Game: Krieg und Frieden

Image

rober — 2008-10-28T13:21:04+00:00

game overview

Thread: Re: Bidding Question: Single bid... return card to hand?

cdefrisco — 2008-10-12T01:53:20+00:00

Thanks Chad... that was my interpretation as well.

Thread: Re: Bidding Question: Single bid... return card to hand?

willythesnitch — 2008-10-11T23:16:17+00:00

hmm, I've always played it that your first bid comes back to your hand if you pass after one round of bidding. I think maybe the uncertainty comes as a result of the translation, it seems to me to make sense that it would come back to your hand, cards are hard enough to come by.

Chad

Thread: Bidding Question: Single bid... return card to hand?

cdefrisco — 2008-10-11T19:16:31+00:00

We had a very heated dispute last night.
We almost never have any disputes over rules. They are rare, but when they crop up they are fierce. :-)

Three of us were playing this game for the first time, using the English translation provided here on the geek. After the very first round of bidding (each of us laying down one set of cards), the original bid was increased. The other two then bowed out.

Are those first played bid cards brought back into the player's hands if they bow out, or are they discarded?

The dispute came up because the word "addition" in the bottom snippet.
Two of the players had only laid down their initial bid without any later 'additional' bids/cards.

"...because when a player passes they may take back into their hand the cards that made up the last addition to their bid."

Thread: About privilege markers

ymir — 2008-08-08T20:17:41+00:00

Hi

Could this game favors player who has the shield privilege marker?

I mean since there are only 2 of these markers, could a player who just won the bidding, say he opts for the shield privilege marker and take one away from other player even though other privilege markers (food,wealth,hammer) are still available in stock.
Any comments? Thanks!

Image

peterk — 2008-08-08T15:44:04+00:00

Dutch box cover (higher res mug shot)

Image

henk.rolleman — 2008-07-28T20:34:47+00:00

Overview

Image

olavf — 2008-06-20T14:10:40+00:00

Cropped Dutch Cover

Image

teabo — 2008-02-24T01:44:33+00:00

Unpunched German contents.

Thread: The Shield...Yet another tinker.

Crockerdile — 2008-01-13T15:49:08+00:00

When winning a privilege, the war privilege (shield) is almost always the one chosen. If the king has none left, the winner of the agenda, generally steals this privilege from another player, resulting in less privileges entering the game overall. So this makes sense.

Use the "dagger" variant, where all received privileges are also worth 2 VP. If you receive the privilege from the King you keep the 2 VP. If you steal the privilege from another noble, you keep only 1 VP, while the noble being robbed receives the other VP.

Thread: The King Mobilizes, 1st try.

Crockerdile — 2008-01-06T16:02:13+00:00

I uploaded the file, "The King's Mobilization", untested, because I had blind faith that it would change the end game play of "K und F"...and it did, in the following case.

First of all Orange (myself) was never a factor. I was constantly attacked and bribed (perhaps because it is my game and and the others were being wary), and I never seemed to be able to collect the proper resource combinations.
Black (to my left) was the noble who started out with the biggest strength, and kept it up until past mid-game which is where his fortunes started to wane. White (to my right) eventually won a couple of "build" agendas late to gain the lead. But Yellow stayed within striking distance, being able to use the "king's bounty" two turns in a row against Black (who always seemed to have a fistfull of cards. So with 5 parts of the cathederal built, and no "privilege" agendas left, the score was as follows.
White: 8 Yellow: 7 Black: 7 Orange: (a pitiful) 3.

Somehow I (Orange) had managed to win the last privilege, so I turned it in to change the agenda to war, giving me my best chance to play spoiler. Yellow had 7 cards left, while the rest of us had only 3 or 4 each, so he won the bidding, built the cathederal roof, and by normal standards would have won the game, with 11 points. Winning the bid used all of his cards.

So we then played the year out. Being the advisor, I burned a Yellow farmstead earning 2 resources. I also burned a Black hut to gain 2 more resources. Black also burned the last Yellow hut, earning 2 resources. Yellow was now cardless and without any extra income. When it was White's turn, he built 1 farm (giving him a pair), and did nothing else. Then we collected final income. Orange was able to turn in the resources for 4 more points. Black was able to gain 3 more points, doing the same. Yellow had only 1 card (a half pointer), so his score didn't change. White had enough resources to gain 3 points, which put him into a tie with Yellow. Both were left with only 1 un-scored card at the end, thus ended up tied even after the tie-breaker.

Final Score: Yellow: 11, White: 11, Black: 10, Orange: 7

So what did we accomplish after 90+ minutes...a tie! On the surface, a tie isn't the result you would hope for. But the truth is that playing the game with this variant, worked exactly as it was supposed to...namely insuring that the player who built the last cathederal piece, will not necessarily be the runaway winner.

Thread: Re: Fixing the endgame...some thoughts

Crockerdile — 2007-12-31T13:20:56+00:00

OK. I've figured it out, and have submitted a file with the complete rules. But to capsulize:
1. The game does not imediately end when the last cathederal piece is built, but continues through both the summer and fall phases.
2. After income is received at the end of the fall phase, the King calls for a final mobilization to solve the final agenda, once and for all.
3. Whatever resources are left in a players hand may be worth 1, or 1/2, or zero points, depending upon what the current agenda is. Totals are rounded down. These points are added to your current score.

This variant maintains the importance of the last cathederal piece, but it is now no longer the "game-breaker" that it is in the current game.

I made a new post here hoping that this thread doesn't get burried.

Thread: Re: Fixing the endgame...some thoughts

Crockerdile — 2007-12-30T18:36:34+00:00

Thinking about it more. The game doesn't end in the Spring when the last piece is built. The game continues through the summer, and the fall. After the last cathederal piece is built, players will still have the chance to wage war, bribe armies, and build farms (Summer phase). In the Fall, ALL players collect their final income (resource cards), to be used in one last phase as VP in the manner listed in my first post. You could call this phase "To Arms!" or "The King's Mobilization" or something else...anyway it represents the King calling in all of the available resources of his domain, to enable him to go to war (or to balance the books, stop unrest, or stave off famine...it all depends on what the final agenda is). The noble who can contibute the most, will get the most bonus points, to add to his final score.
Yes there will be some luck involved...but no less than the luck that all players have been dealing with for the entire game.

