As a long-time wargamer, and currently a play-tester for several companies, I'm fascinated by this game and want to hear from some other wargamers. I've read a number of posts on both this forum and that archived from AGoT's 1st Edition. It's interesting that a number of players have likened this game to Risk and Diplomacy.
With regard to Risk, the map is indeed carved into large areas, unlike any more historical 'hex and counter' war-game and of course, the pieces only abstractly represent fighting units. But, that's where the similarity ends...at least, for me.
Comparing it to Diplomacy is probably more apt, and given the reliance on negotiation, while still abstractly representing armies and navies, the underlying game hinges on one's ability to communicate, negotiate, and make cunning decisions.
The creation and introduction of Tides of Battle cards work in a similar fashion to the matrices and die-rolling associated with mature wargames to represent, as Clausewitz discusses in his treatise, On War, the Fog and Friction of War. Personally, I'm not enamored by a combat system that is relegated to comparing the relative strengths of two armies and simply declaring a winner based on "the largest army" wins. Careful use of the House cards, coupled with the Tides of Battle cards makes an elegant solution.
While there's a number of players currently engaged with both the 1st and 2nd Editions of AGoT, I'm curious to hear from any hardcore wargamers who can provide their analysis and recommendations on AGoT's 2nd Edition to a fellow wargamer.
Thanks in advance for your input, and what I hope will be an interesting exchange of ideas.
Edited by The Professor, 14 April 2014 - 06:48 PM.