Advanced Kingmaker

[Clausewitz]

Since this game has no place of it’s own (but hopefully may one day get a re-vamp, I thought I’d create a thread for people to post their ideas for a new edition of the game.



Inheritance through the female line.



The principle idea is that of inheritance through heiresses. When a noble dies, roll on the following d6 succession table:

Son and heir
Son and heir
Son and heir
Son and heir
No heir
Daughter(s) Roll again for number 1-2=1 daughter, 3-4=2, 5=3, 6=4
In the case of a son and heir being born control of the family card, together with any title, is retained by the owning player. Other awards are placed in the Crown pack or parliament as appropriate

Note that, if using my suggested "Historic Nobles", Neville Earl of Warwick is the son and heir of Neville, earl of Salisbury. Other family connections will be ignored for now.

In the case of there being no heir, all cards are returned to the Crown pack or parliament. When the family card is played again it represents succession by a collateral branch of that family.

When a noble dies leaving only daughters, the family card, together with any titles, is placed in parliament to be distributed in the form of a wardship and marriage. The card is "married" to any available noble chosen by the player awarded the card. Place the card alongside that of its new husband, who has full control of its relevant troop strength and estates. Titles cards should be distributed with the family cards. Each noble can of course have only one wife!

When the husband dies, roll on the table as above. If a son and heir is rolled, his mother’s card is added to his awards and regarded as an integral part of his inheritance, to be passed on to his heirs. If there is no heir BOTH family cards are returned to the Crown deck.
In the case of daughters, the cards are divided evenly between them and pass to chancery where each daughter's cards will be awarded in the form of a marriage to one unmarried noble. There can never be more daughters dividing the inheritance than there are noble cards in it. In the case of there being more than four cards, they should be distributed as evenly as possible. Titles should be divided in the same way, but a single title cannot be divided - it goes to the eldest daughter.
Note that if a noble has not been married to an heiress, he still rolls for heirs and is considered to have married a woman who carried no estates.

To develop the concept further, extend inheritance to Royal Heirs. For game purposes, treat Lancaster and York as having equal claims to the throne.

The Lancastrian succession passes from King Henry to Prince Edward, however if Edward dies first and Queen Margaret is still alive you may roll for a new Royal heir when King Henry dies. If the Royal family becomes extinct, the Lancastrian succession passes to the noble Beaufort and his heirs, then to the Tudors.

The Yorkist succession passes from the Duke to Edward of March, then to Edward’s heirs, then Edmund and his heirs and so on.

It may be convenient to create cards to represent Edmund, George and Richard so that, in the event of them dying leaving only daughters, their claims to the Crown can pass to their daughter’s husbands. Also, these Royal heirs (and the Prince of Wales) may be married to heiresses and thereby inherit estates of their own.

In cases where a Royal succession is passed through a female line involving more than one daughter, the claim to the Crown should follow the order of seniority amongst them, which should be noted when they are married.

These rules intend to create the ebb and flow of baronial power, with certain families using the marriage market to build up vast accumulations of estates, only for them to be broken up due to lack of heirs male.

I suggest that, to prevent one player from gaining overwhelming power, that each faction should be limited to a maximum of twelve nobles, enforceable after each parliament or change of king.

Additional: Rich Old Ladies
If a noble married to an heiress dies without heirs, the widow is returned to chancery with her estates and is free to marry again. she may marry as many times as it takes to produce an heir, when her estates become part of that heir's inheritance along with those of the husband/father (be the heir boy or girl(s).

[Clausewitz]

Figures and Tactical Battles

I suggest using plastic miniatures for the game. Each noble will be represented by a knight figure holding a flag bearing his arms. Horses will be supplied in seven different player colours to represent the factions to which the nobles belong. They can also be used to fight combats on a battle board along the lines of Eagle Games tactical battles.

[elbowmaster]

sexy clausie!!

ive managed to pick an unpunched kingmaker game for cheap on ebay, now how sexy is that!!!

[TomJag3]

Way cool, elbowmaster!!

How about coming up with a game of 'Shogun Maker'? A guy around here built one large enough to cover a pool table, it was a gas.

