|
awarded
to a player, and that player also controls one of the land tiles
adjacent to that land tile, the two land tiles are
"merged" (thus giving the player two pawns to add to
this control). This, in turn, reduces the number of land tiles
present on the board by one, since two of them are now
considered to be one. Multiple land tiles can (and will) be
merged in this fashion. Strings of 3, 4 and 5 tiles merged into
one are common. In fact, there are two ways to win the game: one
is to be the first to place all 10 of your pawns on land tiles,
and the other is to simply have the majority of pawns on the
board, when the number of land tiles drops below 4.
After
Charles has moved, the player rolls 3 of the dice, and collects
3 cubes of the colors indicated, to return his available stock
to 7 cubes.
So,
the players face an ever-shrinking board, where the implications
of Charles' movement grow ever more profound. It becomes not
only an issue of where Charles will land this turn, but where
Charles could be on the opponent's turn, and even on the
subsequent game turn. Also increasing in importance are what
colors you are rolling on the dice, and what the turn order is
(and will be). Since which turn order tokens have been played -
and which are still available - is known by all of the players,
the game can hinge on who gets back-to-back turns at a crucial
juncture. In fact, the game would be virtually chess-like, were
it not for the dice. And it is at this point - the very
precipice of game nirvana - where CAROLUS MAGNUS leaves me
feeling somewhat cheated. I suppose there are many gamers who
are content to leave a hotly-contested battle of raw skill up to
the fate of 3 dice, near the end of the game. I suppose, too,
that there are football fans who enjoy having a dubious
pass-interference call decide an overtime game. Unfortunately, I
am in neither group, and so how CAROLUS MAGNUS often ends is
almost as disturbing as the rest of the game is inspiring. How
many movies have you seen where, in the waning moments of a
brilliantly executed cinematic experience, the director
apparently chucks his intellectual cookies, and opts for the
stupidest possible conclusion he could muster? And how did that
make you feel about the seven bucks you spent on the ticket, and
the seven you spent on the popcorn and soda? It reminds me of
how I felt, when the unswerving, ever-diligent antagonist in Les
Miserables decides in the last five minutes what an unfair
butthead he's been, and throws his own, evil carcass in the
river. What the heck kind of ending is that?
So,
to torture the sports car metaphor a little further, CAROLUS
MAGNUS has terrific acceleration, excellent handling in the
curves, but starts to shake uncontrollably at the higher speeds.
It's still a terrific game, though - terrific enough that I'm
always willing to play it despite my reservations about the
endgame. I've pondered some variations to mitigate the control
the dice have, and I have a suggested alternative for those who
wish to try it:
At
the beginning of the game, take 10 cubes of each color (12 of
each, for 3 players), and put them in a cup or bowl. After
rolling the dice for the initial cube assignments, put the dice
away. Instead, during your turn, you may draw one cube of your
choice from the remaining pile in the middle of the playing
area, and two cubes randomly from the cup or bowl.
I
can't say that I've had the chance to try this, yet, and the
method may require further refinement. But, while this still
contains a random element, the element is reduced from that of
the open set of possibilities one finds with dice, to the closed
set of possibilities one finds from 10 of each color in a
container. It is roughly equal to the difference between a set
of dice and a deck of cards. While last-second statistical
anomalies can still occur, these anomalies will not run
roughshod over the course of most sessions.
CAROLUS
MAGNUS is suitable for 2 or 3 players, or 2 teams of 2 players
each. It is easily playable in an hour, and takes up less
tabletop space than the average board game. To reiterate, I find
CAROLUS MAGNUS very enjoyable, in a thought-provoking sort of
way, and I'm always willing to play it - particularly as a
3-player game. It is another dichotomy which taints the
experience for me - the dichotomy between a game of
contemplation and planning ahead, and a game which (between
players otherwise equally matched) can be decided by a roll of
the dice. Both facets are present here, and while I like tuna,
and I like ice cream, I do not usually want tuna in my
ice cream, thanks just the same.
Darrell
Hanning lives in Jacksonville, Florida and is currently on the
prowl for weekend competition.
SIMPLE
GREAT BATTLES OF HISTORY
& HANNIBAL AT BAY
reviews by Peter McCord
Game
publishers are no strangers to fashion. A few years ago, World
War One was all the rage. Every company raced to get out it's
Great War game, and in many cases, Ted Raicer obliged. Another
famous moment of publisher synchronicity occurred when GMT
published CRISIS: SINAI within one month of The Gamers' YOM
KIPPUR. Most likely that was a
|
coincidence,
and so is the current, nearly simultaneous releases of GMT's
SIMPLE GREAT BATTLES OF HISTORY (SGBoH) and Avalanche Press's
HANNIBAL AT BAY.
