Recommend
150 
 Thumb up
 Hide
29 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Clash of Monarchs» Forums » Reviews

Subject: A Long Sloppy Love Letter to Clash of Monarchs rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steve
United States
Flagstaff
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is a review that has been simmering for a long time. I’ve finished about 4 campaigns of this game and it has now been over a year, so I definitely have the perspective now to write this. I’d say most of my PBEM gaming time has been devoted to Clash of Monarchs (COM). Clash of Monarchs is a 2-4 player CDG simulating the Seven Years War in Europe. Well, I can now tell you, after many, many hours of play, that COM is absolutely a genius game: an extremely playable monster size game. Not a monster mapwise but rather gameplaywise and in campaign length. It was designed as a labor of love by Bob Kalinowski over a period of many years and the time that was taken with it, in the same way as my favorite game, Here I Stand by Ed Beach, really shows. The game is relatively polished and is well tested and balanced. Don’t necessarily trust the commentators who have barely played the game or glanced at the rules proclaim how difficult it is to play and that the rules are X pages long. After even a modicum familiarity is reached, the mechanics really fall away and allow you to think about what you want to do and how you want to do it from a strategic standpoint. I rarely consult the rules while playing and can do almost anything a commander in the Seven Years War would want to do with his armies.

So what is Clash of Monarchs and why is it such a great game?

Components and Production

This is a big game, and the components are a mixed bag. The cards are wonderfully designed and look great. The colors of the counters, powers and cards really make the game look quite nice on the table. In particular, the period art that was chosen for all the counters and the cards is amazing. In fact, I would say COM has the most beautiful cards I’ve ever seen in a CDG. On top of that, almost all the leaders, even the minor ones from the minor powers (there are so many leaders in this game, many of which you won’t see in a single game), have unique, accurate art for them on the counters. Even the different army’s SP counters are unique and vary in color and costume depending on the country they are from and who they are. Cards and counters are really an A+ effort with great attention to detail.

On to the controversial map. According to the BGG and CSW comments, apparently the map is so bad that it has basically caused people to give up on the game and give it bad reviews. The map is really a tale of two uses and I think I have some insight into it, though no excuses. I have played COM mostly via VASSAL PBEM and live play. In that context, the map looks great. It looks good and the borders are quite clearly delineated. It even has some stylish touches like the colour palette of the various spaces and their space ownership. Sounds great right?

Then you pull it out of the box and try to play it in person. It’s obvious, at least to me, that this map was made on a computer screen, played via VASSAL, etc, and then something was lost in translation to the paper. It is dark. It’s not unplayable, as others seem to have suggested, but it does make playing the game and figuring out the passages between the point to point spaces much more difficult that they should be. Whether something happened to Mark’s art on its way to the printers or there is just something about the palette that doesn’t transfer between a computer screen and the physical product, I do not know, but the map is definitely the weak point of the production. Don’t let this scare you away, however. And definitely don’t let anyone tell you the map makes the game unplayable or anything of the sort. It is playable, even in person with the art. It is not, however, close to ideal.

No False Choices in Cardplay

Clash of Monarchs is a CDG in the vein of Hannibal rather than Paths of Glory (POG). Forces are counted in SP and leaders, not armies with particular characteristics, are activated depending on their initiative rating. So Daun, while a powerful commander, is hard to activate and takes 3 op or better cards to move---just as in real life, where Kaunitz in the Austrian command had to frequently plead, cajole and threaten Daun to take any action at all. By contrast, Frederick will be continuously activated, moving all over the board and running circles around the Austrians with his 1 rating.

It is here where COM really shines. COM is a CDG where gameplay, not cardplay, dominates. Cards are extremely important---a look at the Austrian hand will determine whether they can expect to roll their large armies under Daun and Loudon or Lacy forward or if they will be forced to take slow cautious admin marches and stay mostly on the defensive and reaction. On the other hand, event play and stringing events together is not the focus of play, as it is in POG. In fact, cards are never removed from the deck except as an (ingenious) function of a country going bankrupt! There are a few one time events but most events are available at any time and are not overly powerful or unique. In general, there is no card in COM that is a must play or game decider in the same way as when Italy comes out in POG or Twilight Struggle scoring cards are dealt, to say nothing of Shifting Sands and its game deciding Malta cards. Nearly all event cards are balanced in such a way as to make their play a legitimate question of strategy or situation vs. gameyness. In general, there is very little gameyness in COM. This is a CDG that non-CDG players can enjoy.

