Game: Medieval

Thread: Re: Getting Medieval

Sir Loin o Beef — 2008-08-20T16:08:31+00:00

This really is a fun game. We always play at least one game during the weekend at BROGfest.

Check out the photos of my enlarged and mounted cards. With wooden RISK cubes as control markers.

Thread: Re: Getting Medieval

BROG — 2008-08-20T15:44:55+00:00

"...t's a bit long and very chaotic, it was a reasonably good time in good company. I'd certainly play it again...."

A fair assessment .. . It is a most unusual game (even for me) . . . Thanx for the comments, glad you had fun . . .

RHB

Thread: Getting Medieval

sdiberar — 2008-08-20T13:39:02+00:00

As JR noted, five of us broke out Herr Berg's Medieval at JR's last night. First time for Dr. Rob, Bill T, and that rabble-rouser Nate. Chris was also a novice, while I was the hoary old veteran with two whole games under my belt.

Opening choices saw Chris get the HRE and Ayyubids, Rob snag France and Byzantium, Nate Spain and Venice, moi England and Latin Kingdoms (?!), and Bill picking up the Almoravids and Hungary.

Hungary quickly falls to Chris' HRE which puts Bill in a hole he never recovers from. Spain is not whole until the end of the game when Nate manages to put it all together, only to have Rob's French cross the Pyrenees and take the northern half at the end. A mad scramble in the Baltic saw Chris and Rob steal most of the spoils, and the Knights of Christ set up in the Baltics as usual.

The Mongols threatened to come early, before all the buffer states had come out, but a little bribe here and a little cajoling there got more map cards on the table in time. In the end, the Mongols ate five cards, taking chunks out of Russia and the Near East.

Many Crusades were called, but only a couple resulted in anything worthy of being called booty. [(c) Straight Line Emporium]

When the smoke cleared, Chris had a clear lead at 36, followed by Rob at 28 and myself at 27. I'll spare Nate and Bill the embarrassment of posting their scores (Nate's Russia suffered worst at the hands of predators both Mongol and otherwise...)

Out of my five powers, four were in Civil War on the last turn...

As always, we did get a couple rules wrong. You only get the bonus VP for multi-province powers at the end, I'm sure we scored that wrong. Also, you cannot play Civil War on a power unless it started the turn eligible. This would have changed a couple of combo plays.

Otherwise, I think everyone agreed that while it's a bit long and very chaotic, it was a reasonably good time in good company. I'd certainly play it again as is, but I have a laundry list of changes I'd like to try out sometime...

Thread: Re: Review in french

tiger,tiger — 2008-05-06T12:01:10+00:00

Mise à jour des règles peuvent être trouvés ici:

http://www.gmtgames.com/t-GMTLivingRules.aspx#mdvl

Assurez-vous de télécharger la grande carte des cartes de Boardgamegeek.

Image

Sir Loin o Beef — 2008-02-11T21:56:47+00:00

His Bergness oveseeing Medieval, in progress, at BROGfest 2008

Image

Sir Loin o Beef — 2008-02-11T18:53:25+00:00

Enlarged board and wooden bits in play at BROGfest 2008

Thread: Re: Review in french

Sabbat — 2007-12-11T16:38:05+00:00

- perso, j'adore l'époque du moyen age. C'est irrationnel, mais tout jeu sur ce thème bénéficie d'un appriori très positif pour moi
- le fait de jouer plusieurs pays, c'est très original. On peut se retrouver à jouer la reconquista avec l'Espagne, installer des commanderie teutoniques avec la Prusse, écraser Byzance avec les ottomans allié avec un joueur qui nous fait la guerre à l'autre bout de la carte. Très sympa.
- la horde d'or est effectivement très très bien faite. La carte à l'Est est petit à petit dévorée par les hordes mongoles (le plateau disparait). De plus, l'arrivée des mongols va déterminer la fin de la partie : cela permet d'éviter d'optimiser son jeu en fonciton de la fin de la partie à un moment fixe. Moi j'aime bien, ça met une certaine pression.
- les cartes à jouer sont très jolies, rendent vraiment bien le theme : les illustrations sont top.

Ce jeu est plein de bonnes idées simples, implémentées parfois de façon compliquée (les chevaliers du Christ, c'est pas tj super évident). Le matériel, en dehors des cartes à jouer, n'est pas à la hauteur.
Bref, gros potentiel, mais un côté pas abouti, gaché ...

Maintenant, attention, je n'ai pas beaucoup de parties derrière moi ...

Si le jeu t'interesse, je te conseille la lecture approfondie des règles.
N'hésite pas si tu as des questions !

Thread: Re: Review in french

whac3 — 2007-12-11T16:00:28+00:00

Sabbat wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Pardon mais vous avez bien éxpliquez toutes les choses que sont mauvaises mais non les choses que sont bonnes. Á fin, vous direz que vous ne detestez le jeu pas: il faut l'éxpliquer. Qu'ést-ce que vous aimez du jeu?

si si, j'explique les points positifs et ce que j'aime (en haut), même s'il est vrai que j'insiste sur ce que je n'ai pas aimé.

Les +
- le thème, qui vise à retracer la quasi totalité du haut moyen age
- l'originalité des règles, puisqu'on joue plusieurs pays
- les cartes à jouer sont superbes
- la gestion de la Horde d'Or (les mongols) est bien trouvée

Vous en avez raison mais il me-parait que cettes points sont un peu vagues.

Thread: Re: Review in french

Sabbat — 2007-12-11T10:13:03+00:00

whac3 wrote:
Pardon mais vous avez bien éxpliquez toutes les choses que sont mauvaises mais non les choses que sont bonnes. Á fin, vous direz que vous ne detestez le jeu pas: il faut l'éxpliquer. Qu'ést-ce que vous aimez du jeu?

si si, j'explique les points positifs et ce que j'aime (en haut), même s'il est vrai que j'insiste sur ce que je n'ai pas aimé.

