Will FFG be coming out with another game in the series and what would you like it to be about?

First question maybe the mods or someone at FFG can answer and that is will there be another game in the series released in the future? I am assuming that they are probably waiting for the 5th book to come out for some theme ideas.
Second question for the many fans is what kind of game would you like to see? Right now I am playing a fan made 6 player Storm of Swords game by email. Its bascially the 4 player game with an expanded lower map for the Tyrell and Martell players. Its quite nice. I also like the fan-made 9 player game. Its a very roomy map and I wouldn't mind a new map because I have grown a bit bored on the original 6 player map after playing it at least 100 times

I ran this post on the other board before the crash and someone suggested a 2 player game. I have suggested a few times to FFG that they could always released a new set of event/house cards to keep the game "fresh" or some new tactics/ally cards and leaders too. What are everyone's thoughts?

Personally, I'd love to see the AGoT mechanics applied to an entirely new map.

The deterministic nature of combat makes the "correct" opening moves a matter of two or three optimal choices.

There must be another IP in need of some strategy loving...

The current ASoS game answers everything that I want in a game. The ONLY thing that could be improved is to make the game accept different numbers of players. I don't think that new house cards would be a good idea. There are currently three sets. I don't think it would be worth the effort to try and come up with 6 new decks that are sufficiently unique from the ones currently available.

Summary: New maps would be all I might want.

Note: I don't read the books, so I have no interest in new thematics. In fact, I am against new characters and thematics because they might conflict with the way I see things in my own imagination. Not that anyone in FFG is going to care what I think

Go play ASOS one year straight and you will yearn for something new once again

At least I cannot get away from such feelings, after each expansion it starts anew.

Oh and if you havent read the books you certainly should, they are not just some crap but actually the best that is out there. Its not Elf and Dwarfs hardcore fantasy its something more serious, with which The Lord of the Rings, which is for lots of people some sort of revelation, can hardly compete

Go check some reviews in case you are interested, they will prove me right.
Just dont blame me, if you get addicted and devour the 4 books that are out like nothing

You will also yearn for theme after that as well

Umbratus wrote:
Oh and if you havent read the books you certainly should, they are not just some crap but actually the best that is out there. Its not Elf and Dwarfs hardcore fantasy its something more serious, with which The Lord of the Rings, which is for lots of people some sort of revelation, can hardly compete

I liked the game so much, I did go read the books. I got though the first, and after 100 pages of the second, I got sick of it.

Although I don't put Lord of the Rings on the plane of revelation, it is definitely a much better read.

Ah, LotR is just all black&white a much more casual read than ASOIAF is for sure. Characters are alot more complex and the story surely is more complicated. Of course not everyone will like it, but many do, just check out some reviews, at amazon or anywhere. Martins Point-of-view writing style makes every chapter with changing views unique. I am reading alot of Fiction stuff, there is not anything alike. Not even coming anywhere near

Off topic post that has been removed. Sorry for hijacking your thread temporarily. I hope you don't mind.

Same as the previous post.

I'd like to see A Game of Throne's game mechanics applied and balanced for a different map...

...or maps.

There are a lot of IP's that could provide a new and interesting map...Warhammer comes to mind.

It would be nice if we could hear something from the fine folks at FFG about the subject

Umbratus wrote:Go play ASOS one year straight and you will yearn for something new once again
At least I cannot get away from such feelings, after each expansion it starts anew.

A whole year?

What a good problem to have

I just wish my order of AGoT and all the expansions would arrive.

Umbratus wrote:Ah, LotR is just all black&white a much more casual read than ASOIAF is for sure. Characters are alot more complex and the story surely is more complicated. Of course not everyone will like it, but many do, just check out some reviews, at amazon or anywhere. Martins Point-of-view writing style makes every chapter with changing views unique. I am reading alot of Fiction stuff, there is not anything alike. Not even coming anywhere near

Well I do love Martin's ASoIaF series as much as I can state that it was the best for me in the last couple of years.
But I think Martin seems much more unique because he instead of following the ill tradition of many fantasy-authors fitfully rewriting Tolkien's LotR(Jordan for example), he draws a lot from Shakespeare, and the War of the Roses period.
I can strongly recommend you all to read Maurice Druon's Cursed Kings. It's a novel based on the events leading to the Hundred Years War, full of complex, interesting and living characters. I guess Martin was also inspired by the this fantastic series himself. Belive me, you'll like it.

You've found LotR black&white. Read it again and forget about the movies!

Since the book A Feast for Crows took place in the Riverlands, I think its boardgame expansion should do so as well. In addition, the book only ended up being a portion of what it was supposed to be. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the game to be a partial expansion as well.

Here's what I propose. The expansion boardgame would make use of the ASOS board. As a minimum, the game should include new house and westeros decks, additional tactic and ally cards, and new starting locations and troop distributions. New leaders, additional troops, and more castles would be nice as well. Finally, some official rules about how to adapt ACOK expanison (seige engines and fortresses) while maintaining ASOS balance would be nice as well.

