I have a ping-pong table-sized map which I use for a medieval campaign game lasting a couple of hours. There are 20 areas (provinces) on the field and each player sets up in one of them. He's given a Leading Knight, one stand of Mounted Knights, one of Men at Arms, one of Archers, a couple of serfs and 5 Gold pieces to help him on his way. A force moves one province per turn, and there are four phases per turn: Move, Raise Troops, Build, and Collect Taxes. Each player has four cards, and on each card is written the name of one of the phases. The player selects a card, and tosses it into the center of the table;, the cards are mixed, one is randomly drawn, and when his card is selected, the player carries out the functions of his particular phase. In this manner, the players' functions are not synchronized during the bound. One may choose to raise troops, another to collect taxes, etc. The game has gone through a dozen iterations, changing because each time it's played, someone makes a suggestion which is worth incorporating. Sometimes, however, the suggestions can't be carried out. For example, the last time we played the game, in early January, one of our stalwart participants voiced the thought that in a campaign, the interest should focus on the administrative functions (raising troops, supplies, building, logistics, etc.), that these functions were being neglected, and there was too much emphasis on the move and combat procedures. About a half-hour later, another esteemed fellow stated that as a result of his observations, he thought that, with three of the four phases being administrative ones, there was too much emphasis on the administrative procedures, and there should be more movement and more combat. What to do? Not much, really. Despite (because of?) input such as the above, the basics have remained the same ever since the original set up. In the administrative procedures, the focus is on the serfs. These little fellas provide a tax base, construct houses, etc. Each turn, a player can assign serfs to either his fields or to his town. Townies provide Construction Points (CP), used to build houses and, eventually, a castle. The prime function of field serfs is to procreate... these exhausted but happy people do nothing but produce more serfs, who are then assigned to the fields (to produce yet more serfs) or to the town, to provide CP's. Moneys normally come from the provinces, i.e., the real estate owned by a player. If a player is very adventurous, he may increase his revenue by taxing his serfs. This may be a one-time deal, however, as if this is done, reference is immediately made to the "How Many Serfs Run Away" table... one's serfs just won't stand for such goings-on. After all four cards (phases) of all the participants are played, the very last phase of the bound is the Marauder phase. Here, dice are tossed to see if Marauders appear on the field. There are 20 provinces, and so a 20-sided die indicates in which province the outlaws appear. At first, Marauders will remain in the province in which they appear. If left alone, however, Marauders may clone... their critical mass is defined as four stands... and if they reach this stage, they will move out, making all who stand in their way unhappy. The chance that Marauders appear is proportional to the number of houses on the map. My thought was that as the players develop their provinces, and build up their assets, the probability that outlaws would pop up would increase. After revenues are accumulated during the Collect Taxes phase, a player may, on his Raise Troops phase, raise one or more additional units for his force. In selecting new units, his only choice is between Men at Arms or Archers. His other option ls upgrading his field forces... Men at Arms may be upped to Foot Knights, and Foot Knights may be upped to Mounted Knights. Archers are nasty people... their strength is that they get to fire in the first phase of combat. But their weakness is that they can't be upgraded. Once an Archer, always an Archer. Combat is fought when one side invades a province occupied by enemy troops. Opposing forces cannot coexist in an area. One interesting ploy concerns the fact that the loser of a combat must, in addition to retreating out of the province, pay to the winner the sum of 10 Gold pieces. If he doesn't have sufficient funds, he must turn over to the victor one of his troop stands. It pays, therefore, to keep a reserve of at least 10 Gold pieces in your treasury. To me, the most interesting procedure is that of combat. There is a deck of Combat Cards, and each stand receives an allotment of cards. Mounted Knights get 3 cards, Men at Arms get 1 card, etc. These cards are placed, face down, in front of their stands. On each card is annotated a mandate such as "one enemy stand and its cards retreats from combat", or "a stand deserts and joins the enemy together with its cards", or "one enemy stand is killed", or "2 enemy combat cards are removed" etc. Before the combat actually begins, Archers get to draw additional cards during the initial fire phase. After the firing is complete, the sides alternately draw their cards; a player selects a stand and draws one of its cards at random. The directions on a card are implemented immediately. Stands are removed, or cards are decreased, etc. On any cycle of the melee, a force, instead of drawing a card, may voluntarily retreat, moving out of the contested province. In the 20 card combat deck, there are 7 "No effect" cards, hence the chance of actually striking the opposition on any given card draw is 65 percent. I've noted that few players take the option to retreat, preferring to fight to the death, regardless of the odds. One might say they fall victim to the Wargamer's Syndrome ("Today is a good day to die!"). The problem is that if it becomes obvious that one is outnumbered (the opponent's cards are more numerous), the chances for recovery are few, and the chance for a complete wipeout are fairly high. What may happen, therefore, is that in a single battle, if a participant has committed most of his assets, he may find himself bereft of any assets at all... in short, he's out of the game. My own tactics are to play it cautiously and cowardly... I only bump opposing players if (a) they're about to bump me, or (b) they're much, much weaker than I. Boardgame What I've tried to do, in essence, is create a huge, table-sized boardgame with the players having to continually face the age-old issue of "guns versus butter". The medieval, feudal setting appears to be optimum for this... there's a distinct warrior class of combat troops, and a distinct supporting class of serfs to provide the logistics base. In the beginning, the game balance was extremely difficult to achieve. Too much revenue, and the players would be able to raise immense forces with no penalty. Too little revenue, and the game grinds to a halt... no building, no troops being raised, etc. The procedures are still not perfect, of course... there's still a lot of tweaking to be done. For example, at the last game, the suggestion was made to elaborate on the construction capabilities of building towns outside the home province. And so the next game will see a new rule that states that a player may expand his construction efforts, but may do so only in a province adjacent to one in which he's already built a town or so. Back to PW Review January 1995 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1995 Wally Simon 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