Punic Wars Game

[WalterPeck]

A Roman Legatus or an Iberian Mercenary commander contracted through Carthage. Decisions, decisions...

[Olligarchy]

@Shurijo: In the less traditional group game the players ma choose to be anything from Prole Hastati in the Legions to Pro-Praetor of Messana with the choice of deciding if they want to always press for Roman/Punic goals or if they want to maybe play the sides against each other for their own gain. The goals are mostly up to players themselves, though obviously in the background there's always the Roman-Carthaginian war which may stir trouble even for players that try to avoid it.

What kind of information would you like? I am currently working on the forum and trying to gather my thoughts to explain my vision better, so questions always help!

I was thinking something of both. Maybe one group are politicians (Intrigue based) and are the ones debating whether or not to send reinforcements or increases taxes to pay for more military, etc. The ones back at the capitals/senates arguing/intriguing with generals, influential peoples. Which could be as deadly (or deadlier) as combat. Those outcomes might determine where the soldiers (combat based) are sent or whether or not they get help/reinforcements or not.

Would everyone be on the same side or split between the two?

Honestly, I haven't read/researched anything about the Roman-Carthaginian war and it's been decades since World History class, so I'll definitely need a refresher to get started/mindset.

That was my original-original-original idea actually... basically I meant to have four different player groups, all unable to directly interact with each other, with two intrigue based groups divvied up between the roman senate and the Carthaginian great houses, and another two 'legion' based ones fighting the actual war in Sicily where their reinforcements, supplies and such tend to be at the mercy of the "Senate" who have to funnel things there whilst playing at the game of politics and maintaining the rest of the Roman Republic.

My main problem with this is mostly the detached nature of the game as I'd basically be running four separate games which might well be a bit too much. Of course if I get some help from a Co-GM for example I could probably pull it off, but if not it will be easier for me to run just two games where the politics, trade and such can take place in Messana, Syracuse or other cities, with more martial minded players fighting the war.

And the division is one of the questions... @TetNak clearly prefers everyone to be on one (presumably Roman) side, where as my original concept had the possibility of players being Roman OR Carthaginian.

[Shurijo]

Why not just have players create 2 PCs one for intrigue and one for combat. Then between 'chapters/sessions' you flip back and forth, that would allow for some fast-forwarding of time (for marching or debating) and allow the actions from combat/senate to be resolved to influence the next chapter.

[Olligarchy]

That -could- do it... what are the thoughts of the rest of you? Prefer two PC's divided into two sides or two characters on the same side?

As in do you want to maintain the "PVP" element, or simply divide up your time on one side?

[TetNak]

Doesn't matter to me.

I think it depends on how many players you get. Will you have enough to do PvP?

I believe you'd need at least 8.

[WalterPeck]

I can always help if there are tedious parts. E.g. dice rolling for combat. Large unit warfare, etc.

[Eanwulf]

PRETTY COOL BROWSER GAME for those of you wanting to feel "Roman". Digging it so far.

[Olligarchy]

Those still interested should be able to find the game forum here.

[WalterPeck]

It says I'm not authorized.

[Olligarchy]

Ah drat. Will need to wait for an Admin to make it visible I think...