Historical, Multiplayer Dudes-on-a-Map Games: Opinions?

My in-person gaming is pretty much non existent at this point, but lately I've been doing some digging more as a researcher. I think my preferences for games - particularly wargames - seems to be two extremes: tactical battles and sprawling multiplayer strategic games. In the name of research, what are the collective opinions on some of these titles?

Britannia - I enjoyed the game the one time I played it, but found the scripting somewhat frustrating. I seem to remember playing red, and when my Romans failed to conquer all that effectively in their first deployment, I was pretty well out of the game after that point. I don't recall any diplomacy or economy in this game whatsoever apart from the usual pleas to attack the stronger players. I believe there is a new edition out soon?

Here I Stand/Virgin Queen - I loved the hell out of Here I Stand, but never played the revised edition. I think the balance of powers is a bit out of whack. The Papacy seems to need a good combination of vigilance, expert play, and luck to even approach a win. England seems pretty well primed to just sit around and roll for an heir until they win. France is in a bind since they're constantly at war and don't seem to be able to hold up to attacks from all sides. Overall I like the game but some of the ways to gain vp are a bit annoying and anticlimactic. I was a playtester for the Virgin Queen but didn't really enjoy it at all. It seemed like it was just Here I Stand with more piled on, but something didn't feel right about it. The marriage system seemed convoluted and not particularly fun.

Sword of Rome - Great game but really swingy. If you win a battle you gain additional political support. The opposite is true when you lose, so not only can your armies be eliminated, but your empire can crumble out from under your feet because of it. The balance seemed pretty good for the four-player, but the addition of Carthage in the expansion really undermined it from what I recall. I also don't remember the Etruscan/Samnite power being all that fun to play.

Successors - A great scenario for a multiplayer game and I recall this one being interesting. It did seem a bit odd how you randomly play a couple of generals of variable strengths, but the fight over Alexander's mausoleum is unforgettable.

Clash of Monarchs?

Pax Romana/Genesis? - I think the general impression I've heard is that these aren't great, are pretty long, and pretty random?

Pax Pamir - Excellent and interesting depiction of 19th century Afghanistan. I like the position of the players as relatively weak and seeking outside influence to achieve their political goals. I've only played this myself solo and two player so I know I'm missing out on the whole experience. I'm not interested in Eklund titles (hence why I've left them off) for reasons, but Wehrle seems like a good fellow.

Any other titles I should look into? What innovations have we seen in this game genre in the last few years?

The COIN series springs to mind. Andean Abyss was my favourite but very very long so I found it super hard to find willing opponents. Cuba Libre was an easier sell, just didn’t feel like it had the same room to breathe with less emphasis on gestating plans with a long-term pay-off. Fire in the Lake was too unforgiving for my taste and I felt the series dropped off in quality whilst increasing too far in complexity after that.

Pax Pamir is great, but I’d rather be playing John Company if I’m in the mood for a historical Cole Wherle joint.

I always really enjoyed Britannia. It's the one Avalon Hill game I still have a copy of (I never picked up FFG's reprint and they did do a KS last year, but I'm not sure where it is in the process.) What caught my eye in college was the depiction of history that, at the time, wasn't very well known. Gaming-wise, I liked the semi-adherence to the script and having to operate within those confines but still escape it if you worked hard enough. I was able to keep the Picts active until the 10th century one time. I still own it, although it hasn't come off the shelf in years.

OTOH, I looooove Here I Stand. Whenever someone suggests an all-day gaming event, this is first on my list. I've also never played the revised edition and I agree that there are some standing issues with the powers as printed. Our issues with France was that there wasn't a lot to do until someone started messing with you and then it was pretty much mono-dimensional. I'm OK with the Papacy being tricky to play (I almost always suggest it for more experienced players.) In contrast, the Ottomans are very easy to play (and in quite a dominant position early in the game.) I've never played Virgin Queen.

I'm also a big fan of Sword of Rome. I think the key to it is that they really focused on just how difficult it was to raise and maintain armies in that period of time, since most people were needed to farm to keep society functioning. So, while you're right that losing a fight means you also lose support and you can snowball, it does make you pretty careful about which fights you actually engage in. Diplomacy is genuinely important in this game. Also, since it is a CDG, I think a lot of people tend to overvalue their Desperate Times cards. If you're facing a tough situation, play it, as the resources it produces can be (and are intended to be) game-changing. Also, in terms of the snowball effect, remember that retreating into a city is often the best option, since the loyalty can't drop below the number of units present. My experience with Carthage is that it adds a huge naval wrinkle to the game, but didn't distort it horribly.