Les +
- le thème, qui vise à retracer la quasi totalité du haut moyen age
- l'originalité des règles, puisqu'on joue plusieurs pays
- les cartes à jouer sont superbes
- la gestion de la Horde d'Or (les mongols) est bien trouvée

Thread: Re: Review in french

whac3 — 2007-12-11T01:55:55+00:00

Pardon mais vous avez bien éxpliquez toutes les choses que sont mauvaises mais non les choses que sont bonnes. Á fin, vous direz que vous ne detestez le jeu pas: il faut l'éxpliquer. Qu'ést-ce que vous aimez du jeu?

Thread: Review in french

Sabbat — 2007-12-10T20:31:53+00:00

Médiéval ou le côté obscur de GMT

Médiéval est un jeu qui souffre d'une réputation assez mauvaise. Certaines critiques sont méritées, d'autres ne le sont pas.
Les points positifs :
- le thème, qui vise à retracer la quasi totalité du haut moyen age
- l'originalité des règles, puisqu'on joue plusieurs pays
- les cartes à jouer sont superbes
- la gestion de la Horde d'Or (les mongols) est bien trouvée
Les points négatifs :
- pas de plateau. Ce dernier se forme avec des cartes territoires, qui contrairement aux cartes à jouer, sont ... atroces : laides et trop petites. Celui qui joue Venise, bon courage
- les pions sont hideux, avec même des couleurs trop proches. De plus, ils sont microscopiques (mais par rapport à la taille de la carte, c'est logique), et ... pas assez nombreux
- les dés sont ... miniatures. Là, on atteint un peu le stade du foutage de gueule et on se demande si on a pas acheté la version miniature du jeu. J'ai failli retourner voir mon vendeur pour lui demander la version pour adulte.
- le hasard. Trop, trop, trop. Je ne suis pas allergique, mais là, il y a de l'abus. Je prend un exemple : vous choisissez de jouer la carte Désastre ==> jet de dé pour savoir sur qui ça tombe (et on rejette jusqu'à ce que ça tombe sur un pays actif). Question : quel intérêt de jouer une carte qui a autant de chance de vous pénaliser que de pénaliser le voisin ? En effet, la calamité peut très bien vous tomber dessus. Super. Idem pour "Change of Ruler". Vous avez intérêt à la jouer si vos dirigeants sont nuls et vous pénalisent, mais ... ça peut très bien tomber sur un autre joueur qui n'a rien demandé à personne.
- les combats : on parie de l'argent, rajoute la force des armées (jusque là, tout va bien) et ... on jette un dé. Peu immersif, mais in fine, je dirais que c'est presque reussi par rapport au reste.
- complexité souvent inutile (si j'ai joué une carte Pape mais pas tiré de carte territoire, si on est un jour impair et que l'age du capitaine est un nombre premier qui ne se termine pas par 7, alors ... blablabla ! A l'aide !)

Bon, j'arrête le massacre.
J'aime bien ce jeu car le thème est mon thème de prédilection. Malgré ses innombrables défauts, je n'arrive pas à le détester, et pour tout dire, je prends plaisir à le sortir, le manipuler, voir ces cartes.
Mon avis est donc totalement subjectif : je l'assume.

Ce jeu, c'est donc le côté obscur de GMT : super thème, matos pourri, règles parfois inutilement compliquées mais avec des vrais bonnes idées.

Note finale : 6/10. C'est peut être sévère, peut être pas assez. En tous cas, ce jeu ne laisse pas indifférent.

Thread: Re: Timing of Knights of Christ card.

Thrylos — 2007-09-08T22:10:49+00:00

We have played that the Knights should be played before Militia. Militia is the last thing you do before a die roll. This is not an official rulling, but it may help you know how other people play.

Image

f-p-p-m — 2007-08-23T10:27:04+00:00

The Powers participating in the Game 3/3

Image

f-p-p-m — 2007-08-23T10:23:09+00:00

The Powers participating in the Game 2/3

Image

f-p-p-m — 2007-08-23T10:19:32+00:00

The Powers paticipating in the Game 1/3

Thread: Re: House rules for improvement?

Lannisport — 2007-07-24T12:09:24+00:00

The only house rule we use since our second play is this one:

Every time you draw a Power Card, you must play it as a Mandatory Card. This Power Card stays neutral until a player controls all existing areas of this Power. Then, that player takes the Power Card and keeps it normally.

We found this houserule very good because it counterbalances the randomness of drawing Power cards. It was very frustrating in our first play to see players draw Powers more and more while others only drew disasters. Now when a Power is drawn, everybody knows where to look at and what to gain. Besides, it looks like more "an ascending power" than a "did i tell you i was also king of norway?". and we prefer this more realistic way of play.

P.S. See? one answer per year, some posts have none

Thread: Re: Beware the Mongol hordes, my son

faqtotum — 2007-03-11T14:19:47+00:00

I have had this game on my shelf for a while now. Thank you for the report; I will make a point of bringing it out to try it for myself.
I especially like the end game conditions with its impending sense of doom.

This isn't the game that almost nailed the coffin shut for GMT; that dubious honor goes to Flagship I believe.

Thread: Re: Beware the Mongol hordes, my son

n815e — 2007-03-11T13:15:07+00:00

BergBROG wrote:

2. Try using paragraphs when you write . . . it greatly aids the reader and makes the wirter sound a lot better.

RHB

Checking one's spelling is also important.

Thread: Re: Beware the Mongol hordes, my son

BergBROG — 2007-03-11T12:39:50+00:00

I thank you for the kind comments concerning MEDIEVAL, a most unusual game (with unusual mechanics).

Two points (which have nothing to do with your opinion):

1. "...the game cost GMT much more than they expected, and came near to driving the company out of business." This is not true in any sense. GMT did have to rethink the pricing, but the "edge of doom" you mention was not, in any way, a possibility.

