From: Robert Tonry Subject: Re: AH Successors? Jason Mirosavich wrote: > > Has anyone played Avalon Hill's Successors? Opinions? > > TIA, > > Jason After having played two games of Avalon Hill's Successors I can strongly recommend the game, but with the following reservations. Firstly, it is very time-consuming. Our lack of familiarity with the rules probably accounted for much of the game's lengthiness, but it is nevertheless a very long game. Unless you and your friends have the better part of an afternoon and all night to devote to it, count on Successors tying up your kitchen table for quite a while. Secondly, Successors is quite different in feel from its predecessor Hannibal. The multi-player dimension and card-driven random events give Successors a rather fluid and chaotic character. Hannibal is more precise and chesslike. That said, player strategy is still a very important factor in Successors. Players are dealt different generals and starting positions in each game; they must make quick plans if they are to secure their power base and expand at their opponents' expense. I view Successors as a political game with military overtones, similar to Kingmaker and Shogun. Diplomacy is an important consideration, as it is vital that the player does not antagonize more than one of his opponents at a time. The rules concerning victory conditions and the politcal climate are elegant and cleverly nuanced. I have done some reading on the historical period, but I actually found that the political rules deepened my understanding of it; that says a good deal for the research that went into the game. A final word about the game components; they are, quite simply, the best I have ever seen, and improve upon the already high standard set by Hannibal and We the People. They more than justify the $50 price tag. So if you can round up three or four competitive, committed people and hold them together for a while give Successors a try; you won't be sorry. From: Tim Trant Subject: Successors Here's another positive recommendation for Avalon Hill's new multi-player game called _Successors_. (Some of you may have missed the earlier opinions, which still bore the subject line of the latest flame-fest.) Successors is a 2 to 4 player game of the struggle for the control of Alexander's empire after his death, with each player controlling a faction of 2 major generals. I've played twice so far, both times with 4 players. The game has much of the feel of Hannibal or We the People, although there are some significant differences in the rules. For instance, I've since discovered that we missplayed important aspects of battles and major city sieges even during the second game. The rules really are complete (although I've got two questions below), but don't make assumptions based on the rules for either Hannibal or WtP. Game length, after first attempts, is 5 turns in about 4 hours, but there are two ways to get an "instant" victory at the end of any round ("legitimacy" and "victory points"), plus opportunities for the player controlling certain heirs to end the game before the 4th and 5th game turn. The game mechanics will still annoy anyone who didn't like Hannibal or WtP because of the luck of the cards. There are 5 rounds per turn, and in each round each player will play a non-surprise card and move, in separate phases. The non-surprise cards allow the placement of control markers and/or the occurence of special events. All leaders can move 2 to 4 MP each turn, but the movement allowance depends on a comparision between a d6 roll and a general's initiative rating. Battles are a matter of both sides totalling strength and rolling on a table, with generals improving bad rolls: highest table result wins, and the loser is "dispersed". Winning requires "victory points" (from control of provinces & fleets) and/or "legitimacy" (mostly from control of or marriage to Alexander's relatives). These are often incompatible, and "royal" troops will refuse to fight against a more "legitimate" opponent. Bottom line: I really like it. The game moves quickly, with little downtime between player moves, as the small number of movable leaders keeps players from dawdling. Diplomatic aspects are important but not completely overwhelming. The graphics are excellent, there's TONS of flavour, and the card and movement roll randomness keep all players involved. My only complaint is that there should be a complete separate leader counter and card for Cassander (hope I've got the names right), instead of just a reminder chit to place on Antipater's card. Finally, for anyone else who already has the game, I've still got two rules questions: 1) can reinforcements REALLY be placed in a beseiged major city? Other than the (small) occupancy limit, I can't find anything in the rules which prevents this. 2) Alexander's body can't be MOVED until turn 2 (when the funeral cart is complete), but can it be buried before that? In both games, a little immediate permanent legitimacy was judged to be much better than the risks of a journey back to Macedon. Tim -- Tim Trant Electrical & Computer Engineering tim@eecg.utoronto.ca University of Toronto From: Jens Hoppe Post Danmark Subject: Re: Successors I have played Successors a couple of times solitaire