Grognard Wargamer Thread!

Thanks. Is it worth that extra time/ complexity? From a thematic perspective this is a historical theme that I have more interest in. Twilight Struggle has a lot of depth, for sure, but once you know the deck, you can definitely play quickly. Would this be true of this game in time as well?

I don’t know that I’ve played it enough to get a sense of whether it is deeper than Twilight Struggle. Events do not drive the action quite as much, as the event cards are not the sole driver of the action. There always seems to be more happening on the Imperial Struggle board than the Twilight Struggle board to me.

I have enjoyed playing it. If you ever want to do a vassal session, I can walk you through it, if we can ever get a time when one of us is not busy with kids.

No, we both knew the rules well. I had playe at least half a dozen times. Tom knew the game, also. There was no teaching.

No, it’s a MUCH longer game.

No. The difference is that the Twilight Struggle board is always the same. The Imperial Struggle board is always different. The VP are randomized for each theater, and the commodities/trade goods are as well. It would be like playing Twilight Struggle where you had no idea what each region would be worth next turn, and you also had to deal with a bunch of ancillary victory objectives that were likely more valuable than the regions themselves. Plus, half the countries had super powers like “turn an adjacent country invisible.”

There are board positions on the Imperial Struggle board where I could have spent half an hour analyzing one move. The reason I didn’t is that there is a certain game etiquette to “keep things moving.” But the game lends itself to analysis paralysis far more than Twilight Struggle.

Part of this, also, is that you have to analyze a menu of nine chits that drive the action (the investment tiles) because those chits determine what actions you and your opponent can take. Only one tile with a diplomatic major action? What if there are two? How many of each? Event tiles?

And then you have to figure out how the wars (an entirely different board, basically) are going to affect the map position once they are resolved at the end of the turn.

The game is far more dynamic than Twilight Struggle. Not sure if that’s necessarily good.

The mechanics of Imperial Struggle are far more complex, also. In Twilight Struggle, you play a card and do ONE THING. In Imperial Struggle, you play no cards. You first choose a tile from the nine available. That has a major action, a minor action, and might allow you to play an event. You might also get to upgrade a war tile. If you play an event, you need to resolve that, which might mean another major action. You could easily be doing three or four things on each action round.

I certainly felt that too after my first game of Imperial Struggle. I’m still interested in it but I had also recently got Caesar versus Gaul and wanted to push my opponent in to trying that next. I am a huge fan of Washington’s War and Caesar v Gaul seems lot like that and more of a traditional CDG.

When I’m ready I’ll want to try Imperial Struggle again but it’s not th op of the list at the moment.

We could use one more player for Here I Stand, if anyone is interested. It is best with six!

I missed this initially due to the Imperial Struggle talk.

Reformation era? Very interesting. Let me give some thought to that, but I am definitely intrigued. Once I get the kids fed and in bed I’ll let you know.

Took me a bit longer because, well, kids going to bed turned into grocery shopping turned into sleep.

But I have looked into the game, read some of the rules (will read the rest) and I look forward to taking on Andrea Doria in the Battle of Lepanto. Or whatever faction I wind up as.


Players will be:


I’ll start getting things set up. Things are a bit busier than usual here for the next couple of days, so it will be a couple of days before I have the thread set up and the powers assigned etc.

Does anyone have strong feelings for or against a certain power?

I’d play any, but Ottomans would probably be my first choice, though realistically anyone smacking around the inbred idiots Hapsburgs is ok in my book.

I’m ok with anything. But I’m going to be a first time player, so if one faction balance relies a lot in knowing what to do/how to deal due to previous experience, that’s probably the worst fit.

What Juan said.

Based on my reading it seems like the Hapsburgs would be the trickiest/ most complex, but could be wrong about that. They just have fingers in every pie, are centrally located, and seem to have a far more diplomatic engagement position. But I could be 100% wrong on all counts!

I’d like to be the Protestants if nobody minds

I’ve played only a handful of games but that still seems correct to me as well. Mechanically, of course, the Hapsburgs are not any more complex but it is the fact that they are in the middle of everything that the player is force balance resources much more than the other factions seem to. The Hapsburg player can find them selves throwing everything at one area and collapsing everywhere else. Or, equally as bad, spreading them selves too thin where they are indeed working on all fronts but ineffectively so.

Not that I doubt your integrity, but how are we going to handle the cards if you’re a player?

If using Vassal as @CF_Kane suggested, then you would draw your own cards using the save. Only you would see your cards that way.

Ooh okay, I’ve never used Vassal asymmetrically.

Yeah, I haven’t seen the HIS module, but that is how it works in BSG. I imagine it would be the same here.

Not asymmetrically. Asynchronously. I know words