2. Try using paragraphs when you write . . . it greatly aids the reader and makes the wirter sound a lot better.

RHB

Thread: Beware the Mongol hordes, my son

mi_de — 2007-03-10T07:37:57+00:00

What you get

Inside the thin-style GMT box (which has a quite attractive cover in my opinion) you get a sheet of 140 cardboard counters, full color, two tiny dice, a player aid card, a sheet of cardboard money counters and the driver of the game, 110 nice-looking cards depicting either map sections or actions/events. In all, I find it an attractive game, although the map cards are indeed a little small and sometimes the number of counters is too few for game play, which is a pity.

What you do

The game starts by placing a number of the map cards onto the table to form the starting map. From the depicted nations, each player chooses 2 or 3 power cards, representing control of the nation and its armies and navies. Each nation also has an associated leader, rated as good, average, or bad, and effects the nation’s ability in battle. Then players are dealt 4 cards, and collect the income from each of their controlled provinces, and off the game goes. On your turn, you first fill your hand to four cards. Then, you have the option of drawing a map card to further enlarge the map: doing so, however, will lessen the number of attacks you can make that turn. Next, a number of cards in the deck are marked as mandatory plays, including disasters and death of rulers: these must be played at this time and the effects applied. Now one enters the action phase. As a first action possibility, the player can choose to collect income from all its possessions, but this will end their turn. If the eschew taking funds, the turn may consist of playing as many cards as desired to help yourself or hinder opponents, and make up to two attacks (or one if they placed a map card this turn). An attack is made by tracing a route from the attacking province to the defending (possible negotiating passage through your neighbor’s lands), paying 1 florin, and hiring mercenaries (at 3 fl each). The defender also hires their own mercenaries, both hirings done in secret. Bids are simultaneously revealed. Battles are decided by adding the army strength to the leader ability to card play to the roll of a die. The attacker wins if he beats the defender’s combat value, and takes possession of the province. Neutral provinces may also be attacked; they just defend with a die roll. Sea combat is similar, just more expensive and attackers win ties as well. The game centers on control of power cards: playing a power card allows the controller of the provinces of a country to also control the leader and army of a nation: once held, a power card can only be taken from an owner by conquest of the individual provinces. On top of all this, there are 7 Mongol cards in the deck. Nothing happens upon drawing the first three. However, after the third is drawn, they are shuffled back in the remaining draw pile, and ever further Mongol draw indicates an attack against the Easternmost card of the map. This attack is a die roll +5, and defended by the collective players with a similar roll, modified by the defense of the region and possible card play, If the players lose, the map card is flipped over and becomes out of play, and any regions owned on that card are lost! Once all seven Mongols enter play, the game ends immediately upon drawing the next power card. There are some more game details, including crusades, marriages, heresies, but the general drift of the game is as described.

What I think

This game has a bit of a rough history. I was one of the p500 pledgers, and we has a very reasonable price quoted for the game. As it turns out, the game cost GMT much more than they expected, and came near to driving the company out of business. Despite this, they honored the pledge price, which I though was amazingly classy: Decision games had no problem jerking me about on the pledge price of the Empires of the Middle Ages. Anyway, what about the game? It came out to some real criticism, with claims that it was too complex, too long, too little variety in the cards, the map was too small, and there were not enough counters. I’m here to tell you that, while the latter two comments are somewhat true, they are not debilitating, and that the first three criticisms are bollocks. The rules are reasonable clear to anyone with cursory experience in heavier rule sets, and the living rules have made it a bit easier to navigate. Complexity is nothing big, and once you’ve gotten going a few turns, it all flows smoothly. People who have been playing the game 5+ hours are playing way too slow: quit over-thinking this game. It is short, sharp, and direct. Attacking is advocated, and the timing mechanism and gradual loss of the map edge to the Mongols is brilliant. Adds some real pressure as one sees the unstoppable march of the hordes, indicating the day of reckoning is fast approaching. As to player interaction, outside the ‘take that’ and response cards, external deals are encouraged, and trades of cards, money and favors are possible. As to card variety, it may have been possible to diversify, but the cards are generic enough that they can superficially cover a variety of other events you could imagine for Europe in this time, so it never bothered us. As it is, we have cards to cover Papal activities (excommunication, crusades and more), heresy, assassins, Knights of Christ, Jihads, civil wars, monarch deaths… pretty good variety as it stands. The game can be quite fluid, and dramatic changes of fortune are possible, and only the carefully-planning can avoid some severe bumps along the way. I have to admit, I’ve mainly played 3 or 4 players and have not yet tried with 5, but it works fine with the 3 and 4. I find this to be a surprisingly good game, and my group has never balked at a chance to play, and has never failed to be entertaining. One of the best card games I have played, and it captures a bit of the chaos and uncertainly of the period, and you gain more appreciation of the fear felt by the people of that age for the alien Mongol menace.

Image

BobRoberts — 2007-03-02T06:43:49+00:00

Ralph explains Medieval to Jeff and friends at Conquest 2006.

Thread: Re: So far so good!

Harae — 2007-02-12T08:12:16+00:00

Thanks,
I have downloaded the maps and will have a look at the house rule next time we play.

Thread: Re: So far so good!

sos1 — 2007-02-10T22:46:10+00:00

For larger maps, see http://www.gmtgames.com/gmt0wn.asp - look for May 10, 2005. We use the regular card-sized maps when drawing, but use the large maps when playing. It really helps the game a lot!

I'm a fan of this game, and don't know why it has a bad reputation. We do play with one house rule - see my comment in the rating section.

Thread: So far so good!

Harae — 2007-02-09T11:22:06+00:00

Please keep in mind this is based after one 5 player play.