The only other thing I've played in that list is Pax Pamir, which is brilliant. It is better with more players (as with most multi-player games), since you generally have to be more observant of (and try to remove) spies and have to watch more than one tableau for how they're developing, which also gives you opportunities for disruption. I've only played a couple times, though.

Edit: Oh, right. I agree with Mezike that the COIN series is probably the best place to go for new things of this type.

mezike wrote: The COIN series springs to mind. Andean Abyss was my favourite but very very long so I found it super hard to find willing opponents. Cuba Libre was an easier sell, just didn’t feel like it had the same room to breathe with less emphasis on gestating plans with a long-term pay-off. Fire in the Lake was too unforgiving for my taste and I felt the series dropped off in quality whilst increasing too far in complexity after that.

Pax Pamir is great, but I’d rather be playing John Company if I’m in the mood for a historical Cole Wherle joint.

Of course, I totally forgot COIN. I think I only realized how out of touch I am with the gaming world when I realized how many games were in this series. Seems like they more or less replaced the card-driven games with which I'm more familiar.

How is Pendragon? That's the title I'd be most interested in. Would it work solo (for us sad sacks)?

Jackwraith wrote: The only other thing I've played in that list is Pax Pamir, which is brilliant. It is better with more players (as with most multi-player games), since you generally have to be more observant of (and try to remove) spies and have to watch more than one tableau for how they're developing, which also gives you opportunities for disruption. I've only played a couple times, though.

Yeah, I can see how it would greatly improve with more players. One of these days I'll be able to jump on a TTS game of it, I hope. When I tried to teach someone to play it two player, they didn't give two shits about the history, played like an idiot, and then proceeded to lose to the AI. I need to move to greener pastures.

Someone tell me about John Company. Without researching it, I'm pretty hesitant just by the topic. I can imagine that Wehrle is careful about the history of it all, but the trading companies were pretty horrible institutions.

I would say that any historical game of grand strategy is going to be full of horrible behaviour that has been tactfully papered over. JC is much the same e.g. Presidents of regions get to take a ‘presidential bonus’ which is separate from company funds; it is literally dirty money cruelly skimmed away from the local populace. Same for regional governors and their private ‘taxation’.

Is Pendragon is the one with the Romans in Britain or something newer? I tried the one with the Romans but it just felt to me that the exciting part of the game was being buried under lots of unnecessary complexity. I’m probably not the best person to be an advocate of the system, I mean I enjoy long and complex games but I do have a fairly low threshold in relation to this particular side of the hobby!

mezike wrote: I would say that any historical game of grand strategy is going to be full of horrible behaviour that has been tactfully papered over. JC is much the same e.g. Presidents of regions get to take a ‘presidential bonus’ which is separate from company funds; it is literally dirty money cruelly skimmed away from the local populace. Same for regional governors and their private ‘taxation’.

Is Pendragon is the one with the Romans in Britain or something newer? I tried the one with the Romans but it just felt to me that the exciting part of the game was being buried under lots of unnecessary complexity. I’m probably not the best person to be an advocate of the system, I mean I enjoy long and complex games but I do have a fairly low threshold in relation to this particular side of the hobby!

I'm not going to pretend that I have some coherent moral high ground on any historical subject, but there are some that just make me too uncomfortable. I'm not saying John Company is one necessarily, but it's been enough to not drive me to investigate it too much. I should probably read the rules and notes and see how well it's handled.

Yes, Pendragon is about the end of Roman Britain. It's an interesting subject, but it seems like they were pretty eager to push the COIN design into realms where it maybe isn't best suited. I'll have to do some digging.

I wonder if anyone ever in the history of a John Company game has put the regional office money into the office rather than their own bank. What works for me about John Company, and everyone's moral lines about simulating history are different, no shade, is that the gameplay is doggedly playing out/advancing a commonly held theory in historiography about why the events occured instead of covering them up or omitting them. I found myself reading along with The Anarchy, a book written well after this game was made, and nodding along with the history because the game did actually help me understand why the British were behaving unethically and badly.

