Kingmaker
Peter M White
>Has anyone played this game? I believe it is Avalon Hill.
>Set in Middle Aged (?) England. Players run around trying
>to be king. Good, bad, don't know?
Good. The game gives a rich feeling for the historical terrain.
Lots of squabbling between political factions, and some of the
inconveniences of drawn out wars before modern professional
armies. "Sorry about your siege. I really do want to storm the
castle, but I my peasants are revolting so I have to go home and
crack some skulls."
One of the more clever wrinkles of the game is the meeting of
Parliament. If Parliament is called, you must scramble to put together
a political alliance because votes will be made on various spoils that
happen to be available. If you haven't been making friends before
Parliament is called, or at least making the right enemies, you may
find yourself cut out of the goodies.
The weak points of the game: (1) The rules in the AH box need a little
honing; the few glaring weaknesses are fixed with errata in the extra
card expansion. The rules are hardly complicated, so an experienced
gamer could always cook up something. (2) If a good portion of your
players do not have a vicious streak, it is possible that the game drag out,
with large armies hunkered down in difficult to access corners of the
board. If you and your buddies are agressive players, this will not
be a problem.
BTW, one of my favorite games is Republic of Rome, which could be
described in a nutshell as "Kingmaker without all that mucking about
the English countryside." If you have played one, this might give
you an inkling about whether you would like the other.
--Peter
p-w...@uiuc.edu
Buchanan in '96! Why settle for the lesser evil?
Zoltan Grose
-zoltan
Bruce Carney
>
> Has anyone played this game? I believe it is Avalon Hill.
> Set in Middle Aged (?) England. Players run around trying
> to be king. Good, bad, don't know?
I used to play this game when I was a teenager...a while ago now :-)..
I would rate it as one my favourite Strategy/War games
--
Regards
Bruce Carney
AT&T Bell Labs (Australia) InterNet: bruce....@att.com
13-15 Lyon Park Road Phone: +61-2-352-9141
North Ryde, Sydney Fax: +61-2-352-9224
NSW Australia, 2113
------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was brought to you by the letter "e" and the word "mail".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
dwi...@instanet.com
Kingmaker hasn't been played by our group in years. Too random for the
amount of work involved. You can work on you position for hours and then 1
little card will destroy you. Lots of arguing and diplomacy. If you like
"Diplomacy" or "Republic of Rome" you will like it. I dislike games where
the bulk of one's time is spent trying to get people to help you. Not
enough strategy.
Also, I don't lie, which makes it difficult to win diplomacy games.
msinke
>
> Has anyone played this game? I believe it is Avalon Hill.
> Set in Middle Aged (?) England. Players run around trying
> to be king. Good, bad, don't know?
It's not exactly like that. Players run around, having several factions,
headed by a noble. The ultimate goal is to end up with the last
remaining crowned heir. This means that you'll have to kill 6 of
the 7 royal heirs initially placed on the board. When you control
a heir, you may shoot it at any time, or crown it when it's the
next in line of one of the two competing 'lines', the Lancastrians and
the (???). You gain control of a heir by capturing its initial city
or by defeating its controller (when he/she hasn't shot it).
Their are a number of titles and offices to give to your nobles,
making them stronger - but the offices also place a demand on your
nobles, e.g. a peasant revolt summons the Marshal of England to
a small village near London. That's pretty nasty if you're trying
to beseige someone up in the north.
Multi-player games are characterised by lots of shifting alliances,
to capture heirs, punish big-grown factions etc.
Well, just an impression of the top of my hat (I just played a
game yesterday evening).
Mark.
--
Mark J. Sinke
Stephensonstraat 58
5621 GV Eindhoven
Current project at:
Philips Research Laboratories -- Building
Prof. Holstlaan 4
5656 AA Eindhoven
The Netherlands
Phone: +31-40-2773833
E-mail: ma...@stack.urc.tue.nl
Henry Penninkilampi
(Peter M White) wrote:
>Zoltan Grose <zol...@slip.net> writes:
>
>>Has anyone played this game? I believe it is Avalon Hill.
>>Set in Middle Aged (?) England. Players run around trying
>>to be king. Good, bad, don't know?
>
>Good. The game gives a rich feeling for the historical terrain.
>Lots of squabbling between political factions, and some of the
>inconveniences of drawn out wars before modern professional
>armies. "Sorry about your siege. I really do want to storm the
>castle, but I my peasants are revolting so I have to go home and
>crack some skulls."
>
>One of the more clever wrinkles of the game is the meeting of
>Parliament. If Parliament is called, you must scramble to put together
>a political alliance because votes will be made on various spoils that
>happen to be available. If you haven't been making friends before
>Parliament is called, or at least making the right enemies, you may
>find yourself cut out of the goodies.
Ah, the infamous parliament!
Me and a group of friends (five all up) got hold of Kingmaker and decided
to try it out - it was the very first time that any of us had ever played
it.
The learning curve was managable and the game itself quite interesting
with a few twists to keep people on their toes.
About five hours into the game we convened our third parliament at a place
called Tewksbury (or something close to that). Everyone pulled all of
their nobles in to amass as many votes as they possibly could so as to
take control of lands and titles. Then we pulled an event card - "Plague
at Tewksbury."
Every single noble in the game died!
It was the most hilarious end to any game that I have ever played. Give
it a go - it's a fun game.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Henry Penninkilampi (h...@dove.mtx.net.au) |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Join "EvangeList", Guy Kawasaki's official Apple listserver of good|
|news about Apple, Macs, and third-party developers. To subscribe to|
|EvangeList, send email to list...@solutions.apple.com, and include|
|(in the body of the message) the text: Subscribe Macway <Your Name>|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Brian Newman
> Kingmaker hasn't been played by our group in years. [...]
