Jump to content



Photo

War game or war game light?


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Royaldoy

Royaldoy

    Member

  • Members
  • 81 posts

Posted 26 April 2009 - 02:08 AM

I am a HUGE fan of Conan and have read most of RH's works on Conan. I have collected the comics since the early 70's so it was a no brainer to look into this game.

I have played the game twice and I am a bit ho-hum on it. It had the feel of a "wargame".

My collection of boardgames does not include "wargames" in it because I find the subject matter and the mechanics dull and fiddly.

Am I correct in assuming that the feeling that I am getting from this game is that of a traditional wargame. I understand that a true wargame has many more rules and is probably a little more detailed than Age of Conan.

I wanted to love this game and while I wouldn't mind playing it if it was pulled out on the table, I would prefer to play other games instead.



#2 Necronis

Necronis

    Member

  • Members
  • 118 posts

Posted 26 April 2009 - 05:48 AM

     Its a strategy game based in the Hyborian Age, much like the old Hyborian War PBM game from the 80's-early 90's. I dont get what you were expecting from it. Mongoose has a great (in my opinion) RPG game that might be more of what your looking for.

     Sounds like we are both the same age with the same interest in Conan. Im fortunate enough to be able to run a weekly Conan RPG game and enjoyed bringing this boardgame out when we only had 4 of us show up. My friends seemed to enjoy playing their characters nations (the Turanian and Stygian) and we went over the groups adventures when we we fighting over certain provinces.

     I agree with War Game Light . Much as Dust or War of the Rings are themed based strategy "Light" wargames. We normaly play RPG's and break out the board/card games when only 3-4 of us can meet. How do you rate the "feel" of the game? Do you relate to the Kingdom cards, with the characters and units? Several people didnt but I guess Im too much of a fan to not.

    



#3 Royaldoy

Royaldoy

    Member

  • Members
  • 81 posts

Posted 26 April 2009 - 06:09 AM

I like the presentation, that's for sure. The components are nice. The art is great. The dice mechanic for actions was fine.

The dice mechanics for battle left me wanting something else. What, I don't know? The Kingdom Cards I enjoyed. The strategy cards were bland and I wanted them to do more. While they are certainly functional, they too seemed underwhelming.

The Conan mechanic, while I understand how it works wasn't  all that engaging.

As you can see by my meager review, I don't do to well with them. It's hard for me to describe the feelings I had while playing it, I just know that I felt the game was lacking. I have played a variety of games and this one was unique for me, as I have never played a game quite like it. It's not a matter of not being able to relate to the material, because I certainly do.

I was keen on purchasing the War of the Ring as well, but after playing this, I think I will pass. Maybe I will give it a go before I purchase it  like I did with  AOC.

All in all, it's not a terrible game, it just isn't hitting the right spot with me???



#4 Tsugo

Tsugo

    Member

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 27 April 2009 - 10:44 AM

Royaldoy said:

I was keen on purchasing the War of the Ring as well, but after playing this, I think I will pass. Maybe I will give it a go before I purchase it  like I did with  AOC

 

Aside from the Action Dice, War of the Ring is a much different game.  If you are able to, give it a try.  I bought it without trying it, and it has quickly moved to the top of my favorites.  I play it once a week.  I'd play it more often if I could.  WotR is really a two player game at its heart (despite having a 4 player variant).  Because of this, the two players really feel like they are  taking on the roles of the fellowship or Sauron's armies.  

I don't see the same level of character immersion being possible in a 4 player  war game.  I could see it working in an adventure game with "one vs. the group" style of play.  That's not was AoC was billed as, but I think that is what many people were wishing it was.  For those that were, they'll have to wait until the Conan tactics game Roberto hinted at is released.

I will add that I enjoy AoC.  However, it is the war aspect that I like. 



#5 adel10

adel10

    Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 08 May 2009 - 08:05 PM

i also find the contest a little bit hasardous  and i find some part of the game totaly unprdictable, so i can't realy find a good way of playing .

 

For me here you had to be the best  opportunist you can and may be you win

 

but even if War of the ring share some mecanism like the dice driven mecanism is a real strategic game in my opinion an better than Conan even in battle  , it's only weakness : is length

 

so try it before buy it may be you're 'll be surprised



#6 crimhead

crimhead

    Member

  • Members
  • 391 posts

Posted 09 May 2009 - 04:27 PM

I think the term 'war game light' was invented to describe games like Axis & Allies, Shogun, Diplomacy, Supremacy, Buck Rogers, Britannia, Cosmic encounter, etc, because people who play "war games" like Flat Top, ASL, Africa Korps, etc don't consider games on the former list to be real war games.

In this sense, Age of Conan is war game light.

However, with the growing prominence of European style games in the industry, I could see the term 'war game' finally expanding within its semantic field.

 


  • orcbreath likes this




© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS