So there we have it: the third edition of my The King's War misleadingly copyrighted to Clash of Arms, only such materials in that edition as were added by the Boys are subject to their copyright and I hereby assert my rights and will prove them upon Ed Wimble's body armed cap et pie. (At least until he recovers from his operation and then its a case of me legging it). Putting aside the legals, is this a good edition? Firstly, as designer I have a very strict rule when I licence a game - unless you ask me to intervene, it is your game and I keep out of your way. The result then is the view of another individual, or group of individuals, and can almost be reviewed as a new game. That said the rules look pretty much as I left them and the changes noticed so far are as follows: We have a new map which is overly colourful, see below, and upon which the artist for no good reason has changed some names but I have not so far spotted any changes to movement lines. The combat strengths are doubled to handle the earth-shattering difficulties of the old 3.5 CV (sounds like Citroen should build these) for the New Model Army. The Earl of Foppington has been mistakenly named as Sir Percival Foppington when any fool knows he was Charles de Goncourt-Vasey, cousin of Sir Rupert Vasey, and son of Elizabeth's Bonny Earl of Foppington. Seriously though, it misses the whole point of having these two silly arses in the game if they are not of the same family, which was like so many real families divided by the sword in the war. It also gives many gamers the great pleasure of zapping me. The titles have been fiddled with to the confusion of some who look for Raglan and find only Herbert. The game recommends that the markers be used only for Covenanter and Parliamentarian control (despite the ludicrous situation that this gives Covenanter control with a cross of St George). This arises from a print problem I understand. Does much of this matter? No, it does not and I have only one change I recommend. Take the map down to your nearest photocopy bureau and have it photocopied in black and white. This will take out a vast amount of glaring colour which currently clutters play. The original stark map was designed to be almost free from colour (it had brown hills and blue rivers in my version) so that the political markers and units were emphasised. Naturally it is too much to expect that I might know what I am doing. For The King's War is a game about political geography not physical geography. As the people of England (or those with political opinions anyway) change their views so the map changes. Occasionally rivers and mountains may have effect, but the political geography will always be with us, hence by reducing the colour we emphasise that which is truly important. Following on from that I do recommend that you use blue markers for the Malignants and Orange for the Godly, the Army of the Solemn League and Covenant should not have control markers in its boxes (although Scots' readers are encouraged to draw St Andrew's Crosses). In addition mark a few of the control markers to show that there are fortifications in that box so that you can quickly identify movement lanes. The changing of names was mandated by the original rules but I cannot but be amazed that what was Kendal in the original (a market town of long standing) has been changed to Windermere (a town in which I lived as a child with no history of anything until the first tourist). Interestingly I expected the US edition to have a guide on where the towns were for set-up but they stuck loyally with my Anglocentric version. This gives English players a key advantage over dreadful foreigners and is thus A Good Thing. Better? All in all much better than I had any right to expect given that my personal vision is highly individual. Since its publication The BROGMaster has reviewed it and I found his review interesting. Richard produces Computer Looping Games of incredible detail with mounds of rules. My game's main rules are finished in nine pages yet Richard still concludes they are dense and long. Hang on here, I find his stuff too complex at much more than nine pages and he finds mine the same yet each is very different! What gives O Slim One? Richard's analysis uncovers a point I have often missed. I reject Computer Looping because my memory is poor and I can never remember all the rules (I also feel it is a waste of time), indeed I cannot remember all the rules of the games I design so heaven help anything else. With The King's War the key rules may not be long (and many of the specials are scenario specific) but in the silence achieved by banning the wristage comes a problem I have never experienced; you have to make decisions! I make decisions easily, or at least do so outwardly on the grounds that this throws your opponent on to his back foot and too much thought can spoil a good plan. If you are not keen on analysis or making lots of decisions this game is every bit of a bind as the repetitiveness of, say, SPQR. There is nowhere to hide in a game like this and a three hour scenario probably amounts to 45 minutes of wristage and the rest taking decisions. For me this is very heaven in that dawn to be alive but Gareth Simon confirmed that he can find this a problem - clearly just as Computer Loopers need good playaid cards so Decision Loopers need some form of briefing to get you into the zen of the thing. There is in fairness a set of historical notes to guide you but had I produced the game now I would have considered some more play advice. HOWEVER, I must disagree strongly with Richard on playing time. I still defy anyone (who knows the game) of less than Chris Russell level indecision to take longer than three hours to play a single scenario. The King's War only requires a lot of time if you are scared of making mistakes, once you accept that you are bound to do so then you will feel a lot happier. Try using a chess clock. I am informed by Mike Siggins that another reviewer of North Welsh origins (and a Fifth Monarchy man too) has recently raised the question to do with the Pike & Shot edition as to why we require the Regional Leader rules. This fellow is so desperate for publicity that it is probably an attempt to generate a response, but in case he genuinely holds these views if he put his nose inside a book instead of playing games solitaire the answer would quickly appear, but even playing games should supply the answer. Strategically, the aim of the Royalists was to take London. This would have involved some form of siege and therefore required the need to outnumber both the garrison and any relief force. The King could only achieve this level of strength if he could mass his own army and that of the Duke of Newcastle. (Or more exactly only the Duke of Newcastle could raise that large an army in the North). Newcastle was sensibly loath to abandon the North to the saucy Fairfaxes and refused to come south till Hull be taken. In most games the asinine response would be to strip Newcastle of his troops (and SDC's Cromwell rewards this), but in my view the units would have much the same view as their leader about leaving the North ("Home, home"). Accordingly, one needs to link the raising of maximum strength in an area to the political views of the grandees. The forces of Parliament have a similar problem in the East which is one of their recruitment centres. Here the political and religious reality of the war means less effective Leaders (Grey and Manchester) build bigger armies. That feeble minded reviewers cannot grasp this is a matter for their own pride, but I note interestingly given the nationality of this impudent malignant that the Welsh provided a large part of the Royalist strength yet never seemed to have been as particularist as the Royalist North or Puritan East. It is this misguided loyalty that gives the Royalists a great deal of their strategic strength. His Grace the Duke of Vicenza writes from his Georgia mansion: "Beginning to hear good things about The King's War. Sorry to say, I haven't given it a try yet (CHV: Wise fellow). A post by David Fox on AOL: "This is a new one from Clash of Arms, and I recommend it highly. Although based on A House Divided, it's far more sophisticated, managing to combine all of the military, political, and social elements of the English Civil War in one real neat-o fun package. (CHV: Good work that man Fox, clearly one of the Godly and no decayed tapster). Very enjoyable, but not predictable, a game where you have to plan not to win two turns from now, but two years from now. Designed by Charles Vasey, from whom I would like to see a lot more." (CHV: So would Charles Vasey!)" The game got a solemn ticking off in Vae Victis for not including decisive battles, supply rules, changes of allegiance or politics so that, despite its realism it was only for the true fan of the ECW. I dropped them a fax on the following points (note my excellent use of French throughout, he blushed): Politics: Politics is not exclusively limited to movement restrictions and regional limitations: it is enshrined in the recruitment and desertion structures (which mirror the war-weariness of the nation); in the ambuscade rules which cover (for example) the attempt to "turn coat" by the Hothams at Hull and the other minor notables of the period; in the Clubman rules; in the Irish army rules; in the Self-Denying Ordnance; and in the victory points. That there is no opportunity for major nobles to switch sides simply reflects the situation during the war. The political analysis is that of Dame Cicely Wedgewood, the pre-eminent writer on the English Civil War, I commend her book "The King's War" to you. Unlike the religious wars in France against la religion pretendu reforme England lacked any class of politiques. There is no possibility of political manoeuvring (in my estimation) and to pretend otherwise without adducing evidence is to be disingenuous. The few attempts at moderation between the parties always foundered on the opposing views of the King and the non-conformists. It