Starting
with the GMT release, the first thing to note about SGBoH is
that it is not really a game, but a standard set of rules that
allows you to play other GMT games that were languishing due to
excessive complexity. ALEXANDER, SPQR, CAESAR, CAESAR IN GAUL
and CATAPHRACT are all playable as "Simple" GBoH
games, including every scenario in each box, and all of their
attendant modules (PHALANX, JUGURTHA, DIADACHOI, etc.), all
using the SGBoH system. It consists of 16 pages of rules, a
folding player aid card, and a scenario book, which
"converts" all existing scenarios (not including those
published in magazines) into the newer, simpler format.
Essentially, with SGBoH and any or all of the modules, you can
play just about any ancient battle, from the time of Alexander
through the rein of Caesar, around 51 AD. Cataphract tosses in a
few Byzantine scenarios for fun, circa 540 AD.
The
basic game works very simply. Players fight a single battle by
alternately activating leaders, and only the units under the
command of that leader may move, and only those within his
command radius may attack. The action goes back and forth like
this, although some superior leaders have the god-like power of
interruption, or "seizure," where they essentially
steal the other guy's turn. Most gamers won't pass up the
opportunity to float a bad pun or two while playing, my opponent
demonstrated that the number of variations on "Caesar"
and "seizure" are endless. In any case, for those who
don't know, the heart of the GBoH system is the way in which
units interact. Every unit is rated for it's type, quality and
size. Contrary to urban myth, size does not matter much. Quality
and type are what win battles in this system. Common types are
Phalanx, Legion, Heavy Infantry, Medium Infantry, Light
Infantry, Skirmisher, Light Cavalry and Heavy Cavalry
(historians agree apparently that cavalry is never medium).
Combat
in SGBoH is easy conceptually, it's standard move, declare
attacks, determine DRMs, roll die type stuff. However, there are
A LOT of DRMs, so at first combat can be tedious. Once both
players figure out the common situations (my moving light
cavalry flanking your light infantry with a leader present, both
of equal size is a +3, I think), the game moves along right
smartly I must say. Battles end when one side routs, which is
determined essentially by an accumulation of individual unit
routs. Depending upon the scenario, when 30-40% of your units
rout, you lose. This can be rather disconcerting, as the
remaining 70% of your units that are still in their formations
look pretty cool, and ready for action.
SGBoH
is successful in three ways. The original games have incredible
detail and a wealth of interesting looking unit counters. I give
it high aesthetic marks, even if it's a little busy. It gives a
good overview of each battle, and the tensions that each side
was up against (the "I have Legions, but you have
Elephants" sort of thing). Finally, even the largest
battles can be finished in four hours, most in about two hours
or less. My opponent and I played Issus and Granicus twice each
in just about twelve total hours of game time, and they are
quite large.
On
the downside, SGBoH is useless without the modules, and many of
them are not available (DELUXE ALEXANDER is out of print, so is
SPQR). Many of the scenarios are badly unbalanced, as the
Macedons and the Romans are favored in most cases. CAESAR IN
GAUL is particularly bad in this regard, I don't recommend it
for this system. CAESAR: THE CIVIL WARS is a bit of a bummer
because both sides have pretty much the same forces, and the
detracts from the game's central feature, the intricate
differentiation of unit types. I think ALEXANDER, SPQR and
CATAPHRACT are the best games, and DIADACHOI is the best module.
Only CATAPHRACT is readily available at this point. Finally,
these rules are really only "simple" when compared to
the original games, they are still of what I would label
intermediate complexity.
Avalanche
Press' HANNIBAL AT BAY tackles the ancient battles featured in
GMT's SPQR in a different way. Five scenarios of Rome versus
Carthage in one box, with two mounted boards and a single,
simple unified set of rules. The game features one sheet of
large sized counters, area movement, two mounted boards, dice
intensive combat resolution, and fairly routine leadership
rules.
The
large sized counters facilitate a miniatures feel in two ways.
They are big enough to allow for some fancy art work, so a
phalanx actually looks like a phalanx. They also must be able to
fit within their areas to allow movement and facing changes. In
theory, anyway, as all five scenarios in this game take place on
flat, featureless terrain, and so none of the areas restrict
movement, except for one very small hill. The counters are
attractive, although to complete the miniatures effect the
background color on the counters is the same as the map, which
can be a bit distracting.
This
is much more of a smashmouth game than the GMT ancients series.
If GBoH is the NFL of ancients games, then Hannibal at Bay is
the XFL (not that I've seen that yet, but it sounds about
right!). You charge, resolve charge, move, assault and then the
other guy does the same. The order of who
Next
Page>>
|