Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

I've been pondering the boardgame Republic of Rome lately and have been thinking about doing something similar, but set around the fall of the western empire rather then it's rise.  The game would start in the years 405-410 AD when the empire is on the verge of chaos.  In Rome the weak child Honorius rules but the real power is with the barbarian magister militum, Stilicho who is living on borrowed time.  In Gaul barbarians stand poised to pour over the border.  In Britain Constantine III is about to start another civil war.  Illyricum is under the control of barbarians who are about to pour into Italy and sack Rome for the first time in seven centuries.  This is the choatic situation things start in.  From here the players proceed controlling both powerful roman nobles and the barbarian leaders who are mobalized against the empire.

On the one hand every player would control a faction of Roman nobles like in the Republic of Rome board game.  These characters have three stats representing their esteem with aristocrats, roman soldiers and barbarians (foederati).  Through these characters, players attempt to control the key offices of the empire, governor of the provinces, magistar militum and the imperial throne.  With many weak emperors there will often be powers behind the throne but a strong emperor could arise like Majorian if he is able to secure supporters to consolidate his rule.  If you don't like the emperor then you can arrange for a coup against him with the support of the aristocrats or march against him from a governorship with support of roman or barbarian soldiers.  Or maybe you will even have time to try to strengthen the state, retaking lost territories or trying to repair the damages of the war.

On the other side of things players also control barbarian leaders and work to carve out new lands.  This is possible by direct invasion and capture of Roman lands, but it is also possible to go with a diplomatic route, like the Visigoths took when they accepted foederati status and resettled Aquitaine.  Or you can just pillage anything in sight like Huns for immediate glory (and to undermine the power base of your fellow players).  Control of a barbarian nation can be lost when a leader dies or is usurped, so it will take care to get the most out of this unpredictable resource.

The game ends when 20 turns have passed, representing a century of time.  Over the course of the game the players accumulate two separate scores, tallying their accomplishments as Romans and as barbarians.  Depending on the state of the fate of the empire, these scores will be of different value.  If Rome is fallen you are judged solely on your score as a barbarian and for anyone to have won they will need to have built a mighty kingdom and acquired much plunder.  If the empire is somehow intact after a century (unlikely) then players are judged solely on how much they accomplished as Romans.  If the empire has lost territory but still controls Italy when 20 turns have ended, then both scores will matter.  It will be possible for no one to have enough score to count as a winner and it will be at least somewhat possible for two players to have enough score to be winners.

So, post here if you think the idea shows promise.  I imagine that this isn't a period of history that people are the most familiar with, but I personally think it's a very interesting time period and would make for a very good forum game.  I don't intend for knowledge of the history to be necessary to play this, the rules should guide you to understand what the mindset of the era should be.  Any takers?

[Gervassen]

It's an interesting era, no doubt. I'd be interested in barbarian.

[mainiac]

It's an interesting era, no doubt. I'd be interested in barbarian.

Players wouldn't be just Roman or Barbarian, you'd have characters in both camps at the same time.  This is supposed to recreate the very chaotic and shifting nature of loyalties during the time period.  So as a player you might simultaneously control a barbarian king and two or three roman politicians.  This gives you the chance to weigh different options. 

Suppose as Octar, king of the Huns, you could choose to invade Gaul while the new underage Roman emperor can't respond.  You could invade and try to grab territory and plunder or maybe you use that possibility to blackmail the player controlling the weak emperor.  With blackmail you can get one of your Romans, Flavius Aetius, made magister militum of the emperor and be the power behind the throne of Rome.  So you are left with two very different paths there, do you invade or do you cut a deal with Rome?  Of course if you get Flavius Aetius the job, then suddenly defending rome is your responsibility and the other players will try to mess you up by invading rome with their barbarian kings.  So as a result you have two options available to you and need to weigh carefully what to do.  But eventually Octar dies and the new king of the huns, Atila, is controlled by another player and he decides that it's time for the Huns to invade and destroy everything, hurting your score because Flavius Aetius needs to stop that invasion.  By making it so you have a stake in various camps, you need to keep reassessing your options.

