Front Page

Content

Board Games

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

T
TabletopIsland
July 11, 2020
104 0
TK
The King in Yellow
July 11, 2020
203 1
O
oliverkinne
July 10, 2020
209 0
M
max
July 10, 2020
331 0
D
DirtyWook
July 09, 2020
316 0
MB
Michael Barnes
July 09, 2020
1082 0
AL
Andi Lennon
July 09, 2020
702 0
W
We-reNotWizards
July 08, 2020
354 0
U
ubarose
July 07, 2020
652 0
T
thegiantbrain
July 07, 2020
196 0
O
oliverkinne
July 07, 2020
476 0
J
Jexik
July 06, 2020
477 0
O
oliverkinne
July 03, 2020
698 0
MB
Michael Barnes
July 02, 2020
1274 0

Pan Am Flies High - Review

Board Game Reviews
J
Jexik
July 02, 2020
687 0
× Post your play by email & play by forum games here.

Ok, so who's up Successors 3rd via VASSAL/ACTS?

More
28 Jan 2009 21:41 #18761 by Dogmatix
I semi-hijacked Gary's Clash of Monarchs thread when I mentioned that I'm in a VASSAL/ACTS Successors 3rd ed. game as a handful of folks came out of the woodwork expressing interest.

Here's the scoop, I can't "moderate" [so read the rules; I can answer most questions as play progresses, but I can't referee...] but would be happy to get a F:AT game rolling as a player. You will need to d/l the Successors 2.0 VASSAL module [linked on TOS I believe] as the original 1.4 ed. is hopelessly broken. In addition, since the "host" of my current game created and subsequently released a nicely done custom module, we'd be using ACTS for dice and cards.

If folks are interested, let me know and we can get it set-up. Before committing, please be aware that Successors is email-intensive when played through ACTS--there are a fair number of card plays and die rolls, but if folks are paying attention, phases will move pretty quickly.

I'd like to get a full complement of 4 [so 3 more folks], so post here if you're interested and can actually play the game in under 2 months ;). If we get 4, we can decide on any of the optional rules and roll-off for generals and get a game going.

Let me know.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Jan 2009 03:03 #18782 by hacksword
I'm still interested.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Jan 2009 03:50 #18786 by Matt Thrower
I'd be interested, but be aware I'm in a different time zone and so might slow things down. If you'd rather get four guys in North America together, it's fine by me.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Jan 2009 10:20 #18804 by Bulwyf
I'm in. I have zero problem with Matt being in the UK. Guess I should go re-read the rules...

-Will

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 Jan 2009 14:43 #18864 by Dogmatix
Matt, I don't see any problem with a non-North American player in the loop. . I keep "UK hours" (i.e. vampyric by US time) anyway. Plus, most folks tend to go silent during the average US workday, so your moves would probably actually keep the game flowing.

We have our 4. If everyone could shoot me a message here with your email address so I can get the game set up in ACTS and Vassal, I'd appreciate it.

Take the weekend to screw around with the Vassal module to see how you set things and(re-)read the rules and determine what, if any, of the optional rules you'd like to include. If this is a first play for everyone, I normally vote "no optional rules"; however, if folks are comfortable with the game and/or feel strongly for inclusion of any, my vote would be for 23.1 [prestige bonus for defeating indy armies] and 23.5 [regarding purchasing Seleucus and Eumenes if you lose a Major General]. Both give a little push for going after the indies when they activate. That said, I don't care, so I leave it open for discussion.

I won't get this one underway until we get into the first Tyche phase of Turn 2 on my current game , but, since we're on the last player's play of Turn 1, it should come within the next 48 hours. I expect to have the game ready to go late sunday or early monday.

Please also make sure you're running the 2.0 version of the Successor's VASSAL module. The earlier version is flaky. When you first fire it up, it will complain that it needs the latest beta version of the Vassal engine to run properly. This isn't actually true as 2 of the 4 in my current game are running the 3.0 release without a hitch [the other 2, including me, are running 3.1b7; beta8 was just released but I haven't tried that yet--just please don't switch versions of the engine mid-game as I don't know what weirdness that may cause.]

I think the 2.0 module is linked at TOS, but when I get the email addresses, I can send the file to everyone via yousendit [so you would get a link to a download rather than a 17MB file clogging up your inbox] if need be.

Only other thing to be aware of is that there is a slight difference between the VASSAL board and the mapboard included in the boxed game. On the physical map, every province has a box indicating how many cities are in a province followed by the number needed for control [so Thessaly would show "2/2"]; the vassal map only shows the number of cities in the province. So, you'll need to be aware that simple majority is needed to take control of the province HOWEVER an even 50% is *not* considered a majority. So, you need 2 PC markers in a 2-city province, not 1; and 3/4 and 3/5 in 4- and 5-city provinces respectively.

