From: John_Halvonik/CAI_SISCo%CAI_SISCO@caisisco.com
To: epass@nyx.net

Dear Eric;

I could not figure out ALan P's e mail so I am emailing you this game
review of RIchard Berg's Kingdom for a Horse. First appearing in the Game
Theory folder of Consim.  A few typos of that one were cleared up in this
version. You guys used my historical play through on the same guy on the
web site, so I think this would be a nice adjunct. I am sending this in
plain text, below, e mail me if you have any problems.

The Hunchback of BROG's Domain.

Kingdom for a Horse (KfH) is the first offering from BSO games. This is a
DTP (Desk top published) game including 6 page rulesincluding various
combat related charts on the back, 11 x 17" four color map, counter sheet
and cardboard backing (you have to paste the counters onto the backing and
then cut, a very easy process with these materials).

The battle is Bosworth, the immortal climax to the Wars of the Roses in
England back in 1485. The two principle players are Henry (Henry Tudor,
later Henry VII) for the Lancasterian side, in red; and Richard III, (real
life King and much maligned hunchbacked villain of Shakespearean lore) for
the Yorkist side, in white.

Two Stanley vans or divisions are included and function as a third party
able to enter for one side or the other according to a die roll adjusted by
the difference in units eliminated by the two sides (Henry begins the game
w/ a slightly greater chance for this). The Stanleys are in blue and round
out the armies.

Finally there is another Richard, Richard Berg, of course (real life game
designer and the much maligned, hunchbacked, villain of BROG magazine and
internet lore).

The game scale is roughly correct and the counters range from 300 men per
infantry unit and on down to 100 per missile shooter unit. The
numbers/counters are about right although Richard (the Yorkist side) gets a
greater share of the gun powder, units ("cannon and handgunners, Yes!"). In
terms of actual play, the battlefield does appear to be a little more
crowded than the actual event and the numbers estimated on the heavy side.
Not a problem. The game really plays and the numbers are well within our
knowledge of the actual numbers.

There are two scenarios spelled out directly in the rules. "The Set Piece
Battle" with both sides in place and ready to fire. And the "Meeting
Engagement," where both sides enter the board and deploy in a freer manner.
In any case, Berg himself invites comment and adjustment on some rules. For
example Richard tells us that one can vary the victory conditions a little
"but not too much," and he is open to an entry by the Stanleys on the North
end of Ambion. (I think the southern position is the one favored by recent
historians)

One sometimes does not realize how far it will go with Richard (the heroic
one that is) and his rules writing. When I first glanced at the CRT
modifiers I was sure the phrase "Charging cavalry ?" meant that modifier
was simply up to discretion of the players! Not the case, the
question mark really means to check whether there is charging cav..

Richard opens the ball by observing that there are "no game turns in KfH.".
A catch phrase that is perhaps a tad misleading but catches our attention.
There are several interesting wargame systems at work here including a die
roll mechanic for activating each of four "vans" or
"battles" (read divisions) in each army. This works smoothly, there is
little to remember (other than if and when to activate in NorthUmberland
and the Stanleys) and results in game play that may not be completely
historical but does impart the feel of long lines of
medieval soldiers crowding forward and the uncertainty of Stanley
activation, errh, rather entry, into the battle.

Victory Conditions. The victory conditions hinge on one of those dreaded
die roll against column with some modifiers. In this case the die roll is
ten sided die (as is the CRT) and one loses certain KL ("kingdom lost") pts
for losing units, leaders, etc. As written, the game, is thus likely to end
somewhat sooner rather than later when one player reaches this level by a
poor die roll. In reality, our fearless designer tells us that one can
adjust the level of pts. and also in the rules, he explains that in reality
if Richard or Henry (Tudor) died they would lose the game. So you can play
it the way you like.

Probably a fine decision actually, Berg gives us a tried and true,
wargamer-approved, victory condition but in reality we can play as if to
kill the King or wipe out the other side. Which is how we wound up playing
(see the historical play thru. Worked fine for us.

Game Balance/Notes on playing. Some see a first move advantage to Richard
in the Set Piece battle and argue for a bidding system for first move. In a
similar vein, others rightly fear Richard's advantage in missile shooters
at the start. The advantage in missile shooters will
definitely keep Richard in the game, if nothing else can, but the advantage
is minimal if Henry is careful at the outset. After which, both sides
appear to have equal chances. Thus it may be easier to play Richard III at
the outset of the game and Henry Tudor has to be very careful then, but I
see no clear disadvantage.

