I'm thinking about buying this game. What is this game like? Is it fun? Worth the money?

Is it like any other game? I have Game o thrones, warrior knight is it like these?

On a scale from 1-10 10 being the best game ever, 1 being the worst game ever. Rank this game.

Thanks for your help

I'm kind of curious too. It looks interesting.

I've been playing this game for around 20 years now in one version or another. Games don't have that staying power without having a lot to them. So I feel it has to be considered a very good game of its type.

So, ultimately while it is a good game, the question is more - will it suit you guys?

At its core the mechanics are classic board wargame. Each participant moves and fights in sequence - fights are dice based so its a game of weighing - or weighting - odds in your favour. Points are scored for killing or holding stuff at particular points in time.

The clever stuff comes from the fact there are a lot of participants and each player controls multiple participants that arrive at different stages through the game play of 16 turns. Your limited number of counters for each nation that you control means the game becomes a balance between grabbing a few more points than expected and weakening your position on the board, or leaving someone too strong for an incoming nation of yours in a couple fo turns. The basic rules of this game are not difficult to pick up - the decisions you need to make to win the game on the other hand are very very different.

For instance - the first turn will panic many people used to balanced, even-start games (like Runewars for example where everyone starts slightly differently but fairly evenly). In this game the Romans pile on the board and slap everyone silly for a few turns, deciding when, where and how to defend is a significant challenge and the ramifictions only show up a few turns later, when you get your chance to slap England and/or Scotland silly. Deciding exactly who is winning is not a case of looking at who has the highest score at the moment, its a game of potential to score balanced against score so far accumulated.

Its not a game of random attacks to be the biggest either - there is no point expending troops just to grab territory - you need a reason, the most common is that it scores you points or denies the enemy points (Strathclyde the experienced players shout), or gives you a place to live for a turn or two while a juggernaut goes by, or gets in someone's way - but if it isn't scoring points, you need to think 'why do this', if only so as not to get in your own way later. Some nations like the Jutes and Caledonians are very small and can be either boom and bust (Jutes) or slow burn (Caledonians).

The game is a fairly long play for games these days. It will fill an evening, rather than play in 90mins to 2hr - and the first time you play it can be a 4-5hr play. I would guess with experienced player we can get done in 3hrs. Its a thinkers game for the experienced but a novice can do quite well and get a decent sense of achievment simply by following the scoring directions on their cards and going for what the cards offer up as best.

It also gives a good idea of the history of the time, from its sound historical base, although you obviously want to be better than history for your side. So there are reasons for when things happen.

Thats all I can come up with in my cold-addled state, so I would say read the rules on the support page for the game and see whether it attracts or not and say why or why not here and see if your perceptions are considered on the money or not - then that will tell you if would go for it.

I enjoy A Game OF THRONES as well, I would be interested of hearing from someone who has played both. I have been very close to purchasing this game multiple times.

I've played all three: A Game of Thrones, Warrior Knights, and Britannia. In fact I own all 3 as well.

To start, the win condition in Britannia is very similar to the other two, conquer territory. The difference is in the reason for warmongering, however. In WK and aGoT, you conquer territory to gain influence, new units, more money, and to win (in both, you must conquer and control cities). In Britannia, you are rewarded for achieving the historical aims of the tribes that you control. This doesn't always mean recreating history exactly. For example, many nations want to control York, but only one can do so when the scoring round arrives. This creates the conflict. Do I try to deny points to my opponents with this tribe? Do I try to score as many points as possible with this tribe? Do I expand as much as possible? Do I commit all of my tokens to break my opponent?

If you've chosen to disrupt an opponent because you think you can get more out of that move, you must then decide which opponent to attack, which of his or her tribes, and when. This involves knowing who is winning at the time. Usually in the beginning, the Yellow player (who controls the Romans) will have a huge lead in points, but that does not mean that he or she is winning. Flinging all of your Welsh troops at Roman forts could allow the Roman player to easily conquer Wales, and rectify slow progress against the Brigantes, for example. This in turn allows the Brigantes to attack the Romans or the Picts, which might allow the Red player to surge ahead. These types of scenarios are what make the game really interesting to me.

For example, in one game I was playing as the Red tribes, and toward the end of the "dark ages", I had made Saxon England, instead of Anglo-Saxon England. This allowed the Danes to march on many territories unchallenged, and it eventually resulted in the Green player winning because I was thinking too short-term to see the big picture.

Another big difference between the games is the lack of resource management in Britannia. The resources are very abstract (specifically, only "population" is tracked along with your victory points), and this allows the player to focus on the overall strategic situation which I find to be a good change of pace in this game. It also allows the turns to flow one you get the hang of the mechanics, which is greatly needed because there are a lot of turns and there is no way to end the game early.

The final point I will say is that even if one of your tribes is eliminated, you always have another invasion to look forward to in a few turns, and you can plan ahead to decide how best to regain a position of power on the island.

This game is a big investment timewise, but I think that it accomplishes what it sets out to do. Don't let the unbalanced positions fool you, the game is very well balanced and any color or player can win. Also, even though combat is die-based, there are enough battles to allow everyone to have a bit of bad luck and a bit of good luck, so I have noticed that there is not a lot of complaining about the dice. Though sixes against Romans do seem to be scarce in the first few rounds...

It's a great game, one of my favourites ever.

If I have a criticism, I would say that, while the game is well-balanced, it is not apparent for your first or even your second game what players ought to be doing to maintain that balance. In particular, inexperienced players seem to assume that because the Yellow team (the Romans) are doing well, they must be fought and allied-against. However, that's not the case: Yellow's only real points come from the Romans. If they do poorly, Yellow basically sits the rest of the game out.

That's my take. If you buy the game, and I strongly advise it, make sure your players know that it's okay if Yellow makes points early in the game. There's nothing wrong with submitting to the Romans, especially if you want your big point-earning teams like the Welsh and Brigantes around later in the game.

sounds like a great game , i'm tempted .

One of the best games that teach history. I played this 20 years ago and loved it. I agree that you need some hours to go through one sessions. But if you got friends that have an interest in history this is one of the best games ever. I remember the game mechanics were a bit similar to "Risk". Don't know if the game got some rule adjustments over the years. Can anyone clarify this? Since I lost my set on a move i am reconsidering a rebuy.