Britannia and Family

Rus', recently published by Simulations Workshop, is the latest in the Britannia series of games, which now consists of : Britannia itself (Gibsons Games 1986, later TAHGC) covering Britain from just before the Roman invasion to William the Conqueror. Maharajah (TAHGC, 1994) covering India from the arrival of the Aryans (pre-history) to the Indian Mutiny. Hispania (AWE, 1994) on Spain from the growth of Carthaginian rule (3rd century BC) to the decisive Muslim defeat at Los Navas de Tolosa (1212 AD). Chariot Lords (CoA, 1999) on the ancient Near East. Peninsula Italica (Camelot, 1993) on Italy prior to the Punic Wars.

Of these games, Maharajah seems to be widely regarded as badly flawed, mainly because one of the players (Yellow) after dominating the early going, is left with very little to do in the second half of the game. Peninsula Italica is the poor relation of the series, with uninspired graphics and worse rules. Chariot Lords introduced a number of key changes to the basic system, including a random turn sequence (in the other games, each people -not player -has a fixed position in the turn).

For those not familiar with these titles, the aim of the games is to cover a great deal of history in a relatively short period of gaming time, concentrating on the broad sweep of events, and especially the ebb and flow of peoples and empires. Each player (there are normally four, with variants for three to five participants) will represent a number of different races, peoples, or states, only some of which will be on the map at any one time. Each people will have its own victory conditions, most often tied to occupying particular areas at particular times, but also to attacking specified enemies successfully. Occupying areas is not only important for victory, but also for generating additional units, though many peoples will erupt into the game via an invasion from off-map.

Rus': Components

This is a DTP game, so do not to expect too much. Nevertheless, Rus' is not a bad effort: the counters in particular are well-done, if not quite up to the Osprey-like splendour of those in Hispania. It might have been an idea to make one of the factions a colour other than purple (or magenta) -this is too close to the red player's forces for comfort (perhaps yellow would have been a better bet) -and some of the population chart markers are difficult to read. But these are minor quibbles: the icons representing the various peoples in the game are well done. The counters themselves are mounted, on thin but serviceable card, though not die-cut. Since my own weak point is glueing, rather than cutting, this is fine with me.

The supporting charts, including the VP schedules for each race or state are clearly done on beige card, and are certainly better than the paper versions in Hispania, or those which came with Chariot Lords.

Like most of the Britannia games, the map is a simple one, with some 39 areas (compared to 36 for Britannia, 40 in Hispania, and 53 in Chariot Lords), and like most of the games (except CL), terrain is of two types: Steppe (or clear) and Forest. The latter is mostly concentrated in the north and along the Baltic littoral, leaving the southern two-thirds of the map as open steppe, across which numerous invaders will sweep in the course of the game. The area covered is European Russia (to Astrakhan and the Urals), together with southern Finland, and the eastern parts of Bulgaria, Romania, and Poland -roughly the same area as is covered by The Russian Campaign, for example.

The black-and-white (or, more precisely, black-and-yellow) map, 22” x 11”, is perfectly adequate, though plain. However, to describe it, as the Simulations Workshop ad does, as “Parchment paper” is misleading - this implies a high quality paper, but what you get is something that is very run-of-the-mill, the only resemblance to parchment being the yellow colour. Despite this, the overall effect of the marriage of a plain map with colourful counters is not at all bad.

Sequence of Play

The order in which each of the 32 Peoples in the game has their turn is fixed, i.e. the Teutonic Knights will always move after the Polotsvy, as was the case in the other games in the series. This rigid order in most of the games in the series has been criticized, mainly for stereotyping play, but my own feeling is that the weaknesses of the Britannia games, such as they are, lie elsewhere (se below), and that in fact the fixed order does have plus points. For example, it gives the designer the freedom to use the playing order to build in special effects, such as the ability of the Vikings in Rus' to decide where they wish to move in the order, or for a complicated sequence of arrivals and departures which nevertheless gives all involved a chance for glory (and VPs). As an example of the latter in Rus', Turn 3 sees the Goths (moving early) reach their zenith under Hermanric, before being swept away by the Huns. These are but a passing presence, however, and soon leave to invade other parts of Europe, leaving the steppe vacant for the subsequent arrival of the Bulgars, Utigurs, and Magyars (who, if they arrived earlier, would probably be swept away by the Hunnic horde) -and all in one turn.

