|
‘Medieval’ by Richard Berg: the northern Ragnars chew some history
Phil, Roger and Slade gather for an evening of Medieval (Richard Berg, GMT games), lots of political and military conflict. Dave and Ian are unavailable having gone paint-balling. Phil, Roger and Slade had all been asked some three weeks previously and, prompted in part by the sight of Dave's paint-balling gun (cue remarks such as 'you've got a big one'/'is it pump action'/'etc etc', the Ragnars being nothing if not predictable), expressed a surprisingly high degree of enthusiasm. However, being true Ragnars, no one bothers to actually organise a formal yes and so, pleasantly cheered by the steady drizzle that has lingered all Sunday, the three meet again for a bash.
Phil has been busy. Shocked and appalled at the size of the cards which are going to make up the map, and knowing Roger will be scathing, he has gone out and splurged a fiver on blowing the cards up using a colour photocopier (very successfully, if he might say). Roger asks why he didn't just scan them into his computer. Good point. Furthermore, the idea in the game is that you draw one card at a time to build the map, but Phil foresees horrendous card shifting scenarios However, he has been further inspired and has mounted them all on to A4-ish pieces of card which are then assembled into a map. Pieces of card are placed on the 'absent' cards, which are then removed when that card enters play. It is a success (leastways, no one moans about it).
The rules have taken a bit of a read. This is a true U S style game - lots of bolted on bits and pieces: for instance, playing a 'Pope' card allows a player to call a crusade OR to excommunicate another player OR to allow a marriage with another power OR to allow the rather indelicate 'passage of the Papal states'. So, playing that card requires players to understand four different sets of rules. Used to the fluffy loveable world of European games, this is a bit of a shock to the system.
However, equipped with various crib sheets and encouraged by an enthusiastic audience (both Slade and Roger are keen to give it a bash) Phil hacks through most of the rules. In summary, each player plays a cartel of powers - starting with three picked at the start of the game - with which he tries to acquire as much territory as possible. The Victory conditions are rather lacklustre - count up the points for territories controlled, then get 1 point bonus for each intact multi-province power. "Is that all?" opines Roger. He's used to having his intellect stretched much more vigorously.
Choices come down to two - do you tax or do you attack, and how much cash do you throw behind each attack (more cash equals more dice modifiers). There is a rather nice Mongol rule - whereby the Mongols hack chunks off the civilised face of Europe (sounds just right), but other than that - it's "pass the chrome, let's get stuck in".
The game lasts an astonishing length of time. Rule time was done by 7.00 and, even allowing for pizza, sandwiches and fruit flan, it is an astonishing 10.45 before the game finishes (a long time for a three-player game). A good steady shift of power does take place during the game: Roger begins well, Phil produces power card after power card - the easiest way to rack up Victory Points - but a chunky end run buy Slade carries the day. Roger is so-so about it, Slade thinks it marvellous (but then he rates every winning game as 'marvellous') whilst Phil has thoroughly enjoyed himself. A real revel in a historical period - perhaps the Ragnars are less 'German' in their tastes than they think.
A visit to the Boardgamesgeek website reveals that this is a game that has provoked mixed reviews. Most of the criticisms are true. The rules are difficult to work your way through; it seems absurdly easy to get the wrong end of the stick about how rules should be interpreted (the Ragnars got several important rules wrong, without disastrous results); the Events deck is central to the game, but rather 'samey'; the combat system doesn't feel quite right. Yes, all true, but it doesn't really seem to matter. When you play a good historical boardgame, the need for a 'perfect' system doesn't feel quite so important; picky rules can be tolerated; top-notch components aren't quite so essential. History isn't exact, and the same applies to games that try to recreate history. One critic on the Geek site has one or two variants already, which he considers a 'bad sign'. Why is this a bad sign? It shows that a player identifies with the system, and wants to make it work even better. What a glorious idea! Let's pool our ideas and energies and make it work even better. We are the world. Long live Live Aid. Come back Bob Geldof.
Variant number one: make a revenue track. Update it every time there is a change; it saves you hours counting up your income, and let's you know who the tall poppy is.
Variant number two: dodgy combat system. How about comparing how much money the attacker spends to the defender. Whoever spends most receives a +1 modifier, +2 for twice as much money, and so on up to a maximum +5. If you spend no money, then you lose automatically. Much better than the current system.
Ragnars retire to bed satiated by a belly full of history and ready to play again - a good sign I think.
Go to top of page
|