My favorite example from the game is leadership of the Austrian army under Charles. Historically, Charles was a relatively poor leader who after some crushing defeats to Frederick was stripped of command by Austrian general command, which then drastically reformed and improved the general staff. In COM, this is represented by a few cards whose play is contingent on Charles and the Austrian army suffering crushing defeats. The play of these cards may seem like a no brainer---as historically, they improve Austrian tactics and leadership quite a bit. On the other hand, crushing defeats are incredibly damaging and while Charles is not a great leader, he is not modeled and stereotyped as an absolute piece of garbage either, like other CDGs might do. As a result, I have had games where Charles was quickly crushed and then the general staff completely reformed very early in the game. On the other hand, I am now finishing a campaign where Charles was never crushed, the Austrian army never badly beaten and the staff never reformed. This meant I didn’t have access to some nice/fancier tactics chit and cards but on the other hand meant that I had been playing well *and* had not been unnaturally incentivized to seek out a bad defeat. The choices in COM are rarely obvious, which is something I greatly value about Bob’s design. This is not true, and bugs me, in other many other CDGs.

Another important point about the lack of gameyness in card play is that COM’s design gives players plenty of nice options even when they don’t have a card to play. In any given turn, you can give your armies admin marches which are slow speed marches that can’t enter enemy’s squares or siege but which allow you respond to the enemy’s moves even when you don’t have a card. Additionally, every turn you can move small forces in addition to your card play, taking away a lot of the odd corps and small armies sitting behind the lines if they aren’t worth activating that takes place in other CDGs. The rules do not force generals to sit around, get surrounded and not react if they don’t get the right hand of cards. It just forces them to be far more cautious and not make as bold or offensive of moves.

Anyway, there are a huge variety of strategic options and those options are not dictated simply by the card play. Some creative things I have seen in my time playing COM are: an Austrian army enter the field near France in Germany, Loudon never take the field and Lacy instead leading the 2nd Austrian army all game, Charles as army commander most of the war, Russia never entering Silesia, Frederick wounded twice in a game, a monster combined Russian/Austrian army in Silesia, a worthless France commanded by the worst leaders in the game, an agile and powerful France commanded by Broglie and D’Estrees all game, Swedish intervention in the war, Danish intervention in the war, no outside intervention in the war… etc etc. There are a million other things I have *not* seen which I hope to see in future plays such as Saxony entering for Prussia instead of Austria or France winning the colonial battle. This is a game of almost infinite plausible variety and in that respect is quite amazing for a CDG, which usually can feel quite deterministic.

Procedural, But Not as Complex as Purported

Describing the rules themselves, the bottom line is that they are quite procedural. And that procedure, at first, seems daunting. The order of play is extremely important and colors the way in which you do things. There are plenty of steps of procedure to get through during each player's turn and the play order is very important. Thankfully, the play aids are quite exhaustive and whoever was the developer, I believe Chris Janiec, must have realized that the order of play was the most important thing to COM that could go wrong for players and ruin their time with the game. As a result, the play aids are there to help you with order of play at every turn and do a wonderful job speeding your internalization of the rules.

Combat rules work with a nice variety of effects and range of outcomes. Even battles, routs and unexpected results are all possible. The tactics chits add a very nice element of uncertainty and planning, not to mention a little color and narrative to what is otherwise a completely strategic/operational game. The use of the red box leaders, who can engage in the real game changing bloody battles, is particularly noteworthy and works very nicely to differentiate battles in France and Germany against battles between Daun, Frederick, Loudon and the Russians in the East.

