In looking at another post, I was reminded of the old Greyhawk Wars game that was a tie in with the FtA setting. It made me hunt out my old copy of the game and it reminded me why I did not like it.
There were limits on how many armies you could field. I did not like the idea that heros could just be placed all over the map regardless of distance, nor could they be killed. There were no undead units. The big problem for me was with the map itself, it did not lend itself to be utilized to its maximum potential.
This game just screamed to have house rules made up for it to address these problems. I somehow lost my set of house rules I came up with and am interested to see if anyone else tried to make up some rules to salvage what could ahve been a real cool game.
From what I remember: I came up with some rules for heroes movement, added more sites to find treasures, and tinkered with adding undead units. Has anyone else out there have any old rule changes - now that I have found the thing, I just may try to play a game.
Hi all -
Well, not that this is exactly what you were looking for, but I hope that it helps to create new rules for Greyhawk Wars.
Someone, several years ago, wrote a Greyhawk Risk and Castle Risk rules. I never had the chance to play it or know the person that wrote the original rules. I offered them Web hosting for their site and have kept it ever since.
You can find the Greyhawk Risk / Castle Risk rules here:
http://www.greyhawkonline.com/greyhawkrisk/GCR-index.htm
I hope this helps to jog your memories for the rules you re-did.
If you do redo the rules, I'd love to see them and would be willing to host them at GreyhawkOnline.com as well.
Be Well. Be Well War'ed.
Theocrat Issak _________________ Theocrat Issak
I'd love to see your house rules, if you decide to recreate them. I only played the game a couple of times (too many games, so little time), so I never actually took the time to work out house rules. However I do remember thinking there's a great game in here, if it was tweaked. Just off the top of my head, I remember:
-the dragon counter only took one hit to destroy. One! The counter screams for a "reduced strength" side, thereby requiring two hits to kill.
-I thought Diplomacy was too easy for opposite-aligned entities. The die rolls needed to be harder, and some should've been outright prohibited. I know magical deception & charming has to be accounted for, but heroes of Iuz attempting diplomacy in the Uleks and Celene? Come on!
-As I recall (and my memory is a little fuzzy on this one), the turn progression was such that someone could attack with an army, take a territory, and reinforce that now-depleted army on the same player-turn, before the opponent can even counterattack. Far too difficult to regain lost territory, unbalances the game, and highly unrealistic. Goes against the common gaming principles of almost every wargame I've ever played.
As for running out of certain counters (especially the human ones), I wonder if the only way to do it "right" is to look at national populations from a consistant Greyhawk source, figure percentages of armed populations, and assign manpower levels to each counter. All this I fear would be quite an undertaking, though. Especially for a game that never really makes it off the shelf.
Maybe I should pull this one off the shelf and take a look. If I could actually find the time to do it, I'd love to trade notes with you. That however will involve putting off my "honey-do" list. Easier said than done.
Another way to get in touch with players/former players of this game is to go to boardgamegeek.com. I know it's there, but I can't speak to the volume of info. Some individuals may already have house rules worked up. Sometimes they post them there as well. _________________ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a wide-spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell
The Greyhawk Wars boardgame is really weak in itself, but with so much potential.
My idea is to take the map and play a CIVILIZATION+ADVANCED CIVILIZATION (from Avalon Hill) game on it. I find that the map is drawn in such a way that it is possible : just affect population number to each area : 3-4 for plains, 2 for forests and hills, 1 for mountains; use the areas with city site for city building, etc. I think it could work, because I have not got the chance to test it... yet.
In that way I would manage to simulate the early invasions of the flanaess by the flan, the oerid, the suel and the baklunish people, after the twin cataclysms, starting from the western border of the map.
I use the tokens and the cards from the Avalon Hill games, using even the imperial optional rule from ADVANCED CIVILIZATION.
And it would be easy to add the fantastic aspect of AD&D: monsters, artefacts, magic... but in a limited way, this game is supposed to simulate centuries of history.
Good tips all. One issue I always had with the game is just the way the map is set up. There was little reason to move your troops through most sections of the map, you had a few territories that became hotly contested and the rest of the map went to waste.
I had some rules about adventuring parties - they had movement points and could be killed. But my exact stats eludes me for how many spaces they could move and their strength for elimination purposes.
I also added more areas for seeking treasure and hiring mercs. I created some undead counters and allowed the evil countries to raise them from their slain units.
Dusting off that old set took me back a bit, but also made me remember why I never did play it very much. So much potential but so much slip shod design.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
