The other day, while sitting in my doctor's office, I was thumbing through the latest issue of "Smithsonian". (His "Command" subscription had obviously lapsed.) Flipping pages while ruminating over how many zeros his bill would contain, I stumbled across an ad for "The Armor of the World's Great Warriors", the Franklin Mint's history "Buff" version of selling plates with pictures of Elvis on them. This one appeals to the cultural pretensions of what Mencken called the booboisie, and a mighty yuk it is. There's a nice picture of some ersatz gladiator armor with the caption, "Era of Spartacus Rome, 110 A.D.". Only 200 years off, Franklin. Down further, the copy informs us that the Spartacus revolt was against " Imperial Rome." Don't these guys ever go to a movie?? Did you know that the era of the Tudor kings in England was 1415 A.D.? That will be news to Henry V and the rest of the Red Rose/White Rose crowd. (The first Tudor showed up at Bosworth, in 1485.) There's more, but you get the idea. Aside from the fact that virtually all of this information is instantly accessible - but wasn't - is that, while the Franklin Mint is pitching this tin drek at those who think that having a 6" armor statuette on their mantle - next to the flocked flamingo on black velvet, I presume - elevates them to some form of higher learning, it likewise assumes that those who get suckered in don't have an inkling of what this stuff is really all about. Unfortunately, the above pretty much sums up the latest Markham/3W tome in the system begun with Royalist & Roundheads, The Age of Chivalry. It being a 3W game, I guess adding a "I" would probably occur to even the densest of soothsayers. Chiv contains four battles, only one of which, to my recollection, actually took place in what would be loosely labelled the Age of Chivalry: Marchfield. The other three - Hastings, Lincoln and Bouvines - occur in periods somewhat before the titled times. The eleventh and twelfth centuries were about as chivalrous as a rabid Mongol. Doesn't make the battles any less - or more - interesting; it just makes one wonder how much of a hand the Franklin Mint had in all of this. Graphically the game is a step backward. I did love the box cover (from the Osprey Dungeon of lost pseudo-art, yet again), with the central figure (William? Odo? Michael Keaton?) apparently crying "Oi vey!" while his retainer, to the right, is doing his best "Heeeeere's Odo!" routine. Beth Queman's counters seem puny, for lack of a better word, and their overuse of iconography does little to help the player. I'm all for using colorful icons, but not as a substitute for identification. We had some difficulty telling infantry from men-at-arms, light cavalry from heavy, etc., a situation not made any easier by using multiple icons for the same unit type. Definitely not user friendly. I think a different typeface would also have helped. And then, once again, we are faced with more visual evidence of the precipitous decline in Ted Koller's cartographic career: the maps are depressing, especially if one remembers the remarkably high standards Ted set with Victory and S&T (pre-Decision) in the '80's. Some of the Chiv map symbology is misguided, some bordering on horrendous. The towns for Bouvines and Marchfield are a joke (the look like Ted snipped sections of a AAA triptik), and the ridge symbols for Hastings are so hairy I kept reaching for a tube of Nair. Omissions and transgressions also abound. Set-up letters are left off in such numbers that one just knows no one ever looked at the map. I could play Lincoln only because I was familiar with the historical deployments. For Hastings, the Saxon set-up lines are identified as roads, mostly because they use the same symbology, and the track across Senlac Hill looks like a Kursk set-up line. I've already published a game on Hastings (Hastings, 1066, in S&T #110) way back when TSR was in charge. Parenthetically, I always felt TSR did a very nice job, indeed, with this game. The point is, though, that I am aware of the many interpretations this battle has almost as many interpretations as there are historians. Regardless, whatever this Hastings is, it's unlike any I've ever read about. Since both maps are almost identically scaled, I know that Chiv's Hastings is about 45-50 yards per hex. This limits archers to a range of under a hundred yards, somewhat short (about one hex) of their maximum effective range. Which brings up another point: because of the rather steep incline from the Norman position to that of the Saxon Shield Wall, William's bowmen had virtually no effect on the Saxon line until late in the afternoon, when they began using high angle fire. (These were not the longbowmen of English lore, remember, but rather archers who pulled back only to the face, not the shoulder.) Here, William's bowmen have far too great an effect. As a matter of fact, they caused twice as many "casualties" (including Morale checks) as melee!! (Mathematically, an archer in Chiv has roughly a 30% chance of causing a Step Loss or Rout at a range of two hexes. This means that, in two or three turns, there are going to be huge holes in a Saxon line that, except for their unfortunate predilection for charging down the hill, stood its place against virtually all comers until late in the day.) Which brings up an additional point: the Saxon line is far too thin, which means penetration is a very real risk right at the beginning. Harold's dispositions were, more or less, a long, front line of housecarles - arguably the best foot troops in Europe - with a host of good to not-so-good to useless fyrd (levies) in an unruly mob behind them. The Saxon line was anywhere from 6-10 ranks deep, according to most sources, enabling Harold and his brothers to switch detachments to the flanks to handle the Norman knights struggling up the hill. Had Harold been able to maintain his front line, he probably would have won. However, every once and a while large sections of his line (particularly his right) took off after retreating Normans (actually Bretons). This lack of discipline is what eventually did him in; in