Individually, the mechanics of Rus' are very close to the other games in the series: each people's turn starts with the counting of population, and the production of new units. Generally, each clear area generates one population point, each forest area 1/2 , with certain key areas (Kiev, Muscovy, Novgorod) worth two. Three points buys a new foot unit, five a cavalry. After placing new units, the people concerned get to move their forces, three areas for infantry, four for cavalry. Any clashes with rivals are then resolved using 'to hit' mechanics, and combat is relatively bloody, as leaving elite units of various kinds (Mongols, Muscovite streltsy, Teutonic Knights, etc.) out of the picture, cavalry hit on a 4 through 6, infantry on a 5 or 6. After the dust has settled, most peoples must check for 'support', ie. remove all units in excess of twice the number of areas they control. New invaders are frequently exempt from the support rules on the turns that they enter, under the 'Horde' rule.

Rules: Comparisons With Other Games in the Series

We found one of the more troublesome problems we had with Rus' the small but significant differences between this game, and the others in the series with which we are familiar. For example, unlike Britannia, Maharajah, & Hispania, defending forces in woods (aka hiland) are not more difficult to kill than their attackers -both sides have an equal chance of eliminating the enemy, though it is less than on the steppe. This still leaves it more difficult to eradicate a people defending in the northern forests (the Finns in particular being remarkably tenacious in our games), since an outnumbered defender is far more likely to survive the initial combat round, and retreat unscathed, to fight again another day. On the other hand, superior numbers are much more telling than in the previous games.

Another instance is that cavalry is not as elite as it is in the other games. It does hit harder (see above), but is no longer more difficult to kill. Only elite units now qualify on both counts. The result is that cavalry rule the steppes, but are not invulnerable, as the Kievans, Bulgars and Muscovites can demonstrate. There are other minor differences as well (e.g. in the submission rules), which can trip up the experienced Britannia or Hispania player. Not that this should be taken to imply that these changes in Rus' are wrong -in some cases, they are more than justified. Given the sheer number of cavalry units in the game compared to its predecessors, and the historical ebb and flow of dominion over the steppes, the changes to cavalry's effectiveness are justified, both from a historical and a gameplay perspective. Nevertheless, they can still wrongfoot the unwary.

There are a limited number of very specific changes to the basic rules for specific peoples, but these are more easily absorbed. So, the Vikings raid (and go undertake epic journeys), but never settle; the Teutonic Knights get a free fort each time they occupy a Baltic province; the Kievans, Kazars, Bulgars and Muscovites are all able to build cities, etc.

Game Play

Rus' has 16 turns, the same as Britannia and Maharajah (while Hispania has 21), but the larger number of nations involved -32 as opposed to 17 -probably makes for a longer game than the earlier titles in the series. Not twice as long, however, as the actual number of peoples in play during any one turn, as opposed to the total number in the game, is not much higher in Rus', and it is the former which is the greater determinant of turn length.

In the first two turns, various proto-Slavs and other early peoples (Balts, Finns) dicker over the northern forests, while in the Steppes, the Scythians (Purple) are crushed by the Sarmatians (Red), and the Goths (Purple) gradually expand eastward.

This changes on Turn 3 (301-475) with the equivalent (in Rus' terms) of the barbarian invasions that overthrew Rome. First, Attila and the Huns (Blue) sweep westward, destroying all in their path. The Bulgars (Red) and Utigurs (Green) get their start in the wake of the devastation. In Turn 4 (476-650) the Avars (Green) continue the westward migration of the nomads, but some stability comes to the steps with the arrival of the Khazars (Purple), and the growth, under some able leaders, of the Bulgars. These two nations will dominate the steppes until Turn 7.