Thread: Re: Fixing the endgame...some thoughts

frogmind — 2007-12-30T16:55:13+00:00

Intesting ideas , I will look through them, I don't know if you saw my suggestion to rework the game, bu ti think it works alright. I will let you know what i think after testing yours

Thread: Fixing the endgame...some thoughts

Crockerdile — 2007-12-30T14:55:16+00:00

I've now played this game thrice, in the past couple of weeks. Each time using the "dagger" variant for scoring the cathederal builds. The game is a joy to play. But it still doesn't stop the fact that when the last build agenda turns up, everyone essentially goes "all in" with their resource cards, and that the winner of the bidding seems to be in the best position to win (all three of my games). So how about this for keeping the bidding on the last build agenda more like the rest of the game?
Bid just like in the other rounds around the table. When a noble drops out of the bidding he picks up his last bid as usual. The winner of the bidding gets to build the last piece, again as usual. After that, all players including the builder, add up their leftover resource cards which are worth points, the value of which depends upon what the last agenda was. Each resource is worth 1/2 of the card's value at the time (rounded down). A 4 point resource would be worth 2 VP. 3 and 2 point resources would be worth 1 VP. A 1 point resource is worth nothing.

As an example let's say that "War" was the final agenda. After dropping out of the bidding I still have 1 shield, 2 cups, 1 hammer, and 2 grain left in my hand. This would give me 2 (shield)+ 2 (cups) + 1 (hammer) + 0 (grain), equalling 5 more VP.

It seems that this would encourage the players to start the bidding low, and progress until they reach a breaking point, at which point they would gather back their last bid, leaving them with cards that are worth something.

Have I overlooked something here?

The other thought I had was to merely make ALL cathederal builds worth 2 points. This makes the build agendas only slightly more valuable than the priviledge agendas. This could cause a runaway leader problem, though.

Thread: Re: But Wotta Journey.

HankM — 2007-12-19T19:48:22+00:00

Much like Die Handler, K & F got a bad rap from the getgo...yet, in spite of a somewhat flawe scoring system (which, as the OP stated, can be remedied by the 'dagger' scoring) there is a pretty darn good game here....my group has played K & F at least twice a year, and we enjoy it a lot. It is just too bad that the original scoring allocation sent this game to the 'bottom' before it had a chance to get a following...(the same thing happened to Die Handler...it was panned at the outset, then, a year or two later, it was "rediscovered" and found to have had many of the same mechanisms and challenges that subsequent games touted as being 'original'....

Sure, maybe K & F isn't Puerto Rico or Caylus or amongst the top 5 or 10 most popular games today, but our group believes that the author deserved a much better fate and that this game is a very workman-like game that involves a lot of thought and planning when playing, and very little analysis paralysis, a big plus....and the theme is pretty good too....

Thanks for bringing K & F back to the table....

Thread: But Wotta Journey.

Crockerdile — 2007-12-19T02:03:33+00:00

I see that this is the first session report on "Kreig und Frieden" in about 3&1/2 years. This is a truely sad state. I've had this game on the shelf for more than 2 years, yet it never saw the light of day, until this past weekend.

Myself and the Admiral (aka AmericanEagle) belong to a very large gaming group that meets on a monthly basis. We also are part of various splinter groups that meet almost every weekend. The major problem of all of this is that almost everyone involved is willing to be taught a game, but is not willing to sit down, read the rules, disect the game and learn it. The net result is that everyone ends up playing "Citadels" and "Bang" and "Age of Empires" and "Vegas Showdown"...all fine games...now and then! So the Admiral and I decided to do something about it. We now periodically meet to "test drive" games. Our mindset is not competion, but rather a learning experience. It is still a helluva lotta fun. And of all of the players we know, we think we are the only ones with the patience and mind-set to break down a game , then put it back together again for our local public consumption.

So the day before the session date listed here, the Adm. and myself spent a couple of hours playing "Kreig und Frieden", until we thought we knew it inside-out. Later that night we emailed each other about clarifications or things we may have missed. By the next day, we had the game down pat. So that afternoon we introduced it to two other players...Doc and redneon...both of them avid and seasoned Eurogamers.

How did it turn out? First of all, we played with the "dagger" scoring rules. Every consensus indicates that this is the only way to go, and I agree. Doc spent heavily and heartily to set the early agendas, and was able to build and collect VPs on perhaps 3 of the first 4 builds. AmericanEagle and myself both weakly countered, setting an agenda now and then, while redneon never rocked the boat once. But Doc's agresive bidding eventualy caught up to him. He had points in the bank, but was out of agendas to consider, which made him a non-entity for the time being.

All of a sudden, the previously silent redneon had 4 unused agendas, while the Doc had none, and the Adm. and myself had just a couple each. Meanwhile I was able to always amass a hand of 10 cards, while nobody else could do the same. I made war, kicked a little butt, and built the 5th cathederal piece. Redneon was able to catch up, making the game a virtual tie. Five parts of the cathederal had been built. Building the next part would end the game. The cathedral build showed up on the next agenda. Each and everyone of us bid all of our resources to win the agenda. AmericanEagle won the bid and built the last cathederal piece. He tied Doc...but Doc had the tiebreaker (most resource cards) to win the game. The final score was in true Euro fashion. 11 to 11 to 10 to 9...or something like that.

Kreig und Frieden is one of those games that the journey to the end is much greater than the end itself. I want to play again...now.

Thread: Re: 2-Player?

Crockerdile — 2007-12-16T00:35:19+00:00

A friend and I just sat down today to go through the rules, sequences, nuances, and etc. of this game so that we could teach this game to other players. This was more of a test drive/fact finding tour...than anything else.

The way we played was that each of us played two factions, located opposite of each other. He was black and white, while I was yellow and orange. Because of our knowledge of both of the factions that each of us were playing, we were essentially each playing an alliance of two factions each. My yellow faction never tried to bribe , or attack my orange faction, but sometimes tried to outbid it. And vice-versa. The same held true for his black and his white factions.
What resulted was a close, competitive, and FUN game. So that is the 2 player variant in a nutshell. Ally the 2 opposite seated factions, then play without altering any other rules.
It worked just dandy, as a 2 player game.

