Howdy everyone - I am in the process of finishing my 10th play of Unhappy King Charles, and thought I would post a review. For those who like a bottom line (this time on top), I think it's a fantastic game and have rated it a 9. I'm very stingy with my 10 - only Here I Stand rates that for me.

Components

The artwork on the cards and counters is top notch, and the gamebox is gorgeous. There is a rulebook that is well-organized and manageable, as well as a playbook. As expected from a long and thorough development, the playbook contains a wealth of information - both for gameplay and historical background. I usually try to avoid the "expert opinions" on gameplay until I have a few plays under my belt (there's nothing more fun than the first time you play a CDG, not knowing what cards are coming), but I've been reading the playbook a lot recently. There has been a lot of comment about the board's orientation - the displays at the bottom are oriented differently than the map. However, in face to face play this works very well - one person sits in the Atlantic, the other in the German Ocean and can read the displays with no problem. One complaint - I would like to have had more player aids, especially with a full description of the recruitment rules BOTH for brigades and generals, movement rules, and battle results. That said, I'm a player aid whore and own a laminator - there's never enough

Gameplay

I don't really want to rehash the rules, as the gameplay is quite similar to other CDG's. Instead, I'll focus on some unique aspects:

- At its heart, UKC is a game of political control (PC), represented by placing PC markers. Uniquely, though, entire regions will fall away from you due to political isolation since the "supply lines" become so stretched. You have to trace a line to a local notable, army (not lone brigade), or supply fortress. Problem is, you might disperse 2 or 3 armies in a turn due to poor odds, and lose your support. This makes for incredibly hard decisions. What's more, as the game progresses you are forced to control even more territory to avoid losing the game suddenly.

- Many events will likely not be played, and that makes the game infinitely more replayable. You never know if Queen Maria will come home, if Hotham will take Hull, or whether either side will get their "extra card" events. The only way you draw from the discard pile is with a Parliament major or decisive battle victory (and these are very rare). Your options are to either play an operations card, an event card, or discard an event card to do a limited number of things.

- There are 10 alternate history cards, only 4 of which will be played - another factor that enhances replay.

- Recruitment and desertion are the two mechanics that set this game apart. Your armies are constantly getting larger, only to fade away at the end of the year. What's more, there are various factors that increase the likelihood of desertion - so your 4 brigade army could dissolve if it is sitting on an enemy PC adjacent to an enemy army. It's also very tricky to balance the need for veterans, when you have to recruit militias if they're available.

- Surprisingly, battle is simple (you just add your strength points, battle rating of the general, and a die roll), but unless you can virtually guarantee success, it is unwise. If close, you will lose a veteran brigade for good. Dispersing your troops prior to rolling the die is generally a good idea. The more games I've played, the fewer battles I've fought - I will even use a 3 OPS card to just place PC or raid.

- The different types of generals is an interesting twist. You either have Field Generals, who range around the board, Regional Generals who try and stay close to home (and for the Royalist player are crucial for recruitment), and there are Local Notables who can raid (basically flip PC's) and recruit. I've yet to try this, but I think it might be a good idea to "stash" militia with the LN to leave veterans available.

- Finally, I really compare this game a lot to Hannibal, but I prefer UKC so much more. I stopped playing Hannibal because it seemed too simple and almost abstract (I once made the mistake of calling it a Euro). UKC has all the goodness of Hannibal - the desparate fight for territory, seemingly easy battles that can go awry - but with a lot of historical chrome to make things more interesting.

Complexity

I would say it's more complex than Hannibal, but most of that complexity is found in the recruitment/subordination rules. Once you understand those, it plays very quickly. I guess it's more on par with Paths of Glory, since PoG has all of the Near East exceptions. A playing time of 4-5 hours for a full game is reasonable for UKC (but I bet 2 experienced players could do it in 3).

As I said above, I think this game is fantastic and engrossing. The options for replayability are limitless - I can't see that you would ever have a PoG-like standard opening move. But then, I may have a different opinion on that after my twentieth play