[magnus lindström]

Någon som har spelet? Ser intressant ut.

[BigPapaBear]

Vilket företag? Länk?

[Elias Nordling]

Columbia Games. Här är litet negativa vibbar från en speltestare:

In re the Columbia War of the Roses - as a fan of the period still waiting for a solid game on the subject, I found the version that Scott and Nate playtested to be deficient in many ways. It felt like a half-hearted retread of Hammer of the Snots and completely lacking in the political dimension of the conflict.

What most games about the period ignore - going back to Kingmaker itself, frankly - was the deeply ingrained fear of Regicide in England at the time. The usurpation of Richard II had left deep scars on the political landscape, and the economic climate in England at the time was trending very sharply upward; following the impact of the Plague, the value of labor, both skilled and unskilled, was at an all-time high, and the concept of upward mobility was taking shape. The vast majority of the Nobility genuinely wanted to engage in good government and maintain a social order conducive to commerce and productivity.

Prolonged warring on the Continent had paradoxically created a very well-trained citizen/warrior culture and a distinct aversion to unnecessary use thereof.. Aftera ll, men galavanting about the countryside shooting arrows at each other weren't tending to their fields and shops.

A few prominent antagonists grinding age-old personal axes manipulated the dynastic struggle to their own ends, but the popular will to eliminate a legitimate but obviously incapable monarch was extremely difficult to rally (Henry VI lived 17 years after Richard of York effectively overthrew him, which is longer than many European Kings of that century actually reigned).

Militarily, there was no "front line" - even area control is largely irrelevant. Armies were combinations of loyal retainers and paid professionals, making campaigns short, highly focused and - with very rare exceptions - merciful; It being a civil war, there was very little destruction to lands and cities, and only the Nobility was punished for losing battles while the fleeing infantry was often allowed to escape.

A game about the period needs to reflect that tension between the need to effect a dynastic change as against the very real needs and desires of a population that wants stability and self-enrichment. Bloodshed needs to be constrained and Noble-hunting needs to be about politcal pressure not assassination.

So, to recap, not only did the game fail to meet any of these objectives, I thought it failed to present an interesting challenge on its own terms, basically re-playing HotS on a different map.

Och här:

Columbia posted the rules for Wars of the Roses (or Richard III or whatever name ended up on it). I'm not listed as a playtester so I feel I can be blunt: based on these rules do not pick it up at release. There are known issues which I do not see addressed in them.

>    Curious what your opinion is on what issues there are. I saw several when I tested it with Nate. The largest I can recall is that treachery is useless



I can't recall everything, but the 2 which stand out from memory: (1) The border limits lead to the usual WWI hijinks - and it is doubly troubling that they've been juiced up for cities (so not needed). (2) There are gamey things which can be done with going back and forth between exile and England to impact the end of turn noble count.

I also see noble hunting has crept back in with rose nobles being permanently eliminated (something which has been a thorn in the design's side from the very first game all those years ago and has been through countless iterations).

[magnus lindström]

känns som om det ligger något personligt bakom

[Elias Nordling]

Det är kommentarer från två orelaterade personer.