Monthly Archives: November 2021

Posted on

Congress of Vienna November 2021 Development Update: Gameboard Narrative

by

During the last six months we continued adjusting Congress of Vienna (CoV)’s components to try to make them as functional as possible. This effort included minor corrections to the rules: for example, when a rule was moved from being an optional rule to becoming a standard one or vice versa.

This always seems a problem when you carry out a game’s extensive playtest program with participants contributing many ideas and feedback regarding rule development as well as victory conditions. What’s gratifying is that through it all, the core design/development team takes a considered approached to weighing the merits of all this much appreciated input; and in the case of this November 2021 update, we’ll focus on the latest Congress of Vienna map and its rule references upon the gameboard.

This means we’ll share game board modifications made since the last published overview concerning the map as play testing proceeds. New Readers about Congress of Vienna, or those needing reminders of what this upcoming GMT P-500 listed game is about, may benefit through obtaining background regarding this game through the material deposited herein: GMT Games – Congress of Vienna and to learn more of the optional rules specifically mentioned within this update kindly reference War or Diplomacy? The Struggle Between the Wargamer vs Eurogamer Soul in the Design and Development of Congress of Vienna | Inside GMT blog

With this article, we present the latest gameboard which incorporates a variety of aids intended to facilitate play of both the Standard Game and its Optional Historical Rules for players with a grognard soul (these were referred to in previous versions as “Wargame Flavor Rules”).

As with the prior posted April ’21 update, we do not have this latest gameboard extensively in-person tested since most playtesting is conducted by Vassal for self-protection measures against COVID-19 . This results in our testing teams having representatives from Europe, the States, as well as a recent addition from the Philippines (what wonderful and talented multi-national group I’m privileged to have!). We incorporated modifications from Vassal play testers who found help them helpful to avoid needing to take time to reference, or perhaps overlook, certain key rules during play of an exciting and fun game of Congress of Vienna.

Posted on

Resolving Combat in Bear Trap

by

In this InsideGMT article, I’ll walk you through a simple example of combat in Bear Trap. This should give you the flavor of the combat system in Bear Trap – as well as how it’s similar to, yet also quite different from, combat in Sekigahara. Because of the timescale over which Bear Trap is played, “battles” resolved by the players don’t represent singular quick events resolved in hours. Instead, they represent weeks-long campaigns over an area that could span more than 15,000 km2. In this way, the scale of the game is quite different to Sekigahara.

Note: draft playtest art is use for the cards, blocks, and map here.

Posted on

The Sequence of Play in Baltic Empires

by

A game of Baltic Empires lasts up to 8, 12, or 16 Rounds, chosen before starting the game, but can also end sooner if a player wins a sudden death victory (as described in the previous article). This article will describe what happens during a Round, and how players can manipulate the turn order in each phase, as this is a key element of Baltic Empires. The full details of each phase will only be briefly touched upon here, as they will each be the focus of later articles.

Posted on

Conquest and Consequence Developer Preview

by

Introduction

Like my occasional reviews tend to be, I am focusing on a game I enjoy which has little knowledge or coverage and one I’d like to draw people’s attention to. In this case, it’s a game that isn’t released, but is due shortly. This game is “Conquest and Consequence” (CnC), the Pacific Theatre sequel to Craig Besinque’s 2015 hit “Triumph and Tragedy” (TnT). 

I note that I am the developer on this game, but will temper this possible bias by noting that I make no money from my role and only aim that people have an enjoyable gaming experience. So, while the following preview is my honest opinion, it’s only fair you have this context in mind.

Posted on

A Congress of Vienna Option: Adding Tactical Flavor to Battles (A Tactical Battle Matrix) Part 1 of 2

by

Introduction by Congress of Vienna Designer – Frank Esparrago: Although Congress of Vienna (CoV) is a game with an enormously robust selection of political and diplomatic decisions and effects with the game’s military aspects omnipresent; you’d think that would be enough. Ha! Some play testers wanted an option to study what could happen if they decided the big tactical choices in a decisive battle to a greater degree of influence than the standard game offers. As CoV’s designer, I could not resist the opportunity to address their desire!