Image

ScottH — 2007-06-17T19:01:23+00:00

Thread: Re: Editions / Language

SteveK2 — 2007-06-13T18:56:27+00:00

I've only seen the 999 Games edition, but it's language independent (rules + box in Dutch; player aid in German).

The components look identical to all those in the image gallery, so I'd assume only the box/rules are different. The 999 Games box is also the same size as the only TM Spiele bookcase game I have (Volldampf).

I'm not sure about gameplay differences. Both the original Dutch Charlemagene rules and the English Krieg und Frieden translation here on bgg reference 68 resource cards & 16 agenda cards.

Thread: Re: Editions / Language

Jonathan Degann — 2007-06-13T15:40:14+00:00

I can only speak for the TM Spiele edition which is not at all language dependent. The components are:
Game board - which mostly serves as a centalized player mat where players put their houses.
Wooden houses
Cards - which are all based on icons
Wooden church
Money (I think, it's been a while)

If the 999 edition is under the name "Charlemagne" then it has differences in game play - at very least I believe that the card deck is larger.

Thread: Editions / Language

pronoblem — 2007-06-13T15:14:26+00:00

Are there differences between the TM Spiele and 999 Games editions? Board, bits, cards, text, etc?

Does either edition supply English rules?

If no English rules supplied and using the BBG posted rules how language dependent is the game?

Thread: Re: 2-Player?

cvlw — 2007-06-07T21:11:38+00:00

Many thanks.

Thread: Re: 2-Player?

Fledermaushaus — 2007-06-07T15:23:49+00:00

I played it a lot of times 2-player, see my file for 2-player variant. I never actually played with more than 2 but I refined the variant over quite a few plays and it seemed to work well.

Thread: 2-Player?

cvlw — 2007-06-06T23:50:16+00:00

Anyone have any experience playing this 2-player?

Thread: Divitae card

masdero — 2007-05-30T22:34:13+00:00

Shouldn't it be "Divitiae"?

Image

gamephotos — 2007-04-25T22:08:44+00:00

Resource Cards

Image

gamephotos — 2007-04-25T22:07:19+00:00

Privilege Tokens

Image

gamephotos — 2007-04-25T22:06:13+00:00

Player Aid

Image

gamephotos — 2007-04-25T22:05:17+00:00

Event Cards

Thread: Re: Possible Variant

Sexy Amy — 2007-03-29T19:28:08+00:00

Interesting. I'll have to try it sometime. Makes me want to get my copy out of storage ... if I can even find it.

"Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet.
Lest we forget - lest we forget!"

Thread: Re: Possible Variant

Marfried — 2007-03-29T18:56:49+00:00

That can be a good idea, especially towards the end of the game where priviledges become less important...

Thread: Possible Variant

frogmind — 2007-01-18T03:33:18+00:00

I haven't tried it yet but was wondering what others thought - if in winning the agenda bid, the player has the option to either take the alloted one victory point and priviledge or be allowed to take two VP's and no priviledge. Does anyone think this may have a strong effect on the end game, as far as the strength of the final cathedral build?

Thread: Re: Luck of the draw effect in KuF?

Fledermaushaus — 2006-02-20T22:32:38+00:00

I've only found the initial card deal to be a problem as from then on it is more down to what you do rather than the luck of the draw. To counter the initial hand problem I use the following house-rule:
Each player adds the 'value' of the cards dealt to him (i.e. since 'Revolt' is the event, 4 for each hammer, 3 for each shield, 2 for each corn and 1 for each chalice). If the total is 16 or less, then the player can discard them and have 8 new cards dealt to him.

Thread: Luck of the draw effect in KuF?

jwarrend — 2006-02-20T20:14:38+00:00

I played my first game of Krieg und Frieden the other day, and was impressed by the design. However, I found myself in a pretty tough position for the first half of the game, and I wonder how often such a thing happens.

Here was the situation. My initial hand was strong on hammers, had a couple of cups and shields, and no wheat. On my first turn, I promoted a farm hut to a builder hut (a move that I now think may have been unwise). On the next turn, a cathedral building turn, I won the auction and thus removed my builder hut. I now had the most VPs, and had a hand of 4 hammers and 1 cup. During that turn, another player attacked my last farmstead. During the next five turns, I proceeded to draw ZERO wheat cards, I had too many cards (and too many VPs) to get the king's bounty, and I couldn't bid high enough on any of the agendas to expunge my hand. So basically, I spent half of the game just drawing my one card each turn hoping it would be a wheat card, or waiting for a privelege auction that I could win with my hand o' hammers so I could at least get a wheat privelege.

I like the way the cards have different uses in the auction vs in the action phase, and I like the asymmetry between the cards (I thought that cups seemed relatively weak, but I bet more playings will reveal their importance). But it really seems like if you're in a situation where you have no farmsteads, don't draw a wheat card, and can't get the king's bounty, you're basically out of the running. And I suspect there may be other luck of the draw scenarios as well.

Have experienced players seen a lot of games where a player gets unduly helped or hindered by card-drawing luck? I want to like the game, as I think there are some great ideas in it, and I'll definitely play again, but my very poor showing seemed to be outside of my control, and there was literally nothing I could have done differently, so it was somewhat troubling.

-Jeff

Thread: Re:What's the problem with taxes?

jttm — 2004-11-19T01:55:50+00:00

bwechner (#61547),
According to the translated rulebook:

The King or Emperor or the Church will often demand tribute in Riches or other resources to work on their own master plan.

So maybe its just a matter of balancing the budget?

Thread: Re:Variant for the King's Mercy

bwechner — 2004-10-27T22:46:58+00:00

sdiberar (#57610),

I'd tend to agree. Qualifying means having no more than 1 farmhouse for starters, and you can be poor as hell with two farmhouses and no-one will challenge your knights to burns the last one down ;-).

Have you tried your own suggestion yet? If so, how did you find it?