Yesterday the MGG (Mage Game Group, Dusseldorf) played a 5 player game ( all new to the game except 1). Despite some concern after reading geek comments, we all had a great time. and please find below some comments:

First positive impressions:
-Seems to have good replay value
-Very accessible
-Very good multiplayer
-Takes a maximum of 3,5 hours to play
-The idea and design is simply brilliant and only therefore you should have a copy
-The bidding / battle system is simple but works great and give flavour and excitement
-Attacking is more rewarding than receiving an attack so just take money every turn will be your downfall eventually.
-The growing map is wonderful and drawing tiles and playing empire cards is exciting
-The map that is getting eaten away by Mongols is wonderful
-Money is everything! Without it you are doomed so better ask yourself why you are attacking and how much you are prepared to lose!

Initial worries after one play:
-I rather had seen larger cardstock map tiles rather than playing cards
-The chits are functional but uninspiring. There could have been more
-The ‘Action’ cards seem not that exciting / powerful. The Excitement lies in the new areas rather than civil war etc. I had loved to see a larger deck with more exciting variants.
-The Civil War effects were very minimal as Excommunication or Disaster markers were hardly there. I decided to discard more often than keep.
Maybe this is inexprience and after more plays we might get smarter!
- Throughout the game only two leaders were changed (one upgraded and one downgraded) and the chance was rather minimal to improve or stop a good leader. A bit frustrating as the whole game I kept two bad leaders. and failed two roles to improve one of them.
-Influence of the Mongols was poor in our game: two map cards removed, one withstood an attack.

Conclusion:
Yes there are some issues after one play but some of these points might change with more plays. It has not the great excitement as Twilight Struggle but I am sure with a redeveloped Card deck this could be the ultimate Card game!
In some ways it even reminded me of a simplistic version of Here I Stand. Certainly it’s not for everyone but the low rating is in my opinion not justified. The mechanics all in all work well but I had hoped for a bit more Card Excitement as far as the Action Cards are concerned.

Anyhow, first game was exciting and all 5 of us had a great time learning and playing. I will update my comments after the following plays. So far so good!

The other feeling is: what this game COULD have been in the light of Twilight Struggle and Here I Stand. Anyhow, I should view it on it's own right and will post more regarding this after more plays which will cettainly be the case!

Image

f-p-p-m — 2006-11-18T14:23:34+00:00

Image

f-p-p-m — 2006-11-18T14:18:14+00:00

Image

f-p-p-m — 2006-11-18T13:46:48+00:00

Image

f-p-p-m — 2006-11-18T13:45:54+00:00

Thread: Re: House rules for improvement?

theaney — 2006-08-20T21:43:11+00:00

Hum. Maybe it says something that after nearly a year, I never got a single response to this post.

Thread: Power cards

mae68it — 2006-03-09T16:53:00+00:00

Is it possible to have a summary of power cards with all the relevants details written on these cards (like an excel file)?

Thanks.

Thread: Re: Timing of Knights of Christ card.

gpruitt — 2006-02-15T17:02:58+00:00

Okay, I am ammending my question. I've seen on consimworld that a card cannot be played to modify a die that has already been rolled. But I still wonder whether Knights of Christ is played before or after militia is purchased?

Thread: Timing of Knights of Christ card.

gpruitt — 2006-02-13T16:00:10+00:00

Assume that a catholic power, let's say Spain, is being attacked by an islamic power, let's say Almoravids. The player who has the Spain power card also has a Knights of Christ card in his hand. If he chooses to play this card in defense, when is it played? From reading the rules, I assumed that it is played after the dice are rolled, but this seems a bit strange. So is it played before militia expenditures are revealed? After militia but before the die roll? After the die roll?

-Glenn

Thread: House rules for improvement?

theaney — 2005-10-11T18:31:54+00:00

Has anyone created some new house rules to make Medieval more playable/fun? For example, how about having players draw cards at the END of their turn rather than at the beginning? That way they could study their options during other players' turns rather than drawing cards and then having everyone wait while the player decides what to do.

How about discarding the random selection of provinces and allow players to decide which provinces are effected by disaster and whatnot? Or would that make the cards far too dangerous?

Any other ideas?

Thread: Re: Conquering powers?

TheBaron — 2005-10-04T18:21:40+00:00

This rule has driven me bonkers about this game.

After reading the replies and re-reading the updated rules,
have I got it right?

When a Power Card is played, Control of that Power immediately
goes to:

A. The player who drew the card, providing there is at least one of
that Power's uncontrolled province in play. The drawing player
places the Power Card in front of him, to indicate his Control, and
places Control Markers in all of that Power's uncontrolled provinces.

EXAMPLE: Player “A” draws and plays the Power card for Serbia.
Player ”B” controls the Serbian 3C province, but Serbia 2C is not
controlled by anyone. Player “A”, therefore, gains Control of Serbia,
places a control marker in its 2C province, and collects the “Start
Fls” for Serbia (as per 4.4).

Okay so now Player "A" puts the Power card on the table because it does not control all the provinces of that Power???????
Because
C. If all provinces in play are controlled by different players, the
Power Card is placed on the table as uncontrolled.

Then once a player satisfies B. The player who controls all of that Power's provinces that are in play. The Power Card is given to that player, who places the PowerCard in front of him to indicate his Control.

Does this sound correct the way I've explained it??????

Thread: Re:Question about victory points

Dr.Octopus — 2005-04-22T07:45:27+00:00

yossarians (#478113),
thank you. Once again, my wife was right... now she will play it with even more satisfaction!

Thread: Re:Question about victory points

yossarians — 2005-04-21T19:49:07+00:00

Dr.Octopus (#477798),

IIRC, Berg answered this in the negative on Consimworld. If any parts have been destroyed, no-one gets the vps.

Thread: Question about victory points

Dr.Octopus — 2005-04-21T11:26:56+00:00

The manual states in 12.3:
If he controls all provinces of a multi-province Power he adds 1 VP to his total.

What happens if a Power lost some provinces in a Mongol attack? (i.e. Holy Roman Empire province in 1C)
Will his owner still earn 1 VP if he controls all the remaining provinces?

