User:GeorgeTok/Reflective Games Analysis

'Reflective Games Analysis By George Tokkos

Andrew McNeil’s ‘Kingmaker’ is a board game from the seventies, which is set in the 1400’s and based on the war of the roses between the House of Lancaster and the House of York. The game allows about 2-6 players, and when playing we had 6 players taking part. To play the game each player must build and control a party of nobles who through battles with other nobles, as well as some political diplomacy, try to kill off the other players groups of nobles in order to take power which is done by controlling at least one member of one of the two counterpart royal families. The board itself is a map of Britain in the 15th century, consisting of major cities with castles, large towns and ports, which are interconnected by roads, with the rest of the map occupied by open land which are organised into grids in order to count moves. To begin with each player is given a number of cards, and also receives resource cards each turn, which can be anything from another noble which can move, to a faction of archers which can be assigned to a players existing noble’s forces. There are also town cards that give control of a town to the player in possession of that card as well as title or office cards, for example the Archbishop of Canterbury card, or the Marshal of England card. The cards are pretty much self-explanatory as they have all the required information on them, and the pieces are small round cardboard pieces that have a picture of their particular noble’s coat of arms on them. The members of the royal families pieces are octagonal and carry either a red or white rose depending on the family as well as the name of the royal on them for example Margaret or Richard. This is the basic framework of the game although there are some other small aspects which effect the game like the random event cards which are drawn every round and can order certain nobles and royals to move, as well as ships which can transport royals and nobles. At first game play is rather slow, as players get familiar with the board, which was dated to the majority of us who had little knowledge of medieval England. The pieces at first appear small and difficult to handle however once this first hurdle was overcome the pace of the game picked up and the game became very enjoyable. Players began engaging in battle and the game soon became very competitive, with different approaches being taken by different players. Some jumped into battles and tried to kill off as many other players and nobles as possible, and others were more cautious, using their moves carefully, avoiding other players and trying to abduct the members of the royal families. The random event cards played an important part in how the game panned out, as one player frequently used ships to transport nobles, storms kept coming up which sent the ships back to port which essentially wasted that players go and time. One player appeared to be winning the game as they had control of a royal member however their baron was ordered to Plymouth, and then the Plague struck Plymouth and so that player lost all of their pieces and were out. This gifted me the opportunity to win the game, as I had the Archbishop of Canterbury, which is needed to crown a king or queen and I had a royal family member, so I hastily moved to Canterbury and crowned Margaret of York Queen of England and therefore won the game. The game was colourful, stimulating, engaging and thoroughly enjoyable. It was also educational, teaching players geography, history as well as the political processes of Medieval England. All round Kingmaker must be given top marks as it excellently portrays and recreates Medieval Politics and the battle for power, all of course in an pleasurable and fun way.

The 1955 Vietnam role-playing exercise recreated the events and scenarios running up to the Vietnam War, and allowed players to engage in the political processes, which either lead to war or peace. In order to play out the exercise, the participants were split into either pairs or threes and assigned them one of the countries or regions that were involved in the tense build up to the war. These consisted of, the Vietminh who were the native inhabitants of Vietnam and the communist threat to the west, French Indochina who were part of the French colonial empire in south east Asia and made up of a federation of three Vietnamese regions. China, USA, Russia, France and Britain made up the other countries. Each player or team, represented one of the countries and had there own goals, which are listed on their own exclusive achievement score sheet which score the player different points for different achievements, for example 200 points for being voted to chair the Geneva Peace Conference. These score sheets remain hidden and other players cannot see them, which make it difficult to determine one another’s true goals.

The game had three possible main outcomes, which were for the Vietminh to take control of the country with a communist government, French Indochina to take control of the country, or for peace and an agreement to be met where the country is shared. China and Russia, as communists naturally aid the Vietminh in their cause, while France and the USA aid the French Indochinese to support their colonial investment and to aid their fight against communism respectively. While the British simply push for peace in the region. The role-play requires players to simulate patriotism and to actively engage with other players in order to reach agreements, which can be announced or kept secret until the time is right. Players can only score points by interacting with other players in order to achieve an outcome that is on their score sheet. So players make deals, break promises, and even sign written notes to ensure they keep their word. After playing the game for sometime two struggles appear to take centre stage and these are the struggle for control of Vietnam between the Vietminh and the French Indochinese, and the other being the larger scale battle for world power between the USA and Russia. The game accurately portrayed the geographical scenarios and situations that would have been apparent at the time, as it was pretty easy for the Vietminh, China and Russia to make quick and effective decisions as they are all in the same vicinity, whereas the USA, France and Britain had to take time to confer and then had to meet with the French Indochinese to implement and seek approval on the ground for their plans. Also the score sheets allowed the communist nations to carry out swift aggressive moves more readily as they scored for them and these ran parallel with their long-term goals anyway. On the other hand the British and the USA had to take time as they sought little bloodshed and ultimately peace. The game although was all down to decisions made by the players, some random scenarios were thrown up by the narrator, which would pressure players into making decisions. This was healthy for the exercise as it in a way forced certain conclusions, which in turn could form or destroy allegiances and alliances. In the end of the game the players representing the Vietminh, bribed their way to chairing the Geneva Peace Conference, and had decided in secret along with Russia to sabotage all plans for peace and instead declare all out nuclear war, which won Russia points, as well as the Vietminh who scored for more than half of Vietnam being in communist hands. The exercise all in all was superbly organised and carried out to perfection, although, players became ultra-competitive to the point that they began to stray from their nations traditions which at times made the game unrealistic, as after all, all players are human and wanted to win the game. In summary the exercise was educational and taught the players a lot about the political, cultural and geographical tensions of that time period as well as how international relations between nations work, including ways to start and avoid war.