Stepping away, all in all, I think this game is actually quite a bit easier and lighter than it is getting credit for, based on comments on CSW and BGG. I think this is largely because of the first impressions of the rulebook. When you first look at the rules, they are overwhelming. But the system, especially the actual movement and combat is actually quite clear and unadorned. Supplies, KK move, card play, minor activation, rally for each power. In most turns, you will simply be activating a force, with or without a card. There aren't very many exceptions and you are nearly always doing the same thing. There are complications, like interception, withdrawal, etc, but they are all logical and easily managed. If you are worried about complexity in COM or have read nasty comments, I recommend that you do not be discouraged. It is slightly hard to pick up but not nearly as difficult once you play a few turns. It becomes very automatic quite quickly.

Even the supply rules, often a bane for games like this, are not terribly difficult once absorbed. Don’t go too far ahead, keep that forward depot secure in fortressless areas and keep units on the supply train or you will get raided. That strategic advice is simple, straightforward and the rules reflect it.

That said, one must say something about the diplomacy rules and also the subsidy rules. They are underexplained and quite confusing. There have been updates and comments by the designer and developer since, but I must say it is the one area of the rules that leaves the most to be desired.

Another negative for the rules, but in my opinion unavoidable in a game this detailed, is the accounting. There is a good deal of accounting that must go on once a year, during winter/spring. None of it is hard accounting, granted, but there is plenty of tallying up and rolling on tables that goes on at the end of the year. This can drag the game down to a crawl for a few minutes. That said, once a year is really not terribly often and once you’re done with the accounting you can jet back into the card play, which moves quickly, with all the (hopefully) great decisions you made during the winter and spring. There is also accounting that goes on with counting income and number of armies on the map. This is all a snap if you’re playing the VASSAL module by Joel Toppen, one of the best VASSAL modules currently out there, but I could see some frustration if playing in person. Not overwhelming frustration but certainly a bit of time taken out from the all out war going on during the summer/fall phases.

Overally, this game may be chromed, but it is not overchromed and it is not a monster in the negative sense of the word. After you play your first scenario or two the game will go very quickly.

1 Hour or 20 Hours? Scenarios and Number of Players

Like many monsters, this game gives you a variety of scenarios to play for games of varying lengths. Unlike most monsters, this game succeeds at it. The short scenarios play quickly and cover a year or two at most. The campaign game covers the entire war from start to end with all the powers. The design includes a scenario at all lengths in between and allows you to start and end in almost any year.

Additionally, this game is quite unique in that it is a completely different game when played as the campaign vs. the shorter scenarios. As a campaign, it is definitely a total war of attrition. It is a dismal game--and I mean this is the best possible way because this was a completely dismal war for all involved. The financial part of the game and slow drag of down of the critical commodity, monarchical will, takes on a grim inevitability in the long campaign. Countries go bankrupt and take way too much credit. Countries drop out of the game entirely. Etc. I think the designer accomplished exactly what he wanted to in that respect. As a shorter scenario game it is a decisive game of maneuver culminating in major field battles and finally siege to squeeze out a win. The contrast is stark and kind of cool.

The game is finely balanced. Many games of this length are more about the experience rather than the game. Not so with COM. This is a game, not just as simulation. It was obviously tested extensively by experienced players and the designer repeatedly. I can mainly speak to the campaign game, which comes out quite even and can hang in the balance until the last few rolls. I suspect the scenarios are also nicely balanced based on the amount of care that went into the one or two I’ve played and the campaign.

The game is also quite flexible in its number of players, between 2 and 4. Prussia, Austria, France/Russia and Britain. Each player draws his own hand, so in a two player game each player can have two hands. This isn’t a terribly elegant way to handle it, but I’ve never had much problem with it in practice. I would give two words of warning with respect to player numbers: first, if you are playing the campaign or longer game with more than 2, you *must* start with the 1757 scenario. Starting with the 1756 scenario means that some players will not be able to play until 30 minutes to an hour into the game. Bad times. This is easily remedied by starting in 1757 or perhaps even better 1758, when all players are in the game and active (recall the COM scenario can be custom made to start at any year).

