Skip to Content

Game #45: Castlegard by sedjtroll

37 replies [Last post]
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
My week's almost up

Did anyone else check out the pics I put up? Any coments on the tiles or anything?

- Seth

rkalajian
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #45: Castlegard by sedjtroll

It's a lot easier to get a feel about the game now I can see the tiles. Maybe i'll print them out and trying giving the game a whirl :)

Anonymous
Game #45: Castlegard by sedjtroll

Off the top of my head, I'd say too many mountains. This is just a gut feeling and I'd have to play it to comment more appropriately. Also, surrounding the castle with mountains seems to force the lay of the terrain too much. Noone will ever build behind a castle because it's too far away.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Castlegard Revisited

Just about 1 year later...
I've been thinking a little bit about this game recently, which is probably a first since my GDW slot last year. I have updated the rules to reflect some of the changes proposed by you guys here in this thread, as well as to clarify a few other things.

I have decided to go with a Victory Point model for Castlegard in order to facilitate multiplayer games as well as to allow for a mix of strategies. Sorta like Settlers, your champion and your castle are now each worth 2vp, and villages are worth 1vp each. So you start with 4vp and you need 10 to win.

So killing an opposing champion reduces your opponent's score by 2vp. However, controlling their castle not only reduces their score, but adds 2vp to your score!

And finally, in order to control a village, you have to visit it with your Champion. This forces people to move their champion out into the game board where they have to defend it.

Let me know what you think... here's a link to the updated rules (same as the old link from this thread).

- Seth

emxibus
Offline
Joined: 10/24/2008
Re: Castlegard Revisited

sedjtroll wrote:

Let me know what you think...

I think the changes are great. Have you made a prototype for it? I would be interested in seeing how the tiles work together.

One question on the Mercenary, how is it removed from the board? I didn't see it in the rules.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: Castlegard Revisited

emxibus wrote:
I think the changes are great. Have you made a prototype for it? I would be interested in seeing how the tiles work together.

I posted pics of some of the tiles. I think I've lost the pic of all the tiles, but here's a pic of a sample game in progress which shows the tiles.
Quote:
One question on the Mercenary, how is it removed from the board? I didn't see it in the rules.
Mercenaries leave play when they are in a skirmish in which you lose or retreat.

Thanks!

- Seth

Infernal
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #45: Castlegard by sedjtroll

I have only (so far) read some of the posts, so excuse any repeat suggestions.

First, Unit variation:
You could have unit variations by adding a Pikeman. There would also be an order of attack. Pikemen would attack first, then knights, then Archers.
Edit: The knight moves 2 tiles or 3 tiles on a road.

This would create a scisor/paper/rock situation between the unit types. Pikemen would beat Knights, as the Pikemen would attack first and kill some of the Knights. Knights would beat Archers, as the Knights would be able to close with the archers and kill them before they could attack. And the Archers could beat the the Pikemen as they move at the same speed as the pikemen but can attack from an adjacent tile.

This would allow the player to use their units in creative ways. They could block the advance of some Knights with their Pikemen while using Archers to inflict more damage on the Knights.

Edit: oops forgot to mention that the knight moves 2 tile or 3 on roads

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut