Jump to content

JustinB

Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JustinB


  1.  

     

     

     

    I have noticed some bugs while using the Quest Vault.

    1)  Under Quest>Settings, you can click the "-" button for Descent: Core Set to reduce your component count to 0.  When you click "+" to get more components, the quest will mark that you need 2 copies of the Core Set, but you will still only have access to 1 set of tokens.  The only fix is to close the browser without saving your work.

    2)  Occassionally, when dragging a component to the map, it will not show up, but it will decrease the item count.  It would be convenient if you could right-click the map pieces or token pieces from the selection box, and delete them all from the map to get access to them again.  Again, one fix for this is to close the browser window without saving your work.  Sometimes the tile will show up randomly.  Sometimes you can increase your set requirements, then decrease it to get the correct token count back.

    3)  On the front page, the number of likes text field needs to be bigger.  At 100 likes, the top quest wraps this text, making the information difficult to read.

     

     

     

     


  2. Yes, sorry.  I saw that the thread was full of "login" issues, and I wasn't sure what was meant by technical issues.  I usually consider "technical" to mean a specific level of bug, i.e. something that makes a program unusable or incompatible with other programs.  Feel free to delete this thread, I will post these issues to the proper thread.


  3. I have noticed some bugs while using the Quest Vault.

    1)  Under Quest>Settings, you can click the "-" button for Descent: Core Set to reduce your component count to 0.  When you click "+" to get more components, the quest will mark that you need 2 copies of the Core Set, but you will still only have access to 1 set of tokens.  The only fix is to close the browser without saving your work.

    2)  Occassionally, when dragging a component to the map, it will not show up, but it will decrease the item count.  It would be convenient if you could right-click the map pieces or token pieces from the selection box, and delete them all from the map to get access to them again.  Again, one fix for this is to close the browser window without saving your work.  Sometimes the tile will show up randomly.  Sometimes you can increase your set requirements, then decrease it to get the correct token count back.

    3)  On the front page, the number of likes text field needs to be bigger.  At 100 likes, the top quest wraps this text, making the information difficult to read.


  4. There was a pretty big rivalry between the Angles and the Saxons.  What isn't shown in the game is that the Saxon culture consisted of many different "nations": Wessex, Essex, and the like.  I believe the Angles were also set up in different nations/tribes.  However, just like in the game, it's useful for the Saxons and Angles to not annihilate each other, lest the Danes completely take over the island.  Historically, the Angles were devastated and the Saxons had to mount a defense.  What can't be modeled in the game is that the Danes usually were bribed to not attack until Alfred the Great resisted them and pushed them back, reconquering much of the lost Saxon territory.  What also can't be shown is that eventually the Danes settled down and became part of this confederation of cultures.  Due to a weakening Saxon line of Kings, the Danes actually held much influeIt is actually fairly ironic that if William is killed the game ends, as it is hard to imagine Harold or Harald putting so many to the sword and working so hard to hold territory.  In the process of this he unified much of the island in a way that hadn't been achieved before.

    Anyway, to answer your question, the alliances are mostly represented by the tribes, such as "Belgae", or "Picts", but especially the Saxons and Angles.  For the most part, every token on the board represents a local tribe with its own organization and its own leader.  The symbols on the tokens show that all of these tribes share a common cultural link, but there was certainly much infighting and attempts to seize power.  For the most part I would say that there were very few permanent alliances.  As for mortal enemies, Boudicca's daughters were raped at the orders of the local Roman governor.  This was, according to the history books I have read, a rogue action, but all of Roman Britain suffered for it.  (And understandably so, it makes me very sympathetic to Boudicca).  The Picts frequently raided the Romans, which is why they built Hadrian's Wall.  The Picts made a charge into Roman territory at least once on a major scale.  Eventually, they were assimilated fully by the Scots, and Pictish culture disappeared.  The Welsh largely sat content in Wales, occasionally making trouble for Rome or the Saxons.  The Welsh had the most to lose from Williams' invasion.  I suppose if the game went longer, the Welsh would seriously consider helping the Saxons!

    The Danes, of course, raided any monestary they could find, so almost everyone hated them.  The Norwegians, Normans, and Saxons were all three parts of a succession war, and their introduction at the end of the game represents a big step in Britain's transformation from tribalism to nationalism (for the elite, at any rate) and their tokens should not be considered as individual tribes, but as regular armies.

    Well, now I have to read my English history books. I had a class that briefly covered this time period, so I may not have everything 100% accurate.  Unfortunately, I don't have them handy, so you'll have to trust my memory.  Also, I'd look up the other groups for you (though mostly this particular book only deals with England).  I hope that gave you a bit of what you were looking for.  If you're interested, I can tell you the name of the book, I'm certain that it's available online or some library or a bookstore.


  5. I've played all three: A Game of Thrones, Warrior Knights, and Britannia.  In fact I own all 3 as well.

    To start, the win condition in Britannia is very similar to the other two, conquer territory.  The difference is in the reason for warmongering, however.  In WK and aGoT, you conquer territory to gain influence, new units, more money, and to win (in both, you must conquer and control cities).  In Britannia, you are rewarded for achieving the historical aims of the tribes that you control.  This doesn't always mean recreating history exactly.  For example, many nations want to control York, but only one can do so when the scoring round arrives.  This creates the conflict.  Do I try to deny points to my opponents with this tribe?  Do I try to score as many points as possible with this tribe?  Do I expand as much as possible?  Do I commit all of my tokens to break my opponent?

    If you've chosen to disrupt an opponent because you think you can get more out of that move, you must then decide which opponent to attack, which of his or her tribes, and when.  This involves knowing who is winning at the time.  Usually in the beginning, the Yellow player (who controls the Romans) will have a huge lead in points, but that does not mean that he or she is winning.  Flinging all of your Welsh troops at Roman forts could allow the Roman player to easily conquer Wales, and rectify slow progress against the Brigantes, for example.  This in turn allows the Brigantes to attack the Romans or the Picts, which might allow the Red player to surge ahead.  These types of scenarios are what make the game really interesting to me.

    For example, in one game I was playing as the Red tribes, and toward the end of the "dark ages", I had made Saxon England, instead of Anglo-Saxon England.  This allowed the Danes to march on many territories unchallenged, and it eventually resulted in the Green player winning because I was thinking too short-term to see the big picture.

    Another big difference between the games is the lack of resource management in Britannia.  The resources are very abstract (specifically, only "population" is tracked along with your victory points), and this allows the player to focus on the overall strategic situation which I find to be a good change of pace in this game.  It also allows the turns to flow one you get the hang of the mechanics, which is greatly needed because there are a lot of turns and there is no way to end the game early.

    The final point I will say is that even if one of your tribes is eliminated, you always have another invasion to look forward to in a few turns, and you can plan ahead to decide how best to regain a position of power on the island.

    This game is a big investment timewise, but I think that it accomplishes what it sets out to do.  Don't let the unbalanced positions fool you, the game is very well balanced and any color or player can win.  Also, even though combat is die-based, there are enough battles to allow everyone to have a bit of bad luck and a bit of good luck, so I have noticed that there is not a lot of complaining about the dice.  Though sixes against Romans do seem to be scarce in the first few rounds...

×