That's too bad, in my opinion. It was played every now and then by my
former gaming groups with several degrees of moderate fun and is played
by my current group with lots of fun involved. But then, my last group
consisted of the kinds of grognards who really get off on taking a few
sick days from work to drop by a friend's house and do their World in
Flames turn, all the while arguing or complaining.
> Too random for the amount of work involved. You can work on you
> position for hours and then 1 little card will destroy you. [...]
Possible. I've seen one person come out of the gates, grab an heir, and
mount a quick victory (I just did it in my last game) as many times as
I've seen the thing stagnate into trying to pick off (ambush) smaller
nobles just to draw a card.
Here's how I avoid the deadly events (or accept them):
Plague: stay out of cities and towns that haven't been plagued yet... or
just take the risk. But why would you?
Royal Death: not much you can do but have a backup plan and keep your eye
on a nearby heir in the line.
Raid/Revolt: unless you're playing with the optional rule, oh well...
again, if someone is waiting to pounce on you, there's not much you can
do. Save your King's Pardons.
Gales at Sea: don't sit in the open sea for too long.
These all seem pretty obvious to me.
> Lots of arguing and diplomacy. [...]
We always play with a bit of diplomacy and really no arguing at all. Or
is this the First Edition and you're arguing over whether the road goes
into Shrewsbury? That kind of arguing in any game gets nowhere fast.
> If you like "Diplomacy" or "Republic of Rome" you will like it. [...]
I'll go along with that. If your flavor of game is Third Reich, World in
Flames, etc., you may find it too simple and too random.
> I dislike games where the bulk of one's time is spent trying to get
> people to help you. [...]
If you're the smallest faction and no one is helping you take on
whoever's winning, I agree, your only option is to ambush. But I don't
see where the bulk of anyone's time playing Kingmaker would be devoted
to trying to get people to help you. Unless you count besieging a
place and capturing the heir as "convincing them to help your faction."
> Not enough strategy.
I don't agree with that at all. I see a lot of strategy in it! What
makes you say there's not much strategy?
> Also, I don't lie, which makes it difficult to win diplomacy games.
Well, true, but then again, there isn't much you *need* to lie about in
Kingmaker. Someone could ask you if you are holding the Chancellor of
England office in your unplayed hand... but gee, so what if you don't
lie? I'm not sure what aspect of the game that would change. Almost all
of the game is visible to everyone.
Shade and sweet water,
Brian
Danny Holte
>
> About five hours into the game we convened our third parliament at a place
> called Tewksbury (or something close to that). Everyone pulled all of
> their nobles in to amass as many votes as they possibly could so as to
> take control of lands and titles. Then we pulled an event card - "Plague
> at Tewksbury."
>
Home of Samual Smith's 'Pale Ale', if I remember correctly. One of my
favorites!
-Danny
<burp>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Etloh Technologies Dealers in Rare Games Makers of the "Flightdeck"
714-891-6425/373-1115 P.O. Box 1493 Westminster, CA 92684-1493
Dan...@delphi.com VISA/MC Accepted
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tim Isakson
[snip discussion of learning curve, etc.]
>About five hours into the game we convened our third parliament at a place
>called Tewksbury (or something close to that). Everyone pulled all of
>their nobles in to amass as many votes as they possibly could so as to
>take control of lands and titles. Then we pulled an event card - "Plague
>at Tewksbury."
>
>Every single noble in the game died!
>
>It was the most hilarious end to any game that I have ever played. Give
>it a go - it's a fun game.
And this very same reason is the reason my group has found this game
not to our liking - after spending hours on a game, to have it end due
to a purely random occurrence is not something that I, or others in my
game group, consider a good time.
I for one am completely baffled by the appeal of this game - it may
just be that I'm more interested in a good game than a simulation of
what things were like at the time, but in my opinion, _Kingmaker_
doesn't cut it. It's not very fun to run around responding to random
events, and the "politics" of the game never seemed to develop in any
of the games I've played.
And I don't play with players who don't play "political" games - we've
played and liked Junta, Quo Vadis? and other games of that ilk, and
they've gone over well. _Kingmaker_ just failed the "is this fun?"
test, at least for our group. YMMV.
=========================================================================
Tim Isakson loi...@io.com | Television, the drug of the nation,
Dallas, TX, USA | Breeding ignorance and feeding radiation.
http://www.io.com/~loiosh/ | -The Disposable Heroes of Hiphopresy
J.D. Frazer
>
> And I don't play with players who don't play "political" games - we've
> played and liked Junta, Quo Vadis? and other games of that ilk, and
> they've gone over well. _Kingmaker_ just failed the "is this fun?"
> test, at least for our group. YMMV.
YMMV indeed. I cast my vote in favour of Kingmaker as a terribly fun game.
I don't consider it a "hard" wargame by any stretch of the imagination, so
it sits in my beer & pretzels collection, but FUN, damn is it ever.
The politics, I find, are generated on their own. Simply drawing a powerful
noble from the Crown deck is enough to set people on the march.
"CHRIST! He's got the Earl of Warwick under his banner!"
"Right, lads! We march on London tonight!"
"All of us! Aye!"
"Um...he's gone and given Warwick the Constable of the Tower of London
office."
"Oh. Right. Well. I'll see you chaps in Northumbria. The Scots are causing
a bit of a fuss, and I *am* the Warden you know."
