Kris Hall: Bob Kalinowski and Clash of Monarchs

Today I continue my series of interviews with designers of card-driven wargames by talking with Bob Kalinowski, designer of the upcoming GMT game Clash of Monarchs.

Kris: Why such a labor of love about the Seven Years War?  What is special about this time period that attracts you?

Bob:  Well, it all started out with Napoleon.  My first love in gaming was the Napoleonic wars.  I loved the brilliant uniforms, the relatively simple combat arms relationships of musket-bearing infantry, cavalry, and artillery, the host of colorful characters from Napoleon on down.  I bought and played a lot of Napoleonic games from the early 70’s on, from the simple quads to Wellington’s Victory—and there were a lot of games available.  I had done some passing reading on Frederick the Great and the Seven Years War (SYW), but my gaming experience was largely limited to playing the Strategy and Tactics magazine version of Frederick the Great.  I appreciated the excellent design, and got some fleeting appreciation for the strategic breadth and challenges of the conflict, but perhaps due to the modest production (standard S&T two color map, generic leaders, etc), I wasn’t quite hooked yet. 

That happened in 1987.  I was doing my shore tour as a Navy Lieutenant in the Navy Annex in Washington, D.C., and visited the Pentagon library regularly.  There I found and read all the Christopher Duffy books on Frederick and the SYW, and WHAM—I was immediately struck by the scope, drama, and color of Frederick’s wars; easily the equal of the Napoleonic era in all those attributes.  It had leaders fully as colorful and brilliant at every level—a Frederick for a Napoleon, a Seydlitz for a Murat, a Henry for a Davout, a Daun for a Kutusov or Bagration, etc.  The army uniforms were almost as colorful, and the battles often more intriguing and bloody. 

Tactically, the Prussian, Russian, and Austrian armies routinely took 25-40% casualties per battle—well above the average Napoleonic losses, and the history is full of intense anecdotes. Strategically, Frederick and Prussia held off a host of worthy opponents who had a manpower base that outnumbered the Anglo-Prussians by 4 to 1.  Overall, the Prussians and Hanoverians pulled off an astounding feat of strategic endurance. 

The compelling nature of the battles gripped me immediately.  And the more I read about the strategic situation, the more I appreciated the efforts expended by both sides.  This is an era every bit as worthy of game coverage as ancient Rome or the Napoleonic era, and I waited through the 80s and 90’s for real game designers to get around to covering it adequately, but it never seemed to happen.  So I started down that road, and still feel an ongoing vocation to do my share to get it on gamers’ tables.

Kris: What is your background as a game designer?

Bob:  I designed a single map, 4-6 hour Waterloo battle game in 1989-90 that is unpublished.  As mentioned in the Prussia’s Glory I designer’s notes, I waited around for five years after that initial Duffy reading for someone else to cover Fred’s battles at an acceptable time/complexity scale for me, but it didn’t happen, so I decided to start rolling my own.  In 1992, I began design on the Zorndorf battle that became one of the four in GMT’s Prussia’s Glory, published in 2001.  My disappointment with the SYW strategic games produced over the last two decades, and my belated discovery of the wonderful way CDGs could neatly cover strategic aspects, got me thinking about taking a crack at the entire war using a CDG basis.  I also realized that two decades’ consideration of all the aspects of the war made me as qualified as anyone else to create a strategic game on it.  By mid 2002, I had another moment of clarity (or maybe insanity) that if I wanted a SYW strat game that I felt did the era justice, and met the same time/complexity criteria given my stage in Real Life and Gaming life, I’d better start working it myself.  So in 2003, I began Clash of Monarchs work. During a frustrating development delay on COM, I went back to all the battles I’d originally assessed for potential inclusion in PG I, and began design on the four battles that emerged in Prussia’s Glory II, published in 2006.  That’s it so far.

Kris: Many designers of card-driven wargames use the cards to limit the complexity of the game.  Rather than burden the game with rules for special situations, they shove the special situations onto cards.  But Clash of Monarchs seems to be a much more complex and long-playing game than most card-driven wargames.  How do you feel about game complexity?