The other issue with respect to player number is that I remain unconvinced that the British/Hanoverian player is as engaging a position as the other players. This game is probably best as a 3 player, though I personally would gladly play Brit/Hanover in a 4 player game. Sure, the British can win many battles and trounce the French, so it is fun. But I consider his options relatively limited compared to the greater diversity in the other positions, certainly in contrast to the royal rumble going on between Prussia and Austria but even with comparison to the juggling act of constraints going on in the France/Russia position. It’s not that I think the game shouldn’t be played with 4 players, I think Britain can be quite fun especially if he stays engaged with the Prussia player, giving advice and evaluating that theatre. But overall, I think I would have to argue that it is a less engaging position than the other three. Ideal players… hard to say. As long as the Brit players knows what they’re getting into and the other players are playing fast, probably best 4 player. But for new players or slow players, I’d advise playing 3 players at most.

Discussing Criticism and Summing It Up

To counter some commonly heard criticism, a lot of the elements many individuals are discussing as extraneous or too much chrome (KK raids, supply, offseason recruiting, etc) really only gain their meaning in the longer campaign game or after several plays. Many of these details barely play into shorter scenarios, and in that sense can be taken or left if one doesn’t like the extra detail. There are a lot of subtle things going on in COM, the importance of which only dawn on you later. Take, for example, the +1 bonus the Austrians and French get when sieging---this is probably one of the most important things driving the game, which only becomes clear to you after a campaign or two. Continuing the complaints, the map, while especially disappointing in person, is not unplayable and the rest of the components are fantastic. In addition, if you do a lot of your play of games like these in VASSAL, as many do, the map looks great and looks like the nice art that it is.

If you have managed to get to the end of this, I would most of all emphasize why I play this game and why you should too. Not because it is a tight, balanced and relatively easy to play monster game with tons of historicity and character. Though it is! The main reason I keep coming back is I never know what will happen and completely new things happen every game, but all within the realm of plausibility. I have never had the same game twice—once in a lifetime events (probabilistically) will happen, different combinations of powers may intervene or a certain power may become, shockingly, completely dominant over another leaving one side scrambling. If I had more wargamer friends, I would constantly be regaling them with stories about Clash of Monarchs. It is a narrative, story worthy game that can be a one night or monster size game and a very tight design. This is one of my go to games and I would suggest it to anyone I felt was a wargamer and would be interested in a great, non-gamey, incredibly exciting CDG.

Overall, this is a fantastic game. Don’t be intimidated.
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Great review, thanks. It's on my wishlish. Your description of the decisions surrounding Charles and the revamping of the Austrian army, and the "dismal" nature of the campaign game are really great details that make this game sound even more attractive to me.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy C
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Robert L Howard (Medal of Honor recipient)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Thanks for the review.

I played it once and decided it was best on vassal.

I like to use ACTS for the cards tho and there is no ACTS module yet.

When there is, I look forward to playing it.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carl Van Dam
Canada
Houston
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Excellent review. I just purchased it recently and am now looking forward to getting it even more!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
"L'état, c'est moi."
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
admin
designer
Roger's Reviews: check out my reviews page, right here on BGG!
badge
Caution: May contain wargame like substance
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'll have to give this game another chance. We played it once (three players) and we spent 6 hours playing it, and mismanaged the victory point track.

However, the last time I played Friedrich, it wowed me so much that I suspect CoM won't get played again. The release of Maria and my infatuation with Unhappy King Charles! pushes CoM even lower on my "must play" list.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Lapham
United States
Glenview
Illinois
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
And I look forward to playing it with you, Randy! Now who is going to do that ACTS module?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colin Hunter
New Zealand
Auckland
flag msg tools
badge
Stop the admins removing history from the Wargaming forum.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
leroy43 wrote:
I'll have to give this game another chance. We played it once (three players) and we spent 6 hours playing it, and mismanaged the victory point track.

However, the last time I played Friedrich, it wowed me so much that I suspect CoM won't get played again. The release of Maria and my infatuation with Unhappy King Charles! pushes CoM even lower on my "must play" list.
CoM is a great game, but it isn't for everyone. As you realized it is heavy and long. I think CoM is particularly suited for wargamers who don't like normal CDGs. That may sound odd, but I think it is one of the few CDGs that doesn't feel that gamey (I love CDGs by the way). I'm not convinced it would be "your thing", but maybe you should give it a go. I think it is very difficult to compare to light wargames (friedrich etc...), it isn't the same, but in my book it is better.

