Thank you all for you comments! I really appreciate it!
The first thing I want to say is that I wish I could post pictures! However, for some reason, the forum does not let me…
Imperious Leader: Thanks for commenting, but I must say that I disagree with your interpretation of my game. I like the game diplomacy, but I feel that it has a lot of flaws and I have tried very hard to avoid all of these flaws in my game. For example, players are not eliminated in Imperial Scramble, the game has a set end point, countries are actually unique and different from one another because of their historically based objective sets, war must be declared upon another player before hostilities erupt, peace agreements can be made, players can trade territories, multiple units can inhabit one territory, etc., etc.
Alexgreat and Pacific War and Gargantua: Thanks for your comments! I am happy to see that people who enjoy A&A (myself included) are also interested in games that do not involve dice. Treachery exists in Imperial Scramble but it is not as devastating as in Diplomacy. In Imperial Scramble, the treachery is a declaration of war when one was not expected. However, the other player then is able to react once war is declared.
CWO Marc: Thanks for your question! Points are not scored until the end. Therefore, if a player completes an objective before the end of the game, he or she must hold on to it until the end. In the example scenario I gave, Germany “completed” the unification objective by controlling all the German territories. However, had he lost one of those territories by the end of the game, then he would have been awarded no points for unification because Germany was not unified when points were tallied. The reason for this is that the points are meant to reflect a country’s power and prestige at the end of the game. At that point, what you did before only matters insofar as it has put you in your current position. Big gains followed by big losses leave you in a bad position because you would no longer be regarded as a powerful world power anymore. A historical example would be Austria. Despite their great strength in the 19th century, they little more than a minor state by the mid-20th century. While their exploits are fondly remembered, they do not entitle them to great power, prestige, or respect as of 1950 and that is the sort of thing the game attempts to reflect. I hope that answers your question. If not, I would be happy to explain more!
I have a couple questions for all of you:
1. Is this a game that you would try playing?
2. Does it matter to you that it includes a shorter version for 3-5 players that takes only 1.5 to 2 hours (whereas the full version takes 5 hours)?
3. Would any of you be interested in possible playtesting when the time comes?
