Jump to content

Arkobla Conn

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Arkobla Conn

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Near Scranton, Pennsylvania, United States
  1. I can't truely answer this as I've only played Warrior Knights...however, my thoughts on Ventura are that it has a great many things going for it. It has great components - I love the build a map aspect - the building and maintaining of armies is a key element - it's mix of cards here brings in those players who like the card mechanic (although we play with the hidden army varient) and it plays very well with 2, 3 and 4 players. To me, it feels like an advanced chess game. Everything has a cost and cause/effect. It can be supremely challenging to take the game on like you would chess, however, it you are playing against a super agressive player (like my son...). If you don't know your oppenants play style, you can get damaged pretty bad early on. If you DO konw your opp (and especially if they take it a little slower), the game can be a complete joy. The strategy behind the game is deep and very satisfying.
  2. I think these are different on purpose. I think there might be a standard go first mechanic but I can't remember that. I'm sure there are optional rules for each house (found in the back of the book) that might counter balance these.
  3. I'd like to respond to Scammer's concerns. I definately agree the rule book needs work and the lack of the tiles in the book is lacking, but overall, most are fairly understandable. I'm sure someone will post a reference soon on this. I also agree with the 30 VP's if you are buying them. We are planning on imiting this to 3 Florins (4VP's) only. Still, the game is really designed to be moderately agressive - Almost chess like in it's attacking probes. You are missing out if you don't have some agression. The army numbers being difficult to read is unfortunate. I've taken to painting them white. Much more readable. Lastly - Card Timing. There is a table that shows the Phases and Steps in the rulebook. Use this as a reference right back to the cards and when they can be played. Each card is playable at any time during the phase (or step) it refers too...and you are good to go. All in all, I think the game has lots of potential...don't give up on it because of these relatively minor and repairable hiccups.
  4. Yes, 7 each for 3 player and 4 player, but we believe they are referring to the 4 cities that aren't shuffled in as well....
  5. Correction on 7 - it was infantry charging infantry and thus counter charged. (He ended up going first and causing a retreat of my army).
  6. My son and I played our second game - which was Scenario 1. One of the special rules of the scenario was that the French (me) had to stay in column formation. Ugh. That did not help the cause at all. So the British formed up their line, sent out skirmishers and waited for the French to Advance. The French Calvary started out having one of their units out of command, and that was a delay while they got that sorted out. The French Right side of the Line was also significantly further away than the left. As the battle commenced, there was a decent equalibrium until unties began retreating or routing. It wasn't until late in the game when some good manuevering by the British yielded some excellent results. Their middle held as well, with only the right flank starting to buckle by game end (but still after eliminating an entire group). Overall, we had fun, although as the French, I didn't like the scenario, which is historically a bad loss for the French. I verified that result, losing 25 figures lost to 13, but that barely told the tale as 4 of the 13 I killed were 2 artillary figures (which count double) and he killed several of my commanders (which aren't counted). I specifically wanted to take notes through this play to make observations and ask questions... 1. Question - Can a movement card move an out of command unit? IE if your calvary unit is out of command (and thus 'cannot move') - can an event card during the movement phase allow it to move anyway? 2. Observation - Moving Hex Vertix to Vertix makes it appear that the units are 'sliding' from one hex to another yes? It's an odd way to move as opposed to hex sides. 3. Question - If an artillary piece is higher than another unit does it still get +1 for being higher at 2 hexes away? 4. Question - Is there a downfall to skirmishers? 5. Observation - Changing orders is hard. I wanted my unit of calvary to change to a movement order from the attack order it had. Having a 5 base number to follow orders, I still needed a 6 plus on the die to execute them. It seems very difficult. (and subsequently, we don't change orders all that much) 6. Quesiton - If one unit of a group is in Hex A and another is in Hex C and another unit from another group is in Hex B (between them), Can the UGC occupy the middle Hex (of the group he doesn't belong to?) so that his two units stay 'in command" 7. Situation - French Column attacks British Line. British play event card to 'Counter charge with beyonets'. British cause retreat of Calvary - Question - do they get to advance? 8. Question - Can a unit that used the formation change segment to eliminate a disorder token then be used to support in the same action phase? 9. Question - A Calvary unit with a manuver order can move 2 hexes. Can they use 'At the Gallop' Event to increase that to 3? (The card says that the Calvary unit can move '2 hexes' instead of 1. Should it read...'move an extra hex'? (Or is it not available because the calvary is 'already galloping'. 10. Observation - Either Calvary Suck in this game or I suck using them. I can't seem to hit a unit that doesn't go into a square. And then they are mired in that area. They don't seem 'as manueverable' as I'd like. I think that covers the basics. Don't let anything I've said deter you. We had lots of fun and I can tell from the first game we learned alot and will continue with tactics as we continue to play... Arkobla