Great review.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon
Canada
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Superb review. One of the best I have read on BGG without doubt. Thank you.

It is refreshing to hear your opinion on many of the matters that have made me hesitate to take it off the shelf and really dig into it. In particular, the relative ease of play once you get used to the methodology and flow. Detail only scares me if if produces a plodding style of game. I also liked the differentiation between game play in the campaign vs shorter scenarios.

I recently purchased this game and suspect that the best way of playing it would be via PBEM. It would let me ponder my next move comfortably, which may be ideal for CoM. I have never played a multiplayer PBEM game before though, but suspect it would be fun.

A few questions:

1) Did you some across any difficulties playing the game via PBEM and, if so, how did you resolve them?

2) Just out of curiosity, which sides won your various campaign games?

Sorry if you mentioned the answers above. I read the review fairly quickly and have bookmarked it for later, much slower study in the next day or two.

Thanks again!
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
United States
Flagstaff
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the compliments, I totally forgot I hadn't reviewed the game and saw it was in the thread with no reviews. It was nice to have had so much playtime with a game before reviewing, to be honest.

It plays pretty well PBEM, honestly, and the VASSAL module is really, really good with lots of neat little features.

Problems with COM PBEM:

1) No ACTS support for cards so you need to trust your opponent. Since there's no competitive ladder, I had no problem with it and I've been playing with my now regular opponent.

2) There are a number of interrupt cards (for Prussians and British) so often as the Austrian/France the best thing to do is make a post saying "activating Daun, any interrupts?" and wait for a response. This can slow the game a bit but I find the best thing to do is post and wait if you think it's very likely you'll be interrupted but in other situations just go ahead with your move and roll the tape back if your opponent does have a card to speed play.

3) There's a fair bit of back and forth with withdrawal/intercept and combat that can happen. Minimizing log files back and forth during these can be a challenge. I can usually get attacks down to 2 files, one for the attacking/phasing player drawing tactics chits and playing them and then to the opponent to roll it up and play their own chits.

Basically anywhere it gets relatively interactive, which is in very specific situations, play could potentially drag with lots of messages between the players.

Campaign Game Results:

1 Normal Allied victory
1 Large Allied victory, I conceded
1 Coalition Victory
1 I am almost to the last year of and it is quite close, dunno who will win
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Brosius
United States
Needham Heights
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
My favorite 18xx game for six players is two games of 1846 with three players each.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Great review!

I really want to learn this game. I wish someone would do a teaching Session Report for this game like the one for OCS at the following link:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/320015
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carl Van Dam
Canada
Houston
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Could you elaborate a bit on its suitability for two players? I don't know much about the history of the period at all nor have I read the rules. I have learned that Prussia and England are allied and that Austria and Russia/France are allied. Are there changes in those alliances? Or are they fairly set so that it does play well for two players from that point of view? Is the disadvantage of two player version only that you have to manage two countries/players? And that you would miss potential disagreements between the allies? Or are the alliances free form like in HiS where anyone can be allied with anyone just about?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
United States
Flagstaff
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is very suitable for 2 players. It just means that each player has two hands of cards, Allied (Prussia and Britain) and Coalition (Austria and France/Russia). There isn't any of the kind of within alliance jockeying or anything like that would be ruined in the two player game. Austria and France/Russia will always be allied as will Prussia and Britain. Though powers *can* be knocked out of the game and IIRC there is a way for Russia to switch sides, but it's not diplomacy type thing but a clear game mechanic.

There is better coordination in the two player game within the alliances, since in a four player game you can technically play both for your alliance AND your power to win. But really, it's a perfectly acceptable 2 player game besides the 2 hands.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Wilson
United States
Northampton
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Another Geek chiming-in on what a great review this is.... I'm especially appreciative of your opinion regarding the non-gaminess of the cards. Also, the little detail about starting with the 1757 scenario is huge... it should help the game to go over well.

You mentioned the diplomacy and subsidy rules as being under-baked. In your opinion, have those rules been sufficiently patched by the FAQs and clarifications? When your group plays CoM, do you find those rules to ever be a problem in practice?

