Having just completed my first solitaire game of GMT’s new release of Charles Vasey’s much anticipated UNHAPPY KING CHARLES (GMT), it seemed appropriate to draw some comparisons with his earlier design, THE KING’S WAR (Clash of Arms).

SCOPE
THE KING’S WAR (TKW) is a month by month simulation of the Great Civil War - 39 turns if you decide to play out the entire conflict – but it is broken down into several individual scenarios, each of which span only a few months at a time. Thus you can focus on the early war, the intervention of the Scots, or the rise of the New Model Army. Each scenario has its own specific victory conditions and is thus self-contained.
In UNHAPPY KING CHARLES (UKC), each turn represents four months, the entire game comprising just eleven turns (the length of one of the scenarios in TKW). The map board, too, reflects this difference, TKW having no less than 137 areas, while UKC has reduced these to 75.
Despite this, none of the detail of the earlier game is lost. What TKW has omitted by way of those historical events which make the war interesting to refight, UKC achieves with the use of the ubiquitous and ever-popular Card-driven system, where operations and historical events are elegantly combined.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
While the object of both games is the acquisition of victory points through the conquest of territory, there is a major difference in the way this is achieved. TKW focuses on the major cities which possess intrinsic Victory points, making them a target for both sides. London, Oxford, Bristol and York, for example, not only yield bonus VPs if gained, but also cause the original controller to forfeit penalty points – in effect a ‘double whammy’.
In UKC, by contrast, the emphasis is on regional domination. Parliament gains VPs by controlling the majority of areas within each of the five key regions. (Although TKW also has regions, they do not have the same significance when considering victory conditions). Appreciating the difference is crucial as I found out during my solitaire game. While Parliament concentrated on the sieges of Oxford and Bristol, the Royalists swallowed up territory, gaining regional control and ultimate victory.
This is not to say that individual fortresses are unimportant in UKC. On the contrary, the emphasis has been shifted from the abstract VPs to the historical implications of their gain or loss – namely that the capture of major centres denies your opponent vital recruitment areas and economic infrastructures. However, because they do not yield victory points per se, it is important to keep a watchful eye on the overall ebb and flow of regional control while you devote energy to besieging these key areas.
In TKW, areas begin as either pro-Royalist or pro-Parliament, whereas in UKC, several areas begin the game in neutral status. This makes for a frenetic scramble at the start of the game to capture these ‘undecided’ voters and establish a political edge.
Interestingly, one intriguing mechanic which neither of these games employs is one which appeared in IRONSIDES (WWW Games). Each city’s initial loyalty is graded out of 10, according to its historical leaning to one side or the other; both sides are required to check this loyalty with a 10 sided die when first attempting to gain control. Depending on the result, the city either opens its gates or a siege is required to subjugate it. Neat idea?

RECRUITMENT AND DESERTION
Another major difference is in the mechanics controlling the recruitment and deployment of armies. In TKW, each unit represents a regiment of foot or squadron of horse which can be recruited in any area of its region, up to the number available on the recruitment map. Thus, multiple recruitment in a single area is theoretically possible and, once incorporated into an army, limited redistribution is permitted, provided the regional rules are not breached.
In UKC, each combat unit is a brigade (historically comprising three or four regiments) and can be recruited only in the recruitment centres of the brigade’s home region. In addition, only one brigade per region can be recruited during each of the two opportunities permitted each turn. This not only prohibits multiple recruiting, it makes it even more important to retain your own recruitment centres and capture your opponent’s.
In addition, once recruited, each brigade must be placed with a specific general and cannot be redistributed under any circumstances (barring defeat or desertion). Because subordinate generals do not give up their brigades, it is vital to choose carefully where you place the new recruits. Frustrating as it is to have King Charles pass through an area occupied by Prince Rupert’s army, and not be able to pick up individual brigades en route, it means that considerable thought must be exercised in the deployment of individual brigades. Remember also, that any general left without brigades, immediately vacates the map for the remainder of the turn.
Desertion is a mechanic which has been transposed virtually unchanged from TKW and players ignore it at their peril. The constant attrition which bedevilled English Civil War armies is suitably captured in the games and is a constant headache for both sides. Its effects are felt most particularly in sieges where immediately a besieging army’s strength falls below the required level, all accumulated bombardment points are lost and you’re back to square one. It is therefore imperative, not only to keep besieging armies up to strength and to anticipate attrition, but also to maintain garrisons in major centres, particularly the class ‘3’ fortresses, which would require an army of at least six brigades to besiege. Such an army is almost certain to lose two brigades each desertion phase and, since you can’t recruit in any area containing a siege marker, the maintenance of such a siege would require a constant coming-and-going of subordinate generals with adequate reinforcements.

SINEWS OF WAR
One of the finest elements in TKW (which ironically exists only as an optional rule) is the concept of limited operations encapsulated in the ‘Sinews of War.’ This allows only a limited number of operations per turn by the expenditure of ‘Campaign Points’, and places the burden of choice on each player in every turn. UKC represents this same concept with ‘Operations’ cards. During each turn, a player will receive a mix of ‘Operations’ and ‘Event’ cards which will inevitably limit the movement of armies and require prioritisation of objectives.
A key consideration here is the size of armies. In TKW, large armies are impeded because they require more ‘Campaign Points’ to mobilise. In UKC any army of five or more brigades requires a ‘3’ Ops card regardless of the commanding general’s strategy rating and these are in short supply. This encourages players to use historically smaller armies and significantly reduces the impact of the five brigades strong Covenanter army of the Earl of Leven when it is introduced upon play of the ‘Solemn League and Covenant’ card. Those expecting a Scottish ‘steam-roller’ may be disappointed.

COMBAT RESOLUTION
The Combat Resolution system in the newer game has also been modified. In TKW, combat units are divided into foot and horse regiments, both of which play their own role in deciding the outcome of a battle. In this respect, the system is somewhat similar to that of the earlier IRONSIDES game design. The balanced composition of individual armies is therefore an important consideration. With its larger scope, however, UKC dispenses with this, bringing all combat down to a straightforward issue of combat strength, leadership ratings and combat cards (if played).

HISTORICAL EVENTS
In TKW, historical events are automatically incorporated into the chronological sequence of the game – the dismissal and replacement of generals, the Self-Denying Ordnance, the New Model Army etc. There are no random events. In UKC historical events appear by means of the ‘Event’ Cards. A degree of uncertainty is maintained by not knowing when these cards will turn up and, because both sides use the same deck (as in WILDERNESS WAR for example), some of these events may not appear at all if they end up discarded by the opposing player. There are also a few ‘Alternative History’ events thrown into the mix for good measure, but these can be left out by mutual agreement.

CONCLUSION
In my view, both games possess enough individual characteristics to enable them to stand on their own merits. I do not believe that UKC, for all its innovations and elegant design, will necessarily supplant TKW as an accurate and enjoyable simulation of the English Civil War. There are enough idiosyncrasies to make each attractive to individual gamers – for example, those who are not enamoured of the CDG system, or who want a slightly more involved combat system, or a more in depth replay. As Mr. Vasey himself implied in his interview with GMT, TKW is aimed at the ECW expert, while UKC is aimed at a wider audience.
Both games deserve a place on the shelf and I, for one, will certainly be revisiting TKW at every opportunity. After three years of anticipation, I am overjoyed that, this fine early effort finally has its Brother in Arms.