Recommend
14 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Richard III: The Wars of the Roses» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Heirs in Exile, Retreats and Middlesex rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Michael Conyers
United States
North Bend
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
This is really the first Columbia game I've played after looking at them for a long time. The 2 sessions I've had has been fun and the rules are pretty easy to understand. From the game scenario I had three questions to throw out there.

At the beginning of the game (as Lancaster) is there a way to hold London if York lands in force in the south on turn one? they could really march on London in some force in two turns, and I couldn't reinforce it quickly enough as I don't have a levy. What's the best way to reinforce London as Lancaster in the first two turns?

A way to win is to kill all the heirs. My opponent just kept one heir in exile the whole time and I could never reach him (he never took the crown so he could keep blocks in exile). Is there a rule against that or is it a legitimate tactic?

It was tough to have a really decisive battle as if we were overmatched we just kept retreating from battle on round 2. It was a bit frustrating, but I understand that it does create attrition. Is that a common strategy used out there? Is there any way to keep a side from not retreating (short of being caught on the coast and surrounded)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Kemp
New Zealand
Auckland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
stalingrd wrote:
A way to win is to kill all the heirs. My opponent just kept one heir in exile the whole time and I could never reach him (he never took the crown so he could keep blocks in exile). Is there a rule against that or is it a legitimate tactic?


This issue needs to be addressed in a rules tweak.

As a movement of an heir to exile is a legitimate move, this can be used as a defensive tactic by both the King and the Pretender. Incredibly useful if an heir is reduced to one pip.

This could be solved by insisting that at least one heir of each side must be in England at any all times and the King must remain in England, to be the King. An exiled King effectively leaves the throne vacant.

Just some thoughts.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Marlett
United States
Plymouth
Michigan
flag msg tools
Wherever You Go, There You Are
badge
With no certain future, and no purpose other than to prevail
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think you need a rules tweak for the heir in exile.

Based on my play, the loss of all your heirs is a pretty rare event - this is more of a mercy rule than a common way to win the game.

If two players are playing at the same level, the count for king will be very close (1-2 votes). Leaving an heir out-of-play will cost you combat power and a king point.

Unless your goal is just to avoid losing until the end of campaign turn 3, I would not recommend leaving blocks in exile.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Adams
Australia
Oakleigh
Victoria
flag msg tools
badge
A fan of new Knizia games
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pulinski wrote:
stalingrd wrote:
A way to win is to kill all the heirs. My opponent just kept one heir in exile the whole time and I could never reach him (he never took the crown so he could keep blocks in exile). Is there a rule against that or is it a legitimate tactic?


This issue needs to be addressed in a rules tweak.

As a movement of an heir to exile is a legitimate move, this can be used as a defensive tactic by both the King and the Pretender. Incredibly useful if an heir is reduced to one pip.


Also sounds incredibly historical. The were always slipping off to the continent when things got dicey.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Herman
United States
New York
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
stalingrd wrote:
This is really the first Columbia game I've played after looking at them for a long time. The 2 sessions I've had has been fun and the rules are pretty easy to understand. From the game scenario I had three questions to throw out there.

At the beginning of the game (as Lancaster) is there a way to hold London if York lands in force in the south on turn one? they could really march on London in some force in two turns, and I couldn't reinforce it quickly enough as I don't have a levy. What's the best way to reinforce London as Lancaster in the first two turns?

A way to win is to kill all the heirs. My opponent just kept one heir in exile the whole time and I could never reach him (he never took the crown so he could keep blocks in exile). Is there a rule against that or is it a legitimate tactic?

It was tough to have a really decisive battle as if we were overmatched we just kept retreating from battle on round 2. It was a bit frustrating, but I understand that it does create attrition. Is that a common strategy used out there? Is there any way to keep a side from not retreating (short of being caught on the coast and surrounded)?


I have only played a couple of games solo, but I did a quick analysis of the best recruitment options given the initial set up for the Lancasterians and three stood out.

South Yorks: Shrewsberry, Bishop of York, York Levy

Warwick: Buckingham, Coventry Levy

Northumbria: Northumberland, Westmoreland, Newcastle Levy

In all three cases, the Bombard unit is a wildcard...

Given that these are the most fertile early recruitment options, if the Lancasterians open with a 3 card they could for example recruit in Warwick (3 AP) [Buckingham, Coventry Levy, Bombard] and move them to London on the next card. It is probably important for the Lacasterians to try and go first on the second turn.

The quickest option to put a force in London on the first turn is open with a 3 card and move Somerset, Wiltshire, and Oxford to London if you feel that the Yorkist player is going for London in the opening (e.g., the Yorkists open with a 4 card and land in Kent from Calais). Then play a four card to go first on the 2nd turn and then recruit heavily etc.

Right now my preference is to play a 3AP followed by a 4 AP for the Lancasterians (an event on the second play is even better if its a movement event). I would recruit in Warwick, followed by a concentration in London on the second turn.



Others may have better options in mind,


Mark
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.L. Robert
United States
Sherman Oaks
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Follow me for wargames!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's foolish to risk too much to defend London. What good is keeping London's one vote if you lose 2-3 nobles defending it? I conceded London to York early in a campaign year. But by out-maneuvering my opponent, I was able to kill off two of his Rose Nobles, and he was still forced to winter on the continent.