A new overlay making it possible to add a house, or territorial changes would be nice, but not necessary, since this game would be branded as a partial expansion. Since it is not a complete expansion, it should be resonably priced at $20-30.

While i am hungry for a significant addition to the series, I believe they could be met with the upcoming A Dance with Dragons book theme in mind. For now, some tinkering with ASOS would hold me over until that time.

The one thing this excellent game is lacking is POLITICS. Frankly, this game doesn't do a very good job of capturing the Machiavellian political scheming that the books are overflowing with. The game system by itself is near flawless in my opinion, but as far as evoking the books it really falls short of the flavor of the rivalries and shifting alliances from the series. That is why I think the game would vastly improve from the diplomatic scheming of, well, Diplomacy. A very good way of doing this would be the inclusion of a small number of random Objectives that are unique to each faction.

An example I have found is from an old game by TSR called A Line in the Sand (a game about Desert Storm). The actual game play was completely unlike AGoT, but it had a very interesting Diplomatic aspect that could seriously spice up AGoT if a variant were implemented by FFG. How it worked was at the beginning of the game each faction secretly drew one of three objectives at random (and each faction had their own three unique possible objectives). With six factions with three objectives each, there were 18 possible objectives that could be drawn. I am no math major so I will just say that I think the possible combinations of objectives likely numbers in the hundreds. Here are the objectives as posted in a thread at boardgamegeek:

US & Allies:
A. Iraq must be conquered at the end of the game.
B. All Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti oilfields are controlled by Moderate Arabs, and Israel is within its original borders, at the end of the game.
C. Iraq holds no foreign territory, Iran holds no foreign territory other than Iraqi spaces, and U.S. forces hold four oilfields at the end of the game.

Iraq & Yemen:
A. Iraq conquers Kuwait (holding all sites) and has held it for at least the last three turns at the end of the game.
B. The Jihad Track has reached 10 anytime during the game, and 10 non-Muslim Land units (US, UK, FR, IS or UN) have been destroyed by the end of the game.
C. Iraq has control of 3 more oilfields than it started with at the end of the game.

Iran:
A. Iran captures and holds Baghdad and Basra at the end of the game.
B. Same as Iraq & Yemen (B).
C. the U.S. succeeds at its War Aim, and Iran holds a site in Iraq at the end of the game.

Israel:
A. Israel conquers Lebanon and Jordan at the end of the game.
B. Iraq and the Volatile Arabs control no territory outside their borders, and Israel retains its original borders, at the end of the game.
C. The U.S. succeeds at its War Aim, and Iraq and the Volatile Arabs control no additional territory at the end of the game.

Volatile Arabs:
A. Same as Iraq & Yemen (B).
B. Israel holds fewer spaces at the end of the game than they started with.
C. At least one more Moderate Arab country is converted to Volatile via revolution than the number of Volatile Arab countries converted to Moderate.

Moderate Arabs & Turkey:
A. the Moderate Arabs lose no territory, no original Moderate nations fall to revolutions (or are restored by the end of the game), and Iraq is either conquered or falls to revolution at the end of the game.
B. Same as Volatile (B).
C. Opposite of Volitile (C).

As you can see, it is possible for one game to have the US, Israel, and Iran as diametrically opposed to each others' goals and the next game for all three to be direct allies! The brilliant part about this was that each nation's goal was secret. This leads to bluffs and backstabbing not unlike the Tyrells switching sides or the Red Wedding from the books. The last cool thing about this game was that it had diplomatic pouches that allowed you to send written notes to other nations in private. However, old messages went into a collective pouch that a successful espionage result would allow you to draw one old message out of the pouch. This would let you read the mail of your enemies (or yourself if you had bad luck on the draw). Imagine using the Raven token to draw from this pouch instead of replacing an order token.

All else being equal, I think the combat system in AGoT is perfect the way it is and I wouldn't change it. But you can only expand this so far by adding different decks or new units and that sort of thing. There is a point of diminishing returns by doing this repeatedly. What the game needs is a whole new aspect of the game that doesn't throw everything else on it's ear and THAT is what a robust political mechanic would add to the game. And it wouldn't have to alter the mechanics of anything else to add tremendously to what is already there.

I think you're just playing it in a non-political way.

We have heaps of politics in our games, it all builds up around alliances and truces.

We have mission-like objectives, for example, Baratheon decides take Stark's coast instead of swamping Tyrell or Lannister.

Random objectives arise out of your decisions - Baratheon needs supply, he can fight Lannister and Tyrell for supply or occupy Stark's coast or the areas around the Mountains of the Moon.

There are mini-missions throughout the game - Sea dominance between Baratheon/Stark and Lannister/Greyjoy/Stark/Tyrell...getting strong Power producing areas or enough Supply.

You'll make alliances to support those objectives...but your ally won't let you win and attack you once you've reaped too many benefits...or his less defended areas will be your last handful of cities that win you the game.

