbalance is fine with me, but I can see how one player's situation might be greatly disadvantageous. This is slightly mitigated by the fact that you have a some choice where you place - or whether you place your tile at all. It's an OK solution, but I think I'd prefer an open galaxy with a Settlers-type mechanism of placement to mitigate advantage. I'm not saying specifically a Settlers mechanism - just something that allows a bit more starting balance.

Technology: I agree that, given that actions are limited by cost, there is no reason to artificially limit the tech types by chit draw as no race will ever be able to research them all. This is another artifice because it feels like, rather than a directed research spend, these future 'advanced' civilisations are basically discovering new technologies by lottery. One solution, given that there is already a discount system in place, might be asymmetric technology costs for the different races to encourage diversification. In fact, this is a good idea. I claim this idea for a future 4X game that I'm now going to design (and Dave and others at the club can tell me what I'm doing well and what I"m doing badly).

Combat: I don't so much mind the initiative idea, but the combat just takes so long - and I think that the system of I-fight-you-first-then-you-then-you-then-the-ancients means that someone who has a huge fleet can be beaten by someone relatively weak because they've had their fleet mashed by all the previous combat. It should be simultaneous. As far as the mandatory combat for entering someone else's territory, even that of an ally - this has been a known mechanism since the first Sid Meier Civ. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now, but I think it's perfectly reasonable given it's now a convention, otherwise there might be very little combat in the game.

Reputation: this is a bit artificial too, but it's better than the chit-draw system that scores at the end of Louis XIV. At least you get to draw a number of tiles and keep one. This mitigates the randomness a little, and I quite like the fact that some of the scoring is hidden just to add that little frisson of tension. Of course, it could be argued that this is a way of ramping up tension which should be inherent in the playing of the game.

Britannia – 19 September 2010

Mike & I gathered at Steve H's house for a game of Britannia, we had been having difficulty finding a fourth player, but at the last moment Steve's son James stepped in a put in a good performance, I guess Steve had been coaching him.

This was the first time I'd played since August 2008 and that is too long a period not to play this game. We distributed factions by consensus, giving James the Greens as they are probably most straight forward for a new player. I played Blue as I have played all the others in my most recent games and I felt I was due for it. Mike played Yellow with Steve as Red. The individual faction scores are as shown below in movement order.

Romans	102
Romano- British	4
Belgae	26
Welsh	98
Brigantes	42
Caledonians	52
Picts	82
Irish	28
Scots	8
Norsemen	31
Dubliners	8
Danes	62
Norwegians	44
Saxons	114
Jutes	16
Angles	114
Normans	52

Things started reasonably well for the Romans of their first turn and they made good progress, only losing 1 legion, but everything went wrong after that with the Belgae destroying the fort in York and then on following turns Mike was to suffer probably the unluckiest series of die rolls I've ever witnessed. I was saying early on that I didn't think it was a very good Roman score, due mainly to losses of forts and that although the Brigantes were forced to submit, neither the Welsh nor the Picts were. All that said however I have looked over the scores for all the games I have played using the FFG version (5 games total) and see that this was (by a very small margin) the best Roman score in all of those games, though it has to be said that Yellow has not come better than third in any of those games, I don't think any of us is really proficient with that faction, except perhaps Steve who won with them at Rosliston this year in a game I didn't play. In this game Yellow really suffered due to the performance of the Romano-British, Scots & Dubliners (all of which were the worst of any of the games I have recorded), particularly the Scots who managed to accumulate just 8 points (6 of them from destroying a Roman fort). The Norwegians at the end of the game performed well with the best score in my 5 recorded games with Harald Hardrada controlling the North at the end.

Red probably suffered most due to underperformance by the Brigantes, who were forced to submit to the Angles (the first time I've seen this). The Irish and Norsemen performed OK if not spectacularly, while the Saxons performed well (claiming the crown at the end of turn 13)although they did not quite make it to the end, being finally wiped out in a battle with the Normans in South Mercia on the last turn, where William killed Harold.

