Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
25 Posts

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

Subject: So, better than HotS? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
D L
Malaysia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I read the other thread about choosing one over the other, but that was back in September. But now that the game has been tried and tested, which do you think would serve as a better intro to block wargaming?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Gray
United States
Glenwood Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Richard III.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eddie B
United States
Unspecified
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
R3, The rules are simpler, and you can play it in about 2 hours once you are somewhat experienced. And..., white blocks are cool looking.
1 
 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
Since R3 is much shorter, I think it is a better intro game.

Plus, R3 is new, so that means it is always better
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D L
Malaysia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks all!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert R
United States
San Antonio
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
burrie wrote:
R3, The rules are simpler, and you can play it in about 2 hours once you are somewhat experienced. And..., white blocks are cool looking.


Is it simpler?

I had the impression R3 was just a tad more complex than HotS, but yes, shorter.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eddie B
United States
Unspecified
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
I think it is easier. The rules are pretty well written so that helps. Mind you, I played HotS about 5 years ago and it was one of my first block games so maybe it is less hard than I can remember...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D L
Malaysia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So, from your replies, it seems that R3 is better because it's easier, shorter to play, and the rules are better. But thematically, which of the two do you prefer?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gotthard Heinrici (prev. Graf Strachwitz)
Germany
Düsseldorf
NRW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Guess I am a minority but I like HotS better.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D L
Malaysia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Harae wrote:
Guess I am a minority but I like HotS better.


Why?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gotthard Heinrici (prev. Graf Strachwitz)
Germany
Düsseldorf
NRW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi David,
Good question and I have played both recently (I bought Richard III at Spiel 09) but I honestly can't tell exactly why. It feels like Richard is missing somthing but I am not able to put my finger on it.

The prduction value is outstanding, no question but I find gameplay too smooth in a sense that I find the decision making unspectaculair compare dto HotS.

I really need to play more but Richard won't beat Hammer o.t. Scots. With HtoS I love the assymetric feel of the game and the nobles who change side (happens in Richard as well but not in the spectacular way in HotS where attacking a noble is purpose in orde to switch side).

The wintering, not knowing when the year ends, the nobles, the special rules for the kings and Wallace, all come together so well in Hots.

Bottom line:
Richard III is a fine game and works, there is no issue here but it is not spectacular either; I think I expected too much with new twists and turns but it is rather the opposite. Maybe a bit too streamlined?

As intro game you honestly can't go wrong with either (advantage is that Richar dis a bit shorter) but in general if I had to choose between a game of Richard and HotS, I'd choose the latter.



4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Duke
United States
Wynne
Arkansas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Both really good games. Different in key ways. I've reduced my collection a lot but elected to keep both.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D L
Malaysia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I just read the rules to both and correct me if I'm wrong, but the sudden death victory conditions in HotS seems more harsh and therefore, strategically, gameplay will be more conservative? It's like more sudden of a death compared to that of R3's. Also, as Harae mentioned, the the wintering in HotS is also more random.

Does this equate to HotS having more exciting gameplay? Or will it make the game (HotS) feel more dependent on luck?

Edit: But then again, in R3, blocks have a higher chance of being defeated or eliminated altogether because battle hits are concentrated on a single block. So this can be considered to be very sudden too. Interesting...

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gotthard Heinrici (prev. Graf Strachwitz)
Germany
Düsseldorf
NRW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well all I can say is that battles in HotS are with less blocks so the luck factor increases. However, HtoS islonger so it evens out.

as for battle hits being concetrated on a single block, I am not sure if I understand what you mean, in large battles this is not the case I believe. Anyhow I am no expert as I have only played Richard III 3 times.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D L
Malaysia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
HotS rules:

Quote:
Example: An English block inflicts 3 hits. The Scottish player has Three 4-step blocks and must apply 1 hit to each block reducing them all to 3 steps.


R3 rules:

Quote:
Unlike most block games, all hits from one firing
block are applied to the highest strength enemy
block. Only if that block is eliminated do surplus
hits carry over to the next strongest block.
This can result in one key enemy block being
eliminated by one devastating fire, not unlike
what happened to the Duke of York, Warwick,
and Richard III.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Duke
United States
Wynne
Arkansas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Key difference. And it's useful that they even went so far as to say, "UNLIKE OTHER BLOCK GAMES," in order to help this point stand out.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Montgomery
United States
Joliet
Illinois
flag msg tools
Dear Geek: Please insert the wittiest comment you can think of in this text pop-up. Then times it by seven.
badge
The Coat of Arms of Clan Montgomery - Scotland. Yes, that's a woman with the head of a savage in her hand, and an anchor. No clue what it means, but it's cool.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dodya wrote:
I read the other thread about choosing one over the other, but that was back in September. But now that the game has been tried and tested, which do you think would serve as a better intro to block wargaming?