‘Modern Society’ is a card game, which quite literally is based on ‘Modern Society’ and all its Socio-economic/politics aspects from Education to Healthcare to Organic food production. The game itself is played by each of the prescribed 3-4 players being dealt cards that hold different social values in the 4 categories which are coloured blue, red, green and black. There is also a track point scoring measuring scale that sits in the middle of all players and depending on the effect of the event cards which are dealt every season (turn), determines how players score. Players can also obtain laws by trading in points, which allow them to either implement restrictions or remain safe from restrictions, which may obstruct players scoring points. The game itself is made up of a lot of pieces, which are not easily differentiated and small. This makes the game difficult to read and play with any real pace, which has an effect on the enjoyment that the game gives players. In terms of understanding the political processes that the game supposedly recreates, the cards are often very random for example there is a car, which springs an assassination all of a sudden which is rather unrealistic. It is at times difficult to have any kind of game plan or strategy for playing Modern Society because the game is ultimately based a lot on chance as the cards are dealt randomly which means the player acts on what their cards say, rather than cards being dealt as a result of how players have acted. There was often slight confusion when playing the game, as a lot of counting and measuring is required, with some players taking the opportunity to cheat amongst all the miscalculation. The game could be seen as accurate in its portrayal of the complexity of modern societies and displays the many components that must be maintained properly in order to uphold a functional society. Every move affects all players as the society is shared, this is original and realistic as we all share one habitat talking generally and broadly, for example when a player plays an event card which affects one of the categories it affects all players including the player who played the card, in this sense the game is accurate. However the game in my opinion is dull, lacklustre and boring at times. Its extremely repetitive as the game structure is very simple while at the same time the game mechanics are complicated and the playing process is repeated 3 times, and then the game is over.

Guy Debord’s ‘The Game Of War’ is a war game that places two armies of equal strength against each other with only one goal. Destroy your enemy. Players are split into two teams who play against each othe for victory. The board is a grid made up of 500 squares (20 x 25) some of which are occupied by permanent fittings, which act as terrain and cannot be moved, and also block communication. The armies consist of several pieces, which all have a different rating of speed and range which determines how far and at what pace they may move. Each piece also has defensive and offensive value that determines the extent to which they can damage an opponent’s piece and how much of an opponent’s attack they can withstand. Each team has the same amount of pieces and these consist of Infantry, Foot Artillery, Foot Transmission, Cavalry, Mounted Artillery, Mounted Transmission and Arsenals. There are also Forts, which do not belong to either army but can be occupied by either and add to the defence value of the pieces occupying it. The game begins with some parts of the armies already occupying forts. The rules are rather simple once grasped, but grasping them took some time. The board although mathematically symmetrical and straightforward looks very complicated once all the pieces are on the board, and with the pieces themselves being the same colour as the board and the mountainous terrain and although aesthetically pleasing to the eye players may have to look closely to see clearly. The rules of movement again are simple by definition however require some mathematic calculation to carry out properly.

The Arsenals are what arm all pieces of the army, and they do this via communication, which is also the case with real armies of the past and present, making the game very realistic in this sense. Communication is in effect when there is a clear path on the board between the arsenals, which cannot move, and the pieces. However the transmission pieces can reflect communication allowing player’s armed forces to move around the board as long as they maintain communication via the transmission pieces. A breakdown in communication effectively means your forces are powerless and cannot attack because in reality they would have no ammunition or food. Again this is realistic. When playing the game each army is allowed a few moves each go, and so the opposing team opted to go for a basic and less risky approach, and go for straightforward military action which was to attack at the front, simple and directly. Our team on the other hand attempted to utilise the range of our cavalry, and came up with an intricate plan to travel around the mountainous terrain and destroy the defenceless enemy arsenals and therefore disarm their forces. When deep into game play, it was very enjoyable to confer with your teammates in a secretive way while your opponents sat just across the board a few feet away. Players exchanged notes containing military tactics, and some players assumed leadership of their team, all realistic again. The game realistically recreates the setting of warfare, and its requirement of strategic and tactical concern is most probably identical to real warfare in the past and really allows players to relate to the pressure that someone like Napoleon for example would have experienced. All in all Guy Debords’ Game Of War is a gripping and realistic simulation of war and completely serves its purpose.