Page 1 of 1

War of the Roses

Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 3:58 am
by rwenstrup
I've bought just about all of the games you've got... and love them all. I believe the game format is perfect for a game about the War of the Roses. With the great graphics and strategic play... I hope one day...

Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 7:13 pm
by Jagger2013
Both War of the Roses and English Civil War would be great. I would suspect with only minor changes, the same map could be used for both.

And how about France and Italian theater for 100 years war, Italian wars and French wars of religion??

Posted: Fri May 23, 2014 12:56 am
by Person of Interest
Yep we need a good Pike and Shot game.

Re: War of the Roses

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 6:56 pm
by stockwellpete
The problem about the Wars of the Roses is that it wasn't really a territorial struggle in the way that a majority of AGEOD games are. It was a dynastic one spread over thirty odd years and the key factor was which faction won the battle and which royals/leading nobles survived or were killed, not who held this territory or that town.

I think for the medieval period the Hundred Years War would be an absolutely perfect subject for an AGEOD game and I think the Crusades could also be good, although that might need some thought given current political sensitivities.

Re: War of the Roses

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:32 pm
by veji1
stockwellpete wrote:The problem about the Wars of the Roses is that it wasn't really a territorial struggle in the way that a majority of AGEOD games are. It was a dynastic one spread over thirty odd years and the key factor was which faction won the battle and which royals/leading nobles survived or were killed, not who held this territory or that town.

I think for the medieval period the Hundred Years War would be an absolutely perfect subject for an AGEOD game and I think the Crusades could also be good, although that might need some thought given current political sensitivities.


Games like war of the roses would indeed have to mean venturing into a new type of game where role playing is as important as wargaming, a bit like paradox did with crusader king in a more arcade manner.

Re: War of the Roses

Posted: Wed May 24, 2017 10:30 pm
by Khanti
stockwellpete wrote:(...)

I think for the medieval period the Hundred Years War would be an absolutely perfect subject for an AGEOD game and I think the Crusades could also be good, although that might need some thought given current political sensitivities.


Agreed. Medieval times would be great subject. And I think it would be even greater because of contemporary political situation.

It's just a good theme after English Civil War or Succession Wars. Strangely Ageod did ancient and musket warfares and even rifle warfare (WW1), but no medieval period game was realized.

:dada:

Re: War of the Roses

Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 1:19 pm
by PhilThib
We considered Medieval games, but one case which we never settled satisfactorily was that leaders were at the same time fighter, and we could not find something that would allow say - Richard Lionheart - to be at the same time a leader and a combat unit...could be done though, just we never really had the time to consider in depth :pleure: :papy:

Re: War of the Roses

Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 5:14 pm
by ess1
veji1 wrote:
stockwellpete wrote:The problem about the Wars of the Roses is that it wasn't really a territorial struggle in the way that a majority of AGEOD games are. It was a dynastic one spread over thirty odd years and the key factor was which faction won the battle and which royals/leading nobles survived or were killed, not who held this territory or that town.

I think for the medieval period the Hundred Years War would be an absolutely perfect subject for an AGEOD game and I think the Crusades could also be good, although that might need some thought given current political sensitivities.


Games like war of the roses would indeed have to mean venturing into a new type of game where role playing is as important as wargaming, a bit like paradox did with crusader king in a more arcade manner.


Board game Kingmaker springs to mind.

Re: War of the Roses

Posted: Thu May 25, 2017 5:15 pm
by ess1
veji1 wrote:
stockwellpete wrote:The problem about the Wars of the Roses is that it wasn't really a territorial struggle in the way that a majority of AGEOD games are. It was a dynastic one spread over thirty odd years and the key factor was which faction won the battle and which royals/leading nobles survived or were killed, not who held this territory or that town.

I think for the medieval period the Hundred Years War would be an absolutely perfect subject for an AGEOD game and I think the Crusades could also be good, although that might need some thought given current political sensitivities.


Games like war of the roses would indeed have to mean venturing into a new type of game where role playing is as important as wargaming, a bit like paradox did with crusader king in a more arcade manner.


Board game Kingmaker springs to mind.

Re: War of the Roses

Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 7:50 pm
by Khanti
PhilThib wrote:We considered Medieval games, but one case which we never settled satisfactorily was that leaders were at the same time fighter, and we could not find something that would allow say - Richard Lionheart - to be at the same time a leader and a combat unit...could be done though, just we never really had the time to consider in depth :pleure: :papy:


I'm sure technically it would be possible to find good solution. I've mentioned medieval times, as it's very well known period with many places of interest. It could be based on different scenarios and there could be many of them [from different parts of Europe and different time - it's 1000 years after all].

So this game should sell well, if various people could find their point of interest in it.

Example: Thirteen Years' War (1454–66) between the Prussian Confederation, allied with the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland vs. the State of the Teutonic Order.
It was started with standard medieval levée en masse, but ended as a war of attrition. The winner was richer side, which could paid all mercenaries costs.

"The strategy was in the beginning of 15th century not only use of military forces but also to use diplomatic game in order to make Teutonic side weaker economically, so they could not pay the mercenaries they depended on. (...) The Lord General of Greater Poland raised new funds to hire more mercenaries to fight on the Polish side. However, Stibor decided to use those funds to pay mercenaries that defended the main stronghold of Teutonic Knights, Malbork (Marieburg), and in return asked them to leave the stronghold. In this way, the Polish side succeeded to overtake Malbork without force, in 1457."

[That's is how one capture unbeatable fortresses.]