[Weirdsound]

How often will turns run? I'm interested, but my schedule is nuts right now and I can go from having all the free time in the world to vanishing for days on end in a heartbeat until the semester ends.

[mainiac]

How often will turns run? I'm interested, but my schedule is nuts right now and I can go from having all the free time in the world to vanishing for days on end in a heartbeat until the semester ends.

I'm aiming for a turn every two or three days but am planning to schedule things so players only really need to post a single order during that time unless they are current controller of the western empire.  But cutting deals with your other players is something that it will be hard to prosper for long without doing.  This is supposed to be a forum game, I don't expect people to be able to post constantly.

[GreatWyrmGold]

It's a neat idea, but I'd have to see the implementation.

[mainiac]

It's a neat idea, but I'd have to see the implementation.

Well the rules aren't done yet, but here's what I've been writing so far to give you an idea:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The three stats for Roman politicians are Romans, Aristocrats and Barbarians, representing the respect and skill they have with the roman army, politicians and barbarian troops respectively.

The three stats for barbarian kings are Strategy, Warriors and Nobles, representing their military ability, their respect among common soldiers and their standing among the nation's leadership.

Barbarian nation cards have a Strategy, Warriors, Nobles, base military value, a homeland and any creation requirements.  The Strategy, Warriors and Nobles values indicate the stats for a default king of the nation and are used if no king card for that nation is currently in play.  The base military value of the tribe is the number of armies that the tribe's military can not fall below unless the tribe is destroyed.  The tribe may however be rendered temporarily unable to wage war or even defend itself.  In addition, standing armies may be added to the nation by spending from the national treasury.  Base armies have no upkeep costs but standing armies must be paid from the national treasury of the barbarian nation every turn.


Barbarian pretenders:
It is possible to gain control of a faction by gaining control of it's current king, but it is also possible to take control through a change of rulers.  This can happen in two ways, upon secession and usurping pretenders.
When a barbarian king dies, any player with a king card of that barbarian nation can chose to play that card during their turn.  If the player wishes to have any outside forces support their chosen successor in the event of a civil war, those forces must be pledged at the time the card is played.  If the player wishes to provide bribes in the event of a civil war, those funds must be provided when the king card is played, however the bribe money will be refunded if no civil war occurs.  If one and only one player plays a king card, they gain control of the nation through peaceful secession.  If no player plays a king card, control of the nation remains with the current controller or if the nation was uncontrolled it remains uncontrolled.  If multiple players play a king card, then a barbarian civil war breaks out (see below).  The winner of the civil war becomes the new king and is aligned with the player who played him.

Alternatively, a player may chose to play a king card as a usurping pretender during their turn.  An usurping pretender will only be loyal to the player playing him if the barbarian nation in question is currently in the control of another player.  If the barbarian nation is currently not controlled by any player then a usurper will trigger a civil war but control of the barbarian nation will not change regardless of the civil war outcome.  If the nation in question is controlled by another player then control of the nation will change if the usurper is victorious in the civil war.  Like with a secession, the player choosing to play their king card must pledge any forces and funds they will use at the time they play the king card.  A player can attempt to usurp a nation which is controlled but for which there is currently no king card in play.