The strutting and posturing and finger-wagging is part and parcel of this
delightful game. I think it's a great time.
But to reinforce what Tim said, YMMV.
jd
--
J.D. Frazer (j...@mindlink.net) I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals
iSTAR Professional Services I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants
An-Jen Tai
>
>And this very same reason is the reason my group has found this game
>not to our liking - after spending hours on a game, to have it end due
>to a purely random occurrence is not something that I, or others in my
>game group, consider a good time.
>
This is a common perception among people who really don't understand the
subtleties of the game. (Not that its rocket science, mind you.) The whole
point of the game is understanding how to react to those random occurrences.
I can guarrantee you that an experienced player who has has figured out how
to assign crown cards properly, when and when not to take risks, how to set
traps to ambush another player's vulnerable noble, will win the damn game 95%
of the time against inexperienced players who will be screaming about how
bloody lucky the winner was.
>I for one am completely baffled by the appeal of this game - it may
>just be that I'm more interested in a good game than a simulation of
>what things were like at the time, but in my opinion, _Kingmaker_
>doesn't cut it. It's not very fun to run around responding to random
>events, and the "politics" of the game never seemed to develop in any
>of the games I've played.
This complaint truly baffles me. I don't think anyone considers Kingmaker
much of a simulation. Its a step up from Diplomacy, but not that much more.
Personally I believe its popularity derives from a few reasons. First, it is
simply a beautiful game. When AH released it in the US two decades ago, it
was by leap and bounds the most aesthically pleasing wargame in the market.
Today, it still compares favorably. Second, the randomness and multi-player
nature of the game ensures that each play of the game is different than the
previous play, but, as I claimed above, the randomness does not detract from
the need for proper planning and both strategic and tactical insights.
Third, its got great chrome, better stuff than any other game I've ever
played.
An-Jen Tai
at...@ida.org
Tim Isakson
:>In article <4ic2l4$2...@nntp-1.io.com>, loi...@io.com says...
:>
:>This is a common perception among people who really don't understand the
:>point of the game is understanding how to react to those random occurrences.
:>traps to ambush another player's vulnerable noble, will win the damn game 95%
:>of the time against inexperienced players who will be screaming about how
:>bloody lucky the winner was.
:>
I'm willing to believe that _Kingmaker_ does indeed reward skillful play -
that still doesn't make it a fun game. And if reacting to and dealing
with random events that you have little or no control over isn't your
cup o' java, then _Kingmaker_ isn't the game for you (and I guess I fall
into this category). There may very well be (and, indeed, I'd suspect
must be, for it to have such a devoted following) quite a lot of subtleties
that are present in the game, but it just isn't something that I find
enjoyable. I'm quite willing to believe that others do - I'm just trying
to point out that people with different styles and preferences may not
find the game to their liking.
:>>I for one am completely baffled by the appeal of this game - it may
:>>just be that I'm more interested in a good game than a simulation of
:>>what things were like at the time, but in my opinion, _Kingmaker_
:>>doesn't cut it. It's not very fun to run around responding to random
:>>events, and the "politics" of the game never seemed to develop in any
:>>of the games I've played.
:>
:>This complaint truly baffles me. I don't think anyone considers Kingmaker
:>much of a simulation. Its a step up from Diplomacy, but not that much more.
:>Personally I believe its popularity derives from a few reasons. First, it is
:>simply a beautiful game. When AH released it in the US two decades ago, it
:>was by leap and bounds the most aesthically pleasing wargame in the market.
:>Today, it still compares favorably. Second, the randomness and multi-player
:>nature of the game ensures that each play of the game is different than the
:>previous play, but, as I claimed above, the randomness does not detract from
:>the need for proper planning and both strategic and tactical insights.
:>Third, its got great chrome, better stuff than any other game I've ever
:>played.
Well, the complaint is based primarily on the reaction I get when I
make the "random event" gripe above - namely, "thats the way it was then".
I don't care - if it isn't fun, I don't care how true to life it may be,
it still doesn't work for me.
As far as looking good - yeah, it does, but a lot of games look nice
but don't play for much, and IMHO _Kingmaker_ is one of them. The
chrome is nice, but if the underlying game isn't to my taste, it
doesn't make up for much.
Finally - for our group, at least, the randomness did indeed detract
from planning and strategy. Every game I've played has become an
example of "hide in a castle - not a city - and wait until someone
else gets spanked by an event, and then stomp on them". While this
is indeed a strategy, it just isn't one that I've found enjoyable.
As I've said in the earlier post - YMMV. It's obvious that there are
a lot of folks who love this game, I'm just not one of them, for the
reasons cited here and in the earlier post. If your tastes seem to
run parallel to mine, you may want to give _Kingmaker_ a miss - if,
on the other hand, it appears to you that my complaints wouldn't bother
you or your game group - go for it.
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
If you like (or almost like) Kingmaker, you should try Warrior
Kights. The main difference is regular meetings, with more
kinds of decisions. These are drawn on cards, 4 cards per
meeting. A few examples:
Offices, as in Kingmaker.
A 200 cr tax must be paid. Those attending must put forth
proposals as to who pays how much. The proposal with most
votes is passed.
Concessions. These must be given out when they appear. If
you get the wool concession, you get an extra 40 money per
turn, until the other wool concession card is given out.
(There are two of each of the four concessions)
A motion to expel certain mercenaries. The chairman (you take
turns at being chairman) names one of the six nations mercenaries
come from. Vote yes or no. If passed, all mercenaries of that
nation are removed from thegame.
Tax on concession, increased value of concessions, compensation
to those with no concessions, and lots of other stuff.