  7. Ah, good to know about Removing Disorders not actually triggerig Formation events
  8. James, Yes, Unit 22. The game has such a strong personality when it comes to 'Orders' and I'm afraid we didn't get too deep into it in game one. We are considering a game soon and I hope we can have a better play test. I agree, the forum is useful. I'm looking forward to when more folks have the game and join us. Arkobla
  9. It's a beautiful game/system. The box is huge and the figures are well made. I used the wrong type of clue (just generic crazy clue) so you may want to think hard about the type of clue you use when putting the riders on horses. (several of mine didn't stick well). The quality of the cut outs and cards and board is also well done, although I wish they would have had a suggestion for where stuff goes in the box. The tray is very good, but there are some odd shaped ones that I can't figure out. I've only played the game once, but it was enjoyable. I think it will get much better with additional play. It seems to have an ebb and flow to the battle that makes sense to me, although I'm not an avid fan of the period. The rules are fairly easy to understand, with only a few areas where you have to read a bit deeper. I crave for a sample few turns of the game though. I really like it when rules include sample turns (as opposed to just specific examples). It helps with the order of things. Still, the rules are bright and clear, with many illustrations for explaination. All in all, good value even with the high price. I look forward to more games and expansions.
  10. Cybernex - thanks for the response - this helps alot. Question - How is the British Rate of fire reflected in the game? Event cards only? Or is that just a flight of fancy derived from too much Wooden Ship interest (where the brits did have a better rate of fire on the high seas) plus a bit of romance from the Sharpe movies...
  11. James, Thanks for the answer. We'll try that with the Artillary. We were doing the formations - and finding that the disorders were often immediately dismissed with the next formation change (basically just taking the tile off) It has the effect of not letting the unit do the fire or melee in that segment, of course. And it prmoted focused fire when possible. In scenario 4, the green unit for the british on the left flank had two units forward and two units two hexes behind. Where did you place your UGC? I put him walking by himself between the 4, which seemed a bit strange. But I think if I hadn't, two of the units would be out of command. True? (course, I could have put him with one of the two behind and walked them up to the others, placing them back in command...I guess...) Arkobla
  12. Hey all - played scenario 4 with my son and had some similiar issues. The ranks/bonuses in Fire & especially melee were confusing. Why is there an attack and defense value on teh melee table? Is this an opposed role (we didn't play that way). We added both modifiers... We kept forgetting t move the CC...and had lots of trouble with the calvary on the right...they were going against a unit in square and it was obvious that a single unit fighting a square wasn't going to work. We didn't remember the 'support' rule, which would be important nor did we use the calvary optionals yet. My son did try to give an artillary an attack order. He knew they couldn't move, but wanted to give them the advanced initiative. I could swear that I had read artillary couldn't have an attack order...but I couldn't find it. We noticed that a unit that is forced to retreat (rout)...but rallies...is basically out of the game unless a commander goes gets them. (Rule states they can't move when out of command.) This was harsh. Overall, we had fun even though it was a draw. (I just couldn't do anything with the calvary - we'll be re-reading those rules again.
  13. Thanks - I figured it out a couple hours later through context clues...but I think the chart headers are misleading...
  14. Hi all - just got this game and have been reading through the rules. So far, everything seems relatively clear but I noticed one example (on page 34) that explains the rank bonus (fire) ... but I think it does so incorrectly. It states that the bonuses of an infantry unit in line, with a fire value of +1, gets the following bonuses in the example +1 (fire value) +4 (number of firing figures), +2 (ranks of the target unit - which is in Column) for a total of +7. Now, where is the infantry units rank bonus? Is that Fire Value? (I think not, as this is printed on the card) . So, since the chart shows a +1 for Infantry in Line and a +2 for infantry in column...and the header states that this bonus is a 'rank bonus for the firing unit'...either the example above has forgotten the +1 and the total should be +8...or uses the wrong rank theory and should be a bonus for the firing unit, not the defending unit...and the total would be a +6. Any help here would be appreciated... thanks Arkobla
×
×
  • Create New...