Barbarian Civil Wars:
When a civil war starts, all claimants roll a six sided die for the loyalty of all the armies of the tribe, both the base military armies and any standing armies.  All claimants add their Nobles stat to the value of their rolls for the loyalty of base armies and add their Warriors stat to the value of their rolls for the loyalty of standing armies.  If the civil war was caused by a usurping pretender, the defending king gets a bonus of 2 to his Warriors stat but not to his Nobles stat.  The highest roll with these modifiers applied for each army wins the loyalty of that army.  If the national treasury offers enough funds to bribe all units, then any defending king will by default spend bribe money.  A player may chose to issue orders to override this default behavior.  If a player uses troops from outside the nation in the civil war, then any other claimants get a bonus of 1 to every loyalty roll.  Any claimant who spends money on bribes gets a bonus of 2 to all loyalty rolls.
After loyalty has been determined, every king involved in the civil war rolls one six sided die.  They add to this roll the number of armies they won the loyalty of or brought from outside the nation and their Strategy value.  The claimant with the highest result is the winner of the civil war and becomes the ruler of the nation.  If applicable the supporter of the winning claimant gains control of the barbarian nation.  In the event of a tie, the tied claimants roll again.  At the end of the civil war the barbarian nation loses any standing armies that supported losing candidates and two additional standing armies for every tie that was rolled.

Aging:
Roman politicians start at age 0.  Barbarians have no age until they become king or pretender, at which point they start at age 3.  In the aging phase of each turn a six sided die is rolled for any character with an age.  If the roll is less than the characters age, they have died of natural causes.  If the roll is greater then or equal to their age but not six, their age increases by one.  If the roll is six, the character's age does not increase as they stay healthy as before.

Imperial Controller:
Although the emperor is nominally in control of the empire, few emperors managed to combine independence and competence.  Instead the power reverted to powerful leaders, often barbarian, who often had the emperors serve at their pleasure.  To model this there are three types of emperors in the game:

Incapable emperor:
This represents a figurehead such as Honorius or Valentinian III who lacks the basic ability to rule effectively and is easily dominated by more capable men.  This character can be controlled by a character but has no stats and can never rule in their own right.  Their survival depends on the fact that disposing of them would prompt a backlash.

Puppet emperor:
This represents a figurehead such as Avitus or Libius Severus who rules only so long as he is tolerated by the actual power behind the throne.  This character can be aligned to a players faction, but doing so does not grant control of the empire.  Controlling is useful in supporting another character's legitimacy to control the empire.  In this way characters who are ineligible for the throne, such as Barbarian generals, can control the empire.  If all candidates for control of the empire are foiled then control of the empire does revert to this character as a last resort.  In this case, they can make a bid to become a Strong Emperor.  Such a character is very vulnerable to assassination by the Magistar Militum or other powerful politicians.

The controller of the empire may create a puppet emperor any time the emperor dies of natural causes without an heir or the emperor has been assassinated.  They can select any of their roman politicians or any unaligned politician currently in play for the role.

Strong Emperor:
This represents an independent emperor such as Majorian who controls a strong powerbase within the empire and rules in his own right.  Such a character comes first in line to determine the controller of the empire, not last as in the base of a puppet emperor.  However such a character is always vulnerable to assassination by the Aristocrats and is vulnerable to assassination by either Roman or Barbarian soldiers.


The empire is controlled by the highest ranking eligible character in the chain of secession.  Unaligned characters (those controlled by no player) are not eligible for control of the empire.

1) A Strong Emperor
2) A Magistar Militum  who either was empire controller last turn or who has the endorsement of the current controller of the emperor
3) A Governor who controls at least 10 legions or foederati (not counting limitanei) and who was empire controller last turn or who has the endorsement of the current controller of the emperor.
4) An allied barbarian general who controls at least 10 legions or foederati and who has the endorsement of the current controller of the emperor
5) Any character on whom has an Imperial Family member has been played (i.e. married into the family) if they were empire controller last turn or either the emperor is an incapable emperor or they have the endorsement of the current controller of the emperor
6) A puppet emperor if none of the above apply
7) If none of the above apply then the incapable emperor does nothing and Rome has no leadership

[10ebbor10]

Interesting, but I'm way to trusting/nice for this kind of games.

[mainiac]

Interesting, but I'm way to trusting/nice for this kind of games.

Then you should definitely play, people will love you!