Other differences are the economy rules and the mercenary auctions.
Klaus O K
Mark Edwards
> >not to our liking - after spending hours on a game, to have it end due
> >to a purely random occurrence is not something that I, or others in my
> >game group, consider a good time.
> >
>
> subtleties of the game. (Not that its rocket science, mind you.) The whole
> point of the game is understanding how to react to those random occurrences.
> to assign crown cards properly, when and when not to take risks, how to set
> traps to ambush another player's vulnerable noble, will win the damn game 95%
> of the time against inexperienced players who will be screaming about how
> bloody lucky the winner was.
>
> >just be that I'm more interested in a good game than a simulation of
> >what things were like at the time, but in my opinion, _Kingmaker_
> >doesn't cut it. It's not very fun to run around responding to random
> >events, and the "politics" of the game never seemed to develop in any
> >of the games I've played.
>
> This complaint truly baffles me. I don't think anyone considers Kingmaker
> much of a simulation. Its a step up from Diplomacy, but not that much more.
> Personally I believe its popularity derives from a few reasons. First, it is
> simply a beautiful game. When AH released it in the US two decades ago, it
> was by leap and bounds the most aesthically pleasing wargame in the market.
> Today, it still compares favorably. Second, the randomness and multi-player
> nature of the game ensures that each play of the game is different than the
> previous play, but, as I claimed above, the randomness does not detract from
> the need for proper planning and both strategic and tactical insights.
> Third, its got great chrome, better stuff than any other game I've ever
> played.
>
> at...@ida.org
An-Jen,
Well said.
Also, as I had said before, if you play Kingmaker without getting
into the "politics" then you are playing it wrong somehow.
Simply put, it's a great game.
Mark
Stephen R. Schaffter
you get a brute (like the Marshal of England), he is
constantly being called away to put down revolts or fight
the French or whatever. This makes for a very balanced game
in that even if you have a pile of wimps at least they
aren't always going hither and yon to fight someone else's
battles.
In my group, we play Kingmaker about once a year or so; not
because we don't like it, but because it is one of those
classics that you forget just how good it is!
I strongly recommend getting the expansion card set for the
game -- it adds even more craziness.
Cheers!
Steve
rudi...@utdallas.edu
> >About five hours into the game we convened our third parliament at a place
> >called Tewksbury (or something close to that). Everyone pulled all of
> >their nobles in to amass as many votes as they possibly could so as to
> >take control of lands and titles. Then we pulled an event card - "Plague
> >at Tewksbury."
> >
> >Every single noble in the game died!
Then you had no good player present. Or you were not using advanced
rules. Or some such. Putting all your eggs in one basket is a foolish
thing to do in a game of "targets of opportunity." As soon as Parliament
is called, you should decide if you have any chance of being in the
controlling coalition. (Ideally, you should already have the coalition
formed.) If you are in it, then you can know enough about the points to
be ready to hold out any unnecessary points. (Remember that Commons
votes don't have to attend to vote.) Another thing to do when Parliament
is called (or when *any* event happens) is to look around for juicy
targets that just lost their guardians.
The essence of this game is not setting up a grand strategy, but
continually adjusting to every minor change, like skiing, surfing, or
handball. This "loose" approach to strategy allows the game fluidity,
and is necessary because the system is chaotic -- you cannot predict
conditions a full turn down the road.
> And this very same reason is the reason my group has found this game
> not to our liking - after spending hours on a game, to have it end due
> to a purely random occurrence is not something that I, or others in my
> game group, consider a good time.
I win most KingMaker games, because I *am* prepared for random
occurrences. For instance, if somebody leaves a sole king in a major
city but with a very minor noble, I'm likely to leave a heavier noble
near Preston, or Weymouth.
The game ends, not due to a purely random occurrence, but because
somebody is ready to take advantage of such occurrences. This is a
different kind of strategy game than chess, and won't necessarily appeal
to the same people. But there is real strategy, and riding the random
waves is the exciting part.
> I for one am completely baffled by the appeal of this game - it may
> just be that I'm more interested in a good game than a simulation of
> what things were like at the time, but in my opinion, _Kingmaker_
> doesn't cut it. It's not very fun to run around responding to random
> events, and the "politics" of the game never seemed to develop in any
> of the games I've played.
How can politics not develop in a voting game?
One more thing -- you *need* the advanced parliament and die-rolling for
noble deaths. Also, if the game is stagnating into "hole up in castles
and wait for randomness", then you must add the optional victory
conditions. The guy who takes cities while the rest are holed up will
win, so you are drawn out of those castles to prevent it. Voila, you're
all out in the field fighting battles.
Jay Rudin
rudi...@utdallas.edu
> I have played Kingmaker once. The game started at 10am and around 12am the
> next day we were still going.
If the game lasts much over five hours, then you need to put in the
Optional Victory Conditions, as described in the rule book.
Jay Rudin
J.D. Frazer
specifically, the subject of plagues. Once a plague appears in a city,
everyone knows it's safe to hole up in there until the event deck is
reshuffled.
So. House rule: the deck is reshuffled every time a plague appears. Problem
solved. Makes for a tenser game, too.
J.D.
Scott Kitchen
>I've found playing Kingmaker with the standard rules a little annoying --
>specifically, the subject of plagues. Once a plague appears in a city,
>everyone knows it's safe to hole up in there until the event deck is
>reshuffled.
>So. House rule: the deck is reshuffled every time a plague appears. Problem
>solved. Makes for a tenser game, too.
