Imperium Romanum II - The Year of The Four Emperors: Upcoming!

[kronenblatt]

If there are any Imperium Romanum II board game buffs out there, I'm looking at launching a very relaxed, friendly, and slow-paced campaign game with "The Year of The Four Emperors" scenario for three players (Vitellius vs. Otho vs. Flavians), with monthly turns and the land battles played out in Field of Glory II: Ancients. Campaign rules will more closely resemble those of the board game, albeit with some simplifications, but will also use a great deal from the "He Died Old" rules.

Please write me a PM or post here in case you're interested in participating.

Participating players

1. kronenblatt
2. carpenkm
3. Aetius39

[carpenkm]

i used to have this game - i think i still do in the loft. there are some really good campaigns in there. You could use the basis of the rules (recruitment, movement rates etc) and use FOG to recreate the battles( i suspect that's what you were thinking). The year of the four emperors was a good campaign, but it's all roman. I will dig out my copy and refresh my memory, but I'm very interested.

[angusosborne]

I played that game in the dim, distant past.

I'd suggest a campaign in the early 5th century. Two Romans, Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Sassanids, Huns.

[kronenblatt]

… I will dig out my copy and refresh my memory…

Yes, please do and see whether you find any fun scenarios therein.

[kronenblatt]

I played that game in the dim, distant past.

Ah, then there's more of us!

I'd suggest a campaign in the early 5th century. Two Romans, Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Sassanids, Huns.

Sounds fun. The scope may turn out too big though. And another problem is only that e.g. the Vandal army list is extraordinarily one-dimensional and "boring": almost only lancers, nothing else. Maybe it could be a limited scope of theatre though, such as the 406 AD crossing of the Rhine, using part of the map, such as the upper-left quarter.

[kronenblatt]

You could use the basis of the rules (recruitment, movement rates etc) and use FOG to recreate the battles( i suspect that's what you were thinking).

The primary use would be the map itself. Maybe some of the rules as well, in a very simplified way then. But at least using movement points from there and the supply system, maybe also baggage trains.

[kronenblatt]

Something I had in mind was the Mithradatic Wars in the beginning of the first century BC, for example. That would involve a variety of army lists: could include Roman, Pontic, Armenian, Thracian, Galatian, Kappadokian, Bithynian, Seleucid, Ptolemaic, Jewish. And maybe some civil war component if linking that to Marius versus Sulla.

But again, I'm all ears for suggestions (good or bad) so keep them coming.

[kronenblatt]

-

[anderarcos11]

Something I had in mind was the Mithradatic Wars in the beginning of the first century BC, for example. That would involve a variety of army lists: could include Roman, Pontic, Armenian, Thracian , Galatian, Kappadokian, Bithynian, Seleucid, Ptolemaic, Jewish. And maybe some civil war component if linking that to Marius versus Sulla.

But again, I'm all ears for suggestions (good or bad) so keep them coming.

I think it's a good scenario. Another could be the Second Punic War, involving much of Iberia, Italy, Celts, North Africa, and even Macedonia.

[Ironclad]

Never played the boardgame, but I like the idea of a campaign that eventually uses the full scope of the map so one could have a Crisis of the Third Century one or a late Fourth Century or early Fifth Century campaigns.

Depending on the number of players this could allow fewer map areas to be utilised at the start and then expand into the wider map as additional players joined or if the original cadre were happy to take on extra responsibilities (powers or civil wars) as the game progressed. This could also help to approximate the historic timelines for such interventions.

[kronenblatt]

Never played the boardgame, but I like the idea of a campaign that eventually uses the full scope of the map so one could have a Crisis of the Third Century one or a late Fourth Century or early Fifth Century campaigns.

Depending on the number of players this could allow fewer map areas to be utilised at the start and then expand into the wider map as additional players joined or if the original cadre were happy to take on extra responsibilities (powers or civil wars) as the game progressed. This could also help to approximate the historic timelines for such interventions.

That's an interesting approach! How would that then start and work in practice? Say, in a late fourth or early fifth century campaign.

[Ironclad]

If we take 363 AD as the starting point and imagine that the Persian war didn't end then but continued, then we have the possibility of continuing action in the east (East Romans, Sassanids. Armenia. Arab raiders) with wars breaking out either simultaneously or sequentially along the Danube/Rhine - Goths v East Romans, Sarmatians/Carpi v East and/or West Romans, Alemani/Franks v West Romans/Franks.

Additional scenarios could involve Britannia - Picts/Scots/Saxon Raiders and defending West Romans, and in Eastern Europe the Huns V Goths and the Goths/Huns v East and West Romans.

Of course one could also allow for West v East Roman civil wars.