Thread: Re:A Better Game than some think

bjorn — 2005-03-17T23:34:36+00:00

Lawrence Hung (#30026),
I have always had enough counters for disaster/excom... But the player tend to try and remove them at the earliest opportunity to avoid civil war.

The ruler counters are meant to mark a row of cards and not a single card I think.

Province markers I have run out of several times.

Thread: Re:3 basic holes

bjorn — 2005-03-17T23:24:03+00:00

Lawrence Hung (#23404),
The first point is covered in the updated rules. You can trade in a 5th card, but you have to use it before your turn, or you must discard a card at the start of your turn.

Thread: Three-handed Medieval

sdiberar — 2004-03-20T10:25:39+00:00

I was disappointed to discover that, out of the box, Medieval does not really work with three players. No reason it should, since the designer himself admitted he had never played it that way. One try "by the book" was enough to convince me it was not properly tested. Three powers put a lot of money in the game and the board was still a little too empty.

A couple more games and some not-so-deep thought later, I present my rules for Three-handed Medieval (with Dummy Powers).

At the start of the game, before players choose Powers, deal four Powers to the table at random. Each of these Powers (and their provinces) are Neutral, but not uncontrolled. They will defend themselves if attacked, always receiving a +2 Militia bonus. If they have a navy, they will use it to intercept any attack against their own territory, with a +1 Militia bonus. Dummy Powers never get a turn, are unaffected by Disaster, Heresy, and Civil War, and cannot be Excommunicated. They are, however, subject to Change of Ruler and Assassination. When a Crusade is called, the two strongest Catholic Dummy Powers (if any) join the Crusade. The Crusading Pope receives no money from the Dummy Powers, nor do the Dummy Powers receive any reward for a successful Crusade.

Each live player's hand consists of six cards (or seven, for a shorter game). This simulates the extra cards that would enter play were there five live players in the game, and keeps the game length roughly equivalent.

Dummy Powers can be used for a four-handed game as well; deal only two Dummy Powers at start, and each live player has a hand of five cards. Only the strongest Catholic Dummy Power will join Crusades.

***

Unrelated, one may wish to limit the play of new Powers as follows: a player may only play a Power card if no other player has fewer Powers in play. Power cards may be discarded like any other, except that they are immediately shuffled back into the deck to be available to be drawn again.

Comments are welcome and appreciated.

Thread: End game misery

Lawrence Hung — 2004-03-09T17:07:45+00:00

I do agree another review here stating that the end game is the turn that mostly determine the final winner, as the game is designed with a mind to have a tense, even and tight game all along the turns. The randomness of the cards play and draw might affect the scale of this end game kingmaking but the first runner up would mostly benefitted from the end game all-throws of cards to the existing leader.

Another unclear VP determination is that whether the unrevealed map should count towards the final additional VP that could be granted to the one who control all the provinces of a particular power in hand. This is not clearly stated in the living rule either. The designer replied that the unrevealed map card should not count towards the final VP calculation purpose. Well, we played it wrong. Anyone who play the same way?

Thread: Re:A Better Game than some think

Lawrence Hung — 2004-03-09T16:58:25+00:00

Joelist (#27322),

On my several play, there is a run out of markers for the card effects e.g. disaster, excommunication, change of ruler etc. Do you encounter the same?

Lawrence

Thread: A Better Game than some think

Joelist — 2004-02-06T01:12:49+00:00

The negative reviews of this game appear to be Euro enthusiasts getting upset because there is Combat. Actually, this is a nice lightweight game. I have played it extensively, and the statement made by another comment that the last player usually wins is not the case. Play has a number of nuances that give the game a good strategy flavor, among these are the proper play of the cards and positioning yourself both in relationship to the other players and to the Mongols.

That said, the components are flatly not good. The Map Cards are too small, and should have at least been on counterstock. The markers are bland, and there are not enough of them. Finally, the rules as shipped have a number of vague places that can create issues. Fortunately on this last item updated rules are now available at the GMT website that are far tighter.

Thread: 3 basic holes

Lawrence Hung — 2003-12-09T11:13:22+00:00

Three very basic things that were missed out in the original rule book:

* No player can have more than 4 cards at any one time (thus limiting the trading of cards exceeding that limit)
* Deu Ex Machina card cannot be played to negate map and power cards (thus limiting its very use)
* Making deals of cards among players can be made at any time as a basic game premise.

The first point was not even mentioned in the updated quick reference sheet but can only be obtained from browsing through the discussion board threads.

Thread: Re:What A Disappointment!

Lawrence Hung — 2003-12-09T11:11:08+00:00

Three very basic things the designer missed out in the original rule book:

* No player can have more than 4 cards at any one time (thus limiting the trading of cards exceeding that limit)
* Deu Ex Machina card cannot be played to negate map and power cards (thus limiting its very use)
* Making deals of cards among players can be made at any time as a basic game premise.

Beware of these actual holes. It almost makes the game all over again. Even the first one is not included in the latter updated rules summary, but could only be obtained after browsing all the discussion board threads.

Thread: What A Disappointment!

SwedeLad — 2003-12-04T14:28:55+00:00

What a disappointment
I rarely will write a negative review, but I can hardly think of a game more deserving right now. While I love the design and artwork on the cards, the mechanics completely fall flat. This game was an excruciating 3 hours to play with very little excitement. This is a shame since I love the medieval period. I wanted to like this game so bad, but the reality is that it is a flop. There are very little penalties in this game for losing battles or crusades, and when you try to hurt another player, it actually does very little, and it is easily overcome anyway. A very one-dimensional game. I feel guilty having bought it at all. A true waste.

Thread: Re:Early Comments

SwedeLad — 2003-12-04T11:48:18+00:00

sdiberar (#18359),
This game was excruciatingly painul to play. A real shame since I love the medieval period. A real waste of 3 hours.

