I agree with Alan that it was a bit hard to keep up with diplomatic and 
military plans in a game stretched out so long.  It did tend to lead to a 
pretty static Europe.

But ... it is the first and only game of AMF I have finished, so it was 
good to see how one ends.  I love the fact that there is a "game within a 
game" in this one (i.e. the religious war within the political 
one).  However, it is very hard to judge how well the Lutheran and Papal 
players are doing if you've never played one of those powers in a full 
game.  I had thought that the Lutherans were going to "come back to the 
pack" VP wise, but they never did.  Is the game balanced in their favor, or 
was their something that made this one an abberration?  If so, what was it 
exactly (I'm curious)?

I was told that England was a good position in this, and it turned out that 
way.  It certainly is pretty unfair how they can "point grab" against 
France on the last turn since they move afterwards.  If England can take 
Scotland to avoid a "two-front war", it's pretty easy to keep up the 
pressure on France and Spain.

All in all, good fun.  Thanks for the game everyone.

I've played both Crusades and Conquistador before.  Let me know if you need 
more players.

-Ed


At 07:54 PM 5/15/02 +0100, Alan Poulter wrote:

>                 FINAL SCORE
>England       (Set 2) 16
>France         (Set 2) -5
>Hapsburgs   (Set 3) -5
>Lutherans              27
>Ottomans    (Set 3) -5
>Papacy                   9
>
>I hereby declare the Lutherans, Tracy Johnson, the runaway winner.
>A creditable performance from Ed Beach as the English got him
>second while our Pope, Mark Novara came in third. Everyone else
>ties on -5!
>
>Alan Poulter
>grognard@grognard.com
>http://grognard.com/
>http://www.poulter.demon.co.uk/
>

</x-flowed>