True. We've countered it a different way. Instead of using only one
event deck, we've shuffled in a second deck. Double the plagues,
double the fun! :) Plus, we've added the "Gales -- All ships lost"
cards and the others that were in that expansion set. It makes for a
big event deck, but the randomness works very well for us. YMMV, of
course.
Scott
"What happens when you get Scrope, Gray and Pole at the same time?"
--
URL -- http://mars.superlink.net/skitchen/index.html
GE d !H s+:++ !g(+) p0 au+ a29 w+ v+ C++ US !L !3 E N+++ K W+ M- !V
po Y+ t+ 5 j R+ G++ tv+ b+++ !D B-- e+++ u+ h--- f* r+++ n- y+
The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion. - Arnold H. Glascow
Randy Shipp
>I've found playing Kingmaker with the standard rules a little annoying --
>specifically, the subject of plagues. Once a plague appears in a city,
>everyone knows it's safe to hole up in there until the event deck is
>reshuffled.
>So. House rule: the deck is reshuffled every time a plague appears. Problem
>solved. Makes for a tenser game, too.
>J.D.
Well, J.D., I've observed the same phenomenon that you have, but I
think that shuffling the deck after each plague has the potential to
wreck game balance that's built into the deck. The type and frequency
of cards in the deck can play a crucial role in the way the game pans
out. If there are fifty cards in the deck and one "Plague in London"
card, then the designers probably intended there to be a plague in
London, on the average, once every fifty turns. Without beating my
brains out trying to remember high school statistics, I can't tell you
to what degree, but I'm sure there's a substantial increase in the
frequency with which each plague would appear. I dunno.
Randy...
rsh...@flash.net
Mark Edwards
>
> dwi...@instanet.com wrote:
> > Kingmaker hasn't been played by our group in years. Too random for the
> > amount of work involved. You can work on you position for hours and then 1
> > little card will destroy you.
>
> It is essentially a game of seeking "targets of opportunity" in an
> ever-changing board. It's a different skill from building a grand
> strategy, but still very much determined by play, not by the random
> forces. The skill is in using, or at least reducing the pain of, the
> random events.
>
> > Lots of arguing and diplomacy. If you like
> > "Diplomacy" or "Republic of Rome" you will like it. I dislike games where
> > the bulk of one's time is spent trying to get people to help you. Not
> > enough strategy.
>
> *Lots* of strategy, but the strategy is in the building of alliances. If
> you don't like that kind of strategy, fine, but don't claim it's not
> strategy.
>
> > Also, I don't lie, which makes it difficult to win diplomacy games.
>
> people learn that they can count on you. (Unless the rest of the players
> are more interested in lying than in anything else. True in almost all
> "Diplomacy" games, but few "KingMaker" or "Civilization" games.
>
> Jay Rudin
I'm in complete agreeance Jay, I think too many people miss the basic
strategy in Kingmaker. We're so used to empire building that games that
require flexibility and changing strategies throw us for a loop.
KingMaker and Civilization are perfect examples. You can't expect to
build a cast in iron empire, too many things can happen, in KingMaker it's
random events, in Civilization it's calamities. In both those games one must
be able to minimize the effects of those events and recover quickly from them
when they inevitably occur. Yet both these games allow a weaker position to
come back into the game. KingMaker has the reuse of crown cards and
politics, while Civilization has built in protections so that calamaties will
help the weakest position.
Although there is a fair amount of diplomacy in KingMaker it is no
where near as cut-throat as Diplomacy. Our alliance's were easily formed,
and fluid, and since we played with alliance wins they occured often.
KingMaker should be playable in a single evening, it's not an all day
game. Just as Jay said, no hours long plans, but fluid strategies based on
an ever changing board.
In short, forget the empire building, think mobility, hit and run
tactics, try to keep a powerbase (military as well as political), minimize
random events, don't put all your best crown cards on one noble (just in case
he gets summoned elsewhere at a crucial moment), and don't piss off everybody
by bouncing their nobles everytime they come near.
Mark
Van_...@mk.com
we had no king and no clergy, and I think the "Parliament must be called" cards
were missing from the Event Deck. We got bored beating up the revolting
peasants and each other after a couple hours, called it a draw, and left to
take in the sights (and lovelies) of Paris.
All the other games I've played have been quite enjoyable, however. As Jay
says, the winner is almost always the player best prepared to sieze an oppor-
tunity, but that is not always the player with the most powerful faction.
I won a game in which I had zero nobles in play after the first turn, and
I recall another game won, thanks to a fortuitous sequence of events, by a
weak faction we'd all considered innocuous. One of the game's appeals to
me is, as that sage of history, Yogi Berra, so aptly put it, "It ain't over
till it's over."
1 2
| The Midnight Skulker
9 * 3 a.k.a. Van_...@mk.com
6
Timothy Allen
# j...@mindlink.bc.ca (J.D. Frazer) wrote:
# >I've found playing Kingmaker with the standard rules a little annoying --
# >specifically, the subject of plagues. Once a plague appears in a city,
# >everyone knows it's safe to hole up in there until the event deck is
# >reshuffled.
#
# >So. House rule: the deck is reshuffled every time a plague appears. Problem
# >solved. Makes for a tenser game, too.
# Well, J.D., I've observed the same phenomenon that you have, but I
# think that shuffling the deck after each plague has the potential to
# wreck game balance that's built into the deck. The type and frequency
# of cards in the deck can play a crucial role in the way the game pans
# out. If there are fifty cards in the deck and one "Plague in London"
# card, then the designers probably intended there to be a plague in
# London, on the average, once every fifty turns. Without beating my
# brains out trying to remember high school statistics, I can't tell you
# to what degree, but I'm sure there's a substantial increase in the
# frequency with which each plague would appear. I dunno.
Not to be stuffy, but please let me note that reshuffling affects only
time-dependent correlations: reshuffling does not affect long term
probabilities.