Green performed well, particularly as it was James' first game. The Caledonian performance was the best in the 5 recorded games as they were able to expand into the Scottish mainland after about 5 turns. Although they were eventually forced out by first the Picts and later the Norsemen, they survived until the end of the game. The Jutes did well enough considering that they were the Jutes and the Welsh again performed strongly throughout the game, although they did not succeed in their turn 8/9 run at York due to the strength of the Angles at that time in the game. The Danes did well initially and succeeding in crowning Cnut before the army withdrawal after their turn 14. They did not do so well at the very end holding a few territories in the East, despite Svein having been killed by William in the Battle of Essex.

This was the first game I have won of the 5 recorded having a reasonable performance by the Belgae at the start before their inevitable demise, claiming a toll on Roma forts and legions. The Picts performed strongly throughout, always controlling their 3 major scoring areas in East Scotland, while at various points taking other areas at the expense of Caledonians and Brigantes. The strongest performers were the Angles, in the mid game, maintained essential control of the North and Midlands before the arrival of the Danes on turns 11 & 12, winning all the Bretwalda elections, with help of the submitted Brigantes in Galloway. The biggest problem I had at this point is that there were so many units on the board that I never had enough in stock for full population expansion. At the end the Normans performed well enough with William killing 2 of the other 3 claimants to the throne, although the Norwegian strength in the North meant that the crown was not claimed.

All in all a great game and I hope it isn't another 2 years before the next one.

The Game Graph.