Remember to keep Henry's troops back out of missile range at the outset.
Also play close attention to the reaction fire rule for missile
shooters. This rule only applies to enemy units in the ZOC which only
extends one hex in front of the unit. Thus missile shooters cannot
mow down attackers in front of them during reaction phase fire as some have
suggested. They do have a small advantage in that they can
REACTION FIRE against two attackers (if in the two front hexes) and a more
important one in that one missile shooter can do multiple
RETURN FIRE against missile attacks from multiple units. Read the fine
print limiting missile shooters: Missile shooters are limited by
LOS, higher elevations and in reality a "field of fire." Note this latter
point is not illustrated or spelled out but certainly implied by the rules
that merely say they "fire through the front two hexes". One can minimize
RETURN FIRE during missile vs missile fire by keeping out of
these fields of fire.

Archers can effectively "post up" on their enemy counterparts by using the
higher elevation rule. LOS is not entirely spelled out nor is it
illustrated in the rules, however this should not be a problem with normal
easy going opponents.

For attackers there are several gamey but necessary techniques in order to
minimize the effect of archers. Avoid having the front side of the
attacker contact more than one enemy (else you have to attack all of them).
Pay close attention to missile shooters that have changed facing
and/or moved away from the main line. These make nice targets for an
attack.

Another rule to remember is that attackers that have taken a "disorganized"
result suffer no ill effects when attacking. They can take a hit in
the assault by reaction fire but a unit does not route on this "first" hit
("disorganized" result) Not only will this attacker be able to reach the
enemy; if he is up against enemy infantry (infantry have no ZOC!) he can
execute an advantageous flank or rear attack next turn. If he
remains locked up with a missile shooter he will take no more missile hits
since he is screened by the enemy missile shooter and the missile
shooter can no longer REACTION FIRE. Even cavalry can make a charge out of
what would have been the ZOC but for enemy infantry.

So send units forward against missile shooters, have them take the hit, and
have them lock onto the front line of archers to shield the second
wave of attackers. Or have them work around the flanks. Use the cavalry
charges to full advantage either by making counter attacks on
attackers that have advanced too far or by using cheap units as a screen to
get closer to the lines and then make a dash at them.

Breakdown of Parts.

Rules. B. Gets a rather sophisticated system described in only six pages.
The rules are all there, but they are not as tight as they should be
and one does have to search around. For example: cavalry rules are not all
in one place. ZOC (or the lack thereof) are introduced but the full
ramifications are found later and never illustrated.

A few ambiguities e.g: "There are no game turns" (but clearly there are
turns). Activation die roll is 1 or less for NorthUmberland, while for
Stanleys it is 10 or more. Corresponding DRM for each party thus run in
opposite directions. Under "Rule 9.0 Melee," all of the above
modifiers are cumulative." Such terms are arguably vague even to a veteran.
Also, "=/-?" means add or subtract if applicable.

Rules layout could have used a few illustrations of actual play
particularly with respect to: fields of fire, the requirement that infantry
fight all
units in its front hexes; attacks cannot be made out of an enemy ZOC but
they can be made from the front of enemy infantry. CRT could use
more explanation and better format. It helps to know the CRT is used for
missile fire as well as melee.

The rules are not simple nor is the game. Overall this is for the better.
There are in fact a few non intuitive concepts that will hinder
grognards and some explanations need digging. Newbies will probably wallow
in the mire.

Creativity. B+. Many creative choices taken, not all of them fully
developed. There is clearly enough here for a more compelling game
but enough interesting ideas introduced to make this a worthy pick up in
terms of theory alone.

The concept of vans or battles (actual sub-divisions of medieval armies) is
a neat one that works for the game and imparts some historical feel for
this period. The mechanic involves rolling a die against a pre-set
"activation rating." One can sense that such approach might have taken
on a life of its own had Berg gone w/ a more detailed treatment using
lesser commanders, smaller vans, and/or with a more complex rules and/or
orders to govern local reactions on the battlefield.

As is, the simpler more effective approach works, with some gaminess
attached. Players are tempted to activate the same van as much as
possible if it is in a good position. Since, by rule, you can't activate
the same van twice in row and the first activation is automatic (also
by rule), one tactic is to choose a harder to activate van (say 30% chance
if you had to roll for it) for the first, automatic activation and then go
w/ a 60% van for the next activation. Using a high % van as the no. 2
activation gives you a good chance of getting 3 activations in a row. Sort
of
like using a DH for the weak hitting pitcher on the first at bat in hopes
of keeping a long rally (many activations in a row) alive.

