Still waiting for my copy.. so anyone out there played it yet ?
Your thoughts please...
Your thoughts please...
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I did a partial solo playthrough to understand the mechanics.
It definitely captures the spirit of CK II and I enjoy the dynamic between the Actions, and the subsequent events that are applied. The materials are all mostly high quality, and the game moves fairly fast despite its scope.
IMO, the rulebook could use some work. There are a few typos and certain elements (espeically those added through stretch goals) are included in certain sections but not in others, where they would be relevant (i.e., there is an entire section discussing the pros and cons of granting duchies to your family members, but this section doesn't cover how that affects taxation, which is covered in a different section. This leads to confusion and frustration when trying to learn and apply all game concepts).
Another frustration is the sheer number of tokens. It is necessary to separate random, event, and starting good/bad traits, but the box and interior contains no great way to do this. I resorted to Ziploc bags for each (with some mixing, because of space limitations) and the box barely fit. I would love a future expansion to remedy this, like Pandemic did.
I'm looking forward to playing with non-AI players soon, which is how the game was intended and should be a better experience.
These are just initial impressions. I think any CKII fan who enjoys board games will like this, which is all I was looking for when I backed this, quite frankly.
It definitely captures the spirit of CK II and I enjoy the dynamic between the Actions, and the subsequent events that are applied. The materials are all mostly high quality, and the game moves fairly fast despite its scope.
IMO, the rulebook could use some work. There are a few typos and certain elements (espeically those added through stretch goals) are included in certain sections but not in others, where they would be relevant (i.e., there is an entire section discussing the pros and cons of granting duchies to your family members, but this section doesn't cover how that affects taxation, which is covered in a different section. This leads to confusion and frustration when trying to learn and apply all game concepts).
Another frustration is the sheer number of tokens. It is necessary to separate random, event, and starting good/bad traits, but the box and interior contains no great way to do this. I resorted to Ziploc bags for each (with some mixing, because of space limitations) and the box barely fit. I would love a future expansion to remedy this, like Pandemic did.
I'm looking forward to playing with non-AI players soon, which is how the game was intended and should be a better experience.
These are just initial impressions. I think any CKII fan who enjoys board games will like this, which is all I was looking for when I backed this, quite frankly.
I'm looking forward to it. Unfortunately I still haven't got my copy. Fingers crossed.
I played with a friend a week ago. First Crusade start, with myself as the English under William, and him as the Germans under Heinrich III, (might be IV, can't remember). The French were led by Louis the Amorous at the start, so I made them have the lustful AI.
We added Glitterhoof to France for fun before we chose the AI, and we were soon shocked to discover the AI's "programming" wanted it to marry Glitterhoof, so off Louis went, marrying a horse in preparation to annex Brittany. France expanded into Brittany and Normandy before too long (darn French), but then Louis went Crusading without an heir and when he didn't return, France collapsed and a new Queen took control. She had an heir, then died, and then her heir went Crusading again, and didn't return, collapsing France again.
In the meantime, William had three children, and the Germans got an heir as well, so we were having no issues, ourselves. Ultimately, one of William's sons would kill the other to take the throne (ironically, it was a Henry who did this), and I ended up getting a pretty decent trait draw bag by the end. Meanwhile, entering the final year of the game, I decided to go on a conquering spree to unify the isles and take back Normandy. As I did so, the fourth ruler of France in the game decided Crusading was a nice idea, and didn't return, reducing France to a core of 2 territories.
I ended up winning by a single point, as I was one territory larger than my friend, who had been making quite a lot of money that game, and was a castle away from picking up a bonus point, and we each had earned a bonus point from Crusading (I had first player, he had Crusader, while the French were the most developed nation
).
While we played, I didn't get the impression that the AI was bad, just really unlucky. It didn't seem to be able to account for never having an heir, and it seems like there's little a player could have done in its situation to avoid what happened to it.
We added Glitterhoof to France for fun before we chose the AI, and we were soon shocked to discover the AI's "programming" wanted it to marry Glitterhoof, so off Louis went, marrying a horse in preparation to annex Brittany. France expanded into Brittany and Normandy before too long (darn French), but then Louis went Crusading without an heir and when he didn't return, France collapsed and a new Queen took control. She had an heir, then died, and then her heir went Crusading again, and didn't return, collapsing France again.
In the meantime, William had three children, and the Germans got an heir as well, so we were having no issues, ourselves. Ultimately, one of William's sons would kill the other to take the throne (ironically, it was a Henry who did this), and I ended up getting a pretty decent trait draw bag by the end. Meanwhile, entering the final year of the game, I decided to go on a conquering spree to unify the isles and take back Normandy. As I did so, the fourth ruler of France in the game decided Crusading was a nice idea, and didn't return, reducing France to a core of 2 territories.
I ended up winning by a single point, as I was one territory larger than my friend, who had been making quite a lot of money that game, and was a castle away from picking up a bonus point, and we each had earned a bonus point from Crusading (I had first player, he had Crusader, while the French were the most developed nation
).While we played, I didn't get the impression that the AI was bad, just really unlucky. It didn't seem to be able to account for never having an heir, and it seems like there's little a player could have done in its situation to avoid what happened to it.
I played with a friend a week ago. First Crusade start, with myself as the English under William, and him as the Germans under Heinrich III, (might be IV, can't remember). The French were led by Louis the Amorous at the start, so I made them have the lustful AI.
We added Glitterhoof to France for fun before we chose the AI, and we were soon shocked to discover the AI's "programming" wanted it to marry Glitterhoof, so off Louis went, marrying a horse in preparation to annex Brittany. France expanded into Brittany and Normandy before too long (darn French), but then Louis went Crusading without an heir and when he didn't return, France collapsed and a new Queen took control. She had an heir, then died, and then her heir went Crusading again, and didn't return, collapsing France again.