Thread: What's the problem with taxes?

bwechner — 2004-10-25T05:10:50+00:00

Someone rightly asked at our first game, what the problem with taxes was?

Each year there is one of 4 problems that the king faces (or fates in the German rules).

if can be unrest, war, famine or taxes. Now if you solve the problem you you are in the king's favour and he appoints you his advisor.

That all makes clear sense for unrest, war and famine. King has a problem, solve it, and you'r ein his good books.

But what about taxes? What's his problem there? Are the taxes too low? Does solving the problem mean you extract more taxes from the people? Or are they too high? If so, what problem does the king have with that?

Or is it maybe just collecting them? People aren't paying their taxes, so you race around and collect them for him?

That last one makes most sense to us. I wonder if anyone else faced this question and has another way of looking at it?

Thread: Variant for the King's Mercy

sdiberar — 2004-10-03T05:07:50+00:00

Krieg und Frieden is a game that has immediately established itself in my play rotation. I like the simplicity of the mechanics, the directness of the play, and the beauty of components. I get a weird Settlers-like vibe from it.

Some have criticized the all-or-nothing nature of the endgame, and the suggestions to change the scoring have been well-received.

My minor criticism of the game lies elsewhere - specifically, with the rules for the King's Mercy. It seems to me that the restrictions placed on when a player can appeal to the King's Mercy are too severe, and too easily thwarted by aware players. In other words, the possibility exists in only a small corner of the game space, and doesn't (to me) serve the balancing purpose it seems to have been created for.

So I'd be curious if anyone would give this a try:
The King's Mercy is applied every turn in favor of the single player who received the least income, if there is only one such player.
Additionally (and optionally), allow the player subject to the King's Mercy to only take cards from another player one at a time until the beneficiary does not have less cards than his charitor. This might need to be combined with the charitor not receiving a privilege as in the original rules.

Any thoughts?

Thread: Session Report

louiseh — 2004-05-04T22:40:34+00:00

Game 2 of my weekend. I've been wanting to try this one after reading through the rules recently. Four of us played, (Dean/Louise/Kevin/Steve).

We were all new to the game so spent some time with the not terribly clear rules. First comment; theme in games is great, but try not to let theme in rule writing take over. For example there was a long paragraph about the relationship between the nobility and the Church which turned out to be a 10 card hand limit rule! This game has been sitting unplayed on a shelf for a long time because the rules were so impenetrable.

I'd read various bits on the BGG about tweaks to the game but we agreed to play it as written first time round so that at least we'd know what we were tweaking. It was a good decision, as it turned out.

We started with a fairly hesitant first bidding round in which I picked up a wheat privilege. The game continued the same way; other people built the cathedral while I gathered tokens and my victory point pile grew rather more slowly than that of my opponents. However I did have handfuls of cards, though almost exclusively wheat and shields. Fortunately it wasn't a very aggressive game; there were so many cards floating around that only a couple of players needed to raid neighbours for resources. I suspect we were all bidding low, though it didn't seem like it at the time.

Coming into the home straight Dean appeared to have a solid lead. In the second to last round all players burned their privileges to change the current crisis, leaving me as the sole holder of 3 tokens. And the final cathedral card was in my hand and needed the cards I'd been saving for it; out it came and I... got pipped by Dean on the tiebreak condition of most cards in hand!

I can see that if the players had been keeping an even scoreline then the final round would be decisive; there are a lot of points going up for grabs. But the need to keep up throughout while planning ahead means that the earlier rounds aren't as inconsequential as has been hinted at. I don't think we'll be tweaking the rules yet.

Very enjoyable game. Interesting to play a resource management game with lots of resources available!

Thread: Session Report

Musti — 2004-03-18T23:45:15+00:00

Yesterday we tried Charlemagne in our gaming group. I got it in a sale this weekend and we all wondered whether this game is as weird as the reviews said.

Tuesday evenings we only have a small delegation of the full group so it was just Bregt, Mel and I who sat around the table.

After going through the rule book and decide who the start player would be (me in this case) we got started. After the first two rounds, it appeared that the game would become a duel between Mel and me, leaving Bregt out of the game. Due to lack of cards and priviliges (Our faith cards were all of the type were the cathedral was built) cards were drawn from other players and it appeared that this game would stop before it started.

Once Bregt and I got a privilige and Mel got some points, the game took off. We were all seriously riotting each other since this seemed to be a sure way of getting cards and denying the other of getting them. However, we kept on playing cards to continue construction of the cathedral instead of going for priviliges. Was it because we all got boed at this point? Maybe. In the seventh round, the game ended with me buying the roof of the cathedral. The end score was:
Bregt : 6 points
Mel & me : both 5 points and 3 cards each

The game left us puzzled around the table. Was there something we missed in the game? When reading the rules it seems like this game has a lot of interaction but it just didn't show in the game.

I think the problem is in the fact that you play with an average of 6 to 8 cards. Since there are 4 card types and you need some cards for the bidding, it leaves you with 5 to 6 cards to play. This means that chances are pretty slim that you have the cards you need. What to do with a 'hamer' card if you don't have a 'grain' card? And the 'Shield' cards are more valuable than other cards.

I think that by reducing the type of cards or increasing the amount you get, the game will be more balanced and the interaction will be increased. Perhaps we might try it the next time because this game seems to have more potential.

Thread: Session Report

BoardGameGeek — 2002-05-05T23:04:53+00:00

Krieg und Frieden- Rich, Campbell and Brian joined me as I explained it to a new crew. I explain rules in a non-logical way and confuse people, but we got underway and started bidding for prestige and privilege.
Brain won a lot of privileges along the way, but that made him a target of poor Campbell who was cardless for most of the game. Rich was having a hard time drawing shield cards, which is fatal in this game. Campbell held back and won the last 2 rounds of the game. More experienced players might have seen this coming and stopped him, but we are still figuring out the game. They rated it as okay, I still am
enjoying it and I think there is more control than is apparent.
Scores: Campbell 10, Scott 7, Rich 6 & Brian 4

Thread: Session Report

PBrennan — 2002-05-05T12:53:12+00:00

Once you get beneath the wonderful circular board, wooden cathedral bits and huts, and the superb artwork, it all boils down to a disappointingly simple card game. Some caveats apply here ... first game, 3 player only, some sub-optimal tactics employed which allowed the rich to get richer in our game. But I was underwhelmed, which was a shame because the rules encourage wonderful atmosphere, providing thematic reasoning behind all the mechanics.

