Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
5 Posts

Wizard Kings» Forums » General

Subject: Quick Comments rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Robert Word
United States
PDX
Oregon
flag msg tools
mb
I see that there are already a few good reviews posted about this game. I thought I should add that during development another game, Titan, faced a similar problem that Wizard Kings has: the games bog down. In Wizard Kings there is no incentive to attack because it is better to sit and collect resources to improve your army. Of course your opponent is doing the same and you both know that the defender has the advantage and if you lose a city you will probably lose the game.

Quoted from the Avalon Hill's Titan designers notes:

Quote:

Our original conception of developing a fantasy wargame occurred in 1970. We drew up a floor length board which depicted a popular world of adventure and peopled with its indigenous races as well as a few of our own. All movement was made on the map, and the game developed frontally out from the citadels and cavern-fortresses which generated new forces. The fronts did not consume as quickly as they were fed and the game tended to bog down as second and third lines of reserves solidified the fronts.

During the early 1970's we worked with and playtested a system set on a symmetrical world of our own concoction. Movement remained confined to a single board, and the conflict kept up fronts, although these were more fluid than before. It was still too difficult to approach those enemy strongholds from which their troops sprang, and the gamers were endless.
- The Law of Titan, Avalon Hill, 1982

Now Titan went a unique route towards forcing players to attack (the tracks on the board) and furthermore encouraging attacks because of Titan experience and leveling up. Also, mustering additional forces requires movement. There are no cities to defend. I don't want to say that Wizard Kings should have become Titan (that game takes a special kind of gamer to play), but Columbia Games should have made the game flow and allow for a mechanism for the triumph of the underdog.

As it stands, I like to say that I have some really nice forty-dollar dice, because that is all I use from the basic set. Don't be fooled into thinking the game is fun after a couple of tries, because soon the flaws will become quite evident. I spent $40 on additional armies before realizing the game needed help that the designers won't admit.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alan Kaiser
United States
Aurora
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Marid wrote:
In Wizard Kings there is no incentive to attack because it is better to sit and collect resources to improve your army. Of course your opponent is doing the same and you both know that the defender has the advantage and if you lose a city you will probably lose the game.


Not sure which game you were playing but this doesn't sound like any game of Wizard Kings I've ever played! Maybe it was the mindset of the players playing the game and not the game itself that was the problem!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alan Kaiser
United States
Aurora
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe my remark was a bit off the cuff and harsh. Let me try this again with some of my usual WK comments.

OK, Wizard Kings does have the potential to bog down but it is certainly not something that you are going to find happening a lot with experienced players, whether you're playing a scenario or not. Newer players will tend to play more conservatively and even experinenced players in the right situation will sit on their hands while waiting for reinforcements. The main 'problem' is that if you are in a situation where your unit density is high then it appears that a good strategy is to go on the defensive and let your opponent worry about attacking. Your opponent sees this and also becomes weary of attacking the concentrations of units sitting across from him! The buildup process begins and both players wait for the other to flinch! Not a very fun game, I'll admit! And there's nothing in the rules to prevent you from doing that either. And there shouldn't be in my opinion. If a player want to do that then he should be allowed to be shown the error in his ways!

There are problems with this turtling game play. The victory conditions in most scenarios (and even in the standard scenario) require you to actually move your armies! Waiting for your opponent to attack and hoping that you can wear him down and then counterattack is a poor strategy. The best solution is to go on the offensive. If your opponent is content to sit in his cities building castles, then let him. Just move in and attack his weakest point (there always is one!). And the sooner you attack the less time he has to build up. Any attack or even a feint should prompt your opponent to consider moving units to defend weak positions. Any movement further weakens his defensive position and opens up more possible avenues for attack. Remember, just because your opponent has a heavily defended stronghold doesn't mean you have to attack that point! Your goal is not to eliminate his units but to take his cities.

Another aspect of all this is how you actually played the game. Did you use the standard scenario in the rules? The 100pt. vs 100pt. armies on two maps is a pretty poor choice to start off with. If anything should be changed in the rules I think it should be this. It's not a bad scenario once you've played a few times, but to start off I'd stear clear of that one. There are some excellent alternate scenarios that are great for begining players. If an Orc dies in the forest . . . is a great beginning scenario. There are others as well. Which version of the rules did you use? This can make a big difference. The v1.6 rules were apparently designed to limit the type of play you described mainly because they decrease the stacking limit from 6 to 4 units. I personally haven't played with the v1.6 rules since I never thought the v1.5 rules had any major problems. There is a lot of debate over which version is better and why and I don't want to open that can of worms but it is something you might consider. An alternate route is to use the standard scenario but increase the number of maps from one per person to two per person. This decreases unit density and makes turtling less attractive. Keep the production at 10 points per side and keep the victory point cities to just those that give you the 10 production points. Now you will have more terrain to defend so large concentrations of units just won't work. Now the game becomes more fun since there is incentive to attack.

Anyway, that should give you some things to consider. I hope you give the game another shot, there is a lot to like with the system.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ted Kostek
United States
Camano Island
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
The first poster pointed out, as Chris Farrel has already observed, that in the basic 100gp vs 100gp scenario action is not better than inaction.

But that's not a problem w/ the system, it's a problem with the scenario.

Try this assymetric scenario: one side has a big army, the other side has a big economy.

Attacker: ~110 gp, enters from map edge, 5 gp off map
Defender: ~80gp, spread thin, owns all cities on both maps (20 gp)
Victory: each turn, sum the gp of cities (on the map) the attacker owns and divide by three. After 10 turns the attacker must have 15 VP to win.

Season to taste. Balance will vary with maps & armies.

This scenario will provide a lot of action. The attacker must make rapid progress or the defender's economy will swamp them. As the attacker takes more cities, however, they will be spread increasingly thin by the need to garrison cities.

Although I don't get to play WK that often, it's one of my favorite games.
 
 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.