Specifically, if "Plague in London" is 1 of 50 cards, it will still be 1
of 50 cards regardless of how often or how little the deck is shuffled.
However, with shuffling, it is possible (but extremely unlikely) to draw
"Plague in London" three times in a row. Without shuffling, you must
cycle through the entire deck before it can show up again.
These comments assume there are no cards that players keep, like
_Monopoly's_ "Get out of jail free."
Regards.
--
Disclaimer: these words are not an official position of my employer.
Steve Hutton
: I think that shuffling the deck after each plague has the potential to
: wreck game balance that's built into the deck. The type and frequency
: of cards in the deck can play a crucial role in the way the game pans
: out. If there are fifty cards in the deck and one "Plague in London"
: card, then the designers probably intended there to be a plague in
: London, on the average, once every fifty turns. Without beating my
: brains out trying to remember high school statistics, I can't tell you
: to what degree, but I'm sure there's a substantial increase in the
: frequency with which each plague would appear. I dunno.
It does change the odds somewhat, because the deck is always either random
(newly shuffled) or plague-heavy (after one or more non-plague cards). The
more cards cause the deck to be reshuffled, the smaller the effect. Since
plague cards are fairly common, I'd estimate that this change makes plagues
about 10% more frequent. To use the above example, this would mean that
Plague in London occurs 2.2% of the time instead of 2.0%. I don't see how
this would wreck game balance. The main effect on game balance would be
the increased unpredictability of plagues, not their slightly increased
frequency.
--
Steve Hutton
Steffan O'Sullivan
it read "Plague - roll to see which city it appears in"? I don't
know the distribution of plague cards myself, but pretend plague
can appear in four places once each and one place twice. Just make
a chart with those four cities once each, and the other one twice,
and roll a d6 each time *any* plague card comes up. Ignore the
city written on the card. You can figure out the appropriate dice
to use when you count how many cities can be affected. If nothing
else, you can always use percentiles.
--
Steffan O'Sullivan s...@io.com Plymouth, NH, USA
------------------- http://oz.plymouth.edu/~gaming/ -------------------
"All history is made up. Good history is made up by good historians;
bad history is made up by the others." -David Macaulay
J.F.Scott
h...@dove.mtx.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi) writes:
> About five hours into the game we convened our third parliament at a place
> called Tewksbury (or something close to that). Everyone pulled all of
> their nobles in to amass as many votes as they possibly could so as to
> take control of lands and titles. Then we pulled an event card - "Plague
> at Tewksbury."
>
> Every single noble in the game died!
>
While this is funny, it also means that you misread the rules.
Parliament can only be called in unfortified towns - the ones that look
like huts on the map. These towns don't get plague, unless you've
written special cards for them. Plagues affect towns and cities, not
Royal Castles or castles (ie where knights start off).
> It was the most hilarious end to any game that I have ever played. Give
> it a go - it's a fun game.
John
----
J.F.Scott University of Brighton j.f....@bton.ac.uk
I had a life, a good life. So good in fact that I was able to trade it
in for a faster processer and a better monitor.
The University and I agree on a lot, but not necessarily this.
Steve Hutton
: Not to be stuffy, but please let me note that reshuffling affects only
: time-dependent correlations: reshuffling does not affect long term
: probabilities.
: Specifically, if "Plague in London" is 1 of 50 cards, it will still be 1
: of 50 cards regardless of how often or how little the deck is shuffled.
: However, with shuffling, it is possible (but extremely unlikely) to draw
: "Plague in London" three times in a row. Without shuffling, you must
: cycle through the entire deck before it can show up again.
That was my first thought, but it's wrong. To see why, imagine a
much simpler example: we put your name and my name in a hat and
draw one. If my name is drawn, we "reshuffle" before the next draw (i.e.
put both names in the hat again). If your name is drawn, we do the next
draw without reshuffling (i.e. certainly draw my name). The long run
probabilities are clearly in my favour.
Your point would be correct if the cue for reshuffling were independent of
which cards had been drawn (e.g. reshuffle after 10 draws).
--
Steve Hutton
Peter M White
>Not to be stuffy, but please let me note that reshuffling affects only
>time-dependent correlations: reshuffling does not affect long term
>probabilities.
>Specifically, if "Plague in London" is 1 of 50 cards, it will still be 1
>of 50 cards regardless of how often or how little the deck is shuffled.
>However, with shuffling, it is possible (but extremely unlikely) to draw
>"Plague in London" three times in a row. Without shuffling, you must
>cycle through the entire deck before it can show up again.
>These comments assume there are no cards that players keep, like
>_Monopoly's_ "Get out of jail free."
There are a few cards one keeps out of the Event deck, not enough to
change the statistics much.
It is certainly true that reshuffling allows the possibility of many
London plagues in a row. This will be offset by 200+ turns of a
pestilience free London every once in a while.
IMHO, rather than constantly reshuffling, some of the results of event
cards, e.g. plague locations, and battle results should be replaced
by a random die roll on a chart. However, I also think that some events,
e.g. Mercenaries go home, are better with a hint of inevitability to
them.