Bob:  I was never a big fan of complexity, even when I had the time to wrestle it.  So in general, I don’t like it!  At age 48, I am far more tolerant of complexity in strategic games than in tactical games.  Back in high school, I had more of an open mind, and a ton more time, to spend two hours working through a battle game turn that represented 15 minutes.  Now, decades later, this runs way afoul of my cost/benefit ratio that includes my wife, seven kids, and a lot more Real Life going on.  I am fine spending 6 or 16 hours over a few weekends playing a strategic game that covers several years (COM), or several hundred (Pax Romana); but I can’t ever see myself investing 60 hours to tackle a heavy tactical battle game any more.  That was the main reason I chose the scale I did for the PG I and II battles.

That said, I still set out to make COM my magnum opus on the SYW—I was willing to make this game “heavier” even if it meant a more lengthy—but still reasonable—playing time for a full campaign.  I wanted to capture all the key aspects, and make this THE SYW strat game that players go to when they want the whole picture.  I felt I could nail the battle and siege aspects more accurately and more smoothly than they’d been covered in the several previous SYW games; but I was also determined to ensure the war’s extensive Kleiner Krieg – the Light unit ops that had a critical impact on both the war’s battles and economics, would be integral to any game, and that the economic underpinnings of conquered area exploitation and massive loans/subsidies would also play their part.  These subsystems are given fuller treatment than equivalent aspects in other CDGs, so they do add some time to the proceedings. 

A full campaign of COM will take about 16-18 hours to play.  In that regard, I concur it takes longer than most CDGs for the full campaign.  But it has a half dozen scenarios and three starting points that will allow players to bite off a chunk that fits whatever timespan they have to play—from 1 hour to 16 (more on that later).  Regarding complexity, I’d submit COM lies in the middle of the CDG range, at least those I’ve played.  COM is more complex than Wilderness War and Paths of Glory; but my initial and still current assessment of it is that it’s really about the same level as GMT’s For The People II (that’s the version I have); it is certainly less complex than Krieg or Empire of the Sun. 

Chris Janiec, the game’s Developer, has been a patient, diplomatic, but methodical, unrelenting, and sometimes ruthless assessor of each subsystem, rule, and card phrase.  Between us, we pared the rules down to 60% of original length, and streamlined most of the major subsystems.  Of these, the Combat system is probably the only major subsystem that survived Chris’s relentless honing mostly intact.  All that said, I think another good rule of thumb to gauge complexity is rules length, and the COM rules currently run to just 19 pages.  With production visuals, the go-to-press length should be maybe 22.  There isn’t that much here.

Kris: Many gamers are familiar with card-driven wargames because of games like We the People and Hannibal.  Could you explain some of the innovations in the card-driven system that you have developed for Clash of Monarchs?

Bob:  I didn’t innovate—I just stole eclectically from the best!  I pulled in features from several well-known GMT titles and other card-assisted games in a mix that seems to work for this era and situation.  I might say that the main “innovation” in COM is that it takes a different tact than most CDGs, and retains considerable emphasis on traditional, mainstream wargame elements.  You can see this in the unit scales of the game—they are very far over on the “tactical” end compared to the average CDG; COM uses individual infantry strength point counters representing 2000 men, and most cavalry at 1000 men per sp; this, as opposed to 5000 men a sp, or usually corps or army-sized units in a typical CDG.  The force mix includes two infantry, two artillery, and three distinct cavalry types—again, more army articulation than a typical strategic CDG.  COM employs Tactics chits that can be played to influence battles—nothing new of itself, as plenty of games have used Tac chits or Combat cards.  But this game uses 65 Tac chits, which vary greatly in both frequency and effects, based on those historically used by each army during the war.  This wide palette of tactical color puts COM in a unique light in this regard.  COM might be viewed as more of a point-to-point, moderate complexity wargame that uses the best aspects of a CDG engine, versus a higher-level strategic treatment typical of a “pure” CDG.

On a subsystem level, we have built on and furthered some elements found in previous CDGs.  Chris came up with one neat twist akin to Sword of Rome’s joint Etruscan/Samnite deck.  The French/Russian player uses a single deck, with only a portion of the cards in it playable for French forces, and another portion only for the Russians; the bulk of the deck can be played as Ops cards for either Power.  In SOR, the Etruscans/Samnites are defacto allies, and geographically conjoined, so that operations for one are usually of benefit for the other.  But in COM, the French and Russians are at the far ends of the map, and will rarely if ever get the chance to work together.  The split deck nicely limits both powers’ capabilities, and prevents that player from going all out with one at the expense of the other.