Thread: Re:User Review

Lawrence Hung — 2003-10-02T10:28:44+00:00

anton (#19910),

Yes, I think it could be a good PC game if translated nicely by the developer. I have this thinking because the strategy cards are relatively straightforward in their effects and play. Just like Magic the Gathering, the ambiguous rules can be clarified once it is turned into PC games (actually the translation can force the designer to answer rule questions). However, I think this could be a good online multiplayer PC game rather than a solitaire one because of the complexity of the A.I coding involved.

Thread: Re:User Review

anton — 2003-09-24T15:54:31+00:00

Lawrence Hung (#19364),

I echo your sentiments re: the inadequacy of the cardboard game markers included, especially in the later stages when more countries become involved in game play, and the Enigma cards get crowded.
My solution was to dig out my old Parker Bros. "Risk" game and use the wood pieces, which gives the game a decidedly "German" feel, component-wise.
SPI's classic "Empires of the Middle Ages," evolved into Greg Goheen's excellent "Rise of the West" for the PC.
Do you think "Medieval" could make the transition from board to computer as well?

anton

Thread: User Review

Lawrence Hung — 2003-09-12T17:27:16+00:00

Chaos questions in Medieval

Game packaging is attractive as usual. The pre-warning system of the upcoming Mongol raids after 2 Mongols cards drawn makes the players excited about when the Mongols onslaught would be coming. It casted a sense of something big coming up. The effect of Mongols invasions is devastating: a map card is permanently removed....talking about the power of the Mongols.

It is more interesting to play Catholic powers than the others. More actions can be and only be performed by Catolics powers: Cursades, Knights of Christ, Arrange Marriages, Excommunications etc. It was really a world dominated by the then Church power.

Players take turn to play action cards on hand in order to vie for control on the land/ province cards that are eventually "mapped" out by playing the land cards. The map covers the medieval Europe and parts of North Africa. 27 Powers are roughly divided by religion into Muslims, Catholics, Protestants and Pagans (yes, it is NOT a religion). The action cards are played by players in order to gain as many territories and powers as possible by the end of the game when Europe is overtaken by the Mongols. Great period feel.

The rules are generally complete but written in a fiddling manner (a usual problem for a card game), particularly with respect to the timing of playing the various action cards and of making deals among players (there is no specific game segment in the sequence of play as to the making of deals, but rather, littering deal actions among different parts of the rules without a general statement regarding the timing of making deals or what kind of deals could be made). The problem of the timing of playing the action card AND trading and dealing has caused significant problem of rule interpretations among players and among different play groups. Despite the designer continuous claiming that those problems did NOT happen in his play group, the fact is that a designer cannot expects everyone else plays the same way as his or his group. This game, obviously, suffers a major game development problem, leading to different play style and results. The problem is further plagued by the fact that the rules did not spell out clearly that at no time there cannot be more than 4 cards in a player's hand, until it is revealed recently in a discussion board by the designer himself.

The rules could have solved most of the problems but the style of rules writing raises doubts for the serious players. Get a download of the game Quick Start Reference Card here before your next play. It is a whole-page summary of timing of the action card play. You need it.

The 110 cards are beautifully rendered with Medieval style graphics. The current color scheme is on the lighter side. Cards could have been more easily distinguished with a color scheme that is more shaprly contrasted. Gameplay can be smooth once the rules are clarified and agreed with each player beforehand. The game complexity is low but the interactions among players raise it.

Furthermore on the downside, the game markers are inadequate once the actions get heated, something that should have been identified during the game development stage. Obvioulsy, the game is dwarfed by a poor game development.

The game is definitely NOT a solitaire game. Unless you can find 3 to 5 players who are interested in the period at the same time, the game could sit on the book shelve for a while before you get enough players.

Thread: Re:two important questions

Lawrence Hung — 2003-09-12T16:38:40+00:00

Velusion (#19345),

No, he did not design game for customer but for himself. That's something he said exactly and was quoted.

He must be doing *something* right to sell/publish so many games over his lifetime.

Hope someone could tell me what that "something" is.

Thread: Re:two important questions

Velusion — 2003-09-12T06:01:49+00:00

Lawrence Hung (#19344),

I'm not the biggest Berg fan either, but he is what he is, and he has always been that way. He must be doing *something* right to sell/publish so many games over his lifetime.

Somoene recently quoted him here as stateing that he doesn't design games for customers, he designs them for himself. Sounds like something he would say. And personally, I respect him for it - even if some of his games aren't show stoppers.

Thread: Re:two important questions

Lawrence Hung — 2003-09-12T05:08:46+00:00

ChrisB (#19275),

Exactly Chris. I get insulted by him several times even I, as a customer, offer many good advices to him and express my feelings and questions to him about his design and game. Don't do that anymore as he and his loyalists would get you rampaged, no matter what. I gave up on this. Don't be fooled by his statement, no, he won't be nicer even if you are smarter. Sadly in a world like this, GMT still publish a game by a designer who despise his customers.

Lawrence

Thread: Re:two important questions

ChrisB — 2003-09-10T20:58:51+00:00

Mickel Knight wrote:
For a more definative answer go to Consimworld where Richard Berg will answer the question personally. However, I do believe I am entirely correct on this count.

Lawrence Hung wrote:
The point is, it is hard for a game designer to admit that there are significant rule "holes" (read flaws) in his rulebook.

And it does not help one bit that should the designer deign to answer any questions, at best he obviously considers anyone posing questions to be stupid. More likely he will send along an insult with any reply. I just read through all messages on Medieval on Consimworld and it was not pretty. Unsurprisingly Berg's .sig is "I'll try to be nicer, if you try to be smarter".

