As most of you know by this time, Jon Compton has stepped down as headf of R&D at 3W. The parting was purportedly friendly, and the reasons given for leaving were myriad. But among them must have been Ironsides, a game that gives the word "debacle" a bad name. It appears that Jon insisted on adding "Quality" to the KP-oriented "Quantity" theory of publishing. It's tough, though, to work in a company where "More is Better" and "Time is of the Essence" are the prevalent corporate policies. When you have to take the hits for a Major Quacker like this one it's time to pack up and move on. Jon, no dummy he, was not about to go down with this ship. In his Designer's Notes for Ironsides, Rabbit Rob thanks "…Keith Poulter for his patience during this design." Well, one hopes -- but fears to the contrary -- that consumers will have at least as much patience as Rob attributes to 3W's eminence gris. They'll need it. It's a major clue that much sloppiness is about to be at hand when the front of the box cover fails to tell you what the subject of the game is. Here, underneath the title, Ironsides, we have the legend: "The Irish Rebellion, the Edgehill Campaign, and Montrose's Campaign in Scotland." Nowhere does it say this is a game covering the English Civil War, 1642-1646 (in addition to the aforementioned, three scenarios). Granted, with a huge picture of His Unroyal Grumpiness, Oliver Cromwell, adorning the box, we know we're not about to roll dice to see if Raymond Burr will get out of the wheelchair. And no, it neither adds nor detracts from the game itself … but it is symptomatic of the sort of lesé majesté sloppiness that pervades in far too many 3W/Markham games. Ironsides, it turns out, is almost quintessential 3W/Markham: an interesting situation, some good ideas, and one or two neato rules … all sufficiently marred by an overload of die-laden procedures, inelegant solutions and 3W's ingrown toenail policy of "get-it-out-the-door-itis". Markham states it took 18 months to get the game to where it is, which does not say a great deal for Rob's ability to use his time well. It will take far less time for most players to dismiss this clunker out of hand. The game is attractive: nice-looking maps, colorful counters. Then again, the terrain on the map doesn't quite match that on the Terrain Chart, and finding the borders between the Regions is almost a game within itself. And why, pray tell, do we need two maps for this beast? (I asked the same question about Alma.) I'm not really complaining, as it does add a sort of aireyness to the whole, musty affair - and I have plenty of table space - but the two-map theory appears to be be of the Bigger Is Better School of Design, for its own sake. Added to this is the fact that about 1/3 of this double map is taken up by Ireland, an area covered by rules so obscure that you would have a clearer sense of where you're going driving through a sandstorm. Actually, that describes much of how it feels to try to navigate through the rules to determine what you're supposed to be doing at any one time. Ironsides is about as procedure-oriented a game as one can recall; you half expect you have to roll the die and consult a chart to open the box. This is not a phenomenon attributable only to Rob; it was a problem, for example, in the recent Alexander at Tyre. Here, however, not only is practically everything you do the result of Chart 'n Dice, but it's never quite clear how you're supposed to apply what you're doing. Those of you who have access to the GEnie computer network will be most aware of the sheer confusion Ironside's rules have produced. One prospective player came up with about a dozen a day - all unanswerable, by the way - so that after a week of it, Jon C simply threw up his hands and then threw in the towel. Intrigued by all this impenetrability, I could not resist giving it a shot … a phrase I do not use carelessly, as shooting this turkey would be best for everyone's health. System-wise, Ironsides is simply Markham's game on the American Revolution, Give Me Liberty, redux. Except that in transporting it 150 years back, Rob transferred what was a rather nice little system into a grab-bag of procedures and flow-chart style rules that read like literary mucilage. They play even worse. It's hard to explain just how bad this game is, except to say that you set it up, look at it, and then you have no idea of what you're supposed to do … or how you go about doing it. Almost every rule has a question, and the ones that don't are so tiring and strained that getting through a turn produces nothing so much as a giant, mental hernia. Figuring out which leaders were commanding what with whom attached produced constant referral to §5.1; what you do with your naval units is a challenge, not made clear by exactly what harbors/ports ships could enter freely; units stacks are unconscionable; the combat system is the dreaded "rounds", about which I have railed far too long; just what do the Scots do when they are activated?; and, The Big Question, what do the players do in and with Ireland? Can they move troops, can they add them, can they ignore it? And, of course, you roll a die to do everything, not helped by the fact that the charts on the map sometimes are in some sort of disagreement with the rules. As ole Keith, Quoter Extraordinaire, enthuses on the back of the box, Ironsides has much historical detail. Actually, it has more chrome than a '57 Chevy. It is detail heavy, details that never, truly enhances play, detail that becomes an albatross around the system's neck that the game never seems to be able to get rid of. We made a manly effort to get through a few turns, turns in which we found the "situation" quite interesting, a maneuver and feint problem which should provide a lot of food for thought. However, never did we go more than 2 or 3 minutes without running into a rules question, if not an outright roadblock. After several hours - and far too few turns - of frustration, one of the BROG Crack Playtesters put down his trusty (and probably shaved) die, stood up, and, walking out for a quick burst of nicotine, muttered, "This Sucks." We all agreed… and most heartily. As a postscript, it appears that 3W has changed its name … or is about to … to KP Games. The letters "KP", for me, always bring back bad memories of the old, army days slogging about in the muck and mire of Kitchen Police. This game bears an unfortunate resemblance to those days, and, methinks, more than a name change will be needed for 3W/KP to resurrect what appear to be its failing fortunes. Maybe a lobotomy. CAPSULE COMMENTS Graphic Presentation: Nice, but somewhat confusing. The map looks pleasant but is difficult to use during play. Playability: As accessible as Babylonic cuneiform. Replayability: As likely to happen as anyone getting a free copy of anything from Doc Decision. Wristage: Too much detail dierolling Creativity: It's there, buried by lack of development. Historicity: It's there, too much there, and far too unexplained. Comparisons: There were a few meager attempts on this subject, years ago, none of which were any fun (or any good). Compared to other, similar system games, it's a Retrograde Give Me Liberty. Overall: As much fun as Cromwell, himself … and denser than Charles. from 3W 2 22" 33" maps, 500 counters, 3 Chart Sheets, 1 Rules Book. Boxed; 3W, Back in Cambria, CA. c. $35 Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 14 Table of Contents Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1993 by Richard Berg This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com