Stripping away the theme, the player who won the last round sets the prize for the next round (high VP’s vs more cards) and the ‘suit order’ (there are 4 suits, no values) from high to low, hopefully in such a way that suits his own hand. Whoever plays the set of cards of highest ‘value’ (ie a card in the high suit is worth 4 points, in the low suit 1 point) wins the prize.

Players are then lured to forego their future bidding power by spending cards to build huts. One hut type gives you more cards each round. One hut type provides extra VP’s if you win the cathedral prize. Another card type allows you to suck out knight cards from other players. The last card type (the knight) allows you to whack another player’s hut if they don’t play a soldier card to veto it. A successful whack provides 2 bonus cards, but you usually need at least 2 cards before the other player is devoid of knights - and then you don’t have any for your own defense, you’re not gaining anything overall, and you’ve set yourself up as a potential victim for the next player. Therefore, only useful when another player is down to 0 or 1 cards. And therefore no one spends their last two cards ... and no one plays knights. And the game becomes purely one bidding cycle after another. Bid, gather cards. Bid, gather cards.

So having realised all this, we need another playing judging it purely as an auction game, keeping track of the 16 agenda cards that set the suit orders, and playing / keeping our cards accordingly.

Scores: David 16, Rob 10, Pat 7

A rating of 5 after 1 play; average game, take it or leave it. My suspicion is that it will all boil down to who has the best card sets at the best times. The board and pieces show status only and have little bearing on the game. The term over-production comes to mind. Caveats apply. 75 mins.

Thread: Session Report

BoardGameGeek — 2002-05-01T20:07:33+00:00

Krieg und Frieden-Finally played this with David, Bob & Ralph. I explained the easy rules to this game. Though it has a beautiful board and very nice wooden bits, it is essentially a card bidding game. The games theme is a kingdom with and old failing king. He needs to choose an heir, so he will give the crown to the noble that solves the kingdom's problems the best. The king also wants to leave a legacy in the form of a Cathedral. Helping him build his Cathedral also helps the nobles look good in the King's eyes. There are 4 possible problems to be solved each turn- War, Taxes, Unrest & Famine. The game starts with a special unrest card. The person dealt that card is the King's advisor for the 1st turn. You then bid cards.
The highest bid will win the turn, get to choose a privilege and gain 2 victory points (we played using the Stuart Dagger point scoring variant). There is a score chart that lets you know suit values for each problem. Each of the suits (cups, wheat, shields & hammer) are worth 1,2,3 and 4 depending upon the problem. I.e.: Knights (shields) are worth 4 during war, 3 during unrest, 2 for taxes but only 1 during a famine.
Bidding starts with the King' Advisor. You can lay down any amount of cards during your bid, but the less you show of your hand the better. Bluffing does come in handy. If you choose to drop out of the bidding, you can retrieve your last cards bid. If you drop out in round 3, you lose all cards bid in the 1st round! Bidding continues until there is a winner. The winner loses all cards bid and reaps his
reward. Some problem cards give privileges, which will give you 1 card, of the suit of your chosen privilege, at the end of the turn (there are 2 privileges for each suit). Privileges also gain you the 2 victory points. Some problem cards have a Cathedral symbol. The winner of that round gets to build part of the Cathedral and receives points based on which part is being built (the 1st 3 sections are
worth 2 pts., the next 2 are worth 3 and the 6th and final section is worth 4 pts.) You can also build huts. Huts then can be upgraded to builder huts placed next to the Cathedral (up to a max. of 3 per player). If you win a round with a Cathedral section as the prize, you can turn in any builder's huts for an additional 1 point apiece.
Game scores are always tight, so points made this way can decide the game. After bidding, players may use their cards left in their hands to perform other actions. A wheat card will build a hut on your farm region (up to 6). At the end of the turn every 2 farm huts is good for an additional card from the deck. A hammer card will upgrade 1 farm hut to a builder's hut (you just move the hut to the spaces near the Cathedral). You can not have more builder huts than farms. Also, builder's huts do not count for card drawing at turn's end. A cup card can be played against any opponent and he must discard a shield card if he has one, if nit he must show you his entire hand! Lastly, shield cards can be played against any opponent. The opposing player must discard a shield card or remove one of his huts (the owner chooses which hut). Most fun is had by sending out your knights to loot and pillage your fellow noble's estate! The looter also gets 2 cards from the deck for the 1st hut he burns of his neighbors. You could get 6 cards if you burn at least 1 hut of each neighbor. Additional burning of huts of the same noble does not yield cards
(but can slow down the leader). A lot of balances in this game. No one is ever really out of it, which is why some people dislike this game. A person, who spends a lot of cards to win the bidding round, will have few cards to build or defend with in the next round. If the other players find out you have no shield cards to defend yourself with, expect a lot of smoke from your estates! Bob spent cards wildly to win bids, but paid later with hut losses. Ralph did not win any rounds until late, but scored a Cathedral section with huts and jumped right back into the game. I could of won that round, but would have been card-less (defenseless!) and chose not to. Many interesting
decisions to be made. Bad card draws can hurt, as in any card game, but you can gain some control.I liked my 1st play with 4 players and will play this again soon!
All players seemed to like the game and saw ways to improve their play. The game can come down to the last hand, as many complain, but I don't see it as a problem at all because good play is needed through out the whole game to be in position to win that last round.
Scores: David 10, Scott 9, Bob 8 & Ralph 4

Thread: Session Report

gschloesser — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

While attending the Alan Moon's Gathering of Friends in April, my good buddies Ted Cheatham and Ty Douds ran up to me, both excitedly claiming that I just had to try Krieg und Frieden. They both said I would love the game and it was 'right up my alley'. Of course, I immediately joined in the next game I could find.

