(Editor's Note: As our Dark Ages campaign has drawn to a close, I am reviewing the successes and failures of each of the kingdoms. This is the final installment, and I will close the article with some conclusions about Bretwalda, and campaigns in general, that I drew from running it for almost six years.)

Kent/Sussex

One thing can be said of Kent/Sussex's story in the campaign -- it was definitely not boring. Historically, the kingdoms of Kent and Sussex were small players in the politics of 9th Century Britain. Not so in Bretwalda, though. Kent began the campaign in control of three provinces producing 12 income points, while its army totaled only eight detachments. It seized one province from Mercia (Chiltern), but lost two of its original three to the Vikings (North Kent, Sussex). Its finished the campaign controlling two provinces worth 8 income points. Its troops numbered 10 detachments.

King Baldred, played by DBA enthusiast Terry Hollern, had an impact on the campaign far greater than the size of his kingdom. Terry was the architect of the Saxon Alliance -- West Saxons (Wessex), East Saxons (Essex), and South Saxons (Sussex). He plotted the timing and direction of its three-pronged assault on Mercia, which saw the elimination of that kingdom. Baldred also suffered the most from the Viking raids, though, attacked by both the Danes and Norse. The king fought again and again for his provinces, rarely losing a battle. With only one major field army, its survival was at stake every time Terry faced the Vikings on the tabletop. He repeatedly came away a winner, losing provinces only because of the enemy's superior number of armies. He also invoked the Saxon Alliance to wield Wessex's greater might against his attackers.

In numbers of troops and provincial income, Kent/Sussex appears to belong with the "losers" of the campaign. However, considering the forces arrayed against it, to end the campaign with the same number of provinces and more troops is a clear victory for King Baldred. The dramatic story of Kent/Sussex is one of the reasons that I feel campaigns are gaming at its best.

The Vikings

One of the historical "nudges" I did in Bretwalda, was to push forward slightly the time of the Viking invasions (as opposed to merely raids -- I wanted the Vikings to be looking for land to settle upon). Historically, the Vikings dominated Britain for a time. With the forces I gave them, though, the Viking players were not dominant, but quite successful in making inroads upon the island. The Viking players began with no territory, having a random reinforcement table to fall back upon if they failed to seize provinces.

There were two Viking "kingdoms" over the course of the campaign, the Norse and the Danes. The Norse began with 10 detachments and were played by my longtime gaming friend, Allen Sams. The Danes arrived seven turns into the campaign when the kingdom of Dal Riata was conquered, and its player, Arizona native Craig Jacobsen, was given a new kingdom. I increased the initial size of the Danes to 12 detachments.

Allen's Norse were true raiders at heart. Allen specialized in hit and run raids across the breadth of Britain. At one time or another, the Norse warred with Strathclyde, the Picts, Northumbria, Essex, Kent/Sussex, and Wessex. By campaign's end, the Norse controlled Orcades (taken from the Picts) and Sussex (from Kent/Sussex). He ruled other provinces, from time to time, including Deira, with its great capital of York.

The Danes, on the other hand, were fairly straight-forward settlers. They invaded the southeast of England, taking Essex's capital and North Kent. They fought many battles for control of these areas, winning some, losing others. More than halfway through the campaign, Craig dropped out, due to other commitments. I decided to merge the two Viking kingdoms, giving Allen control of both. Although this allowed the armies of the two rival Viking nations to cooperate, I ruled they could not combine, and must be treated as separate kingdoms. At the end of the campaign, the Danes had lost Essex, but still controlled North Kent.

I purposely did not give Allen or Craig enough troops to repeat the Viking takeover of Britain. I wanted them to be a threat, but not so great that it would take multi-kingdom cooperation to stave off their conquest. As such, the Vikings played the role I foresaw for them. Allen's across the map strikes made all players nervous of them, while Craig's determined invasion put fear of being their next victim into their hearts. I would rate the Viking performance as good, but not overwhelmingly so. Their inability to defeat Kent/Sussex probably kept them from being one of the obvious winners of the campaign.

Mercia

The players showed no mercy on the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Mercia. Centrally located, it was at war with five of its neighbors over the course of its existence. Historically, Mercia had its "moment in the sun" -- being the dominant kingdom for a time in Britain. In Bretwalda, it never was never able to savor that moment. Slowly, but surely, the kingdom's provinces were gobbled up by various members of the Saxon Alliance.

King Coenwulf Mercia was played long-distance by Scott Stahle (while he was attending med school -- so you can understand his distractions!). The kingdom began with five provinces worth 20 income points and an army composed of 17 detachments. It was eliminated campaign when I merged the last remaining province and its three detachments with Essex.