[boylermaker]

How would you fit all the miniatures on the board? Blow it up 500x? I tend to clump my nobles, though, and maybe you don't.

[Clausewitz]

How would you fit all the miniatures on the board? Blow it up 500x? I tend to clump my nobles, though, and maybe you don't.
Only the leading noble figure in a stack needs to be placed on the map - the rest can be placed with their cards.

Naturally, my version will need a new map with historical accuracies corrected and yes, it will be considerably bigger. I've started by using the county boundaries, which will play an important part in the game as each county will have it's own "Shire Levy" card which can only be awarded to a noble in the respective county.
The towns will work in a similar way, with each having it's own card and a town militia contingent to add to the owner's troop strength.

Each Office and Bishop card will have control of it's own headquarters castle.

[boylermaker]

Sounds awesome

[elbowmaster]

rock on clausie!!

[Clausewitz]

Thanks, Baron Boogerland!

[Clausewitz]

New Royal Heir Rules



This is how Royal heirs are modified for my rules. I’ve included a card for each heir; this is mainly for the variant whereby each player begins with an heir and has to recruit nobles.

Note that the head of each noble house is considered to be already married, and that in the case of those families with more than one card no role is needed to produce an heir.



House of York



This remains the same, with the Duke 1st in line, followed by Edward of March and his heirs, Edmund of Rutland and his heirs and so forth. Note that in 1453 George and Richard did not have titles, this is a concession to the original game for the sake of simplicity.

We could add York’s three daughters, but with four sons there should be no shortage of heirs.



House of Lancaster

The order of succession here is:


King Henry



Queen Margaret (but only if Prince Edward is still alive),



Edward Prince of Wales



Holland, Duke of Exeter



Beaufort, Duke of Somerset



Note that there is no card for the Queen. Although she held large estates and was extremely warlike for a medieval woman, she would never have actually fought in battle.



Buckingham

If one of the above houses is completely eliminated the noble Stafford, as representative of Edward III’s fifth son Gloucester, may be proposed as a rival candidate.



Other families:



Hungerford, Lord Molines is the son and heir of Hungerford.

The two Scropes are cousins, and may be considered each other’s heir.

Percy, Lord Poynings is the son and heir of the Earl of Northumberland.

Percy, Lord Egremont is a younger son of Northumberland, and can inherit the Earldom if Poynings dies without direct heirs.

Richmond-Grey is younger brother of Grey of Ruthyn.

Neville, Earl of Warwick is heir of Salisbury.

The order of seniority in the Nevilles is: Westmoreland, Salisbury, Fauconberg, Latimer, Bergavenney

Bourchier, Lord FitzWarine is a younger brother of Lord Bourchier.

[elbowsanchez]

nice work clausie!!

[TDCGSL]

Howdy,

I haven't posted here since last Sept., not since AH/WOC decided to eliminate my postings attempting to build a replacement magazine for the Boardgamer.

Early last summer (June or July) I completed an article on this very topic and designed new cards just as you have. Some of our artwork is different, and certainly the values placed on them differ, and rules are definately different.

However, the article I wrote does cover the same topic and necessarily bares some similarity. That article is slated for publishing in F&M #137, due out sometime in early summer or perhaps mid summer of '05. I thought I'd tell you all of this because some people get truly obnoxious about perceived "copying" of their work, all the more so in the pedantic world of rump kissing lawyer wannabe wargamers. I've already had one individual try to claim an article I wrote was "plagarised" because he told me that one calculation in the game was a 50-50 proposition. Having included that revelation, which I was required in the name of good research to confirm on my own, in an article I wrote, and which has been published, caused said individual to try to claim authorship for an entire 4 page article, though what he and I had discussed covered a paragraph of only 4 sentences. The magazine's editor also blew off the said idiot and his claims as they were obviously arrogantly and disingenuously inspired. So, in order to try to ward off similar uglyness I thought, when I'd seen this article, having dropped by yesterday, to type up this note. Hopefully, similar problems will not raise their ugly heads here, the more so that our articles have so many more similiarities than the three or four sentences that caused the previous problem described here. IF you wish you can contact Jon Compton, editor of F&M magazine, and ask him for a date the article I wrote was submitted. He's had it for some time awaiting publication.