Alternative British History 43-1085AD

Documents, recently discovered during an archaeological dig have caused some consternation among historians as they seemingly cast doubt on the accepted course of British History from the Roman invasion until the year 1085. Many have questioned their accuracy, while others have puzzled over peculiar aspects of the papers, such as the points allocated to the various nations, and colour coding seeming to link what might otherwise be considered totally unconnected groups. Their follows a summary of the contents of these mysterious documents.
The Romans invaded in the year 43, by order of the emperor Claudius. The invasion took place along the south coast from Kent to Devon, dealing with token resistance of the Belgae and Welsh, before heading further north in England to engage the Brigantes in March and across to Dyfed in the south of Wales. The Belgae and Welsh showed know stomach for a fight and submitted at first opportunity. In this first phase of the invasion, no Roman losses were suffered, but a revolt of the Belgae under their warrior queen Boudicca then had to be put down with some minor damage.
The bulk of the Roman conquest took place in the first 15 years, the next 40 mostly taken up with dealing with the rebellious Belgae and some modest progress further north. Bernicia was reached around 150 and taken unopposed, this being the furthest northern advancement, alongside the Pennines, taken by force from the Brigantes. The remaining approximately 300 years of the occupation were spent protecting forts and eliminating the last Belgae. The Romans withdrew around 430, when matters on the continent became pressing, at a time when defence of their holdings was becoming increasingly difficult due to the number of other invading forces. Points-100
The Romano-British took over much of the Roman territory following the withdrawal and initially consolidated in the South with the intent of invading Jutish lands. They had to content themselves with Saxons, who got in between them, they had some success with King Arthur around 500 and migrated north following the death of their legendary leader (of old age). They then gradually dwindled, becoming a lessening force, finally being eliminated by the Welsh around 800. Points- 18.
The Belgae capitulated to the Romans at the first opportunity, but rose up around the year 60 under the leadership of Boudicca laying waste to some Roman forts and eliminating a legion, but their rebellion was short-lived, ending with the death of the Queen. The Belgae died out around 300. Points -28.
The Welsh spent nearly 400 hundred years as Roman subjects; this inhibited their growth and left them vulnerable to Irish raids and after the Roman withdrawal, it took until about the year 700 to re-establish control over their ancestral lands and evict the Irish who had settled in Dyfed. In the 100 years or so prior to this, although raids into England toward York were considered this was not possible due to intervening Romano-British forces and the Angles in occupation of the City. After 700, there was peace at home for over 200 years, with forays into the adjacent English areas of Hwicce and Avalon, where the last Irish colony was wiped out.
Peace came to an end around 940, with the invasion of the South by Dubliners led by Olaf Guthfrithsson. Although the Dubliners were later forced out of Dyfed, a settlement remained in Gwent after 1085. The Welsh had also been forced out of Devon and Cornwall by 1085, falling to Saxons retreating from the Wars raging in England, although they had expanded to take March & Hwicce. Points - 73.
The Brigantes were untouched in the early years of the Roman invasion, but in the late 50s March & Cheshire were overrun, this was a cue to withdraw North abandoning York and Bernicia and capturing Dunedin from the Picts. The Pennines fell around 80, but after that the Brigantes were not bothered by Roman forces and had comparative peace, until the arrival of the Scots invasion led by Fergus Mor Mac Erc around 500, at which time Dunedin and Lothian were lost.
The next nearly 600 years were a time of near continuous War, with Dunedin, Lothian and the Pennines changing hands many times as variously Scots, Angles and Danes came and went. Throughout these turbulent years, the Brigantes were always able to remain in occupation of their Strathclyde and Galloway core until sometime in the 1070's, when a force of Picts, having previously regained control of Dunedin, launched a major attack on Strathclyde resulting in the total elimination of both large armies. The Brigantes survived after 1085 as a small population living in the mountains of Galloway. Points – 62.
The Caledonians occupied their homelands of Orkneys, Hebrides and Caithness for about 750 years and despite occasional forays against the Picts in Mar & Skye, were never able to expand further.
The arrival of Ketil and his Norsemen around 800, led to the loss of Orkneys and Caithness and the Caledonians were finally eliminated in 1070, when an army of Norsemen from Skye captured Hebrides. Points- 38.
The Picts lost Dunedin to the Brigantes in the late 50s, leaving them confined to the mountains with Caledonians a constant threat to the North and Brigantes to the South. Despite trying, they could not reclaim Dunedin and things deteriorated still more, with a Scots invasion leading to the additional loss of Dalriada. Alban also fell by 710, but was recaptured by 800 as the Scots declined.
The improvement of fortunes against the Scots however coincided with the arrival of Norse invaders, who captured Skye around the year 900, reducing pictish influence to their homelands of Alban, Mar & Moray. Toward the end of the period covered by these documents, in around 1050, the Picts finally reoccupied Dunedin and it was the entire army of that region that set out to engage the Brigantes stronghold of Strathclyde, the ensuing battle resulting in the elimination of both armies. The Picts survived beyond 1085, in occupation of Alban Mar and Moray. Points - 64.
The Irish are first recorded as small raiding parties around 200, but the first evidence of an Irish colony is around 300, when they landed and sacked a Roman fort in Wessex. As the Romans were withdrawing, they moved from Wessex to Avalon, also occupying Dyfed and Cheshire.