In the meantime, William had three children, and the Germans got an heir as well, so we were having no issues, ourselves. Ultimately, one of William's sons would kill the other to take the throne (ironically, it was a Henry who did this), and I ended up getting a pretty decent trait draw bag by the end. Meanwhile, entering the final year of the game, I decided to go on a conquering spree to unify the isles and take back Normandy. As I did so, the fourth ruler of France in the game decided Crusading was a nice idea, and didn't return, reducing France to a core of 2 territories.
I ended up winning by a single point, as I was one territory larger than my friend, who had been making quite a lot of money that game, and was a castle away from picking up a bonus point, and we each had earned a bonus point from Crusading (I had first player, he had Crusader, while the French were the most developed nation
While we played, I didn't get the impression that the AI was bad, just really unlucky. It didn't seem to be able to account for never having an heir, and it seems like there's little a player could have done in its situation to avoid what happened to it.
Very funny. Love the amorous king who marries his horse.
Played our first game last night, must say, it didn't go very well.
4 players plus a French AI.
It seemed to take us an awful long time to grasp the rules, they are wonky, poorly written and quite convoluted in some areas. Because of this, the game took us 6 hours to get through, with a 30 min break in the middle.
The three step process to go to war is too much in my opinion. It's just frustrating.
There are too many neutral areas on the map. Players just go for those to expand and so wars between player countries are rare, hence, no tension in the game.
The fact that a country can only be 8 provinces large doesn't help matters. Why this is I don't know, but I think having a large miniature cavalry piece as an ownership token doesnt help matters. It's unnecessary.
Wars are unsatisfactory. Drawing traits out of a bag to determine is not a great mechanic really.
The AI is also very poorly done.
The narratives and story telling that come out of the game can be fun and interesting, but choose your players wisely. It helps if they intend to roleplay their dynasties. If you have board gamers who can't or don't like doing this, then that's a large part of the game unused.
The victory point system is very shallow. There simply aren't enough ways to earn them. Strategies therefore are severely curtailed and hence replayability imho.
Overall, I think it is a simple game, whose rules are unnecessarily convoluted making it harder to pick up. Some of the concepts are not well known, so they could have done with being explained more thoroughly.
It would help enormously if you roleplay the game, this would increase enjoyment a LOT.
If you don't though, it's quite a bland experience.
4 players plus a French AI.
It seemed to take us an awful long time to grasp the rules, they are wonky, poorly written and quite convoluted in some areas. Because of this, the game took us 6 hours to get through, with a 30 min break in the middle.
The three step process to go to war is too much in my opinion. It's just frustrating.
There are too many neutral areas on the map. Players just go for those to expand and so wars between player countries are rare, hence, no tension in the game.
The fact that a country can only be 8 provinces large doesn't help matters. Why this is I don't know, but I think having a large miniature cavalry piece as an ownership token doesnt help matters. It's unnecessary.
Wars are unsatisfactory. Drawing traits out of a bag to determine is not a great mechanic really.
The AI is also very poorly done.
The narratives and story telling that come out of the game can be fun and interesting, but choose your players wisely. It helps if they intend to roleplay their dynasties. If you have board gamers who can't or don't like doing this, then that's a large part of the game unused.
The victory point system is very shallow. There simply aren't enough ways to earn them. Strategies therefore are severely curtailed and hence replayability imho.
Overall, I think it is a simple game, whose rules are unnecessarily convoluted making it harder to pick up. Some of the concepts are not well known, so they could have done with being explained more thoroughly.
It would help enormously if you roleplay the game, this would increase enjoyment a LOT.
If you don't though, it's quite a bland experience.
Very much my experience as well in a five player game. Just when players might have started to think about doing bad stuff to their player neighbours, the Crusade reached Jeruslamen and ended the game.
It also felt like way too many traits are bound to characters that won't really play a part in the game. At one point it was basically a given that a new child will get a negative one, as all the positive ones were on siblings, other kids and spouses.
Did you play other games after the first one? I only did one when I received my copy, didn't like it and left it to rot on my Kallax.
Personally I mostly enjoy the game and I think that version 1.1. of the rules made them more understandable and also improved the balance of the game. Rules are simple enough, but there are enough options to offer alternative paths to victory. One thing I appreciate is that you can actually finish the game in a few hours. As many of my friends are often busy with work and/or have small children it is increasingly difficult to find time to play games which last 12+ hours.
I also find it sometimes annoying if a board game ends before I can get things done, but it just shows that I played that particular game badly. Game would probably last forever without having end conditions and IMHO Kingdom of Jerusalem end condition actually improves the game. You could play the game without having Kingdom of Jerusalem end condition and just keep playing till the end of the third era, but then it would remove one strategic aspect from the game. On the one hand if you are not in the points lead, you do not want to crusade too early during the third era as you want to play more cards before you are forced to advance the crusade. On the other hand if you are the leading player, you might want to use your one (or two with an archbishop) crusades early and make certain that the other players do not have time to conquer your territories or take away your achievement tokens.
I also find it sometimes annoying if a board game ends before I can get things done, but it just shows that I played that particular game badly. Game would probably last forever without having end conditions and IMHO Kingdom of Jerusalem end condition actually improves the game. You could play the game without having Kingdom of Jerusalem end condition and just keep playing till the end of the third era, but then it would remove one strategic aspect from the game. On the one hand if you are not in the points lead, you do not want to crusade too early during the third era as you want to play more cards before you are forced to advance the crusade. On the other hand if you are the leading player, you might want to use your one (or two with an archbishop) crusades early and make certain that the other players do not have time to conquer your territories or take away your achievement tokens.
- 1