I think HOTS has a better, more rich rules system that achieves some key design goals for the conflict it is trying to simulate.

Richard III's rules--while a very fun, easy to learn, and entertaining game--lacks some thematic depth and deals with some elements of the War of the Roses in sometimes perplexing ways. It sounds so silly, but I think the design is too streamlined. Still, the game delivers exactly what it advertises--a rapid, fast-played game of the War of the Roses. I also wish they had left the title as it originally was: The War of the Roses.

I like them both for what they are, but neither is (nor claims to be) a hardcore conflict simulation.

Both games deliver a fun diversion for a couple hours. If you want a 3-hour diversion, get HOTS. If you want a 1.5 hour diversion, get Richard III. If you want a good simulation of the politico-economic powers that converged in the War of the Roses, I haven't got any recommendations.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D L
Malaysia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cmontgo2 wrote:

I like them both for what they are, but neither is (nor claims to be) a hardcore conflict simulation.

Both games deliver a fun diversion for a couple hours. If you want a 3-hour diversion, get HOTS. If you want a 1.5 hour diversion, get Richard III. If you want a good simulation of the politico-economic powers that converged in the War of the Roses, I haven't got any recommendations.


Is there a hardcore conflict simulation block game that plays within 2-3 hours but which is easy to get into?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Miller
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rommel in the Desert would be the first thought that comes to mind. EastFront is pretty hardcore, but I don't think it's 2-3 hours.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D L
Malaysia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What about Hellenes? Do you consider it a diversion too?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alpha Mastrano
Australia
Heidelberg
Victoria, Australia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hellenes is great fun and plays 2-3 hours (my first game took 2.5hrs), but it's not exactly 'hardcore' (more complex than RIII or HotS though).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Montgomery
United States
Joliet
Illinois
flag msg tools
Dear Geek: Please insert the wittiest comment you can think of in this text pop-up. Then times it by seven.
badge
The Coat of Arms of Clan Montgomery - Scotland. Yes, that's a woman with the head of a savage in her hand, and an anchor. No clue what it means, but it's cool.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dodya wrote:
What about Hellenes? Do you consider it a diversion too?


Hellenes is, in my personal opinion, the best-designed block game I have ever played.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert R
United States
San Antonio
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
cmontgo2 wrote:
Dodya wrote:
I read the other thread about choosing one over the other, but that was back in September. But now that the game has been tried and tested, which do you think would serve as a better intro to block wargaming?

....

Both games deliver a fun diversion for a couple hours. If you want a 3-hour diversion, get HOTS. If you want a 1.5 hour diversion, get Richard III. If you want a good simulation of the politico-economic powers that converged in the War of the Roses, I haven't got any recommendations.


I think GMT's Crown of Roses may cover this. Busy at work....can't check right now.

Complex blockgame? I agree with Rommel and the EuroFront series (all by the designer of Hellenes, another excellent deeper blockgame).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D L
Malaysia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In the end, I went with HotS. Hope I made the right decision. Thanks everyone!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Montgomery
United States
Joliet
Illinois
flag msg tools
Dear Geek: Please insert the wittiest comment you can think of in this text pop-up. Then times it by seven.
badge
The Coat of Arms of Clan Montgomery - Scotland. Yes, that's a woman with the head of a savage in her hand, and an anchor. No clue what it means, but it's cool.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dodya wrote:
cmontgo2 wrote:

I like them both for what they are, but neither is (nor claims to be) a hardcore conflict simulation.

Both games deliver a fun diversion for a couple hours. If you want a 3-hour diversion, get HOTS. If you want a 1.5 hour diversion, get Richard III. If you want a good simulation of the politico-economic powers that converged in the War of the Roses, I haven't got any recommendations.


Is there a hardcore conflict simulation block game that plays within 2-3 hours but which is easy to get into?


Obviously, a lot depends on the definition of "hardcore"--but I would agree with the suggestions tossed out on this thread already, especially Rommel in the Desert. EastFront II scenarios push the 4 hour envelope, but they are relatively easy to get into with a pretty "hardcore" set of rules.

Chris
 
 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.