A further trickle of Irish imigrants continued until around 710 and it was around then that the Welsh were able to firmly re-establish control of Dyfed. The last Irish colony in Avalon survived until around 800 when it was conquered by the Welsh. Points – 30.
The Scots were first seen around 300, but it was not until about 100 years later that a landing took place, with the conquest of Dalriada from the Picts. In about the year 500, Fergus appeared with more forces and Dunedin and Lothian fell. At the height of Scottish power they also controlled Alban, before a decline due to resurgent Picts and Brigantes, together with the arrival of new invaders in the form of Norsemen and Danes, reduced them to the one area of Dalriada, where they remained in 1085. Points-40.
The Norsemen arrived in around the year 800 led by Ketil Flatnose and set about the conquest of the Caledonians. Orkneys and Caithness fell by 860 and during this time there was also an unopposed raid into Cumbria, which had been left vacant, due to some secret deal, which led the Brigantes to withdraw from that area.
After this progress was hard and only Skye and Hebrides were added to Norse territory. In 1085, the Norsemen occupied Orkneys, Caithness, Hebrides and Skye. Points – 43.
The Dubliners were first seen in around 900, but no incursions into Britain were made until 950 or thereabouts, when, led by Olaf Guthfrithsson, they landed in Cumbria and South Wales. By 1085 they were reduced to the single area of Gwent, driven out of Dyfed by the Welsh and forced to withdraw from Cumbria, which had become untenable due to the actions of Brigantes and Danes, as well as an impending Norwegian invasion. Points – 13.
The Danes first raided in 793, laying waste to Lothian, Bernicia, York and Cheshire, before withdrawing. They returned in 865, led by the brothers Ivar and Halfdan, taking territory on the east coast form Lothian in the North down to Lindsey in the south as well as reaching inland to the Pennines and Mercia, reaching as far west as March.
There now followed a period of consolidation in the face of renewed attacks by the Saxons and Angles, who took Lindsey and then York, which had perhaps been left too lightly defended. In the early 11^th century, further forces arrived from Denmark and Danish rule was established over East Anglia, York and South Mercia, in the process eliminating the last vestiges of the Angle nation. By 1085, following the arrival of further reinforcements under Svein Estrithson, the Danes were the major power in England (Svein having engaged William of Normandy in Essex, forcing him to flee into the Downlands) controlling territory from Bernicia down to Essex. Bernicia and York had briefly been ceded to the Norwegians, but recaptured without difficulty. Points – 82.
The Norwegians landed at York in 1066 and quickly occupied the city together with Bernicia, Cheshire and March. The only resistance was briefly put up by the Danes in North Mercia, before they withdrew to Suffolk.
Following the successful initial invasion, the forces were forced out of York and Bernicia, leaving Harald Hardrada to rule over Lothian, Pennine, Cheshire and North Mercia from his court in Cumbria. Points – 38.
The Saxons first appeared around 300, destroying the Roman Fort in Sussex, with further forces arriving over the next 100 years or so, destroying Roman forts in Kent and Essex, while moving a little inland ahead of the Jute invasion which swept into Kent & Sussex in their wake. Around 442 a large force led by Aelle established a Saxon presence in much of Southern England, but were met by stiff resistance by the Jutes and Romano-British, led by Arthur. The Romano-British threat died out following the death of Arthur, but it was to take something like 350 years before the threat of the Jutes was finally eliminated with the fall of Kent around the year 800.
In the next 150 years or so under the leadership of Alfred and Edgar, control was gained over much of the South, but the continuing threat of the Welsh in the west and surviving Angles, together with the new danger of the Danes in the east, prevented progress further north than South Mercia and Hwicce.
By 1066, the South Coast had been heavily fortified, but a Norman invasion under William cut through the Saxon forces. A somewhat low key battle near the town of Hastings on the coast led to the loss of Sussex, but neither leader was present with William campaigning in Essex, while the Saxon Harold cowered in Devon.
By the end of 1085, the Saxons were a spent force, surviving only in Kent, together with Devon, Cornwall and Avalon in the west. Points- 84.
The Jutes landed following the Saxons in around 400 and occupied the areas of Kent and Sussex, vacated by the Saxons as they moved in land. They came under heavy attack during Aelle's major invasion shortly afterward, but were able to hold Kent and in an audacious move attack and take Wessex from the Saxons.
Wessex was lost again in around 600, but the Jutes held on in Kent for approximately a further 200 years before falling to a Saxon army led by Egbert. Points- 22.
The Angles appeared as one of a host of raiders in the latter part of the Roman occupation, and their efforts resulted in the destruction of a Roman fort. It was in around 600 that a major force led by Ida established control over much of East Anglia and the East coast.
For the next 200 years or so, the Angles were probably the strongest nation in England, but attempts to expand their territory further west and south led to pyrrhic victories at best, with many troops going to their deaths and the Danish raids of 793 resulted in the lost of all Angle holdings in the north confining them to East Anglia.
Following the Danish invasion of 865, the Angles fought back taking York, but they were confined to the areas of York, Lindsey & Norfolk by the start of the second millennium, and these areas fell easily to the renewed Danish invasion under Cnut. Points – 78.
The Normans invaded in 1066 led by William of Normandy, but were met by heavy Saxon forces on the south coast and the invasion petered out in Essex, following the loss of many infantry.
William barely escaped with his life some years later, when an attack on Essex by Svein the Dane, forced him to withdraw to Downlands with his remaining Cavalry unit. He remained there in 1085, the proud ruler of Downlands, Sussex and Wessex. Points- 28.