Thread: Session Report

gschloesser — 2003-09-08T20:51:08+00:00

I guess I should have known better. I learned of this Richard Berg design while perusing the GMT Project 500 list last year. The description of the game was certainly intriguing: a card game for 3 – 5 players covering the events, situations and rivalries of the 13th century. The medieval era is a rich period of history that lends itself very well to the gaming environment. So, the game intrigued me. However, I had some misgivings, as the game’s designer was Richard Berg. To-be-sure, Mr. Berg is a well-respected, highly knowledgeable and creative designer with dozens of games to his credit. However, his games tend to be highly detailed simulations containing loads of rules and “chrome”, features that appeal to many, but is something I tend not to enjoy. Still, I just couldn’t resist the lure of the time period, so I pre-ordered a copy.

The game finally arrived early in the week, so I immediately dove into the rules. They are long by German game standards, but certainly not the tomes that are hallmarks of many Berg designs. Still, they contained many details, exceptions and “go to section” commands, so I knew the game would not be an easy one to learn or explain. I was correct in this belief.

The game uses the “Enigma” system, wherein the “board” develops by card play throughout the coarse of the game. This system was pioneered by Evan Jones in the Blue vs. Gray card game released by QED Games. A certain number of cards begin the game in play, forming a portion of the map upon which the game will be played. During the course of the game, further map cards will come into play at the whim of the players. This means that some countries may not appear until very late in the game, which certainly could … and usually does … alter the plans of the players.

Map cards depict countries or parts of countries, with the larger countries being subdivided into provinces. Each province bears a value ranging from 1 – 5, which is the income that the province produces and is the ultimate victory point value of the province at the end of the game. Controlling provinces, however, is difficult without corresponding control of the power itself, as a player is unable to use the power’s defensive value or add militia in defense when defending a province. Thus, the player who controls the power card is in a superior position to take aggressive action to re-conquer wayward provinces.

Each player gets to select two powers at the beginning of the game. Thereafter, power cards come into play by random draws from the action deck. Power cards may not be discarded, but may be held by a player and potentially never played. Why would a player not want to play a power card? Well, control of the power goes to the player who controls all of the provinces within that nation. So, if an opponent controls all of the provinces within a nation whose card you hold, it is probably best not to play it. However, if at least one province within the nation is vacant when the card is played, control of the power goes to the player playing the card. That can be quite unsettling … and frustrating … to a player who possesses one or more of the provinces within that nation.

Although the rules are quite detailed and it takes awhile to get used to the flow of the game, the sequence of play is actually quite simple to follow.

A) Draw Action Cards. Players begin a turn by drawing a number of action cards to bring their hand up to four cards.

B) Map Card Selection. This is optional. A player may draw and place a map card onto the ever-growing board. If he does, however, this will restrict him to only one attack during his action phase and he may not play a Pope card this turn.

C) Mandatory Card Phase. Many cards are marked with a symbol meaning that they MUST be played during this phase. The only choice a player has is the order in which they are played if they hold multiple mandatory cards.

These mandatory cards usually interject chaos into the game system: disasters, ruler changes, Mongol raids, etc. There are multiple cards of each type in the deck, but sadly, there is little variety here. For example, the disaster cards give no hint as to the type of disaster being suffered. No plagues, pestilence, famines or the like. They are all just “disasters”. And the effects are identical: roll a die and suffer the loss of that many florins. A little variety here would have helped.

Ruler changes are also way too frequent. Further, the power effected as well as the heir is determined by a die roll. The heir can be either good, normal or poor. It’s all just a bit too random for my tastes.

D) Action Phase. The player has three choices in this phase:

1) Collect Income. A player may collect income from each of the provinces he controls that is not currently suffering from a disaster or civil war. If he does opt to collect income, any disaster tokens are removed, but the player’s turn is over. He can take no further actions.

2) Play Action Cards. These include Power (nation) cards, Pope cards and a few other assorted cards. A player can pay as many of these as he desires, within the limitations discussed above if the player selected a Map card.

3) Attacks. A player may launch up to two attacks against an enemy province at a cost of 1 florin per attack. Attacks must come from an adjacent province, but if not adjacent, a player may obtain passage through other provinces by either owning them or by consent of the player who does own them. This may require a bribe or other suitable arrangement.

Attacks are resolved by each player tallying the strength of their forces. The base value of the power attacking (and defending) is listed on its card. A player may increase this value by paying florins to raise militia. For each three florins paid, +1 is added to the combat dice roll. Provinces, as opposed to powers, have no base value and may not raise militia. Both players then roll a die and add any modifiers. High roll wins the battle and either conquers or retains control of the contested province.

The combat system is very easy, but a bit unsatisfying … especially if a province is the object of the attack. It is quite frustrating not being able to adequately defend a province and is one of my main objections to the game system. Further, most provinces have little offensive or defensive power, so in order to attack with them, one must be ready and able to commit considerable resources to the attack. This makes the powers that have substantial military strength MUCH more valuable in the game.

A few other cards warrant further discussion, particularly the all-too-common Pope card. The playing of a Pope card allows the player to choose between the following options:

a) Call for a Crusade. All players owning at least one Catholic power must pay the Pope 1 florin, then decide whether to send a power on a crusade against some unnamed country or entity. The strength of all the powers sent on the crusade are totaled and compared with the roll of two dice. If the crusading total is greater, each player on the crusade receives the difference in florins. This is a VERY abstract representation of a crusade and, in practice, proved very unexciting and unsatisfying.

An important question arose in regards to crusades. When a player commits a power to a crusade, is that power unavailable to that player when his turn arrives? If not, there really didn’t appear to be any incentive NOT to send a power on a crusade. Sadly, the answer could not be found in the rules.

b) Excommunicate one power. An excommunicated player may not trace passage through any other Catholic nation and he is susceptible to civil war, which can be potentially nasty. Removal is fairly easy, however: just go on a future crusade or pay 3 florins and all is forgiven.

c) Arrange a Marriage. This grants unimpeded passage through an adjacent Catholic power as long as there is no change of rulers in one of the two countries.

d) Allow Passage through the Papal States. Normally, no power can trace passage through the Papal States. However, countries located below the Papal States do not begin the game in play and may well not enter play until the latter stages of the game, which is exactly what occurred in our game. So, this ability had little relevance in our game.