--Peter
p-w...@uiuc.edu
Randy Shipp
># Well, J.D., I've observed the same phenomenon that you have, but I
># think that shuffling the deck after each plague has the potential to
># wreck game balance that's built into the deck. The type and frequency
># of cards in the deck can play a crucial role in the way the game pans
># out. If there are fifty cards in the deck and one "Plague in London"
># card, then the designers probably intended there to be a plague in
># London, on the average, once every fifty turns. Without beating my
># brains out trying to remember high school statistics, I can't tell you
># to what degree, but I'm sure there's a substantial increase in the
># frequency with which each plague would appear. I dunno.
>Not to be stuffy, but please let me note that reshuffling affects only
>time-dependent correlations: reshuffling does not affect long term
>probabilities.
>Specifically, if "Plague in London" is 1 of 50 cards, it will still be 1
>of 50 cards regardless of how often or how little the deck is shuffled.
>However, with shuffling, it is possible (but extremely unlikely) to draw
>"Plague in London" three times in a row. Without shuffling, you must
>cycle through the entire deck before it can show up again.
Hehehehe...I love this electronic medium. I think you're basically
saying what I meant. I should have said, "I'm sure there's a
substantial increase in the frequency with which each plague (or other
card) would appear in a given amount of time, i.e. the length of the
game."
What I was trying to say is that I don't think the designers intended
that an event represented by one card would occur any more frequently
than once per [number of cards per deck].
Randy...
rsh...@flash.net
C. Giroux
after reading some of your comments I'm going to give it
another try. Thanks for the fresh outlook.
Chris
Van_...@mk.com
> In article <htp-140396...@ppp58a.mtx.net.au>
> h...@dove.mtx.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi) writes:
>
> > About five hours into the game we convened our third parliament at a place
> > called Tewksbury (or something close to that). Everyone pulled all of
> > their nobles in to amass as many votes as they possibly could so as to
> > take control of lands and titles. Then we pulled an event card - "Plague
> > at Tewksbury."
> >
> > Every single noble in the game died!
> >
>
> While this is funny, it also means that you misread the rules.
> Parliament can only be called in unfortified towns - the ones that look
> like huts on the map. These towns don't get plague, unless you've
> written special cards for them. Plagues affect towns and cities, not
> Royal Castles or castles (ie where knights start off).
Perhaps we have a different set of rules on this side of the pond, John. In
the ones I have step 1 of Parliament states, "The King or Chancellor must
occupy an unfortified town, town or city (not castle) excluding Calais or one
under siege, which is to be the location of Parliament." (The Terrain Key
notes that Parliament can also be summoned in the three open towns.)
On the other hand, Henry, in my game Tewkesbury is an unfortified town and is
therefore free of disease. Might it have been the town of Shrewsbury where
your, um, ill-fated Parliament was convened?
Jeff Goldsmith
>
> Re: the plague controversy. Why not treat every plague card as if
> it read "Plague - roll to see which city it appears in"? I don't
> know the distribution of plague cards myself, but pretend plague
The distribution is "everywhere gets plauged exactly once."
> can appear in four places once each and one place twice. Just make
> a chart with those four cities once each, and the other one twice,
> and roll a d6 each time *any* plague card comes up. Ignore the
> city written on the card. You can figure out the appropriate dice
> to use when you count how many cities can be affected. If nothing
> else, you can always use percentiles.
This is "shuffle on plague cards." A compromise between
shuffle on plague and shuffle on end of deck is shuffle
on embassy. Personally, I like shuffle on embassy because
there's a chance that your safe city isn't so safe, allowing
for some of each of the other situations.
--Jeff
--
Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil?
---
http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff
Craig Richardson
Jeff Goldsmith <je...@tintin.jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>Steffan O'Sullivan wrote:
>>
>> Re: the plague controversy. Why not treat every plague card as if
>> it read "Plague - roll to see which city it appears in"? I don't
>> know the distribution of plague cards myself, but pretend plague
>
>The distribution is "everywhere gets plauged exactly once."
The solution Steffan mentioned is similar to
the one chosen in _Samurai_ (which is basically _Kingmaker_ set
in Japan with some minor tweaks to the rules, largely to change the
flavor (especially the combat system). Same basic model, though.).
In _Samurai_, the various disasters all are on tables, some linear
and some bell-curved to finesse the probabilities towards more
"realistic" locations. They aren't uniform, though, and some places
are safe from each given (and some from all) disaster.
Great game - from what I understand, it shares a feature with
_Kingmaker_ that the first player who is resoundingly crushed
often is able to bide her time and come back to win the game.
--Craig
--
Craig S. Richardson (cri...@eskimo.com - http://www.eskimo.com/~crichar)
Shortstop/Pitcher (0-2, 6.16) - Federal Way Astros (11-9) [NABA]
"... things don't look good for Craig. He's a stiff." - Gary Huckabay
All I'd ever need / Right before my eyes / Never felt a thing / Never realized
John_Da...@cup.portal.com
> Parliament can only be called in unfortified towns - the ones that look
> like huts on the map. These towns don't get plague, unless you've
> written special cards for them. Plagues affect towns and cities, not
> Royal Castles or castles (ie where knights start off).
Wrong. Parliament can be held in any town or city with a cathedral (cross).
John David Galt
Van_...@mk.com
> Great game [Samurai] - from what I understand, it shares a feature with
> _Kingmaker_ that the first player who is resoundingly crushed often is
> able to bide her time and come back to win the game.
An interesting observation and one which my experience tends to support (for
Kingmaker -- I have not played Samurai). I don't know that I'd say an early
crushee -->often<-- wins, but I've certainly seen it happen (and did it once
myself), and I recall several games where he/she was a force to be reckoned
with at the end.