continues to this day in Northern Ireland! The King went to his death for his erroneous principles and his opponents, despite much private concern, roused themselves to dismember him because of them. Diplomacy and changes of alliance: show me a single one of any moment? Lack of supply rules: In my extensive research of the war I could discover no single event other than the Fowey campaign (which is covered at Rule 5.11 retreating through an enemy stack) in which supply considerations per se affected the campaigns. Armies melted away from lack of recruits but no army possessed the bands of Croats necessary to prosecute a policy of starving an enemy out. Nor is there any evidence of long supply lines snaking for many miles. There is no supply rule because in my view no supply rule is necessary. Perhaps you would care to instance an occasion in which supply became an issue? Lack of decisiveness in battles: This is simply not true and indicates you have not played the game enough (see Richard Berg's review on this point). Most battles in the Civil War were decisive militarily only when between small (4,000 say) forces. These are very decisive in the game (25% to 100% losses). Larger battles - like the real thing - are indecisive militarily unless you can get both a cavalry overlap and desertion. But what makes for the true skill of the game is the exploitation of victory by seizing territory formerly guarded by the defeated army. The game is capable of exactly simulating the war something no other such game has done, how can it lack realism?. Ease of loss and capture of regions: sadly once again this is exactly the way things were in reality. Without major Continental fortifications leaders like Prince Rupert ranged far and wide capturing territory and defeating armies. I would be interested to know what examples you have of areas that were difficult to enter in the war? Théophile Monnier replied (to my shame, in English) "I believe you have been disappointed, to say the least, by the review of your game The King's War in Vae Victis, and what I wrote there calls for some explanations. The whole philosophy of Vae Victis is to bring new players to wargames and for this, we need games that are good-looking and fun, and rules which even if they are complex must be very well explained with examples, colors (sic) and so on. In fact, I believe that the first feeling on a game is the most important thing ti create vocations, and games must "look good, feel fun, play well" and give the players the feeling that they are some generals, some kings, in fact to be there. You could say my philosophy about wargames come from a mixing of Richard Berg, Joseph Miranda and Avalon Hill! (CHV: not if you want good quick fun games I wouldn't, he bitched). The problem is that, seen from this point of view, your game is probably a very good simulation of the period and the choices you made about politics, supply rules, lack of decisiveness in battles and so on are certainly perfect, but the general presentation of the gamer makes this difficult to grasp, and in my opinion, very far from what [two word text break-up]; rules are not very rigorously written (CHV: espece de concombre!) with lack of visual examples and many exceptions, and the game lacks some fun, that could come, from example, from the use of playing cards, or random events (CHV: Really Théophile what do you think the Ambuscade Chits do but precisely that? I think a certain reviewer has not played this game), or diplomatic rules (even if it's non-historical), all those kind of "chromes" that, I know, many designers despise.... Finally, and maybe this is the true unconscious reason behind this Vae Victis is very "culturally strong" after years of Anglo-American Hegemony on wargames, we try to turn the tide for the frenchmen, presenting French military history and trying to develop a french wargame "culture". I could be then that we do not pay as much attention to the English Civil War than to the French wars, even if some French units did participate in The King's War. (CHV: This is a reference to some bogus French chits under the Comte de Canard which Clash of Arms included)." Well, well so there you have it my English cherms, one of the most interesting entries to gaming recently aligned behind ahistoricity for reasons of cultural self-defence, and prettiness over play. I found the whole letter very sad, not because of The King's War which was never intended for France but because it demonstrates the magazine's reviews are thoroughly undependable. There is a further risk if they commit themselves unreservedly to ahistoricity that eventually they will come off the rails big time. Still I'll send them a greasy letter and see if I can schmooze a few freebies. (ED: An earthworm has more moral backbone than this man! And stop spelling "chums" cherms you blister). Back to Perfidious Albion #92 Table of Contents Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1996 by Charles and Teresa Vasey. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com