and once with 4 players. So I'll add my own "first impressions" comments: Tim Trant wrote: >Game length, after first attempts, is 5 turns in about 4 hours, In our 4-player game we only managed 3 turns in about 5 hours. Not that we spent much time looking up rules, but the game has a lot of diplomacy, so we used a lot of time arguing; "you should be attacking him and not me", "if I take Armenia you can have Mesopotamia, plus AFAIAC you're free to take Syria from Craterus", etc... I suspect if the players are keen on "diplomacying", the game will take longer than 4 hours. >The game mechanics will still annoy anyone who didn't like Hannibal or >WtP because of the luck of the cards. At least the card play doesn't influence your generals' movement ability in this game. In Hannibal the players _need_ a couple of high-value cards; to move slow generals and to place PC markers. In Successors the empty spaces are filled with garrisons (ie. PC markers) pretty fast, and since you automatically convert garrisons in the spaces containing your generals, I don't think the high-value cards are as important in this game as in Hannibal. There *are* good cards and bad cards, so the luck element is still there... In particular there are some very powerful surprise cards! >Bottom line: I really like it. The game moves quickly, with little >downtime between player moves, as the small number of movable leaders keeps >players from dawdling. Diplomatic aspects are important but not completely >overwhelming. The graphics are excellent, there's TONS of flavour, and the >card and movement roll randomness keep all players involved. Well, our game (and also the solitaire games I have played) obviously didn't move as quickly. In a 4 player game I suppose the game balance will take care of itself; ie. if one player is ahead, he's also the obvious target. It does take a lot of wheeling and dealing to convince the other players of this, since the player in the lead will be arguing his case. And it all takes time. I would like to have seen more "alliance" rules: If one player was clearly ahead, the others should be allowed to share their troops or something... I am not sure I like the combat/loss/replacement system. The basics of the combat system are good: The CRT and the way a general's Battle Rating influences the outcome is really clever, and seems like a fair simulation of reality. The loss system is pretty harsh on the loser; in essence the losing side's army is always completely wiped out (though some of the units may return as reinforcements). So each major battle will influence the balance of power in a big way... Players don't get many reinforcements. You get a few extra combat units each of the five turns, and there are a couple of cards yielding extra reinforcements. The rules allow you to recruit 1 mercenary combat unit if you don't move any of your units, but it seems there is always something that needs to be done. Didn't the successors raise more troops during the wars? >My only >complaint is that there should be a complete separate leader counter and card >for Cassander (hope I've got the names right), instead of just a reminder chit >to place on Antipater's card. Right. Also, there should have been a separate card for Demetrius: Perhaps with a different color on back to emphasize that it shouldn't be mixed in with the rest of the cards... It seems silly (sloppy development) that Eumenes and Seleucus have a card *and* a counter, Cassander doesn't have a counter but has a card (sort of), whereas Demetrius has a counter but no card... >Finally, for anyone else who already has the game, I've still got two >rules questions: Good questions... As for the first one: Even if you can place CUs inside a besieged major city, why would you? CUs are a rare commodity in the game; they seem too valuable to me just for using them to force the opponent to roll a couple of times on the siege table. I have a couple of extra questions: 1. When being navally intercepted, is the moving player forced to use all his fleets, or can he choose just some (or none)? Often the presence of fleets is more important than the possible result of a naval move. 2. Do dispersed fleets count when determining the "biggest fleet" VP bonus? If not, that would be a good reason *not* to want to use your fleets to protect/intercept a moving force. 3. If the answer to question 2) is "no"; dispersed fleets are returned to action at "the beginning of the turn" (I believe); in turns 4 and 5, can they be returned before the player controlling the relevant heir chooses to end the game? The returning fleets (and the placement of the "biggest fleet" VP marker) may influence whether the player with the heir would win or not... 4. When intercepting with a fleet, if the result numbers on the CRT are the same, the rules say something to the effect that "no battle has taken place, and the moving player can move on". If the moving player wasn't the usurper, does the interceptor still lose his champion status? 