Skip to main content

There will be Blood! Blood and Roses and SPQR in Review

I think I remember Martin Wallace once criticizing war games, in particular battle based ones, for giving the players, commanders, too much control over the chaos that ensues. It was probably on a podcast, I forget which.


Whilst I can definitely see where Wallace is coming from, having played two of Richard Berg’s battle field war games I can say that not all war games fit this mold.

Blood and Roses covers seven battles in the English Wars of the Roses, a medieval dynastic study between two noble families. SPQR Deluxe has a ton of scenarios most involving the early Roman republic and its conflicts with it's ancient world rivals.

Foolish Lancastrian mounted knights charge the Yorkist lines only to find out what longbows can do.



I’m posting about both together because the two games have a lot of mechanical similarities. In each you will pull out a map sheet, arrange maybe 20-100 counters per side with some deployment decisions, then start activating and swinging your masses of spears and shields to try and out flank, shock,awe, or grind out your opponents army into dust. Its riveting and made of the stuff of Homeiad epics and medieval sagas. When an enemy line breaks to then recover, or an elephant runs amok at a critical time it brings out some of the most colourful narratives in gaming.


Both games include a significant unknown, other than the dice combat, that answers Wallaces criticism to an extent. Armies are split into sections, called either lines or battles each with their own leaders. Activating your main leader and his troops is fine, but getting the other groups and their leaders to actually fight on cue requires some special dice rolls. If you roll badly, either the don't move at all and the game flips back to your opponent's turn, or you only get to move and fight with a few limited units. This creates a punishing unknown in the game. How far can you push your luck be reactivating troops at longer odds, and when planning when do you expect your opponents longbow men to fire next? Most of the time you simply don’t know. It can be very punishing, In my defeat as Henry at Bosworth the Yorkists activated troops nearly twice as often as I did, but its worth the price for the suspense it brings.
I am Pyrus, He who shall not be named is Rome. His Velites are slaughtered as they cross the stream


In games with a lot of chaos like these, there is a question as to how much of the game is a competitive challenge and how much is it roleplaying with counters? Its definitely a mix. From the two games apiece I have played in both smart decisions have swung the battle one way or tother, but you do need lady luck to really execute on your plans. If I win a game of either I don't really consider myself to have out thinked my opponent, as often a few crucial roles and it would have gone the other way.


Other than setting there are some other differences between the two games. SPQR is quite a bit more complex and time consuming than Blood and Roses. SPQR is part of the Great Battles of History series and B&R is a Men of Iron game. The former is a more hardcore simulation and has a rulebook probably twice as long. There are a lot more exceptions and the tables have even more numbers on them. Berg loves tables in his games. Combat in both games requires you to lookup and often roll on at least two if not three or four tables to get a complete result. You get used to it and it does bring a vivid chaos to the battlefield.


My phalanxes from Macedonia try to hold off the unstoppable Roman tide.


The only other major difference is the overall tone of the two games. The Wars of the Roses were notoriously bloody for the period and both sides were focused on killing opposing leaders. This is reflected in the game. in B&R lots of little counters will die, in SPQR most will get knackered and flee the field.

I probably have a slight preference for SPQR as I like the bigger variety of units and tactical peculiarities that come with them but I'm glad my friend groked the rules and payout the cash for it. B&R is a both cheaper and easier option, although I wouldn't describe it as a simple war game.  I'd recommend either, both paint a reasonable interpretation of the history and definitely fulfill their role as educational games on their respective periods. Berg writes great battle books, he gives it some personality by expressing his opinions but also gives it some academic weight telling you the rational for some of his choices.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Quick Looks: Won by the Sword

Won by the Sword went down like Fat Man over Nagasaki on most wargame forums when released by GMT back in 2014. Lots of misprints on the components and errors in the rules gave it a bad rep to such an extent that GMT decided to bail it out with a patch. James and I have played a couple of games reworked version, it still rides like a bike with two missing gears but its probably the most innovative and insightful design to hit the scene in the past 10 years.


The rules; they work fine for the most part, James is clearer on the gaps than me, he reads them, I'm the opponent. What I will say is that they work if you can put the daddy pants on and make common sense decisions to fill any minor gaps.



Forage; Some games are about movement, some about concentration of fire, some moral, others unit composition, some bluff or even supply routes. Won by the Sword is about burning peoples villages and taking all their food, mostly just to stop your opponent doing it. This is the 30 years war, a…

Wilderness War is probably the best CDG (review)

One attribute of a good war game is that it opens up rather than narrows down the more you play it. Each time you play you see there is more strategic depth than you thought there was. When I first started playing Wilderness War, a card driven wargame design (CDG) on the French Indian War by Volko Runke, I thought it was simply a case of the British building a large kill stack and marching it up the Hudson and the French trying to get enough victory points (vps) from raiding to win before the inevitable. The outcome would likely be decided by card play and who got the reinforcement cards when they needed them.



Four games later I have realised that this is not the case. Yes the British will sometimes win by marching a big army up the Hudson and sieging out Montreal, but a lot of the time things will play out quite differently. Maybe the French strike first, perhaps the British realise that going up the Hudson is going to be a slog try another route. Either way the players of both sides…

Quick Looks: Next War Taiwan

If there is a series for hex and counter hipsters at the moment it is Next War games by Mitch Land and Gene Billingsley. Kev Sharp's been blogging it 1, 3MA have been talking about it 2, these drunken reprobates have been playing it 3, two of my friends have picked up Next War India Pakistan 4, one of whom as his first hex and counter game. When I first saw the GMT Next War series with Next War Korea a few years back, I passed on it because it was pricey and I thought future wars were boring. I thought these things because I was a fool. I'm not entirely sure why the series has become popular, as speculative future wars seems like a hard sell but the continued releases (now three soon four) and the quality of the product seem to have carried it into the wargamer consciousness if not the popular.


Next War Taiwan depicts an invasion of Taiwan by mainland China sometime in the near future. I say sometime because the game has no fluff text paragraphs, opting instead to insert a few…