Regarding the map, has GMT in any of the forums discussed replacement maps, either providing them or making them available? The "final map" PDF on the CoM product page is low res, and seems to be as dark as the printed map, based on your description of the printed map. If someone could scan the map at 300dpi or higher, we could fix the map ourselves in Photoshop.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
bob kalinowski
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve,

Thanks for taking the time and effort to assess the game, both in the short term sense and long term sense; in the short term, of collecting your thoughts, taking care to put them down with accuracy, and creating a well-crafted assessment; in the long term, of allowing yourself to fully experience the game over time, to gain enough exposure to its breadth and depth. The richness of detail and the widely-varied subplot threads that emerge in each game only become evident amid several + games, over the course of time. Thanks for taking the time to give COM its due, and assess it from this mature perspective. I’m glad that for the most part, it’s giving you a payback for your effort.

I concur with other posters on BGG; excellent review. You give ample credit to the work we put in; a lot of COM works just as intended, and does the job well; but you also give fair observance to places where we fell short, and could have done better -- done more, or done less. I am grateful for your full explanation of how COM differs from a lot of CDGs regarding the card event/"false choice" paradigms, which we virtually eliminated via the Admin Activation march mechanism and a few other rules. Besides submitting that it has the most "accurate" strategic treatment of SYW armies and battle facets of any games out there, in the larger design sense, if there’s one thing I am proud of in COM, it’s that we’ve created a CDG wargame that is augmented by cardplay, but not dominated by it.

I realize a lot of the gaming public may have come to COM with different expectations regarding its CDG aspects, and depth of treatment. I didn’t design COM to be popular; I designed it to be the strategic SYW game I wanted to play for the rest of my life. I was guardedly optimistic enough other folks would see its merits and find it worthy of play, but I knew this was not a game that was going to be universally embraced. To throw out a few music analogies -- a lot of folks may have been expecting another "Beatles" CDG experience, and got Cheap Trick instead; some expected Jimmie Page combat/siege guitar solos, and got Todd Rundgren Utopia era solos instead; a lot may have expected the usual Eagles easy-listening era Supply mechanics, and got Joe Strummer and the Clash doing the supply tunes instead. One thing or another may have been too much for them, and may limit the game’s overall appeal across the wargaming community. I can live with that.

But I am also grateful you point out that a lot of the folks who slagged the game early on seemed to have had only trivial exposure and experience with it. They took one look at the "not sixteen pages of rules like POG" aspect, or "cant’ finish it in six hours like Hannibal" aspect, and had their verdict in a minute, without really giving what IS there a full trial. I know everyones’ time is precious, and gaming choices, like music, are a matter of taste, so I understand that they decided they didn’t want to look at it any closer, or give it any more time. That’s their choice -- and I would also say, their loss.

I’ll take Cheap Trick over the Beatles any day, Todd’s guitar work over Jimmie’s most days, and the Clash over the Eagles every time. And for those folks who find these analogies -- and COM characteristics -- resonate with them, I applaud your similar tastes, and suggest we ROCK ON with COM together for the next thirty or forty years. En Avant!
25 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
United States
Flagstaff
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LordBobbio wrote:
You mentioned the diplomacy and subsidy rules as being under-baked. In your opinion, have those rules been sufficiently patched by the FAQs and clarifications? When your group plays CoM, do you find those rules to ever be a problem in practice?

Regarding the map, has GMT in any of the forums discussed replacement maps, either providing them or making them available? The "final map" PDF on the CoM product page is low res, and seems to be as dark as the printed map, based on your description of the printed map. If someone could scan the map at 300dpi or higher, we could fix the map ourselves in Photoshop.


There was a great clarification post, I believe posted on GMT's website, by Chris Janiec that takes most of the ambiguity out of the diplomacy rules. So I would say the problem has been addressed for the most part as long as you have access to the internet. Just thought I needed to mention that in my opinion if you just had what came with the game, diplomacy/subsidy would be quite confusing but probably still doable.