After an incredibly horrendous beginning which saw one player draw an inordinate amount of knights and proceed to continually decimate us, the game finally settled down and became mildly enjoyable. Still, it became apparent that, like an NBA basketball game, the first three quarters don't matter much. The game boils down to the final bid; up until then it is simply a matter of positioning oneself so you have enough resource cards and at least one privilege marker to make a grab at winning the last bid and, likely, the game. Thus, the game left me shaking my head and wondering what all the fuss was about.

Still, I was interested in giving the game another try. Thanks to the generosity of my wife who presented me with K&F as part of my Father's Day gift, I had the opportunity. Eric Alleman, Lenny Leo, Darren Arnold and I dove into the game, which went much smoother this time around thanks to an excellent rules editing and formatting by Steve 'K-ban' Kurzban. In spite of the easy flow of the game this time, however, the game is still lacking. And that's a shame, because the mechanism is fairly unique. There really should be a great game in here ... it simply isn't happening, though.

Each player represents a noble who is attempting to gain the most favor from the king. Each turn, a problem faces the realm (represented by the playing of an 'agenda' card) which must be dealt with by the nobles. These 'problems' come in one of four forms: war, unrest, taxes and disasters. The noble who proposes the best solution to the problem wins the king's favor and gets to execute the special power conveyed by the agenda card.

'Solutions' are proposed by players bidding resource cards. Each of the four resource cards carries a different value depending upon the problem being faced. Thus, a 'knight' card is very valuable (4 points) in dealing with a war, but is virtually worthless in times of famine (1 point). Players take turns bidding resource cards openly for the right to 'solve' the problem. The interesting bidding mechanism is that during each subsequent round of the bidding, if a player increases his bid, he must set the new resource cards in a row below those previously bid. If a player passes, he may only reclaim his most recent row of resource cards. Any card bid prior are lost. This makes for some interesting bidding.

The ultimate high bidder pays the resources bid and then becomes the 'King's Advisor'. This allows him to set the agenda for the following round. Plus, the player has 'solved' the problem facing the realm and gets to exercise the special privileges granted by the agenda card. There are two powers, depending upon the agenda card solved:

1) Privilege: The victorious noble earns one victory point and chooses one of the four 'privilege' scrolls (knight, barley, serfs or riches). This will allow that player to get a free resource card of that type during the Fall harvest. Plus, any player who possesses a privilege has the opportunity to change the proposed agenda by surrendering his privilege and substituting an agenda of his choice from his hand.

2) Cathedral: The victorious noble gets to add a piece to the central cathedral, which earns him victory points. The first three pieces added are worth 1 VP apiece, the following two pieces are worth 2 VPs, while the final piece is worth a whopping 3 VP. To this is added the number of 'builders' the noble has working on the cathedral. Thus, if a player has two builders huts and adds a piece worth 2 VPs, he earns a total of 4 VPs for constructing that piece of the cathedral.

Following the execution of the special privileged granted by the agenda, each player then may utilize his remaining resource cards to perform various tasks:

1) Barley - each 'barley' card played allows the construction of a new farmstead. For each two farmsteads, a player receives a resource card during the Fall season.

2) Serfs: For each serf card played, a player may 'promote' one of his existing farmstead huts to the 'builder's huts' spaces. As described, these add to the victory points earned when constructing a piece of the cathedral.

3) Knight: A knight card is played on an opponents in attempts to burn and loot one of his huts. If successful, the opponents removes a hut of his choice from the board and the victorious player receives two resource cards to represent the ensuing looting and pillaging. An opponent can nullify a knight played upon him by playing a knight card from his hand.

4) Riches: By playing a 'riches' card on an opponents, it forces that opponent to discard a knight card from his hand. If the opponent does not possess a knight card, then he must show you the cards in his hand.

Finally, all players receive resource cards: 1 for each two huts they have on the board, one for simply being in the game, plus any awarded for possessing privilege scrolls.

Players who have less than 5 resource cards and have only received one resource card that round may then petition the King for aid. The player may then select any opponent who has an equal or greater amount of victory points and take half of his resource cards, rounded down. The pillaged opponent receives a privilege scroll as compensation. This rule, as many in the game, is intended to serve as an equalizer and keep everyone in contention for victory. Finally, any players who have more than ten resource cards must discard down to ten.

The game concludes when the sixth and final piece of the cathedral is constructed. The player with the most victory points is victorious. Ties are broken in the favor of the player who has the most resource cards remaining.

Admittedly, the game sounds intriguing. It's mechanics are fairly unique and the components are all top notch. The game should work. It really should. Somehow, it doesn't. In my games, the same unsettling problems continue to surface, the main one being that only the final bidding round really matters. By simply playing the game reasonably, one will be in contention to win on the final bid. That doesn't sound bad and is likely what Dutch designer Gerard Mulder had in mind, but it somehow feels wrong. There doesn't seem to be a way in which to play a masterful game, manage one's resources, skillfully bid on the auctions and insure a victory. It all boils down to that final bid.

There are so many 'equalizers' in the game that every step forward results in one step backwards. One gets the feeling of treading water .. you just aren't going anyplace. If one wins the right to add a cathedral piece, ALL of your builder's huts are removed after constructing the piece. One has to start all over again. If one does manage to build a lead, however slight, in farmsteads and/or victory points, he will be set upon by all of his opponents by attacks and the 'King's Mercy', and likely lose huts and cards. This is even more devastating if one comes last or near last in the turn order. Finally, the progressively increasing value of the cathedral pieces also makes early constructions moot.

As with Rheinlander, I really, really want to like this game. It has most of the elements which should make it a great game. However, it simply doesn't transcend the level of mediocrity.

In our most recent game, it again came down to whoever won the final bid could win the game. Entering what would likely be the final auction, Darren had 7 points, I had 5, Eric 4 and Lenny 2. Lenny, however, had 2 builders huts in place, so he would tie Darren for the victory if he secured the agenda card. I actually planned for this pivotal round and used my remaining privilege scroll to alter the agenda to the one I thought best suited my hand. Unfortunately, it also suited Lenny and Eric. Lenny proudly laid down 23 points worth of cards, much to my dismay. Eric, slyly smiling, laid cards from his hand one at a time, using his last and final card to amass a total of 24 points. I could only muster 15 points. Thus, Eric won the right to construct the final piece, earning 4 victory points and a narrow win:

Eric 8, Darren 7, Greg 5, Lenny 2.