Chiv, where a rather nice "Berserk" rule tends to simulate this, it's the only way he can win! With most of William's horse circling around to the flanks - the flanks of Markham's Senlac Hill have little of the difficult terrain that apparently kept the mounted knights at bay - and William's archers routing 1-2 units a turn, by about the 6th or 7th turn (1/3 way through the battle) Harold's only chance is to counterattack, an attack that only works if his men-at-arms go Berserk. It's actually rather rough, quick fun. What it isn't, is Hastings. I've used Hastings because it's a battle with which I'm well acquainted, which "knowledge" I use to point out what I've been saying since this series started: it's fun, but it ain't military history. Marchfield is another scenario to point. This battle, which effectively established the Hapsburgs as Holy Romans, is a massive cavalry/mounted knight battle no foot! But in this version, even though Markham has gone some way towards displaying an insight into the interplay among the various, different tactical systems, other than a single rule for charging heavy cavalry, there is little of the multi-layered interplay between mounted units. The most glaring hole is the inability of defending cavalry to counter-charge. Granted, counter-charge rules are not easy to design or write, and, even at their most basic, they are not the stuff of simple-level games. But this system is not as "simple" as it purports to be, and it already has an overwrought - and rather historically out of place - command system that is no less complex than a good, basic counter-charge rule would be. As far as Marchfield is concerned, without a counter-charge rule - a rule that would do much to reflect and simulate the knightly mentality - all we have is a lot of fast-moving infantry. Again, it's fun to play - and that's no small point to consider; Rob's designs always rate highly in this area - but, as the title says, ce n'est pas la guerre! From a general view, there have been some changes to the original R&R mechanics, although the Command system remains in all its anachronistic glory. Melee has been simplified and changed to an odds-ratio CRT, which is fine. But almost 80% of all results affect only one participant. As mentioned above, there is a nice Modifier Chart ("Chart", Rob not "Table"; there IS a difference - tables list mathematical probabilities, charts list information) comparing different tactical systems, the use of skirmishers is far more realistic than before, and, on the whole, the rules are tighter and clearer. That's not to say Le Mortmain de Cambria doesn't lay its heavy hand on the proceedings, mostly with its failure to proofread the maps. And the individual battles still suffer from starting off with almost no room for maneuver (Hastings excluded), and Rob still exhibits a poor eye for map usage. Almost 1/3 of both Lincoln and Marchfield lie useless, across an uncrossable river. (Interestingly, evidence shows that Ralph's Rebels did cross the river, the Fossdike, at just the spot shown on the map curious.) As there is no mention of scale - my knowledge of Hastings and the map I have for Lincoln does tend to place it at around 50 yards a hex - it is difficult to tell whether that was simply unavoidable or just plain lazy. Marchfield, especially, would benefit from a little breathing space between the lines. Obviously, I would do these battles differently. Even more obviously that perception does not detract from the enjoyment level a game like Age of Chivalry can provide if you close your eyes to the fact that much of the detail layered on is neither relevant nor applicable. It's getting there, though and a half dozen or so installments down the line this may prove to be just the type of system and game to which False Pretenders, such as my favorite punching bag, Four Battles of the Ancient World, aspire. If you don't take your wargaming too seriously, and if you rarely find yourself with a cartoonish balloon over your head that says, " I wonder why ?" then you can get a good deal of satisfaction out of the Age of Chivalry. And, if Rob keeps hacking - and I use that term in both its literal and metaphysical sense - away at it, he may just be able to provide you with a little insight. CAPSULE COMMENTS Graphic Presentation: Sturdy but disappointing not to mention often misleading, confusing and sometimes weird. Playability: Quite good. The system, which can be learned in about 10 minutes, has been cleaned up. With most games clocking in at a couple of hours, max, this is the series' strongest selling point. Replayability: Fair-to-good, limited, in my view, by the lack of historical insight provided. Historicity: Lots of anachronistic chrome present, mostly, for playability value. The series' trademark - its command system - is, while alternately annoying and fun, totally inapplicable to the period. Getting better, though. I do disagree with Markham's approach to Hastings, but you have to take a number and stand in line on that battle. Creativity: The series is starting to come up with some nice solutions to interesting problems. Comparisons: Better than the previous entries, and certainly more interesting than such as the PRESTAGS games, or Men-at-Arms. There are a couple of games on Hastings (including one by Gary Gygax!); take a look at mine for a bit more insight into what happened and why. Be warned, though: it's more of a simulation and less of a game. Not in the same league as (again, my) Great Battles of History Series nor is it intended to be. Overall: If you've had any curiosity about this bunch of games, this looks like the one to take a look at. If you're already involved, you'll welcome this. If you're looking for answers to the tactical questions of the era, read a book. from 3W Games One 34" x 22" mapsheet, backprinted; 400 counters; 1 Rules book; 1 Chart & Table Sheet; die; boxed. From 3W Games, POB 155, Cambria CA 93428; $30 Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 8 Table of Contents Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1992 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