With respect to the map... I don't think it's bad enough to make such an extreme effort to reprint it out so I couldn't say if that's possible. There has also been a slight change to the map in an update to the living rules incorporated in the VASSAL module. Bob updated the map after publication (removing a space) because he learned more about the history of a city he didn't know. It makes as close to 0 difference to gameplay as it could, so I personally wouldn't (and am not) for my copy bothering to change it. I would suggest you don't either if you buy the game.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Janiec
United States
(Teller County)
Colorado
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
Let me add my note of thanks to you for taking the time to gain a high degree of experience with CoM and to write a thorough, reasoned review. It's gratifying to see validation of the work that went into selecting and crafting the card play and events so the game reflects decisions that the powers could actually make (or at least influence), rather than the "Deus Ex Machina" events of some other CDGs. I hope your review encourages players who may have been put off to give the game another chance, so they may appreciate the rewards of the time and effort Bob put into it.

I take full responsibility for the incomplete nature of the Diplomacy/subsidy rules. Bob wanted a greatly expanded Chart, and I convinced him brevity and succinctness would suffice -- to our later regret. Hopefully what's out there now makes this facet of the game much less confusing for players.
9 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
bobkalinowski wrote:
I’ll take Cheap Trick over the Beatles any day, Todd’s guitar work over Jimmie’s most days, and the Clash over the Eagles every time. And for those folks who find these analogies -- and COM characteristics -- resonate with them, I applaud your similar tastes, and suggest we ROCK ON with COM together for the next thirty or forty years. En Avant!


I always felt that Cheap Trick was an over-rated band, as well with Todd Rundgren and I prefer The Eagles over The Clash on most days. I also think CoM is a terrific game, however. Tastes vary and not every game is going to resonate with every player.

Great review, as well.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
bob kalinowski
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Martin,

I happily acknowledge your differing opinions on the bands; as long as we agree on COM! And I owe you generalized revenge for taking Poznan, flaming my FD, and totally neutralizing my Russians in our ftf COM game last fall! laugh
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Gallo
United States
O'Fallon
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
bobkalinowski wrote:
Martin,

I happily acknowledge your differing opinions on the bands; as long as we agree on COM! And I owe you generalized revenge for taking Poznan, flaming my FD, and totally neutralizing my Russians in our ftf COM game last fall! laugh


Well, given that dark mapwe should just call it even

In seriousness, I look forward to a re-match. Let us know when your wife lets you out of the house again.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Marlett
United States
Plymouth
Michigan
flag msg tools
Wherever You Go, There You Are
badge
With no certain future, and no purpose other than to prevail
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Echoing the above, excellent review on an excellent game.

I agree that the F2F useability of the map is less than I would like.

Email campaign for a Deluxe map with some improvements? I would certainly pay for an improved, heavy-duty map.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Hansen
United States
Riverton
UT
flag msg tools
designer
If given the option, I would prefer to play with the green pieces, please.
badge
I have two new 9 Card Games: 300 Spartans and Franky's 1st Christmas
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This was a terrific review. It's nice to read more detailed thoughts then the few in the game's comments section. You've made me curious to play it, though I don't know when I ever would have the time.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bob Wilson
United States
Northampton
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks tons Steve, very clear response to my questions. If I weren't out of Geekgold, I'd be adding some to your coffer.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven
United States
Spokane
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
"The mystery of life isn't a problem to solve, but a reality to experience"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks!
Thank you for the amazing review. This one review far outweighs all the negative ones I've seen on the web. Once I move closer to home and I am able to play CDGs with my brother again, I will probably purchase this game.

I really appreciate your balanced look at CoM.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dockter
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, I'm going to have to give this one a shot. Heard some flak about it when it first came out, but it keeps showing up on playlists here and there. Suppose my regular multiplayer group will tackle after we're burnt out on PAX.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
United States
Flagstaff
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You should really, really try it. I think you would enjoy it a lot. This is my second favorite card driven game next to Here I Stand.

I just wouldn't judge it based on a single year intro scenario at the beginning of the war. Make sure to do a multiyear scenario (I'd say 3, but that's a long afternoon/evening). IIRC the 1757 start is also your best option the first time, that's the historical start that elimates a lot of the complicated ahistorical openings.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.