Sincerely,
Tom Cundiff

[Clausewitz]

OK, Tom, points noted.I realise that you might not want to post details of your card set here, but I would be interested in how they differ from mine. I'm finding it hard to get some details on estates owned for example, do you know of any websites with this information? I find it virtually useless.

Anyhow, I shall continue to post my cards here hope they are of some help or inspiration to you. I'm also working on a new map which I hope to post sometime.

[Clausewitz]

OK, Kingmaker fans, here we go with the complete peerage for 1453. Again, if anyone can correct any mistakes I've made I'll happily update the pictures.

First up, the House of Lancaster. Note that Holland and Beaufort in that order are in the line of sucession. The Tudors, despite being the King's half-brothers, have no claim to the Crown.

[Clausewitz]

Now the House of York. I'm missng some details on the labels for the sons. Note that Buckingham can be proposed as descendant of Thomas of Woodstock in the event of a Royal wipeout.

[Clausewitz]

For this set note that Neville of Warwick is the son and heir of Salisbury.

[Clausewitz]

Bit short of estates for Tiptoft - help welcome.

[Clausewitz]

Does anyone know what the "Rivers" title signifies?

[Clausewitz]

Poor old Clinton is a bit short - did he inherit any estates from Say and Sele?

[Clausewitz]

Another load of Barons unfamiliar to some KM players.

[Clausewitz]

Things can get confusing at this point. Gray (no relation) is styled Lord Powys without being summoned to parliament - include him if you like.

[Clausewitz]

Not sure if the labels are correct here. Also, I need details on the Bures-fitzPayne-Poynings estates.

[Clausewitz]

Hungerford, Lord Molines is son and heir of Hungerford.
Bourchier, Lord Fitzwarine is NOT son and heir of Bourchier.
Are you keeping up?

[Clausewitz]

Those Beauchamps confuse even me...

[Clausewitz]

Radcliffe is another styled Lord.
That's it - if I've left anyone out let me know.

[Clausewitz]

Now for a bunch who were raised to the peerage after 1453 - they should not be allowed to act independently in the game until enobled.

[Clausewitz]

Another sheet of yorkist new men.

[Clausewitz]

And some Tudor new boys.

[Clausewitz]

And still they come...

[Clausewitz]

My information begins to run out at this point.

[Clausewitz]

Finally a bunch of heiresses to place in chancery at the start of the game.

[Clausewitz]

I've divided the Kingdom up into twelve Bishoprics.

[Clausewitz]

Each gets a castle as HQ, not sure about the troops though - perhaps a bonus in a bishop's own diocis?

UPDATE

A new colour scheme - is this an improvement?
I've also marked an L for Lords to ease the counting of votes.

[Clausewitz]

Every town now has it's own card and vote in the commons (no need to label votes). They also now have a small militia force which can fight outside the town.
Whenever a town changes hands after a siege the card must be surrendered to the new owner after any battle it takes part in.

[Clausewitz]

I'm also making some Shire Levy cards. Each county has a card with a troops strength equivalent to it's population. These wil fight in one battle before having to be raised again. The cards also give commons votes.

[TDCGSL]

I have found many of the things you've done to be more extensive than my own variant. And, indeed, I like them. As for being an inspiration, I'm sure your work would have been had I not completed work on the variant I wrote nearly a year ago. You added a goodly number of minor nobles who, in my reading, really were of little influence, so I left them out. I did make a new map for the variant. I also added some new Bishoprics, though, not as many as you have, though I did take note of their existance. I have a list that confirms all of those you made. I also made new cards for the towns just as you have. I did do some things that were different and that combined with yours would complement each other well. With that in mind perhaps one day we can make a "unified map" for our variants because there are things that would be nice to have on one combined variant map. I also made some new offices, and I note that not all of yours and mine mirror each other. Here there are some small differences, though, again, complementary.

