From: John Murphy Subject: SPI's "The Crusades" (was Religious wars) At 02:51 PM 12/2/96 -0500, Alan Poulter wrote: >Anybody played >either SPI's 'The Crusades' or SimCan's 'Jihad'? I have played SPI's "The Crusades". First, let me say that among those who are into this era this game is truly a classic, as I had been urged prior to ever playing it. There are two scenarios: a multi-player scenario on the first crusade (which I played) and a two-player scenario of the third crusade (which I have not). The first crusade, of course, works so well as a multi-player game because of all the intra-faith politics which charged the actual event on both sides of the actual armed conflict. Caution: this is an addictive but _looong_ game using movement orders written out hex-by-hex in advance each turn. We spent 6 hours or so on it and only got through the first winter (as the crusaders were arriving in front of the walls of Antioch a little behind schedule but fairly intact, though without the benefit of having defeated the turks at Dorylaeum. Turns are a week during the campaign season and two weeks or a month during what should be less active times of year. Hexes are about 5-15 miles (?) so the entire middle east from the Nile delta around Oultrejordain through Edessa and the upper Euphrates back to somewhere in western Anatolia takes a single roughly 22" x 33" map. Armies are represented by a whole host of leaders- primary, secondary and tertiary. Primary leaders are the real prime movers behind factions, one each except for one of the crusader factions has two. Secondary leaders are all the other guys you read about in the (good) history books. Tertiary leaders are folks you kind of wonder if the designer made up (although I suppose if you really dig you mostly find them getting an honorable, or otherwise, mention). This ranking (and in case of tie, the leaders' political ratings) determine who (which leader for tactical factor and which faction for control of a city and such) commands a crusader or muslim force when a bunch of leaders are stacked together. Each leader is assigned a pre-determined number of SP's (each roughly 250 men, something like 1/3 cavalry). All that said I think the muslim leaders had less "detail" in the way they worked and interacted. Such as muslim leaders SP's were represented by counters rather than roster sheets and were transferable. And they might have been missing the joy of all those lower-level leaders and political ratings, though in that case I can't remeber how they decide who is in command in a multi-faction muslim force. One of the highlights of this game, besides the sheer sweeping scope of the thing for a magazine game (a medieval one no less), is the logistic system. Simple and elegant, yet it pleases a design-for-cause guy like me who longs for the days of CNA. You simply total up attrition points as you move through arid, normal and fertile hexes (varying by the time of year). Then you lose SP's based on your force size and attrition points and wether you are muslim (of course an advantage here) or christian. The hex type for the particular time of year is color-coded and also affects combat resolution. Only got to use the tactical battle system a little bit. Good for a basically operational game system but it could use a lot of embellishment (like playing them out on a miniatures table). Seiges are handled very nicely in my opinion however and dovetail very well with the logistics system described above. I hope I didn't mess up on too many of the details, having played it only once though it is sitting in a box next to me at the moment, but I think I got it pretty much right. I mainly bought the game to use for miniatures campaigns but having played it with my sister's family (some wargamers some not) I now appreciate it as a game in its own right. I would just love to play this one any time and just about any where (anybody wanna do a multi-player PBEM?). -John Murphy