Ratings: Lenny 6, Eric 6, Darren 6, Greg 5

Thread: Session Report

dougadamsau — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Present: Craig L., Roger, Doug, Craig Mac., Debbie, Tina, Alan, Donna

Debbie Pickett writes:

Doug, Roger, Tina, Debbie

This was a new game for Tina and me, and I'd heard a lot about the game in Counter so I was keen to try it.

First off, the game is absolutely beautiful. The huge wooden pieces, the gorgeous round board, the stained-glass look of the cards . . it almost didn't matter if the game played badly.

Which it didn't, in my opinion. We played with the variant that each player was given a free token at the beginning that could be spent in the same way as the little scroll things. It didn't really help me, as it turned out, but then I had little idea what I was doing for most of the game.

I kept getting dealt shield cards, which was frustrating on account of the fact that I never got dealt a War card in the whole game. Oh well, at least it helped me to protect my little houses from the incessant attacks. In the end, experience won out.

Final scores:
Doug 10
Roger 8
Tina 7
Debbie 4

My rating: 7. This is quite a fun game that I definitely want to try again. It shows lots of promise.

Thread: Session Report

dougadamsau — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Doug writes:

A game from Frank Kulkmann that I had been aching to try out. The rules appeared rather daunting but thanks to the efforts of Mr Dagger and Mr Kban a nice clean translation entered into my hands a few hours before game time.

Nice and clean sums this game up very well, I think. It's a suprisingly easy game (to me) to play, not difficult at all. The game essentially is all about managing your hand of cards and using them to full effect.

The object of the game is to score victory points, as princes of the realm, and the player with the highest victory point total at the end of the game becomes King, or rather wins. Cards drive the game, you bid with cards, you attack with cards, you build with cards, and so on. Each of the four types of cards has a different "action" function, as well as a value. The value of the card (this is used in bidding) rather cleverly varies depending on the current disaster facing the realm (we rather like trying to put out fire with some barley!).

You do not earn victory points if you don't win the bid to solve the problems - and the rewards will be either privileges or erecting a piece of the cathedral - both earn points but building cathedral bits earns progressively more during the game - and this is where the game breaks down for me.

Farms give you more cards, cards may be spent to upgrade farms to workers huts, workers huts give you more victory points if you build a cathedral piece, and so on. A balanced hand of cards is crucial in this game and from that perspective we didn't play it well.

So what happened? Craig, Donna, Roger and Doug lined up to learn and play. The learning was suprisingly easy, as it is really no more difficult than Siedler. The play was another matter. Craig took the first bid and earned a knight privilige (plus a vp, of course). Doug took the second bid, build a monument piece, and then bid everything he held on the third turn. He won this bid, when all he intended to do was drive the bidding up, as Roger and Donna were hoarding fat hands of cards each. This left Doug with 3 VP's, and a wheat privilege, but no cards - amazingly he wasn't attacked!

Around turn four or five, Donna and Roger went into a bidding war that lasted several rounds, the upshot being that one of them was going to have to back down and lose lot of cards. This was Donna, and I think that 'broke' the game for her from this point onwards.

While Donna and Roger emptied their hands of cards, Craig and Doug were on the rise again, building their hands back up. Craig seemed to rather enjoy the old "Cups/Knights" one-two to burn some huts, and spent a lot of the game doing so. The burning of huts via the playing of knight cards was something I was sure would bruise some feelings, but to the players credit this was all done with a lot of laughter and good natured banter. Not what I was expecting, I'm elated to say, as this is the way I like to play all games.

Doug made his play for a win by building the fifth cathedral piece and taking four points (2 workers huts for 2 more points) for the build. Unfortunately, it wasn't enough, and going into what was fairly certain to be the final round, the VP's were so evenly split, whoever took the final piece would win the game - exactly the criticism I've heard repeatedly levelled at this game.

Donna play a cathedral agenda card (which would end the game). Craig spent his last privilege to change it, and it was simply a matter of all cards down to see who won - Craig took the 3 victory points, plus a couple of workers points to win the game and leave us all with a "is that it?" feeling.

Scores:
Craig: 9
Doug: 7
Roger: 5
Donna: 3

Thoughts? When I arrived home, I dug out Mike Siggins' report from Essen '98 and looked up his thoughts on Charlemagne - it summarised my thoughts to perfection:

"The game is outstanding, ... and it did have a curiously weak final round resolution. But everything else was impressive."

I love the clean card driven system, the varying card values from turn to turn, and the way the game worked with these cards. Cards didn't simply turn into VP's, you had other things to do, construction, offense, defense, all which needed some careful thinking about.

The players thoughts after the game where interesting. Craig enjoyed it and thought it better than Rheinlaender. I thought it as good as Rheinlaender, but the endgame worries me. Roger thought it dry, but would play it again. Donna came right out and said she would be happy to not play it again. So it appears to be one of those "love it or hate it" games, which is a shame, as there is some clever stuff inside.

Doug's rating: 8 - end game aside, it's a clever game, and I feel the better player will win it more often than not. One final comment, when playing knights I didn't feel like I was burning huts down - if that is why this was left off the SdJ top 10, then that's a real shame.

Thread: User Review

gschloesser — 2000-07-09T18:09:35+00:00

While attending the Alan Moon's Gathering of Friends in April, my good buddies Ted Cheatham and Ty Douds ran up to me, both excitedly claiming that I just had to try Krieg und Frieden. They both said I would love the game and it was 'right up my alley'. Of course, I immediately joined in the next game I could find.

After an incredibly horrendous beginning which saw one player draw an inordinate amount of knights and proceed to continually decimate us, the game finally settled down and became mildly enjoyable. Still, it became apparent that, like an NBA basketball game, the first three quarters don't matter much. The game boils down to the final bid; up until then it is simply a matter of positioning oneself so you have enough resource cards and at least one privilege marker to make a grab at winning the last bid and, likely, the game. Thus, the game left me shaking my head and wondering what all the fuss was about.