The Fortunes of War chits and result tables are mostly Chris’s creation, wherein he extracted a slew of random and historical events that I had formerly kluged into the game in sometimes acceptable, but often klunky ways.  Chris captured, distilled, and organized them all into a compact, statistically accurate, and still very colorful subsystem that is in my view, sheer brilliance.  It combines the best aspects of a chit pull system with the best aspects of a Krieg-like progressive table-based-on-die-roll event system.  And he even managed to find them appropriate titles in a suitably ambient language—Latin.  Thus, players deal with things like severe weather, desertion, Madame Pompadour’s influence on the French choice of army commanders, the Swedish fiscal crisis, the deaths of Apraxin, Browne, and Elizabeth, and more, on the Dies Irae (Day of Wrath), Deux Ex Machina (God in a Machine), and Media Vitae in Mortis Sumus tables (Even in life, we are in death).

A fourth, more general adjustment we’ve added is a Minor Force (5 sp or less) and a solo Leader Admin Activation for each player, every round.  This allows players to adjust garrison forces, bring up siege artillery, move leaders or make minor strength adjustments between one force and another, without needing to spend a card activation to do so.  We’ve found it enables players to administer their “behind the lines” activities without the frustration of having to spend an entire activation to do so.  I know this CDG phenomena can be viewed two ways—first, as part of the tension of a CDG, in that you can’t do all you want to do at any given time, which is generally a good thing.  But I’ve also found this sometimes generates unrealistic, herky-jerk play in CDGs, as players are forced to expend major value cards to perform minor admin tasks.  I often found this frustrating, and as the same situations occurred in COM development, I was leaning more and more to giving players equal relief to deal with some of their admin “to do” chores.  So mid-way through development, Chris and I pondered and discussed it; we both soon agreed that expanded Admin Activations would allow players to concentrate their card play on the major combat events of the moment.  The Admin Activations give each army a fuller strategic context, with things going on behind the lines, not just within the main army.  But no worries on overall tension—players still don’t have enough activations to do what they want.

Kris: How many players does the game accommodate?  How do the different nations play differently in the game?

Bob:  The game can be played by one to four players; I have played it 27 times solo, so I would submit it’s just as amenable to solo play as any other CDG.  The rules used are exactly the same for one, two or four players.  There are no “multi-player” rules.

The four major powers—Prussia, Austria, Britain, and France/Russia—have widely varying capabilities, and this asymmetry offers great color and replay potential.  Here are a few thoughts on each major power:

The Prussians have the best overall army in Europe—generally excellent leaders at army (Frederick, Henry, Schwerin) and wing level (a half dozen), superior cavalry including a dozen Hussar wings that can be used as Line OR Light cavalry, excellent artillery, an impressive array of Tactics chits that can be employed on both attack and defense, and an ever-growing host of effective Light forces; but they are beset by Austrian and Russian armies that are often their equals in any given battle, and the Prussian player is figuratively between a rock and a hard place throughout the game. He needs to play the “central position” constantly, stalling one opponent while hopefully dealing a hammer blow to the other opponent and gaining ground in the aftermath.  The Prussian player has the central role in the game, and he has to stay on top of things; even if on the strategic defensive (which is inevitable in mid and late war), he can’t be passive; he’s always got to be ready to threaten a costly battle to either the Austrian or Russian—or play a crucial Interrupt card if he has one)—to diffuse the most dangerous threat of the moment.  On average, during a well-played campaign game, the Prussian player will feel like he’s hanging on by his fingernails for about two-thirds of it.  Definitely not for the squeamish, or easily discouraged!