Clash of Monarchs might work here a little bit because even though the sides are hard coded, there's a strong eyeballing each other going on between France and Austria about "how hard should I work if this guy isn't working" especially around where the location of the main Prussian army is, usually it is in the Austrian theater. I'm guessing the sequel will work even better since the events are even more multifaceted. Britain/Prussia don't have this nearly as much.

Can strongly recommend you try Time of Crisis. The mechanic driving it is mini deck building but it is super about jockeying for position, holding Rome, etc between various claimants.

Also you might like Conquest of Paradise a lot on this dimension.

Gary Sax wrote: I wonder if anyone ever in the history of a John Company game has put the regional office money into the office rather than their own bank.

Clash of Monarchs might work here a little bit because even though the sides are hard coded, there's a strong eyeballing each other going on between France and Austria about "how hard should I work if this guy isn't working" especially around where the location of the main Prussian army is, usually it is in the Austrian theater. I'm guessing the sequel will work even better since the events are even more multifaceted. Britain/Prussia don't have this nearly as much.

Can strongly recommend you try Time of Crisis. The mechanic driving it is mini deck building but it is super about jockeying for position, holding Rome, etc between various claimants.

Also you might like Conquest of Paradise a lot on this dimension.

Excellent suggestions, thanks. Time of Crisis was sort of pitched as a sequel of sorts to Sword of Rome, but looks different enough that I didn't follow it closely. Sounds interesting, though.

Sorry, I stealth edited a little more about John Company in there.

From what I have seen but not played about Time of Crisis, it looks like a fun little game that really goes right up your alley. Heavy Cardboard has a couple good playthroughs on youtube if you want to see a turn or two being played.

Count Orlok wrote: I loved the hell out of Here I Stand, but never played the revised edition. I think the balance of powers is a bit out of whack. The Papacy seems to need a good combination of vigilance, expert play, and luck to even approach a win. England seems pretty well primed to just sit around and roll for an heir until they win. France is in a bind since they're constantly at war and don't seem to be able to hold up to attacks from all sides.

The 2017 edition changes are worth a try, since France and the Papacy (both of which you mentioned) both got some buffs to bring them up to par with other powers. There's a revised home card for France, and new/modified cards that help the Papacy (Thomas More, revised Master of Italy). Plus there were needed guard rails placed on space transfers and gamey faux-wars on minor powers.

There was a pretty stale high level meta involving super weirdo shit that I took part in once or twice via PBEM.

You may want to take a look at Fief, it’s medieval France, multiplayer diplomacy, building armies of different units, castle sieges, plague and papacy. I had it but I am not going to get 6 people to sit at once, it seems to be too easy with fewer.

Gary Sax wrote: I found myself reading along with The Anarchy, a book written well after this game was made, and nodding along with the history because the game did actually help me understand why the British were behaving unethically and badly.

This is the Dalrymple book?

Gary Sax wrote: I wonder if anyone ever in the history of a John Company game has put the regional office money into the office rather than their own bank. What works for me about John Company, and everyone's moral lines about simulating history are different, no shade, is that the gameplay is doggedly playing out/advancing a commonly held theory in historiography about why the events occured instead of covering them up or omitting them. I found myself reading along with The Anarchy, a book written well after this game was made, and nodding along with the history because the game did actually help me understand why the British were behaving unethically and badly.

I've put money into the regional office! But literally only when I'm angling to flip a depressed card for that bonus.

Agree,The Anarchy makes excellent reading alongside John Company. It takes a lot of "games are just games" blinders to ignore what's going on there, even though it's presented as "look, a game about company politics and trade".

The notion that money can't quite buy you status (or at least that the exchange rate was really tilted) really pervades the game.

I agree with Joel that the revisions for HiS, while minor, do a lot to prevent some gamy bullshit that often went on with early editions. I like VQ, but it's a lot more sandboxy than HIS and more about exploring different ways to victory points (ie "what makes a great country, historically?"). The added rules on top of HIS is not awesome, and I think it takes a few plays to get past the fumbling stage. That's sadly a lot of time invested.

COIN games are also pretty good in general. They're reasonably soloable, since they don't rely on hidden hands. Everybody is planning based on the card flop. I haven't played all of them, just the early ones. I'd start with a relatively early one, as there was a chrome creep happening in that series too.