_________________________

At the beginning of the year, Matt, Mike, Steve & I played a game of Britannia, which went down well and we agreed that we would repeat it sometime. On Saturday we finally did so on what was probably our last opportunity, with Matt moving down south at the end of next week.
We agreed in advance, who would play which colour. Steve had played Yellow in the previous game and was keen to try that again, while I wanted to try Green (I know a lot of people find this faction a bit uninteresting, but it's a long time since I played it, in fact it was the Black faction in those days). Mike had expressed an interest in playing Red, but was happy to switch to Blue, as Matt had played Blue in the previous game and wanted to try something different.
It should be noted that while we have all played before, none of us would claim to be great experts, lacking the time to play often and become accustomed to the use of the different nations. That said, this was a very enjoyable game, the closest that I can recall taking part in although as can be seen from the scores not a tremendously high scoring game. Two of the reasons for the low scores, may be another couple of features of this game that seemed unusual in my experience, firstly that at no time was any nation able to claim the title of Bretwalda or later king, secondly at the end of the game all four of the claimants to the throne were still alive even if they couldn't claim the prize.
The above "history" represents my recollection of the game. It is possibly not 100% accurate in places, but I have tried to ensure that what I have written fits in with the record of points scored at different moments during the game. Below is a progress chart for the game, showing the final scores.

Britannia - 2 Jan/11 Jan

So Britannia began with the Roman invasion (Steve playing yellow), sweeping northwards almost wiping out the Belgae (Matt blue) who briefly submitted before revolting under Boudicca almost immediately not that it helped them much. The Romans also made inroads against the Welsh (Mike green) and forced submission from the Brigantes (me red). Everything seemed to be going extremely well until they entered the highlands of the Picts and were heavily defeated with the loss of many troops. This weakened their ability to defend their forts with the result that many were lost to the arriving Angles, Saxons and Irish as well as counterattacks from the Welsh.

Moving into the middle game, my Saxons became the dominant force and everything seemed to be going well at this stage, with the Irish also doing well, Mike's Jutes appeared briefly and settled in Kent as is their wont before falling before being quickly wiped out by the Saxons. The remnants of the Belgae lingered in Lindsey for a short time as did the Romano British in Downlands, but neither made any real impression, while the Scots established a small area up north.

For a few turns everything seemed OK as I achieved successive Bretwaldas and a couple of Kingships until everything went wrong with the arrival of Mike and the Danes, who caused much destruction. In a short period the Brigantes, Irish and Norsemen, who had not achieved much were all eliminated and the Saxons were seriously damaged, I failed to score a single points after turn 13.

In the end the game was close for first and second, with Matt and the Normans coming out on top after a decisive battle with Mike's Danes but I can't remember where it took place. Steve took third place due to the decisive Battle of Chester where Harald Hardrada was victorious over Harold, although he was soon to fall victim to the Normans or the Danes. So William the Conqueror was again victorious albeit that the events were different to expected.

Final Scores

Britannia 300 mins
Player	Posn.	Points
Matt (Blue)	1	268
Mike (Green)	2	264
Steve H (Yellow)	3	201
Dave D (Red)	4	200

1856 - 24 March 2007

Earlier in the year we played a 6 player game of this and later Steve suggested that he'd like to give it another try, but thought that 4 might be a better number. Mike and I were happy to agree as we are big 18XX fans, although we rarely get the chance to play, and I also thought it would be a chance for Dave C to join in, having missed the earlier game. So it was that we gathered at my place on Saturday.

We all started a public company at the beginning. Mike had the GW, I had the LPS, Dave the WGB and Steve the CPR. In the early stage of the game I was able to make some quick money with LPS and at the first opportunity I had it buy the Great Lakes Shipping Company off me at the same time putting money in my pocket and increasing the LPS revenue by using the port. During this time Mike built up the GW and I was able to link into his track allowing me to run to London for further revenue, Steve slowly started building up the CPR, while Dave was stuck in the middle without easy access to a big city and no other company close by to help in the WGB development. As we moved out of this early stage I had been able to build up enough cash to start another company (the CA) which seemed like a good combination with the LPS. Soon after Mike started the BBG and Steve took the Welland.