The London levies are a pretty srong deterrent against a rash Yorkist assault on the capital. Even though they're C's, that 4 when defending Middlesex is a scary proposition, especially if you can take hits on other blocks (even the King himself) to preserve all 4 of their dice.

As for keeping the heirs in exile, I don't see a problem with that, if they're willing to give up one of their votes, or are frittering away the rest of their royals so easily that they need to preserve one, then that's really on them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Shirley
New Zealand
North Shore City
Auckland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
J.L.Robert wrote:
The London levies are a pretty srong deterrent against a rash Yorkist assault on the capital. Even though they're C's, that 4 when defending Middlesex is a scary proposition, especially if you can take hits on other blocks (even the King himself) to preserve all 4 of their dice.


I think you may be playing this wrong because the Lancastrians cannot recruit the London levy as it a Yorkist city.

J.L.Robert wrote:
As for keeping the heirs in exile, I don't see a problem with that, if they're willing to give up one of their votes, or are frittering away the rest of their royals so easily that they need to preserve one, then that's really on them.


I completely agree.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.L. Robert
United States
Sherman Oaks
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Follow me for wargames!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sludge wrote:
I think you may be playing this wrong because the Lancastrians cannot recruit the London levy as it a Yorkist city.


Whoops! My error. I did mean that once York does take the city, it's very, very tough for Lancaster to take it back!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Conyers
United States
North Bend
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
My experience was that I gave up London and built up some forces in the North and went back & forth in some battles. By the end of turn seven I retained the kingship by one noble despite Yorkists holding London. And that was with the Yorkist keeping an heir in exile. So it can certainly be done without London, but dang it I hate to give up the capitol to those traitorous vermin Yorkists. It was a feeling of being on your heels at the beginning of the game, which perhaps is historical as I believe that Lancaster abandoned the capitol and Edward was celebrated as the new king by Londoners. That makes sense that the Yorkists have the Levy, signifying London's embrace of them early on.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Чебурашка, ты настоящий друг!
United Kingdom
Durham
flag msg tools
Scheiß Inselaffen!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wutai Leviathan wrote:
stalingrd wrote:

What's the best way to reinforce London as Lancaster in the first two turns?

The logic of defending London is indeed questionable, but the game is still in it's infancy, so only time will tell which strategies prove to be the stronger and more reliable ones to employ in the game.



I agree. London is a deathtrap for the Lancastrians. The Yorkists can get 6 strong blocks into Sussex/Kent or East Anglia with only a 3 AP card, all of which are in striking distance of London.

Wutai Leviathan wrote:


[...] You should now have 5 blocks, including 3 non-nobles defending London. (If the York player is Player One in the second Game Turn and attacks London, you'll only have 2 blocks in round one.) [...]





This is exactly the danger. The chances are that the Yorkists, as the pretenders, will go first on the second turn. The two block in London will face 3 or 4 powerful Yorkist blocks and will probably take heavy damage; in the worst case scenario, they will be destroyed, meaning the three blocks arriving will be forced to fight as the attacker. At the same time, the Yorkists might have between 2 and 4 reinforcements coming into the battle. Disaster.

I think the Lancastrians should withdraw as many of the blocks around London and the Home Counties as far north as possible, while the blocks in the West Country and Wales should also try to converge as quickly as possible. This will give the Lancastrians two power bases, forming a kind of arc running across the West and North of the Midlands. It also helps defend York, which in many ways is even more important a space than London. It's important for the Lancastrians as it's the entry point for three units in their pool (Shrewesbury, and the York levies and church blocks), while if the Yorkists get into it with some heir blocks, it can be very difficult to dislodge them as they have their lands there; God forbid they then become kings, as March will be defending on A5!


3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mattias R
Sweden
Stockholm
Unspecified
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
No need for a rules tweak re:heirs in exile. As others have stated, this is already balanced within the rules because you give up the exile's vote.

As others have also stated, Lancaster should probably avoid defending London as it quickly becomes a death-trap. The game isn't about holding territory but about keeping your nobles alive, loyal and in play. Lancaster's power base is in the north, so as Lancaster you want the fighting concentrated there and not around London.

Preventing the enemy from retreating is the most effective way to kill those important enemy nobles:
-Take advantage if your opponent has been careless with placing his blocks in areas with few retreat paths.
-Press your luck if you have very high AP cards for a campaign.
-Maneuver over several turns to be able to attack in a way that prevents retreat.
-Threaten multiple enemy areas simultaneously, perhaps your opponent can only save one of them.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Doug Bass
United States
Winston-Salem
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I know this thread is very old, so I apologize for reviving it, but it seemed like the best place for my question.

In tonight's game, I played the Lancastrians and moved two heirs to Scotland early in the campaign (I felt they were in jeopardy and wanted to protect them). The supply limits for Scotland allow two blocks in addition to the local mercenary, so I just left them there for the whole campaign. Then, on the last turn of the campaign, I simply stepped them over the border into Cumbria for one AP, so they could be counted during the political phase. Am I missing a rule that prohibits this strategy? I could see doing the same thing with the third heir in France, and the Yorkists could use Calais and/or Ireland in a similar way. I realize each side has a limited number of APs per campaign, but is that the only real consideration here?

P.S. What's the etiquette on reviving old threads? Would it have been better if I started a completely new thread on the same subject?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.