I would think the ability to come back from a crushing would depend on when
it occurred and how many players were in the game. We usually had seven or
eight players, which meant everyone started with four or five Crown cards,
not all that much of a deficit to make up should one's faction be annihilated.
With four players, however, everyone starts with nine Crown cards, placing a
crushee at a much bigger disadvantage.
Having a sufficient number of title, office, and noble cards left in the
Crown deck to rebuild a respectable faction would also seem to be a require-
ment. An early crushing is not necessarily fatal to one's chances, but I
have never seen a player recover from a major defeat when the Crown deck
was depleted. Of course you did say "the -->first<-- player".
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
>This is "shuffle on plague cards." A compromise between
>shuffle on plague and shuffle on end of deck is shuffle
>on embassy. Personally, I like shuffle on embassy because
>there's a chance that your safe city isn't so safe, allowing
>for some of each of the other situations.
> --Jeff
Shuffle when any one player wants to always worked for us.
Klaus O K
Eric D. Roush
I don't think this is right; Paliament can be held in *any* town or
city except Calais or a city under siege.
Cathredrals only matter for coronations.
Yep, that's what my copy of the rules says (in so many words).
--
Eric D. Roush "I know I find myself a helluva lot better
edr...@acpub.duke.edu ballplayer since I quit playing"
also coa...@aol.com Joe Garagiola
Henry Penninkilampi
>> jf...@bton.ac.uk (J.F.Scott) writes:
>> In article <htp-140396...@ppp58a.mtx.net.au>
>> h...@dove.mtx.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi) writes:
>>
>> > About five hours into the game we convened our third parliament at a
>> > place called Tewksbury (or something close to that). Everyone pulled
>> > all of their nobles in to amass as many votes as they possibly could so
>> > as to take control of lands and titles. Then we pulled an event card -
>> > "Plague at Tewksbury."
>> >
>> > Every single noble in the game died!
>>
>> While this is funny, it also means that you misread the rules.
>> Parliament can only be called in unfortified towns - the ones that look
>> like huts on the map. These towns don't get plague, unless you've
>> written special cards for them. Plagues affect towns and cities, not
>> Royal Castles or castles (ie where knights start off).
>
>Perhaps we have a different set of rules on this side of the pond, John. In
>the ones I have step 1 of Parliament states, "The King or Chancellor must
>occupy an unfortified town, town or city (not castle) excluding Calais or
>one under siege, which is to be the location of Parliament." (The Terrain
>Key notes that Parliament can also be summoned in the three open towns.)
>
>On the other hand, Henry, in my game Tewkesbury is an unfortified town and
>is therefore free of disease. Might it have been the town of Shrewsbury
>where your, um, ill-fated Parliament was convened?
"Shrewsbury" sounds close to the mark as well - you may be right.
Regardless, it was an amazing ending to an enjoyable night and the
originator of this thread wanted opinions of the game (not excerpts from
the rules) so that's what I submitted.
All of us that played enjoyed it so I give it the big "thumbs up" in the
category of "light-hearted distraction".
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Henry Penninkilampi (h...@dove.mtx.net.au) |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Join "EvangeList", Guy Kawasaki's official Apple listserver of good|
|news about Apple, Macs, and third-party developers. To subscribe to|
|EvangeList, send email to list...@solutions.apple.com, and include|
|(in the body of the message) the text: Subscribe Macway <Your Name>|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Jeff Thompson
I have played Samurai many many times. I always wondered if Kingmaker
would be a fun game. I always enjoyed Samurai, and recommend it highly.
Every game we played spawned some story. Some of these stories are
still whispered today, especially the one where the seeming winner took
the artifacts off to Oki Island to sit and win, but one player started a
lord on Oki and had two ninja chits. In other words, Samurai is a game
that goes to the end. I was just wondering if Kingmaker is the same
thing. Thanks...
Jeff
Van_...@mk.com
> ... Samurai is a game that goes to the end. I was just wondering if
> Kingmaker is the same thing.
I have not kept any statistics on our Kingmaker games, but after dredging
my memory I think the following distribution is pretty close.
65% Games in which there was a general balance of power (usually main-
tained by the formation and shifting of alliances) until a decisive
battle left one faction a clear winner, either outright or with a
sufficient advantage to win at their leisure.
25% Games in which one faction maintained a lead over the others from
start to finish and won.
10% Games in which one faction rose from obscurity to win, either by ac-
cumulating and concealing power in the player's hand, or by having
the major powers knock each other out.
To answer the question directly I'm going to go out on a limb and say that
Kingmaker -->is<-- a game that goes to the end. Random events can split up
one's faction leaving it vulnerable to defeat in detail, or that a power-
ful noble will be killed in battle even if he is on the winning side. In
other words, there is usually a chance that the best laid plans will un-
ravel, though sometimes that chance is a miniscule one.
Alan Poulter
: Someone made a reference to the Samurai game in a post about Kingmaker.
: would be a fun game. I always enjoyed Samurai, and recommend it highly.
: Every game we played spawned some story. Some of these stories are
: still whispered today, especially the one where the seeming winner took
: the artifacts off to Oki Island to sit and win, but one player started a
Check out the recent thread on Kingmaker that reviewed the game at:-
http://www.clever.net/grognard/reviews/king.txt
--
Alan Poulter, Lecturer phone/fax:01509 223061/223053
Dept. of Information and Library Studies mailto:a.po...@lut.ac.uk
Loughborough University mailto:apou...@nyx10.cs.du.edu
LE11 3TU mailto:al...@poulter.demon.co.uk
UK http://info.lut.ac.uk/departments/dils/staff/apoulter/