The Prussians’ primary opponent is the Austrians, who field a very solid army as well; they aren’t as effective in offensive operations, but can often maneuver in concert with the Russians to create situations where the Prussians have to come to them to dislodge them, and enable the Austrians to use Marshal Daun’s stronger defensive rating, as well as Tactics chits that can only be used on defense (Cavalry Counter-charge, Austrian 12s artillery, Defensive Position/Countermarch, et al).  The Austrian player will be rewarded if he is patient, and can work out an effective strategy with the French/Russian player to work in concert with Russian army forces.  One potentially fun wrinkle is that the Austrian controls the Empire and Saxon forces as well.  These aren’t significant in themselves, but can be highly useful as “make weight” corps added to larger Coalition armies, or used as garrisons.  But their cavalry units in particular have great importance.  The Austrian can certainly use the excellent, dual-use Line/Light Saxon Cheveauleger wing and the Empire Line cav wings to avoid the cavalry inferiority battle drm against offset the Prussians’ crushingly formidable Line/Light cavalry, but this is chancy, depending on both sides’ distribution of cavalry among their armies.  At the same time, these two wings added to the French main army can almost guarantee the poor French cavalry gets a boost to equal strength with the Hanoverian/British/Hessian cavalry, and thus avoid that negative drm.  So both Coalition players will want those cavalry units, and infantry. The Austrian doesn’t have to give them up to the French player; then again, the French player IS giving the Austrian player a 6 “Thaler” subsidy each turn under the terms of the 2nd Versailles treaty—a hefty sum to help Maria Theresa pay for her army.  But the French player can cut this down to only 1 Thaler subsidy by downgrading to the 3rd Versailles treaty at any time.  So the French player has some leverage behind any claims on these troops, which may make for some interesting discussions between Coalition players.

The British player starts out the game with a small army and poor Commander in Chief, Cumberland, and won’t stand up long to French army advances.  But if he can weather initial blows from a French offensive, he should be able to get Prince Ferdinand to take over as CIC, which will rejuvenate the Hanoverian-Allied army’s capabilities.  The Hanoverian-allied army will then be able to outmarch, and out-fight all but the largest, best-led French armies, and often take the fight to the French frontier, or deep into the Empire.  Beyond the on-map play, the British player should also judiciously conduct colonial operations that will affect the status of the Colonial Conflict track; this can deal economic and morale blows to the French as effectively as on map victories.  The main peril for the British player is if the Coalition can muster up an army with a predominantly Austrian contingent; the Austrian army’s greater battle endurance will make them the equal of any Hanoverian force; in concert with French army moves elsewhere, the Hanoverian army may be outmaneuvered and out-gunned at the same time.  This situation can best be avoided by cheering on the Prussian player, to ensure he keeps the Austrians on the ropes, so they can’t spare a dozen sps to direct against Hanover.

The French/Russian player has the most unique role in the game; with the French, he wields a large but inefficient instrument, with poor cavalry, led by alternately competent and poor leaders whose tenure is never certain.  Despite significant numerical superiority, the French will have their hands full against the Hanoverians if Ferdinand takes the helm.  The French player has to take advantage of fleeting windows of opportunity when his card hand, current Command in Chief, current forces on map, and Tactics chits in hand, to strike meaningful blows.  On the other hand (and side of the map), the French/Russian player directs a Russian army that has excellent leaders, infantry, and artillery, which can go toe to with the Prussians in almost any circumstances.  Getting that army into the action each year, and keeping its supply lines open, will be an ongoing challenge.  Let’s note here that besides handling these two very different armies, the French/Russian player has the pleasure of taking two turns each round, one for each Power.  So he’ll be busy every round, switching hats a lot.

Kris: How many scenarios will the game feature?

Bob:  A short learning 1756 scenario, a 1757, a 1756-58, a 1757-59, a 1758-60, and three different start years— 1756, 1757, and 1759—for campaigns that run to the war’s conclusion.  You can also end a scenario in any year, so if you’re running out of time or mental gas, you don’t have to extrapolate a winner—just finish the year you’re in, and we’ve got victory conditions set for you.

Kris:  What do you think gamers will enjoy the most about Clash of Monarchs?

Bob:  The combat system incorporates the key facets that influenced SYW battles, in proper proportion, without omitting any (a balance I’ve found wanting in prior SYW strat game combat treatments).  It’s relatively simple, and has yielded very historical results throughout playtest, but with enough variability that players will soon appreciate they have to view every relatively even odds battle as a crapshoot (after all, even Fred’s “record” was 8-3).  The siege subsystem, which was very good to start, has been streamlined and further improved by Chris’s efforts.  But I think students of the SYW may most enjoy the Kleiner Krieg subsystem – it is an aspect of the war virtually ignored in other SYW strat games.  It is a fully integrated into COM, and has major effects on both the tactical and strategic levels.  Players who neglect it will suffer significant consequences.  And this is one subsystem on which I had a major design epiphany; when we recast the game to make it both simpler and work as a multi-player, I had a few flashes of inspiration that allowed us to retain all of the KK subsystem’s effects, but chopped its rules o about one-third their original length. 