One feature I really like are the "County Levies" idea. Truly historic, though I suspect that in the game's original construct they were included in the strengths of the various nobels as these would have been the troops which would have made up their forces to begin with. Still, I like the idea.

What I would REALLY like to see is for you to write up your article and present it to Jon Compton at Fire and Movement. I hate to send an article away from Old Soldiers, but your article and mine combined in the same issue would be a real boon to Kingmaker players.

You've done a fine job, especially with the graphics, which are stunningly beautiful. As for resources online, I didn't find them especially useful. I had to have my local library do some "inter-library loans" for me. Though, a year later, I couldn't tell you what the books were that I obtained, though I know half a dozen of them were on heraldry.

IF you find that you have a hard time putting all of this together as an "article", then let me know, I'd be happy to help, though for the next 60 days my time will be extremly limited. Thereafter, however, I should be ok for another 4 months or so time wise.

Take Care,
Tom

[Moderator Kayn]

This is.... Impressive. How much time did you put into all this?

Ka'yn

[Clausewitz]

On and off, I've been working on this stuff for twenty years or so. It's only in this last year that I've got into this internet thing, so it gave me a chance to refine ideas that I've been researching for ages. So really it's just been a case of putting the info into a visual form via the new cards.

A word about the levies, these were definately not part of a lords retinue, they were raised by a commission of array from the crown in the cause of national defence. This is in effect what the cards represent, although I found it convenient to give each card a vote in the commons to represent the Knights of the Shire.

My voting system is actually a lot simpler:

Each Baron and Bishop gets a vote in the Lords,

each Shire and Town gets a vote in the Commons,

hence no need to print votes on the cards.

Tom, I'd be happy for you to include some of my ideas in your article. As long as you give me a credit please feel free to use them.
I've only just started on the map however, so this will take some time...

[Clausewitz]

My title cards are redesigned. The title is at the top so the card can be slipped behind the noble card. Since titles no longer confer troops, estates or votes there is no lost information using this method.

[elbowsanchez]

well done clausy!!

[VAGamer]

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Can't wait to see the map.

Hat's off to you, Clausewitz.

[TDCGSL]

Well, as I said, my article is DONE, fini, finito. It's already been submitted, some 6 months ago for print, accepted for print at that time, and in the set up phase at Fire and Movement now, scheduled for publicatoin later this summer. So, there's just no possibility of my including anything from your article into mine. Simply can't be done.

I was merely suggesting that your article really ought to see print as well as the graphics that go with it. You've done a wonderful job. The only thing I'd like to do would be to work jointly on a map so that your article and mine can share features because they'd go well together.

T. Cundiff
Old Soldiers Magazine

[Clausewitz]

Here are some more knights. I should have explained that these characters have no independent role as they are not Peers. Their card must be placed under the card of the noble in whose service they are retained, just as if they were an award.
However, under certain circumstances, a knight may be raised to the Peerage.
Firstly, he may be married off to the heiress of an existing noble family and thereby become a peer in right of his wife.
Secondly, as the ranks of peers are depleted as more families become extinct, a knight may be issued with a writ to summon him to Parliament as a baron. These can only be issued in parliament, and the chosen knight cannot attend until the next meeting, although he can now exercise the rights of a peer (the ability to move independently, receive awards, be accorded titles and offices etc.)
A strict limit on the number of peers should be maintained, depending on the size of game you want. Marriage to an heiress or new summons, it should always be a case of "dead man's boots".

[Clausewitz]

This is a reworked (fictional) House of York with estates distributed among the 5 heirs.
The other chap is Viscount Bourchier, son of the Duke of York's sister and a possible "Yorkist Beaufort".

Not happy with the label on Edward of March - any info?

Incidentally, I've updated some of the previous files. More to come this week with a complete set of extinct nobles and what I like to call the "Naked Nobles" cards. ;)

[Clausewitz]

OK, the offices are ready.
To resume, each office comes with a Royal Castle.
It is possible with the heiress rules for a noble to posess more than one title - should this mean he can be given more than one office?

[Clausewitz]

As before some cards give extra forces in cetain territories.

