Another game of Royale, folks?

There's no question that Royale (What we knew here as Saxony will take a firm commitment to play, and finding 10 dedicated people willing to play it to the end will be tought. But such is true with every game we play here. And abandonments are on the decline lately. Dare we be optimistic?

My main reasons for advocation the 1600 Map over the standard map lie in my preference for variants, historical color, and a feeling that a ten player map would offset some of the crossgaming/prearranged allainces that might pop up.

Having not played Royal before I can't say for sure. However, in observing the last game, I think this presents the so-called weaker/inexperienced players more options for treaty and alliance. Ultimately I think it will simply be more work for the GM to add more players, so that has to be considered too. YMMV.

[Victor Galis]

I fear that there are not 10 people qualified enough to play a game of Royale in all Apolyton. The dedication it takes is very great, otherwise you meet your end like Spain in the game we played (I made sure he never built, and his empire was quickly gutted.)

I need a copy of the rules, if someone would be so kind...

And this one should call for about 10 players, I agree with Ruff... the more the merrier!

[Victor Galis]

I feel that a seven player map is very good, but would preffer the Heptarchy map if I were playing, simply because the map is much more suited to the concept of Royale. I seriously doubt though that you could get more than seven GOOD players for the purpose of Royale. Your Apolyton average players aren't going to cut it for Royale due to the nature of the game, and I for one though I wish very much to play, will be unable to this summer (now if someone were to volunteer to be an alternate, I'd be glad to start the country off then leave it to them.)

I might be interested, but I rather like the 1600 map. I think with all the extra action going on (treaties, royalty, clergy, births, deaths, etc.) that opening it to 10 or so players makes for more interest. Of course this requires 3 more players, but WTF?

[Stefu]

Midshipman, do you know the rules for Royale?

Anybody, is there any interest?

[Midshipman]

Russia
Turkey
France
Italy
Germany
Austria
England

Oh, and this means I will be willing to play. I will be around for a while.

I am intrigued by Royale dip.

I am also available as cannon fodder if there is any room!

[Victor Galis]

The Bourbon dynasty was also very unlucky after the early game. It's repeated failure to produce male heirs (I think I got five daughters in a row), made it pale in a size comparison to the other dynasties. Luckily, my military might overcame this shortfall. (A private opinion to follow.)

[LordStone1]

I MIGHT be willing to GM another game of Royale. But first I think I'd like to hear from all the Saxony players (privately) and hear their opinions about the variant. It's a very complex game, and I'm sure there are some weaknesses within the rules and so on. I'd like to hear from players on that subject. I was also troubled by how the dynasties virtually decided the fate of a country by pure luck -- for example, the Vasas of Poland (Imran) and the Castilles of Spain (Du Chateau) had no chance because they didn't produce any heirs, and were quickly eliminated from the dynastic proceedings and later on, the game itself.

What do you think, people?

[Stefu]

Last game was bounds of excitement all around, so how about another one? Not necessarily on 1600 map - I'm envisioning the regular 7-powered map, with game starting in 1900 and going on in 5-year turns (just like Dip Royale always does). Yes, it would continue to our times, but hey, that's just part of the charm! We'd naturally need 7 players and a GM (LordStone1?), but I don't think we'd have much difficulty in finding them. I'm willing to play, certainly. And if this does happen, my country reservation list would be Russia - Turkey - England - France - Germany - Italy - Austria.