Kiev (Red) begins its rise in Turn 7 (826-900), and, helped by plentiful reinforcements and leaders, will dominate the western half of the board until its collapse at the end of Turn 10, though pressure from the Poles (Blue) will begin to mount. The Khazars will find it difficult to resist the horde of Pechenegs who invade in Turn 7, and the latter will remain a strong presence on the steppes until the arrival of the Polovtsy (Green) in Turn 11.

Though harassed by the Vikings (Green) and the Scandinavians (Red), the north remains relatively stable, at least compared to the cataclysms to the south, until Turn 10 (1055-1130), when Novgorod (Blue) makes its appearance. The Republic will reach its peak under Alexander Nevsky in Turn 12 (1206-1280), before being eclipsed by the rising power of Muscovy (Green).

Compared to the Khazars and the Pechenegs, the reign of the Polotsvy as lords of the steppes is brief, as the most powerful single people in the game, the Mongols (Purple) arrive in devastating fashion in Turn 12, and completely rule the roost until they dissolve into three competing Khanates at the end of Turn 13 -those whom they do not obliterate will submit (except for the Teutonic Knights).

The last three turns of the game are dominated by Muscovy (Green), which, on an even greater scale than Kiev, expands courtesy of reinforcements, leaders, and campaign (double) moves. Green should do well in the final turns, as the Ottomans to the south are another Green people, though the Polish-Lithuanians (assuming the Blue and Purple players agreed to the Union of Krewo), and the Timurids (Purple) -the last gasp of the steppe invaders -will give them a run for their money.

Historicity

Given the broad brush approach of the system, Rus' seems to follow the general pattern of Russian history (or, to be more precise, the pattern of history in the area covered by the game map) pretty well -at least, as far as I can tell, based on some general secondary sources, and a number of historical atlases. The designers notes make it clear that Randy Moorehead has gone for what he describes as the 'Russian School' (as opposed to the 'British School') when it comes to early medieval Russian history, so the Norsemen play a smaller part in the game than some English-language histories might imply -but this seems fair enough: adhering to one of the two main schools of historical thought.

There are some nits to pick. For example, the division between Vikings (who merely raid and trade) and Scandinavians (here to stay) seems artificial -the game notes themselves admit that both were Swedes, for the most part. Another instance: given the importance of Novgorod as a city-state, it seems a pity that Novgorod does not get to build a city in the game.

But these are minor matters. Overall, Rus' seems to portray the 18 centuries it covers in just 16 turns with reasonable fidelity.

Rus' & Britannia: The System

That said, the system used in Rus' and the other games in the series, seems to give rise to some strong opinions, both for and against. This latest entry suffers from the same drawbacks as its earlier relations: whether these weigh heavily are, as usual, matters of individual choice.

One criticism often leveled at these games is that they are far too scripted: for example, if this is Turn 11, it must be time for Suzdal to try to sack Kiev. The Kievans have to centre their civilization on Kiev -they cannot choose to go elsewhere, no matter what the position on the map may dictate at the time the choice has to be made. In my purely personal opinion, this objection lacks weight (though it obviously matters to many gamers). After all, wargaming is replete with similar examples: all those Gettysburg games where possession of the Little Round Top is crucial to victory before Heth has run into Buford, or a shot been fired. Rus', like the other games in the series, awards VPs for roughly historical performance, but this, while encouraging a broad adherence to the historical flow of events, does not mandate them. In many cases, an individual people will not be strong enough to grab (or hang on to) all of the territory for which they can earn VPs, which will then force choices to be made, and there are occasions when peoples will follow other dictates than those of their VP schedule -to attack the people of a player perceived to be in the lead, for example.

Another problem often raised is that the games, Rus' included, are biased in favour of those who have an intimate knowledge of the game, and its VP schedules. Or, looked at another way, the uninformed actions of a novice player can make or break his own or another player's chances, with the newbie in complete ignorance of the long-term effects of their actions. A case in point comes in the first two turns of Britannia, where the Romans, if they decide to crush the Welsh, rather than heading north, will deal a major blow to the prospects of the Green Player (in the TAHGC version). Foreknowledge of these facts can obviously affect decisions which will change the course of the game.