ZOC are dispensed with for infantry! The idea of using ZOC only for missile
shooters and cavalry surprisingly works well in this overall
system even if a little non intuitive for veterans and rookies..

Missile fire is rather well developed and features handgunners, archers,
longbows, and cannon. There are three types of missile fire as well. A
great job to get that much arms interplay into a minimum of rules. However,
some gaminess attaches: there is a lack of true feel
for the relationship of archers, infantry, cavalry. But they do work
together in terms of tactics and playability.

Missile shooters (as well as the other units) rely on vertice facing. A
risky proposition in a game that is physically rather small and might run
afoul of accidental bumping. This works for the most part with a little
common sense and players not out for blood.

On the whole Berg comes out rather well considering the many creative
chances he takes. It is worth the price of admission to see how he ties the
various systems together and still stay in bounds. We are left with many
new approaches to wargaming although most of them are not fully capitalized
upon here.

Playability/Replayability A-. Rules fairly easy to assimilate for veterans.
Play chugs along rather well, and play balance appears to
be spot on. Game can end rather quickly if you play for leader death (use
good discretion here). Vagaries of unit activation should
preclude any set formulas. In any event, optional deployment ensures that
this game will be played for a long time.

Game time is more on the order of 2 hours plus, assuming that Richard or
Henry doesn't meet an untimely death on the battlefield and/or
you don't reach your Kingdom Lost (KL) level on a bad die roll. This not a
tedious two hours, there are real concerns about isolated
units, converging fields of fire and open flanks that will keep you
thinking throughout.

The game should play fairly quiet at first. As stated, both sides may do
some gamey jockeying for position out of range at the start. The
field is deliberately tight to encourage one side or the other to finally
launch an attack. Casaulties begin to pile up first on one side then the
other as attackers brave missile fire in order to inflict their own
casualties. Eventually, break throughs occur, Finally, all hell breaks
loose
as Henry and Richard take the remaining forces and hurl them at one another
in final set of charges and counter charges.

Chrome. B+. Enough to go round for a game of this magnitude. Top notch
counter art lends period feel. Activation mechanic for Stanleys and
NorthUmberland has the right feel. Map rather dull. Flank and rear attacks
are simple DRMs where a more sophisticated, qualitative, unit type approach
might have lent more period feel and may have created a more robust drive
system. Archers are just as effective
at killing at long range as cavalry are by charging. That doesn't feel
right, I think of missile shooters as a sort of low attrition, on going
thing,
while charges are a decisive arm. Again given the confines of the game,
this is acceptable but not perfectly historical.

All in all, a decent feel for warfare of the period if not a detailed
treatment of the tactical niceties, leader personalities/deaths, morale,
and
army collapse which would have merited an outstanding grade.

Historicity. B. Intermediate complexity system, has a good feel for the
period in terms of the overall effect of infantry packed in lines, little
room to maneuver, and gradual attrition and collapse of medieval armies.
Seeing archers at 300 yards being able to eliminate a
disorganized unit is probably ahistorical. Does not truly hit the mark in
terms of tactical flavor.

The battle is fairly crowded at the start and both sides can play cat and
mouse out of missile range for a while until someone launches a mildly
risky attack. Infantry and cavalry need to "take the hit," close with the
enemy and then continue on to work the flanks as the enemy infantry has no
ZOC. Again more a gamey technique than real historical tactics.

Leader casualty rules are tied to the CRT result (e.g. "disordered" or
"routed") of that unit that is stacked with the leader. Tried and true
approach but historically, most leaders died when the battle lines
collapsed. A more realistic result that would have merited a higher
grade.

Bang for the Buck. A- Outstanding value. Would have been a solid A if ten
sided dice included and/or slightly more interesting map. Unit counter art
is outstanding (kudos to BSO's artist: Michael Lemick who is working on
future BSO releases) The numbers are easy to read, and silhouettes are
perfect for capturing period feel.

Map is rather subdued, more details e.g. Richard's Well, would have been
nice. A very playable game as well.

Final Grade: B+. All in all though there are many things going for KfH.
Ease of set up and not a too long read to understand the rules. A game that
plays fairly smoothly with some historical chrome and decent feel for the
period. More than fair chances and enough stuff to do for both sides. Not
fully exploited in terms of mechanics, a more sophisticated activation and
a CRT that is not one size fits all would probably merit an A.

A note on sources: Berg tells us his notes are "unreadable.":) The authors
of Hastings to Culloden are Peter Young and John Adair,
(Bell, 1964) and Battlefield of England is by A.H.Burne, Metheun (1950).
Both are recommended.