It was here I think that things started to go wrong as I should have kept more money in LPS while the pickings were good. When the the first 6 train was available, I found myself with a lot of money sitting idle and used it to start the CV. Having looked around I had thought that all the companies would be able to repay their loans, the WGB was vulnerable but I was able to help it to its destination before the CV bought the 6 train, so releasing the necessary funds. As it turned out the Welland could not repay and so the CGR was formed from this one company. At this point I was terribly vulnerable. I had considered folding one of my 2 companies into the CGR, but this was not possible as they had too much money to default on their loans (the CA actually had none outstanding) as a result both were left sitting on a single 4 train each which was liable to be rendered obsolete at any moment on the purchase of a Diesel and not a huge amount of cash. If this had happened I would have been destroyed, fortunately Mike who had the GW with a 6 & 4, which was making the most revenue, chose not to trade in for the diesel, instead carrying on, while seeing his share price rise. The CGR, having formed in a corner of the board without immediate access to the wider network, would take several rounds before being able to buy a diesel and the other companies, already having permanent trains were content to keep paying dividends, rather than saving for another train. I was able to use these few rounds grace to build up the LPS and CA treasuries before buying permanent trains (in the LPS case the 6 from the CV). During this time the LPS & CA share prices fell though the floor, but I was able to keep a good personal income from the CV and major minority holdings in the GW and CPR.

Once all the companies were on a stable footing the game moved to a fairly swift conclusion, during it was a case of Steve using CGR tokens to block stations limit the revenue of other companies, while I desperately tried to bypass the blocks using the combine efforts of LPS, CA and CV. The game ended about 8pm for a total playing time between 6 & 7 hours.

Scores as follows
Dave D $9486
Steve $7982
Mike $6521
Dave C $5967

If I had been Mike I think I would probably have bought the diesel and caused me much pain, but he considered that even if he had done so he would only have given the game to Steve instead and he is probably right. What I think the game does show is we could all do with a lot more practice (but how to find the time).

1856 - January 27 2007

Back in October 2005, we had a Saturday afternoon and evening session, playing Advanced Civilization. We agreed after that to repeat the following year to play some other game that would not be possible on Wednesday evening. So, although a little later than planned, a group of us gathered at my place for a session of 1856. The players were myself, Mike, Steve H, John (a school friend of Mike and I, who also came up for the Civ game) and some friends of John, father and son Les and John(2).

We met at 2pm and spent about an hour going over the rules (Mike being the only one to have recent play experience, through postal play) before starting about 3. Money is very tight with 6 players but despite this we got 6 companies up and running in the first operating round, I'm not entirely sure that this was a good idea, since all the companies were very parlously financed, but everyone had a company to run giving them something to do.

Mike did very well in the early stages, although he effectively ran the Grand Trunk into the ground, and was able to fund a second company (Credit Valley) when the '5' trains were available. Mike's thought is that this was the advantage that won him the game and that someone else should also have started a new company at this stage, I'm not exactly sure this is true since while the CV was able to buy a '5' train, I'm sure that any other company started would have been stuck with needing a '6' train or buying a '4' off the presidents other company damaging that company and meaning the new company would still have had to buy a permanent train later. Also I think it would have needed more than one player to cooperate to form the company unless the president was willing to sell valuable shares to do it himself.

Between 7 & 8 we had a break and the dodgy picture above shows the board at that point. It was agreed at the restart that we would call the game at 10, completing the current set of operating rounds. The next stock round was a long one (I think Steve found it interminable) as people bought and sold shares, 2 new companies were formed and due to shares sold, I was able to take over the Great Western from John. After all the stock shenanigans were sorted out it was on to the last 3 operating rounds, which because of the new companies buying trains soon brought about the compulsory repayment of loans and the formation of the Canadian Government Railways, although in fact this almost didn't happen as only the Grand Trunk was unable to repay. After this I was able to have the London and Port Sarnia trade in a '4' train for a diesel, rendering the other '4's scrap and it was this that Steve thought (probably correctly) that gave me the advantage over him in the final scoring. After things sorted themselves out and many companies had diesels, money flowed out of the bank and the game would definitely have finished naturally after another set of OR's.

Final Scores
Mike $3338, Dave $3015, Steve $2770, John $2474, John(2) $1906, Les $1732

I think, allowing for breaks we played for about 6.5 to 7 hours, which I don't think is too bad considering the newness of this type of game to many of the players, Steve has admitted that this is not really his type of game and he'd rather play Civilization as an all dayer. I still love the 18XX series. I showed our game list to Les and John who are from Stourbridge and they have indicated they may come along on a Wednesday some time. They will of course be most welcome.

Apologies to those to whom the foregoing is a load of meainingless waffle, normal service will now be resumed until we decide to do something like this again.