The standard game already includes military units and cards that represent generals and other units such as guard, cavalry, etc. But for a game focusing on grand strategy, how would you arrange different army corps and reserves? This was something the standard game left uncontemplated. It seemed an optional rule the best approach to address this as an optional rule.

David Schoellhamer is one of our play testers who possesses excellent analytical skills and attention to detail. He has significantly contributed to improve Congress of Vienna despite not being a historical expert of the Napoleonic age. Lately, he is involved in the considerable task of making fully operational a scenario that allows playing CoV in a solitary version: the French player versus Bots for the three allied players! This allows the Solitaire Player to experience all the pressures and opportunities for glory that confronted Napoleon during the 1813-1814 period CoV encompasses.

This optional rule is based on the tactical battle matrix of the excellent Avalon Hill games 1776 and War and Peace published in the distant years of 1974 and 1980 respectively. However, playing with this optional rule does slow the amount of time needed for battle resolution. It should only be used by true-to-heart “wargamer” CoV players with enough time and desire to get more involved in the military aspects of this game. What is clear is that the CoV Tactical Battle Matrix does add an additional element of fun, uncertainty, tactical flavor, and “fog of war” to resolving battles. By presenting simple choices regarding the general tactics an army uses; we are sure that to some players it is quite reminiscent of the simple children’s game of rock / paper / scissors / match. But we will further reference this last analogy later during this article.

Additional background regarding Congress of Vienna should help readers best appreciate this optional offering. For that, please reference GMT Games – Congress of Vienna Now to our exposition!

Posted on

Almoravid Vassal Module in Action

by

Here is a peek into the cutting-edge Vassal module engineered by the great Brian Reynolds for Levy & Campaign Series Volume II, Almoravid, from a solo game that Volko played to test out module operation. Have a look!

Posted on

The Last Hundred Yards Ladder Play After Action Report: Mission 6.0 — Tiger in the Pen

by

Below you will find the seventh in a series of After Action Report articles written by players participating in The Last Hundred Yards ladder play on BGG. You can find the first six articles in this series here. If you would like to participate in the LHY ladder play, please contact Mark Buetow through the LHY Facebook page or on BGG. Enjoy!

Posted on

“No Plan Survives Contact”: Playing Labyrinth: The Awakening (Part 4)

by


Below you will find the fourth and final part in an article series from Elihu Feustel featuring a Labyrinth: The Awakening turn-by-turn playthrough. If you would like to read the first three parts in the series, those can be found here. Enjoy!

Posted on

Victory Conditions in Baltic Empires

by

How they work and the history behind them.

The victory conditions in Baltic Empires have been constructed to give players multiple paths to victory and to allow for sudden death victories, as it is my experience that this keeps players on their toes and gives a far more exciting game with more intense diplomatic interaction between players. Besides the default victory conditions, players also have the opportunity during play to recruit Dramatis Personae that either replace some of their default victory conditions or offer entirely new ones. In this article I will go through the different victory conditions and explain how they work and what they represent in terms of history.

There are 3 ways of winning a Sudden Death Victory:

The first one is to achieve Cultural Hegemony by being on top of the Mercantile, Production and Military Hegemon Tracks (prototype track pictured to the left). The Hegemon Tracks and how they influence Turn order will be described in detail in the next article in this series, but for victory purposes all you need to know about them is that a Power’s position on each of these tracks is the sum of their controlled infrastructure or units associated with that track (Cities and Customs Houses for the Mercantile Track, Workshops for the Production Track, and units for the Military Track), as well as any modifiers that are specific to that Power, or from Dramatis Personae cards that they may have attached to their Court.

By achieving all three Hegemon positions at once, you have put yourself in a position where you are ahead of the other players financially, economically, and militarily. Such a status would naturally make your power a cultural center and the envy of the other rulers. As such it represents the ultimate goal of every great power in history. A victory of this kind is relatively rare, but it allows for a potentially non-violent way to win, and gives an incentive for the other players to work together to pull down a clear leader.