The end of the game is triggered by the repeated appearance of the Mongols. These action cards are ‘mandatory’ in nature, but the first three to appear have no effect. Once the three appear, they are shuffled back into the deck. Thereafter, each Mongol causes an invasion of an eastern map card. When the 7th Mongol card appears, the game is at its end point and will end immediately if the action deck is depleted, or continue until the next power card is drawn.

When Mongols invade, they have an attack value of ‘5’, while the card attacked has a defensive value listed on the card itself. Players may commit Knights of Christ (action cards) in defense of the provinces on the card, with each Knight committed adding +2 to the defense. Dice are rolled to determine the victor. If the Mongols win, the entire card is destroyed and removed from the game. If this completely eliminates all of a power’s provinces, the power card is also removed from the game. The rules aren’t clear as to what occurs to the power card when all its provinces that are currently present on the map are removed, but there are still one or more of that power’s provinces that have yet to appear.

At the conclusion of the game, players simply total the value of all of the provinces under their control. It matters not if the provinces are currently excommunicated or suffering from a disaster or civil war. The player with the greatest value is victorious.

All of this took us about 3 hours to play to completion, excluding the nearly 30 minutes it took to explain the rules. We also did spend quite a bit of time diving back into the rules in attempts to discover answers to questions that arose during the course of the game. That’s par for the course for games such as these which contain an abundance of detailed rules. My good buddy Tom Cortazzo declared the entire process “cumbersome”.

Although the game has this abundance of detailed rules, it simply does not provide enough variety. There are too many of each type of action card, which causes the same actions to be repeated over and over again. There is little variety, which causes the game to become rather dull. Further, the randomness in how powers are assigned during game play and the extreme difficulties in defending provinces considerably increased my frustration level. If the game could be played in an hour or so, I’d likely give it another chance. At 3 hours, however, it simply isn’t worth the time investment. My copy is already on the Bayou Bazaar if anyone is interested.

Jerry (who was later relieved by Joey), Tom, Darren, Jim and I slogged our way through the game. Jim controlled France and later conquered Spain, giving him a huge advantage. Tom controlled England and spread across the northern section of Europe, while I began in Hungary and was saddled with weak military powers throughout the game. Darren suffered the brunt of the Mongol invasions and was quickly relegated to the bottom heap of world powers. Jerry / Joey suffered early, but a last-turn conquest of Hungary substantially improved their finishing position.

After 2 hours, we were all pining for the end of the game and cheered each Mongol invasion. This was certainly not a good sign and the ratings reflected everyone’s displeasure with the game.

Finals: Jim 25, Tom 22, Jerry / Joey 19, Greg 14, Darren 12

Ratings: Darren 5.5, Joey 4, Tom 4, Greg 4, Jim 2.5

Thread: Re:two important questions

Lawrence Hung — 2003-09-07T14:54:36+00:00

The point is, it is hard for a game designer to admit that there are significant rule "holes" (read flaws) in his rulebook. The problem of the timing of playing the action card AND trading and dealing has caused significant problem of rule interpretations among players and among different play groups. Despite the designer continuous claiming that those problems did NOT happen in his play group, the fact is that a designer cannot expects everyone else plays the same way as his or his group. This game, obviously, suffers a major game development problem, leading to different play style and results. A whole-page summary of timing of the action card play has been posted here. Download it before your next play. I wonder whether there may be more and more problem coming given the current level of heated discussions in the Consimworld. No wonder, however, I have to revise the game down from "7" to "6".

Lawrence

Thread: Re:two important questions

Mickel — 2003-09-07T13:55:17+00:00

Wheeling and dealing is a big part of this game and is encouraged by the designer. Make deals for trading cards and/or money. If you find yourself short of money when assigning militia, hold a yard sale.

For a more definative answer go to Consimworld where Richard Berg will answer the question personally. However, I do believe I am entirely correct on this count.

Mickel

Thread: Some questions ...

liga — 2003-09-05T14:24:31+00:00

1) I notice that all the power present in the beginning of the game starts with an amount of Fls. equal to the value of theyr initial controlling province. all but England that start with 9 Fls. and 7 fls. in controlled province ... is that a print mistake on the card ?

2) is it possible to trace a route through provinces and seas area in maps card not yet displayed ?

3) it seems from the rules that is not possible to rise militia in a controlled province of a non-controleld power. In the example of play in the rules it stats that england rise militia to defend france trying to reconquest the france province in the 1B card. Is that (and the south of spain province) an exception of the rules ? and if 'yes' what happens after in the game if the england player reget control of that province: could him still rise militia in defense ?

4) is the Army +2 on the Knight of Christs cards used both in attack and defence when the KoC are used as a power ? The restriction for KoC to not rise miltia is only in the attack phase or also in defend a KoC mini-power is not allowed to rise militia ?

5) could a power in civil-war make naval interceptions ?

that's all ... really a nice game but the rules are not always clear ...

Liga

Thread: Re:two important questions

liga — 2003-09-05T07:18:32+00:00

Firmous (#18995),

My interpretation of the rules (and in that way seem that the game flow weel) is taht only during excomunications and passange people can make deal. Playing in tha way sometimes happens that a pleyer just pass thorugh a province insetad of another to make deal with tah player ... and that is not too far from what was happening in teh history. ALso excomunicating a pleyer could be a way to get power card, province and money from him.

bye bye
Liga

Thread: Re:two important questions

Firmous — 2003-09-04T20:42:26+00:00

Basilius (#18984),
Can I receive money of other players when I am in a battle in order to increase my modifier of militia?; or,
Can the players give money to finance the battles of other players and thus can pay more militia??