As players would have freedom of choice to determine the actions of their assigned countries/groupings within the geographic areas concerned it would be impossible to replicate this precisely but I suppose the game could include some arbitrary limits on possible opponents so as to introduce some idea of sequencing. Not sure how feasible that coud be, other than introducing new players with new countries and thus extending the map areas involved compared to the starting setup.

One way to build in sequencing would be to give a power extra funding (or a new army) to oppose a newly introduced enemy.

[angusosborne]

You could fill the board with nations and armies and then allow players to take over whichever nation they wished. Battles against nations without an active player could be posted as open challenges in the Multiplayer Lobby. Someone would pick up the battle, although there would be an element of risk that they are not reliable. I had one Multiplayer battle against a random which they abandoned.

[kronenblatt]

You could fill the board with nations and armies and then allow players to take over whichever nation they wished. Battles against nations without an active player could be posted as open challenges in the Multiplayer Lobby. Someone would pick up the battle, although there would be an element of risk that they are not reliable. I had one Multiplayer battle against a random which they abandoned.

Yes, that could be a problem. And how to deal with moving non-player armies and navies on the strategic hexagon map?

I like the idea with covering the map with many nations and I like the fourth-century AD era, but I’m worried about being dependent on too many players and whether they stay committed or not. That’s why it may be preferable with starting off small on a limited part of the map. The question is then which part and which era being the most interesting and fun (on the strategic map as well as FoG2 games) and to go for.

[Ironclad]

The area of the Western Empire probably meets your criteria better than the Eastern - for a more balanced split of countries as a starting group. But that would require us to move the timescale into the fifth century (much as I love the idea of a 360's plus scenario).

We could have major countries of Vandals in Africa, Visigoths in South-Western Gaul/ Spain (excluding North-West), Franks in Northern Gaul/North Germany, West Romans in Italy/South Eastern Gaul, Ostrogoths in the Balkans, Alemani in Southern Germany, Huns in Eastern Germany. Minor powers if required (convertible to major as necessary for new players) could be Saxons in Britannia, Kingom of S and Bretons in Gaul, Sciri in North-Western Spain, Moors in Africa neighbouring Vandals, Sarmatians on central Danube (initially under Hunnic control) and the occasional western interventions of the off-map Eastern Roman Empire.

To keep a flavour of the late Fourth century each player could be allowed the flexibility to choose their FoG armies from those available between 350 and 450 AD.

Edited: To give Visigoths their historic occupation of Acquitaine to ensure common borders with Romans and Franks.

[angusosborne]

You could fill the board with nations and armies and then allow players to take over whichever nation they wished. Battles against nations without an active player could be posted as open challenges in the Multiplayer Lobby. Someone would pick up the battle, although there would be an element of risk that they are not reliable. I had one Multiplayer battle against a random which they abandoned.

Yes, that could be a problem. And how to deal with moving non-player armies and navies on the strategic hexagon map?

I like the idea with covering the map with many nations and I like the fourth-century AD era, but I’m worried about being dependent on too many players and whether they stay committed or not. That’s why it may be preferable with starting off small on a limited part of the map. The question is then which part and which era being the most interesting and fun (on the strategic map as well as FoG2 games) and to go for.

non-player armies don't move, they just defend. You could give them a generous ZoC in their own lands to approximate movement

[kronenblatt]

If we take 363 AD as the starting point and imagine that the Persian war didn't end then but continued, then we have the possibility of continuing action in the east (East Romans, Sassanids. Armenia. Arab raiders) with wars breaking out either simultaneously or sequentially along the Danube/Rhine - Goths v East Romans, Sarmatians/Carpi v East and/or West Romans, Alemani/Franks v West Romans/Franks.

I think this clearly defined theatre involving the eastern half of the Roman empire in second half of the fourth century AD, with Roman imperial armies fighting the Sassanids and their Arab allies/vassals in its east and the Goths in its west, along the lower and middle Danube, could constitute a manageable, interesting, as well as fun campaign.

That could then involve everything from 2 players (1 Roman, 1 Sassanid + Gothic) to MANY players (distributed between the three factions: Romans, Sassanids, and Goths, the players themselves dividing up commands within their factions), so it would be quite flexible, as a starting point.

It would roughly coincide with (part of) the Imperium Romanum II scenario #23 "The Gothic Storm", with the western-most part of the map at start being the provinces of Iazygia, Pannonia Inferior, Dalmatia, and Illyricum.

Army lists to be used would then mainly be Roman 313-378 AD, Germanic Horse Tribes 260-492 AD with or without Dacian (Carpi) 107-380 AD allies, and Sassanid Persian 350-476 AD with or without Arab (Bedouin) 300-636 AD or Armenian 253-476 AD allies.

[Ironclad]

Great, count me in please.

[kronenblatt]

Great, count me in please.

Excellent, I've put you on the list of players in the opening post.

[kronenblatt]

-