That's about as Machiavellian as you can get.

If you play it like chess and don't table-talk you'll miss out on the politics.

Set missions like "Greyjoy must take Riverrun by the fifth turn" would warp the natural negotiations.

There would be less politics because someone could just say "Oh, he's not attacking you really he's just going for his mission" which isn't nearly as vindictive and doesn't warrant reprisals.

Those aren't objectives that is just the actual gameplay. That is no more objective based than to say "My objective is to get a hotel on Boardwalk." The basic objective of every single player in the game is exactly the same, which is "to get the most cities" and it is without exception or variation. How you go about doing that is simply the basic game play, it is not mission or objective based. I am talking about bringing in the political aspect of the books upon which the game is based.

*SPOILER ALERT* (if you haven't read the books)

*SPOILER ALERT*

*SPOILER ALERT*

In the books, Lannister and Baratheon were fighting over King's Landing, and with it the Iron Throne over all of Westeros. The the Starks just wanted to go their separate way and be left alone. Tyrell actually helped Renly at first, and switched sides when he died to help Lannister win because they wanted to be on the side that won. They weren't fighting for control of Westeros as the others were.

Remember how when Ned Stark was the Hand he was trying to get Stannis put on the Iron Throne. When he died, Rob decided he was going to make his own kingdom in the north. A game could have both possible objectives, where others would only be able to deduce which goal they were pursuing.

**END SPOILER**
**END SPOILER**
**END SPOILER**

An objective for the Starks could be to maintain control over Riverrun while not losing any cities to the Greyjoys (that was the goal of Rob Stark). Or it could be to make sure Baratheon wins the Iron Throne back (which was Ned Stark's goal). Or maybe an objective could be that Stark wants Lannister to maintain control of King's Landing (a hypothetical scenario where Ned bent the knee after all...)

This whole mechanic would add a little more scenario-type flavor to a game where players' goals might coincide or contradict each other. You would have to feel out your neighbors to discover whether they might be friends or enemies based on their secret objective. There would be a strong open meta-game coupled with a nefarious under the table, secret meta-game. Each player would have his own motivations for doing things, just like the books, and it wouldn't always be so straight forward.

As I said before, there is nothing wrong with the game as it currently is. But if they REALLY wanted to bring, frankly, the most important part of the books into the game, an actual diplomatic/political mechanism should be included in the game. I just think this would add a strong new flavor to games without actually requiring completely new board mechanics that require major re-balancing such as new units, new cards, etc. (which are really just tweaks anyway, they don't really transform the game)

You can do that anyway, just get a group of players who know the books.

Make some house rules.

Wombats wrote:You can do that anyway, just get a group of players who know the books.

Make some house rules.

Well for Pete's sake, I honestly don't mean any offense but you could also draw your own maps (which was your suggestion). Of course some of the ideas could be "done" at home but these sorts of things are better implemented and fleshed out by professional game makers than something made with cardboard and crayons in the basement. I thought the point of this thread was to post what you wish was officially part of the game.

Have fun trolling by yourself

Wombats wrote:Have fun trolling by yourself

That's hilarious! Says the guy who dismisses other people's posts. I'll be sure to send you a copy of my crayon masterpiece once I complete it in my "troll cave." It will amaze you

I think that the idea of secret objectives would make the game less diplomatically based than it is now. There is currently a very good mechanic for secret missions. Capture 7 city points! What I usually do as I am playing, is find the easiest 7 city points to take. I then make all of my moves further their capture in some way. As the situation on the board changes, I may change objectives. But the important thing is, I always have an objective in mind! This leads to plenty of diplomacy.

I don't like the idea because of the currents on the board. If Stark gets one targeting down into Riverrun and the Twins, and Tyrell gets one targeting northward, then Baratheon has free reign to do what he pleases on a mostly deserted coast! The secret objectives could set up currents that favor or slam other players. It adds a random element to the game that I think would detract from the joy of playing.

Joram wrote: It adds a random element to the game that I think would detract from the joy of playing.

Because when you snap someone in half, you really want them to get cranky about it.

Its not very AGoT to be exonerated of your crimes by serving some wishy washy objective.

Everything should be a power grab, a retribution for a broken alliance or a feint.

Nexus Ops is a good game for secret objectives on a risk-style map, very fun, but not AGoT.

I would just like to see orders that are non-military and some sort of 'unit' that is not military in nature, maybe envoys or administrators.

Other than that, I would really want the story to go on so that the Free Cities and Danys' part of the story get involved in the game. Dance of Dragons!

extrakun wrote:
I would just like to see orders that are non-military

Granted. They are called "Consolidate Power" orders.

i dont like the SOS thing with the arrow movement, but i like the ally cards idea.
i really want a new AGOT style game, with much more space, possibilities, and much more complicated.
AGOT starts to be too crowded and a bit boring after 60-100 games and almost nothing is new or surprsing, especially when you play with the same guys most of the time