Unhappy King Charles is another one of GMT's CDGs, and as such, I was bound to give it a shot eventually. I played it a while ago, and then study in the English Tudor-Stuart period rekindled my interest in the subject matter. I've had the chance to play it more, and it certainly matches the English Civil War in feel. Its a fun game, and very thematic. But the very mechanics that make it so evocative of the time period also prevent it from being a perfect game.
Components: Fairly good. The map is splendid, with one exception. The names of the provinces are printed inside the province. With the list of point to point games with province names outside them for easy reading nearly all encompassing, its surprising there was an exception made for this game--especially since it involves covering nearly all the spaces with PC markers. Luckily most events don't involve place names, and even luckier I have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the English countryside. The cards are decent, the backs of them are very fun. The rulebook is good, and the references are easy to find. The little historical tie-ins throughout are fun as well.
Gameplay: Very much like a marathon wrestling match, in which each side in the struggle gets more and more weary, and in weariness becomes more and more desperate. The game-play ties in extremely well with the theme. The escalating PC control requirements as the game goes on, the rise of desertion and lessening recruitment, and the permanent loss of combat casualties fit in with the English Civil War, especially considering the trouble Charles had towards the end in cobbling together armies.
However, the excellent thematic tie-in results in a less exciting game in many ways. The rulebook is fairly long and involved, yet the actual options available for players are fairly narrow. I wouldn't call the rule book filled with chrome to choke the players, rather it sets up a system that inherently is difficult to move around in. From the small number of troops, the limited chances to activate armies, and the few other options available to use cards for means that players may have little to do depending on their hand.
The board mechanics are evocative of the time, with dispersal in particular being a fun way to show the slippery nature of the ECW combat. Raiding with local notables is an interesting idea, and the siege mechanics are implemented well. The gameplay definitely feels like 17th century manpower and resource poor England, and while thats a good thing, its also a bad thing. The lack of ability to march across England endlessly, throwing men into a endless meat-grinder turn after turn is good for both a historical and a gameplay basis, but it means two things--it limits player options and increases the impact luck has on the game.
The deck is shared and has very limited campaign and big OPs cards. This is good for a historically grounded game, and makes players think more about when to engage with the enemy, it also makes it more likely that players will have disparate hands. In one game, my opponent drew every single major and minor campaign card. Sure, its great theres only a few of them to simulate a lack of constant campaigning, but it sure sucked that he could slap them down turn after turn while my men had to play hide and seek for almost half the game. That also plays into dice rolls. Due to permanent combat losses, and abilities such as evasion and dispersal, decisive combat is rare. Only a few battles may take place at all during a game between players who understand the danger of constant battling. That means only a few dice rolls may drastically influence the outcome of the entire game. In Here I Stand or Nappy Wars, the buckets of dice seem to mitigate luck slightly better, and in Paths of Glory, so many attacks are made that the single dice rolls feel less significant. Coupled with the deck that can substantially swing in different directions due to the inability to use opponent's events for big action and you have a game that can be extremely influenced by Lady Luck.
Strategy: I have been surprised to be honest at the differences and the lack of differences between the Royalists and the Parliamentary forces. Part of this may come down to a combination of my study in the ECW era and my experience playing other CDGs, but the two sides did not feel as meaningfully different as I thought they might. The Parliament does have two big events that drastically change their gameplan, but the events for both sides don't feel very interesting. The Alt-History cards are interesting ideas, but again, they don't necessarily feel very meaningful.
The natural areas of control both sides have do give each side something different to pursue, but the limited use of enemy events, and the sole path to victory based on PC control means that players do not have too much room to attempt different paths to victory. "Place a PC, raid for a PC, move around a general for a PC," all essentially are paths to the same goal. Luck actually helps the game feel too samey, since without the wild card swings and casualties, the game would probably feel fairly on rails.
I can't help but feel biased after playing Ed Beach's games, where the political and religious control of spaces were separate mechanics yet wonderfully interconnected with each other. The PC placement in this game feels far more simplistic and less engaging. Perhaps separate decks with more varying events, or different ways to change the hearts and minds of the English people would have created different varying ways to make the game interesting. Its interesting to compare Unhappy Charlie to Virgin Queen, in both (and I've seen it in both) a newbie starts an endless military campaign ending in a miserable loss. In Virgin Queen, players are dissuaded from ahistorical military action by different routes to victory points. In Unhappy Charlie, players are dissuaded by the rails on the game. Both systems fit well with their historical basis, yet one provides more strategic options and fun for its players than the other.
Tied in with this is the length of the game. My normal gaming partner and I have not had as long of playing times as others have had, but its still a fairly long game. I think thats necessary in order to get the feeling of escalating pressure to end the war, from the shrinking reinforcement pool to the escalating PC requirements. Yet its a game thats nearly as long as other CDGs with less evocative of a storyline. Its a necessary length for the historical feeling you get, but the time you put in is greater compared to what you might be able to accomplish in game.
Overall: Unhappy King Charles is a fun game. Especially after my studies on the ECW, it certainly matches the ECW in feeling. The desertion mechanics, the permanent losses, the turncoats, all are very interesting things that set it apart from other CDGs I've played. Unfortunately, its hampered in part by the very mechanics that make it so evocative of its time period. That is somewhat unavoidable, but it certainly is weaker as a game as a result. The game has a complex set of rules for the payoff it gives, and I'd almost like to see a more complex game to go along with those rules. A more interesting deck, or different mechanics for PC control might have lifted this game up even higher. All in all, it may not be a perfect game, but its got a lot of good ideas, its fun, and its certainly a good game.
ERRATA:
FAGGOT MASTER: My first game, my opponent kept muttering "Faggot Master" as I was sending my armies out on maneuvers. For a while, I was convinced my brilliant moves were reducing him to making homophobic slurs at me, until he slapped down the actual card.
THE ROYALIST CLUB: After studying the Civil War in which most of the Royalist commanders were described as less than competent (to be polite) by most historians and primary sources, it is bemusing to say the least that the Royalists have a surprisingly competent line-up.
NEW MODEL PWNAGE: The New Model Army is not as fun as it sounds. Have fun destroying your veteran brigades so you can put down Cromwell, who's harder to activate than the rather foolish Prince Rupert. And if your the Royalist, be sure to laugh at the Parliamentary player as he picks up each veteran off the map.
GUERRILLA WARFARE: This game offers the best way to annoy a warmonger. Continuously evading and dispersing across England may be the best way to trigger a board flipping from your Friendly Neighborhood Angry Gamer.
No comments:
Post a Comment