Still, I was interested in giving the game another try. Thanks to the generosity of my wife who presented me with K&F as part of my Father's Day gift, I had the opportunity. Thanks to an excellent editing and formatting of the english rules by Steve 'K-ban' Kurzban, the game flowed much smoother this time around. In spite of the easy flow of the game this time, however, the game is still lacking. And that's a shame, because the mechanism is fairly unique. There really should be a great game in here ... it simply isn't happening, though. After yet a third playing, with equally disappointing results, I am ready to declare the end game broken.

Each player represents a noble who is attempting to gain the most favor from the king. Each turn, a problem faces the realm (represented by the playing of an 'agenda' card) which must be dealt with by the nobles. These 'problems' come in one of four forms: war, unrest, taxes and disasters. The noble who proposes the best solution to the problem wins the king's favor and gets to execute the special power conveyed by the agenda card.

'Solutions' are proposed by players bidding resource cards. Each of the four resource cards carries a different value depending upon the problem being faced. Thus, a 'knight' card is very valuable (4 points) in dealing with a war, but is virtually worthless in times of famine (1 point). Players take turns openly bidding resource cards for the right to 'solve' the problem. The interesting bidding mechanism is that during each subsequent round of the bidding, if a player increases his bid, he must set the new resource cards in a row below those previously bid. If a player passes, he may only reclaim his most recent row of resource cards. Any card bid prior are lost. This makes for some interesting bidding.

The ultimate high bidder pays the resources bid and then becomes the 'King's Advisor'. This allows him to set the agenda for the following round. Plus, the player has 'solved' the problem facing the realm and gets to exercise the special privileges granted by the agenda card. There are two powers, depending upon the agenda card solved:

1) Privilege: The victorious noble earns one victory point and chooses one of the four 'privilege' scrolls (knight, barley, serfs or riches). This will allow that player to get a free resource card of that type during the Fall harvest. Plus, any player who possesses a privilege has the opportunity to change the proposed agenda by surrendering his privilege and substituting an agenda of his choice from his hand.

2) Cathedral: The victorious noble gets to add a piece to the central cathedral, which earns him victory points. The first three pieces added are worth 1 VP apiece, the following two pieces are worth 2 VPs, while the final piece is worth a whopping 3 VP. To this is added the number of 'builders' the noble has working on the cathedral. Thus, if a player has two builders huts and adds a piece worth 2 VPs, he earns a total of 4 VPs for constructing that piece of the cathedral.

Following the execution of the special privilege granted by the agenda, each player then may utilize his remaining resource cards to perform various tasks:

1) Barley - each 'barley' card played allows the construction of a new farmstead. For each two farmsteads, a player receives a resource card during the Fall season.

2) Serfs: For each serf card played, a player may 'promote' one of his existing farmstead huts to the 'builder's huts' spaces. As described, these add to the victory points earned when constructing a piece of the cathedral.

3) Knight: A knight card is played on an opponents in attempts to burn and loot one of his huts. If successful, the opponents removes a hut of his choice from the board and the victorious player receives two resource cards to represent the ensuing looting and pillaging. An opponent can nullify a knight played upon him by playing a knight card from his hand.

4) Riches: By playing a 'riches' card on an opponents, it forces that opponent to discard a knight card from his hand. If the opponent does not possess a knight card, then he must show you the cards in his hand.

Finally, all players receive resource cards: one for each two 'farmstead' huts they have on the board, one for simply being in the game, plus any awarded for possessing privilege scrolls.

Players who have less than 5 resource cards and have only received one resource card that round may then petition the King for aid. The player may then select any opponent who has an equal or greater amount of victory points and take half of his resource cards, rounded down. The pillaged opponent receives a privilege scroll as compensation. This rule, as many in the game, is intended to serve as an equalizer and keep everyone in contention for victory. Finally, any players who have more than ten resource cards must discard down to ten.

The game concludes when the sixth and final piece of the cathedral is constructed. The player with the most victory points is victorious. Ties are broken in the favor of the player who has the most resource cards remaining.

Admittedly, the game sounds intriguing. It's mechanics are fairly unique and the components are all top notch. The game should work. It really should. Somehow, however, it doesn't. In my games, the same unsettling problems continue to surface, the main one being that only the final bidding round really matters. By simply playing the game reasonably, one will be in contention to win on the final bid. That doesn't sound bad and is likely what Dutch designer Gerard Mulder had in mind, but it somehow feels wrong. There doesn't seem to be a way in which to play a masterful game, manage one's resources, skillfully bid on the auctions and insure a victory. It all boils down to that final bid.
As long as one plays a moderately competent game … I'd even say one could get away with below average play … he will be in contention to win at game's end. One could practically sleepwalk through the game and manage to collect a couple of victory points along the way. As long as one holds at least one petition (and that may not even be necessary due to some dumb luck which can easily occur) and hordes a nice quantity of resource cards entering the final round, he can win. Period. As my good buddy Ted Cheatham says, "The ride is fun, but the destination disappoints."

There are so many 'equalizers' in the game that every step forward results in one step backwards. One gets the feeling of treading water .. you just aren't going anyplace. If one wins the right to add a cathedral piece, ALL of your builder's huts are removed after constructing the piece. One has to start all over again. If one does manage to build a lead, however slight, in farmsteads and/or victory points, he will be set upon by all of his opponents by attacks and the 'King's Mercy', and likely lose huts and cards. This is even more devastating if one comes last or near last in the turn order. Finally, the progressively increasing value of the cathedral pieces also makes early constructions moot.

I've now played this game three times and this exact same problem occurred in each and every one of them. I'm not playing with dumb players here … these are smart, intelligent gamers who know how to optimize their plays and develop winning strategies. We're not geniuses, but we usually know enough to be able to play competent, skillful games. Everyone I'm playing with is spotting this flaw. It exists … I have no doubt about it. In my opinion … and the opinion of the vast majority of those I've played with … the game is broken.

As with Rheinlander, I really, really want to like this game. It has most of the elements which should make it a great game. However, it simply doesn't transcend beyond the level of mediocrity.