Indeed, one of the strengths of the system -the relatively simple decision-making normally required for each people in their turn -here becomes a weakness, as there is seldom time or resources for an individual people to make more than one major choice -does Novgorod fight the Teutonic Knights or the Scandinavians this turn -but while these decisions might be neutral in VP terms, they may (unknown to the new player) have a major impact on the course of the game.

Rus' is not immune from this problem: in our first game, we underestimated the potential of the Green faction in the final few turns of the game, and especially the last. With the Muscovites under Ivan the Terrible raking in the VPs, and the Ottomans and the Crimean Khanate in the south adding their mite, our Green Player went from fourth (ie. last) place on Turn 14 to win the game by the end of Turn 16, scoring 78 VPs (an enormous number in game terms) in those two turns, while the next biggest score over the same period was 10. Ideally, all the players have made a rigorous study of everyone's VP schedules, but with 32 peoples involved (a record for the series: Hispania is the next largest, at 29), this will often not be possible - or if it is, seems to undercut one of the chief attractions of what is otherwise a relatively simple, fast-moving system, by introducing a need for chess-like precision.

One solution, pursued by Charles Vasey in Chariot Lords, was to throw a spanner into the works by making the turn order random. This did not completely avoid the issue -players could now be utterly screwed by the turn order -though it did mean that the losers always had a good excuse for their defeat. Hispania used a different method, offering average or expected VP totals for each people in the game. After a number of playings, we came to the conclusion that either we were missing something, or the playtesters of the game pursued very different strategies to ourselves, since our VP totals for each people were often significantly at variance with the game's suggestions. On the other hand, it did offer a useful guideline until we had played often enough to have our own ideas, and therefore I was sorry not to see the idea perpetuated in Rus'.

Then there is the issue of grossly ahistorical alliances across the centuries, along the lines of, “I will not beat up your Brigantes now with my Romans -instead I will target the Picts -but in return I the Brigantes must evacuate Strathclyde for my Scots in four turns time.” The problem being, of course, that this is slightly longer-term planning than most human societies have managed, as four turns is three hundred years, and the Romans and the Scots have nothing in common, except that they both happen to be controlled by the same player. Another, related criticism, is the long-term planning aspect, again grossly unhistorical, in which, as the above example from Britannia indicates, the Romans are planning for the subsequent arrival of the Scots, -the only reason for the Romans' actions being the gameplay, not the historical course of events.

These are weighty problems, and difficult to overcome entirely. They can, however be mitigated. One way is to build more conflict into the game structure by, for example, giving more peoples VPs for eliminating units, or by making it very difficult for one people to make any progress at all without trampling on another in their path. With enough peoples and enough such conflicts, lasting alliances become more difficult, and agreements between the players become more immediate and short-term, which seems less gamey. Our view was that Rus' did indeed have more of these built-in conflicts, and so to some extent addressed the issues. Perhaps Britannia, with fewer peoples, and because of the special position of the Romans at the start of the game, suffers more from these problems than its successors.

Conclusion

Despite these problems, Rus', like the better games in the series such as Britannia, and Hispania, remains a possibility for those looking to inveigle the unwary Axis and Allies or Stratego player into something a little more meaty. The game is colourful and plenty happens each turn, with the rules fairly simple but the history not at all bad. The decision-making is, like the better Eurogames, not too taxing, and no player is knocked out for good, or left with too little to do (though we did feel there was a slight hiatus for the Purple player between the Khazars being overwhelmed by the Pechenegs on Turn 7, and the arrival of the Mongols on Turn 12). In both our games, victory was decided on the inal turn.

If you liked Britannia, Hispania, or Chariot Lords, I would not hesitate -an excellent addition to the series. Those more lukewarm in their enthusiasm might care to wait for MMP to produce a professional (as opposed to DTP) version, which is, I believe in the works. For those who loathed the earlier games in the series, Rus' will not convert you - but then, not everyone can be expected to see the light.

This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com