Lastly, if you come across Dave Rubin online anywhere, thank him for developing the custom Successors 3rd. ed. ACTS module. It's really quite well done and, without him, this wouldn't be possible. :)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Jan 2009 12:38 #19110 by Bulwyf
Dogmatix wrote:

Lastly, if you come across Dave Rubin online anywhere, thank him for developing the custom Successors 3rd. ed. ACTS module. It's really quite well done and, without him, this wouldn't be possible. :)



If I remeber correctly I think I was in a couple of Sword of Rome games with Dave. Nice guy. PM sent btw.

-Will

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Jan 2009 13:33 #19138 by Dogmatix
Bulwyf wrote:

Dogmatix wrote:

Lastly, if you come across Dave Rubin online anywhere, thank him for developing the custom Successors 3rd. ed. ACTS module. It's really quite well done and, without him, this wouldn't be possible. :)



If I remeber correctly I think I was in a couple of Sword of Rome games with Dave. Nice guy. PM sent btw.

-Will


Got it. Thanks. Now that I've seen how the replacement phase is handled, we're good to go [it's a little goofy thanks to the need to reinforce before cards are dealt]. I'll ping Thrower to confirm his email address.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Jan 2009 15:10 #19183 by Dogmatix
Dogmatix wrote:

Bulwyf wrote:

Dogmatix wrote:

Lastly, if you come across Dave Rubin online anywhere, thank him for developing the custom Successors 3rd. ed. ACTS module. It's really quite well done and, without him, this wouldn't be possible. :)



If I remeber correctly I think I was in a couple of Sword of Rome games with Dave. Nice guy. PM sent btw.

-Will


Got it. Thanks. Now that I've seen how the replacement phase is handled, we're good to go [it's a little goofy thanks to the need to reinforce before cards are dealt]. I'll ping Thrower to confirm his email address.


And Thrower has confirmed.

Based on arbitrary assignation, the players are assigned the following colors:

Asp/Black: Dogm.
Horse/Red: Bulwyf
Lion/Yellow: MattDP
Star/Blue: Hacksword

Starting generals will be assigned via 8 d999 rolls and using the Seniority List on the back of the manual (lowest roll = Perdiccas, 2nd lowest roll = Antipater, etc.) . The first pair of rolls you see will be mine, then bulwyf, then Matt, then HS.

Before I go much further, what's the thought on optional rules? Any? None? inquiring minds want to know...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Jan 2009 20:38 #19258 by hacksword
I've never played before, so I'm fine with not using optional rules. I won't throw a hissy fit if we do use them, though.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Feb 2009 13:03 #19328 by Dogmatix
hacksword wrote:

I've never played before, so I'm fine with not using optional rules. I won't throw a hissy fit if we do use them, though.


Ok folks, I forgot about how ACTS requires you to add players. Y'all need an acts account *first*. Bulwyf sent me his, but I'll need the rest of you to either create one or post or GM me your info with your acts user names.

Sign up here: acts.warhorsesim.com/newuser.asp

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Feb 2009 17:12 #19347 by hacksword
My ACTS username is hacksword, just like here.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Feb 2009 20:32 #19355 by Dogmatix
hacksword wrote:

My ACTS username is hacksword, just like here.


I do love consistency :) Alright, I'll ping on Thrower and we should have it up shortly.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Feb 2009 01:32 #19398 by Bulwyf
As far as optional rules I'll defer to your judgment. Some, none or all is good with me.

-Will

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Feb 2009 02:50 #19404 by Dogmatix
Bulwyf wrote:

As far as optional rules I'll defer to your judgment. Some, none or all is good with me.

-Will

I think there are 2 I'd like to implement in this game. The first is that defeating an independent army is worth +1 prestige. I like this one because it makes "historical sense" to me--e.g., crushing a restless Greek army increased Antipater's standing in the empire [pretty much killed him too]. Since the indies can bring the pain and kill your generals, you should get a bonus for being the Tyrant we all aspire to be :)

The other is a little more game-related--I'd like to implement 23.5, which allows a player who had a Major General catch a fatal spear up the nostril "buy" 1 of 2 specific generals rather than having them crop up randomly via Tyche card for whomever has the luck to draw the card. Having just seen the random appearance happen in my current game [we didn't implement this rule], it can be a balance swinger for no good reason. Aside from that, using 23.5, it gives a player a chance to stay in the game after getting a bad break with the death of a general [and, let me tell ya...losing a battle appears to be *brutal* in this game--it ain't like Hannibal where you lose some CUs and flee; rather your army basically evaporates]. With 4 players spread around the map all trying to carve out an empire and tamp down the competition, losing a general can open up a *huge* swath of map and just knock someone so far down that it's not particularly fun but not so far down that they're out of the game. This one gives a player incentive to rebuild rather than just sit in the corner and grumble.

[Regarding the other optional rules, they seem to treat independent armies like player-armies, allowing interceptions, avoidance, and the like. I'm not sure they're worth the trouble right now. The indies are a pain in the ass, but these rules strike me as for experienced players looking for a way to change up the flavor or at least reduce the random-control irritation of the Indies.]

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Feb 2009 04:03 #19407 by Matt Thrower
Oops, sorry, didn't know everyone was waiting on me.

Username MattDP, registered email is matt *underscore* thrower *at* hotmail *dot* com

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.156 seconds