It is never easy to be the "middle kingdom" in any wargame. Scott's problems were compounded by his inability to take a pragmatic approach to his wars. His first border war began when he invaded Wales. It sputtered on for awhile, each side having its successes. However, when the Saxon Alliance invaded with its overwhelming numbers of troops, Merica would have been best served by making peace with Wales, and concentrating on the deadlier foe. However, Scott refused to withdraw, while steadily losing all three of his southern tier of provinces. It was only when down to Elmet and Lindsey (too late, really), that he patched things up with King Owein and concentrated his depleted forces. At that point, though, it was only a matter of time before he succumbed.

Perhaps Mercia could have held on by battlefield victories much as Strathclyde did against the Picts. But being a long-distance player, he did not have the opportunity to fight those battles. His surrogate generals (myself included) were unable to stem the tide -- especially as he made the decision to fight when outnumbered several times rather than retreat.

With Mercia being eliminated from the campaign, the only way to rate the kingdom's performance is poor. Not all could be laid at the feet of its king, though. Even the best of players would have had a hard time dealing with the Saxon Alliance all along its southern border. However, many decisions made turned out to be for the worse, and Mercia was unable to escape its fate.

Conclusions

There were only a limited number of rules that I changed over the course of Bretwalda's nearly six years. All "tweaks" and adjustments were to bring my rules even more in line with the "Keep It Simple" philosophy. In my opinion, campaigns that die an early death do so chiefly because they do not abide by that rule. GMs try to do too much, or expect too much from their players. Our gaming group has attempted numerous campaigns over the years, and it seems the simplest ones are the ones that last.

My biggest rules change was to simplify Bretwalda's scouting system. Originally, I had a chart that took all kinds of factors in to account to ascertain whether the scout's report was correct or off by several size levels. As it turned out, resolving the scouting became too much of a chore, and I was starting to dread processing the turns. At that point, knowing myself, I knew burnout could not be far away. So, I made all scout reports accurate. This reduced the processing time to a fraction, and I was a happier GM.

Bretwalda utilized a concept called "size levels" rather than forcing players to keep track of every element lost. They ranged in size from Detachment (no battlefield capability, but could garrison fortifications), increasing at six DBA elements steps from Cohort (6 elements) all the way up to Great Host (36 elements). In hindsight, I feel that the steps should have been at 3 element increments. In Big Battle DBA, six elements is a major difference. I do not believe an outnumbered force ever won a battle in Bretwalda. So, in future campaigns, I will set the size differences at 3 elements steps.

The campaign map for Bretwalda was a "point-to-point" style of map. Each dot was a settlement -- whether a village, town or fortification. Armies moved along routes that connected the points. This allowed me to create "choke points" and strategic towns, as well as simulate the effects of terrain like rivers and mountains. In hindsight, I'd seriously consider abandoning this style of map for future campaigns. The amount of time I invested in the creating the initial map was huge. Point-to-point DID give more strategic richness as opposed to an area map, but I'm not sure it was worth the trouble in the long run. The "fun" of a campaign is in fighting the battles that MEAN something, the "who is invading who" aspect of them, and just the sheer enjoyment of watching the rise and fall of various kingdoms. All of these can be recreated equally with an area-style map.

One thing that proved popular with the players, and I will continue to do in subsequent campaigns, is a several paragraph narrative at t he beginning of the players' reports,describing the course of events for that turn. It read like a chronicler proclaiming the mighty doings of kings and the movement of armies upon the land. This bit of color seemed to help get the players's "in the mood." (Or at least I hope it did!).

Finally, I cannot recommend strongly enough using De Bellis Antiquitatis (DBA) rules in your campaigns! It is simply an excellent set, able to handle small, 12-elements per side battles, or much larger ones produced by the clash of major forces over the course of your campaign. The pre-set army lists eliminate the worry about players being able to tailor their armies too much from encounter to encounter. The games proceed quickly, with just enough elements of luck that the more experienced player does not always win. The rules are simple enough for novices to pick them up and start beating the "veterans" before they know it.

So, for those of you considering running an Ancient or Medieval campaign, I urge you to give a try. Bretwalda was an unqualified success in my opinion, and provides for many great gaming memories.

More Bretwalda

Winter 816 A.D.
Spring 817 A.D.
Summer 817 A.D.
Autumn 817 A.D.
Winter 817-818 A.D.
March and April 818 A.D.
May and June 818 A.D.
Who Won? Part 1
Who Won? Part 2
Who Won? Part 3