Kris: You’ve mentioned Kleiner Krieg a couple of times.  What does that mean?

Bob: The “Kleiner Krieg” means “little war” in German, yet it was anything but in the SYW.  This title was given to the intense and relentless Light unit operations of the Hussar, Cheveauleger, Cossack, Croat, Freibattalion, Freikorps, and British Legion units employed by all the powers involved (with the exception of the Empire).  By war’s end, over 100,000 light troops were in the field—fully 20% of the combatants’ forces, and their effects were significant.  Their raids to steal or destroy supplies, money, livestock, and recruits from enemy territory led to a general devastation in central Europe not far below that of the Thirty Years’ War.  The Prussian Hussars and Freikorps, led by Zieten, “Green” Kleist, and others, made Austrian Bohemia and Moravia supply deserts by 1758.  The same could be said of the Cossacks’ work in East Prussia and Brandenburg, and the French and Hanoverian-Allied light corps (ably led by Franz Luckner) in the German theater of operations. 

Their joint despoiling of enemy territory had serious economic consequences for all the combatants, and played a major role in getting the powers to the peace table in 1762.  Their effect on the economic fortunes of the monarchies has been ignored wholesale in previous SYW games, and given their impact, I wanted this aspect right in the center of things in COM.

Operationally, all the powers benefited or suffered at one time or another due to their Light units’ performance.  Loudon led a famous Light unit raid on Frederick’s supply lines that forced him to end the siege of Olmutz in 1758; the Hanoverian-Allied light troops caused similar disruption to French operations with a raid on the French depot at Frankfurt in the late war.  On the battlefields, Frederick’s famous oblique attack victory at Leuthen was aided by a Light unit screen and diversion positioned at the Austrians’ center; the failure of Prussian and Hanoverian-Allied light unit reconnaissance led to the inconclusive battles of Zorndorf and Bergen, respectively.  Daun’s Croats slowed and disrupted the Prussians’ approach march and attack at Kolin, making a great contribution to Frederick’s first defeat; light unit detachments gave early warning to Daun again at Torgau, betraying the Prussians’ flank march, allowing Daun to stymie that maneuver and serve Frederick a bloody debacle instead. 

In the game, players use their light units on the map to aid in Intercept and Withdrawal attempts, and increase friendly battle Tactics’ odds of success – or reduce those odds for some enemy Tactics.  When used in the three Kleiner Krieg Theater boxes (the German Empire area, the Border between Prussia/Austria, and the Northern areas along the Baltic coast), light troops raid against enemy army supply lines, or ravage enemy territory.  So Light units play a key role in both the strategic and operational arenas of COM, and players will soon learn they can’t have too many of them.  The six Prussian Hussar wings in particular, which can confer advantages as either Line cavalry or Light units, are a cardinal asset; the Coalition has only two cavalry wings—the Saxon and Austrian Cheveaulegers, that have the same flexibility.

Kris: When do you think that Clash of Monarchs is likely to be published?

Bob:  Given GMT’s long list of good games in work, I’d wager the earliest we’ll see it is Summer of 2008, with Fall ‘08 a more likely period.

Kris:  What future projects would you like to work on?

Bob: I feel I owe it to the spirit of Fred, Daun, et al, to do some battles from the War of the Austrian Succession.  I’ve also researched and scaled them to some degree, and don’t want to let that work go to waste.  Plus, no one else has covered the battles—which is what got me into this whole game design circus to begin with.  So we will see an Austria’s Glory set of battles out there some day.  But not for a while.  Beyond that, if Charles Vasey doesn’t do it justice, I may try to do a strategic level game on the war of the Austrian Succession.  I was also intrigued by Eugene of Savoy’s campaigns against the French in the War of the Spanish Succession, and get occasional fleeting thoughts of that as a lighter, 2-3 hour CDG treatment.

Kris: Thanks for the interview.

In two weeks I will have an interview with Brad Stock, designer of Pursuit of Glory.

Comments:

< Back Home