5. A player can control more than one heir, but can only claim legitimacy from one of them: If the player controlling Heracles chooses to end the game at the beginning of turn 4, if that player also controls Alex IV, can he choose to count Alex IV's legitimacy bonus when determining his legitimacy total? I don't believe the rules prevent this, but it seems silly to claim legitimacy from Alex, when you've just crowned Heracles as king... And a couple of questions on the Antipater/Cassander shuffle: 6. If Antipater is married to one of the royal familiy women, when Antipater dies, does the wife return to inactive status, or does Cassander "inherit" her?! The confusion stems from the fact that Cassander uses Antipater's card and counter, and is (rules-wise) considered more of a "modification" to Antipater than as a separate leader... 7. Similarily, Antipater's faction can't use the Olympias card. When Antipater is dead, can the faction *now* use the card, or is Cassander's presence enough to make it illegal? What if Cassander dies too? Cheers, Jens "Hopsie" Hoppe From: Tim Trant Subject: Re: Successors Jens Hoppe wrote: > > Tim Trant wrote: > >The game mechanics will still annoy anyone who didn't like Hannibal or > >WtP because of the luck of the cards. > > At least the card play doesn't influence your generals' movement > ability in this game. No, but now there's the die roll against Initiative to determine whether each general will move 2, 3, or 4 MP this turn, so the overall luck element is similar. This is just the most common reason I've heard for disliking the Hannibal or WtP games. > In a 4 player game I suppose the game balance > will take care of itself; ie. if one player is ahead, he's also the > obvious target. It does take a lot of wheeling and dealing to convince the > other players of this, since the player in the lead will be arguing his case. The game mechanics themselves take care of some of this, with the "Label the Usurper" (whoever has the most VP) phase and the loss of Legitimacy for attacking anyone else. > Players don't get many reinforcements. You get a few extra combat units > each of the five turns, and there are a couple of cards yielding extra > reinforcements. The rules allow you to recruit 1 mercenary combat unit > if you don't move any of your units, but it seems there is always > something that needs to be done. Chosing that mercenery unit instead of moving was quite common in our games, particularly when a low initiative roll meant that the generals weren't going to get very far anyway. This is also another way to speed up the game. > Good questions... As for the first one: Even if you can place CUs inside > a besieged major city, why would you? CUs are a rare commodity > in the game; they seem too valuable to me just for using them to force > the opponent to roll a couple of times on the siege table. But to control a province, its major city (if any) must be controlled. It's a good use for a cheap mercenary or those unreliable Royal Macedonian troops. A seige is far from being a foregone conclusion, as those of us who have watched our beseiging armies melt away in the process know. (The record, by someone else, was five "1"s in a single seige.) > I have a couple of extra questions: More good questions deleted. Personally, I think a naval interception should just require at least 1 fleet, and dispersed fleets shouldn't count for VP's. If fleets fail to meet, I see no reason to adjust champion/successor status. Olympias' card should be unusable by a faction which is using Antipater's card, and "common sense" should prevail for the marriage & legitimacy questions. IMHO. Tim -- Tim Trant Electrical & Computer Engineering tim@eecg.utoronto.ca University of Toronto From: BergBROG@aol.com Subject: AH's Successors/Reviews Most interesting to read the commentary both here and in the Leader Analysis section. Some points all should consider: 1. Successors is NOT a descendant of Hannibal/WePeo . . . the original design was totally different, other than the user of cards to allow players to include the Events of the Day, as it were. (And those were whittled down from about 80 to 64). During development, we all agreed that the game would be more "accessible" if we used some of the mechanics - such as point-to-point movement - from Hannibal. The point of all this is that the game plays far differently than Hannibal (or WePeo) 2. It is a purposeful game mechanic that battle be brutal. In the entire 20+ years covered by the game, historically only 5 major battles occurred. With one exception, losses to the winner were usually light; the loser ended up with a handful of zippo. The game reflects this, and the (relative) reluctance to commit these large armies to such a (possibly) one-shot result. The latter is not the way the game works, to be sure, in that recovery from a bad loss is possible. 3. Leaders ARE rated differently, and some are better than others. However, these ratings have less to do with how well you do in the game than how YOU play it. And Ptolemy and Antipater are strong mostly because of their position . . . 4. There is no card for Cassander simply because of cardsheet constraints. (You have to think in '16's ) Rather than eliminate one of the events, we felt it better to short-sheet Cassander. And, most importantly, glad you're enjoying it. I'm diddling with iniytial design work on a game using the same basic system, this one on The Crusades: Onward Christian Soldiers. (Ought to sell well in Kabul . . . ) RHB