Nostagia Review: Conquest of the Empire!

Hey everyone,

All this discussion about "dudes on a map"... Backed in 2005, when I was earning six figures writing reviews for Gamefest (LOL), I wrote a review for Conquest of the Empire. Now, I did get a game comp in writing this review. So take my effusive writing on it as you may.

But the game still rocks, is the ultimate "dudes on a map" game and is one of my absolute favorites. So I dusted off this old review (2005), just to remind everyone about the initial hold this game had on everyone and the heavy anticipation everyone had when this came out!

Enjoy!

www.boardgamenews.com/index.php/boardgam...while_you_still_can/

One person noted that the “fun factor” increased to “fairly high” once the game got going.

Yeah, that's sort of the reaction I had to it when I played the "new classic" CotE. I don't consider it a ringing endorsement. It's not that it's a bad game really, it's just long in the tooth. The years have not been very kind to CotE, and that's compounded by the fact that, for a comparable investment of time and rules weight, there's a whole slew of much more interesting DOAM games.

I've only played Eagle's version of CotE, which I suppose is better than playing the original, but I prefer Samurai Swords and Fortress America as better and more enjoyable games - with my personal preference having FA just taking it from SS.

Fortress: America is easily the best of the Gamemaster games (well, except for maybe Broadsides). I played it for the first time last year, and I was surprised that it doesn't really feel its age. In fact, the supply line rules and random unit spawns do away with that slogging-through-molasses feel that's so common in those older DOAM games.

I picked up a copy of the Eagle Games CoTE last year after Skeletor convinced me to go with this rather than Fire & Axe. Awesome game. The original rules definitely feel dated, but the 2005 ruleset is a blast to play and components are top notch. The oversized board always draws attention when set up. No regrets with this purchase.

Death and Taxis wrote:

I picked up a copy of the Eagle Games CoTE last year after Skeletor convinced me to go with this rather than Fire & Axe. Awesome game. The original rules definitely feel dated, but the 2005 ruleset is a blast to play and components are top notch. The oversized board always draws attention when set up. No regrets with this purchase.

You now need to upgrade to Samurai Swords and Fortress America to finish the GameMaster tech tree ;-p

The alliance system killed my interest in the game.

Death and Taxis wrote:

I picked up a copy of the Eagle Games CoTE last year after Skeletor convinced me to go with this rather than Fire & Axe.

Just clicking those oversized coins in your hand is more fun than Fire & Axe.
Seriously, if there was an award for 'best money in a game' Eagles Conquest would win it hands down.

I love the bidding war for alliences. Nothing more satisfying than paying up big so the fucker who wants to ass fuck you out of sicilly can no longer do it. Thematically I like to think of it as paying off a few rival generals.

I don't get where people think the rules are "dated"? I'm with Mr. Skeletor... I think there are a number of awesome mechanisms in this game, in the classic rules, that should be duplicated in some of these so-called more "modern" games that are out there.

COTE gives structure to negotiations (which are always part of ANY game) and does so many things well that I would take it over the vast majority of stuff that is out there. I like Fire and Axe... but c'mon putting the two of them together is no contest.

COTE all the way.

But hey... I'm no game expert. (LOL)

(Matt Loter ought to especially like that line... while he's off playing Princess Puff's Pink Star Marines or some sort of equivalent.)

---

By the way, whoever coined the term "dudes on a map" should get some sort of an equivalent to a Fortress:AT medal. That's an awesome term!

Southernman wrote:

I've only played Eagle's version of CotE, which I suppose is better than playing the original, but I prefer Samurai Swords and Fortress America as better and more enjoyable games - with my personal preference having FA just taking it from SS.

I wasn't into games when the MB GameMaster series came out. But now I have Samurai Swords and Conquest of the Empire. To me, the MB Gamemaster Series IS the very definition and soul of the term "Ameritrash".

I also have Napoleon in Europe, Fire and Axe, Shogun & Diplomacy to give me quite a bit of variety when sitting down to a game with just the boys. I don't include this games in my game counts... just because they are my prized historical immersion experience in game form.

I don't get where people think the rules are "dated"?

In Risk, there are basically three things to consider during a game: Who do I attack? How many units do I use to do it? Who can I convince to help me? Sitting down to play CotE (classic), you get one more: What do I build?

Now go and play something like TI:3 which doesn't take any longer to play and isn't that much more rules-heavy. In that game, not only do you have all the same things to consider that you do in CotE, but there are also the questions of with whom do you trade, which technology do you build, which role are you going to take that turn, and so on and so forth...

CotE is dated because there's been quite a few games since the original version that have pushed the DOAM formula in different directions, and found ways to offer more interesting gameplay for the 4+ hour time investment.

I'm with Mr. Skeletor... I think there are a number of awesome mechanisms in this game, in the classic rules, that should be duplicated in some of these so-called more "modern" games that are out there.

They were in Blood Feud in New York, which everybody apparently fucking hates. I don't see why; it's basically the same damn game as classic CotE, it just doesn't take all night.

The best mechaNIC in the game is the fact that you have to have a general lead any attacks you make. It makes the battles more high stakes. But of course, this encourages a ridiculous amount of turtling because nobody wants to lose their most important pieces. Not to mention, as long as you're holding someone's general, you've made an enemy for the rest of the game unless you give it back. In my experience, most people aren't gracious enough losers to roll over and pay some exorbitant ransom after they just lost a big, important fight. Instead, they'll just do everything they can to harass that player until he gives in and releases the general. Instead, you can just kill him and let the other player spend the rest of the game fucking with you until one of you is weak enough to be picked off by someone else.

And that's my biggest problem with these big, bloated ass DOAM games with no structure to the alliances. The only thing you have to offer is to either not attack that player, or attack someone else. This means that the "negotations" break into a bunch of threats, dogpiling, and just flat-out bickering early and often.

mjl1783 wrote:

In Risk, there are basically three things to consider during a game: Who do I attack? How many units do I use to do it? Who can I convince to help me? Sitting down to play CotE (classic), you get one more: What do I build?

Now go and play something like TI:3 which doesn't take any longer to play and isn't that much more rules-heavy. In that game, not only do you have all the same things to consider that you do in CotE, but there are also the questions of with whom do you trade, which technology do you build, which role are you going to take that turn, and so on and so forth...

CotE is dated because there's been quite a few games since the original version that have pushed the DOAM formula in different directions, and found ways to offer more interesting gameplay for the 4+ hour time investment.

... (con't)

And that's my biggest problem with these big, bloated DOAM games, with no structure to the alliances. The only thing you have to offer is to either not attack that player, or attack someone else. This means that the "negotations" break into a bunch of threats, dogpiling, and just flat-out bickering early and often.

I think this is a very solid rebuttal. I think at some point it does becomes a matter of taste. I prefer my own structure in negotiations... but to your point, I think I would also like the variety in another game of having the game drive the negotiations structure. Just so long as the element of negotiation is immersive to the gameplay. I just love the historical elements in COTE and how the theme, components, art and gameplay all marry together to get me into the spirit of Roman based conflict.

On a broader perspective, I think this is where having a collection of different games which bring different contexts to the basic formula is a worthy goal. Variety is an awesome thing.

So everything you say is logically valid. I can't really argue against it. But even in a more simplified version than TI:3, I can say every time I have ever played COTE, I am just amazed at how much fun it is. What you dislike in the game, I find to be blast.

SQPR