|
|
|
|
Kris Hall: Charles Vasey and Unhappy King Charles
This week I continue my series of interviews with designers of card-driven wargames. Today’s guest is Charles Vasey, designer of Unhappy King Charles.
Kris: I must admit to being fairly ignorant about the English Civil War. The name “Cromwell” comes to mind, and I know there is a religious element in it. Can you give us a little background on the issues of the war, and why you are interested in it?
Charles: The English Civil War was primarily a struggle between the Royalist/Monopolist/Episcopalian faction and the Parliamentarian/Non-Conformist faction. Not all men of each side met all descriptions but they usually met one. Like all political struggles there was also an element of family rivalries being hidden behind other causes. The ECW was not a clash between rich and poor; indeed the greater part of the nobility was probably on the side of Parliament. There was a religious element; the Parliamentarian side tending to be Presbyterian or non-conformist, and the Royalists had a few Roman Catholic nobles and troops. The ultimate decision of the war was that Parliament ruled behind a figure-head crown, not vice versa.
My interest centres on the progress of England from a militarily backward nation to one possessed of one of the finest armies it ever had (the New Model). Warfare in those days was a contest between amateurs, but amateurs who learned quickly; something that American readers may recognise from their own civil war.
Kris: What is your background as a game designer?
Charles: Mostly being a player and reviewer since about 1970. I design as my professional life allows and I design very slowly indeed. My aim is usually to generate a strong narrative within a roughly historical outline. I am not greatly interested in balance (except via victory conditions).
Kris: You designed a game about the English Civil War for Clash of Arms Games called The King’s War. What caused you to want to revisit the topic? What will the differences be between the games?
Charles: Money. The major differences are those of scale. UKC is set at a much higher level than TKW (the units contain three times as many troops). With TKW you can fight the local campaigns, with UKC you fight the whole war.
Kris: Many gamers are familiar with card-driven wargames because of games like We the People and Paths of Glory. Did you make any innovations in the card-driven system for Unhappy King Charles?
Charles: I am afraid that I never conceive as innovative anything that I design; other will be better judges. The game is more We The People than Paths of Glory; most cards have no choice about them. This design choice arises from the much weaker role of the main parties in such a war; outside actions of allied factions are more important in the Early Deck than in the Later Deck as both sides began to react and fight more professionally, but they remain vastly weaker than the nation-states of World War One, different in both quality and quantity. The alt.hist deck might be an innovation.
Kris: If the game has an early deck and a late deck, and the armies become more professional as the game goes on, how does this impact the play of the game? Do movement rates increase, or battles become bloodier?
Charles: More units will typically be veterans, the New Model Army being entirely veterans, but the major effect is more operations cards and less events.
Kris: Can you tell us something about the deck of alternate event cards?
Charles: For those who enjoy the more chaotic realms of history—the counter-factual or “What if…?”—the alt.hist deck allows you to put some events into play that did not happen, but which might have. Dutch naval support for either side, the King cutting a religious deal with the Scots, and the Duke of Lorraine bringing an army to serve the King can all happen. You can also disregard the decks entirely if such is your pleasure. Only three events are shuffled into the normal play decks, but of course you could alter that or indeed the events themselves.
Kris: There is also a mention of combat cards? Can you tell us about them?
Charles: These represent moments of excellence for key types of troops; Cornishmen or perhaps Eastern association troops from the Puritan fens. Such a card gives you both a dice modifier and the chance of decisive victory. It also burns two cards in a turn.
Kris: What advantages and disadvantages do the different sides have in Unhappy King Charles?
Charles: The Royalists start with better troops and better generals, but they start without London. Some Royalist recruitment must be by means of the grandees (great nobles) and that means they are not recruited by the best leaders. As units are sticky (they do not leave a leader’s command once there) this means royalist armies may not be in the best place and not with the best leaders.
The Parliamentarians have easier recruitment rules (as befits the wealthier faction) but are on the defensive at first. If they persist in matching equal sized armies against Royalist forces they will be defeated. In the North they have the great fortress of Hull, and if they can hold out the Army of the Solemn League and Covenant joins them from Scotland. Eventually the quality of Parliamentary forces will improve as the New Model Army is formed.
Kris: What are the victory conditions?
Charles: Control of regions and key economic areas; as the game continues the minimum number of areas required increases and if not met with cause defeat. Additionally, the Royalists must not lose the King.
Kris: What will the typical playing time be for the game?
Charles: I can play it in just over three hours, a new player should manage it in 4.5, unless he refuses to read the playbook in which case he may lose more quickly or more slowly.
Kris: How many scenarios will the game feature?
Charles: One.
Kris: When do you think that Unhappy King Charles is likely to be published?
Charles: I believe Neil Randall will complete testing soon; the playbook will finish in August, I suspect, though collecting illustrations may take longer. After that it must wait its turn before the GMT Production Juggernaut.
Kris: What future projects would you like to work on?
Charles: I have a Tour de France/Giro/Vuelta card game, a Napoleonic battle system, and a strategic naval game 1793 to 1815. There is also a figure game system for ancient warfare.
Kris: Thanks for the interview.
In two weeks I will have an interview with Bob Kalinowski, designer of Clash of Monarchs.
Posted by Kris Hall on Aug 25, 2007 at 01:00 AM in Columnists, Kris Hall / 1248
Comments:
You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free, but if you appreciate the news, previews, reviews and other material posted on Boardgame News, please consider becoming a member to keep the info flowing to your screen!|
As Monty Burns would say, “Excellent....” Posted by Jeffrey D Myers on Aug 25, 2007 at 03:17 PM | #
|