[Clausewitz]

I'm missing a suitable castle for Ireland - Dublin will be a town in it's own right, so any ideas?

[Clausewitz]

I've left two cards blank - maybe you lot can come up with the offices to fill them.
The obvious ones will relate to the Duchy of Cornwall and Earldom of Chester, but they're sort of covered already.

[Clausewitz]

How about some new ship cards?

Included are cards for the Admiral and Warden's ships - easier to keep track of things.

[Clausewitz]

Also some new vessels and a reminder of troop capacity.

[Clausewitz]

Here's the first batch of town cards. Note that some don't have votes, hence the need to mark "C" for commons.

[Clausewitz]

The rest of the towns - and the two sets of mercs.

[Clausewitz]

Finally for now a sneak peek at the dead men. Stay tuned!

[TDCGSL]

You might want to rethink the name Le Eagle on the ship above. Strictly speaking, if we keep to the correct construct of the French language then the norm (for these were "Norman" descendents afterall), then Le Eagle (keeping the word Eagle from the English) would more properly be L'Eagle. If one goes all the way, and correctly names the ship, then it ought to be L'Aigle. However, Le Eagle is probably worth changing.

[Clausewitz]

OK folks, here we go with the extinct nobles.
The purpose of these cards is twofold:
Firstly they allow much easier partition of estates by co-heiresses,
secondly they theoretically allow any setup from c1350-1500

For Royals I've used the names the nobs are commonly referred to rather than calling them all Plantagenet - it should be less confusing this way.

[Clausewitz]

Once again any info which would allow the cards to be updated or corrected is welcome.

[Clausewitz]

The Earl of Holderness is usually referred to as of "Aumale".

[Clausewitz]

Difficult tracing estates of the Despencers.

[Clausewitz]

The Clares were commonly known as "Earls of Clare", this eventually became "Duke of Clarence" with their Royal descendents.

[Clausewitz]

There are contradictory reports of the arms borne by some early families such as Mandevill and Marshal.

[Clausewitz]

There seems to be little evidence of quartering of arms before the fifteenth century.

[Clausewitz]

I've included barons mainly on the basis of them providing estates for the nobility of 1453.
These were not necessarily inherited. For example, the Baliol lands were forfeited when Baliol became King of Scots and rebelled against Edward I.

[Clausewitz]

The estates used are based on those held in fee, and do not include those granted for life only, or held temporarily under acts of attainder.

[Clausewitz]

The Chaucers were never enobled, but are included as their lands were inherited by Pole of Suffolk. (Can't find the arms, though).

[Clausewitz]

If anyone thinks they can draw better arms, please copy the cards and redo them in paint - I'll replace my efforts with any improvements.

[Clausewitz]

The various derivatives of Ferrers can be confusing...

[Clausewitz]

Some lords, such as Molines, appear from nowhere and don't seem to have any family lands, so I have to used lands they inherited.

[Clausewitz]

Holand is direct ancestor of the Earls of Kent and Exeter - who changed their arms later to reflect their marriage into Royalty.

[Clausewitz]

Some barons with identical family names had the name of their principle estate added, such as "Marshal of Hingham".

[Clausewitz]

I can't trace the descent of some families - anyone know what happened to Martin of Cemais?

[Clausewitz]

This Umfraville flower is a bugger to do - still haven't got it right.

[Clausewitz]

The Vesci arms are confusing - I'm not sure these are correct for the different branches.

[Clausewitz]

Another use for these cards would be to fill the ranks of the knightage - the retainers of the Lords - using the system I descibed earlier. They would in this case represent cadet branches of extinct baronial houses.

[Clausewitz]

The final lot of deadites for now.

[Clausewitz]

Of course the above system wouldn't work for 1453 without the living nobles to add the cards to - hence the need for the following cards I've called the "Naked Nobles".

[Clausewitz]

The Kingmaker had no lands of his own, they were all held in right of his wife. I've included two Warrenne cards to reflect the division of the Surrey estates between Arundel and York.

[Clausewitz]

Perhaps I should have placed all inherited estates on the left of the cards, leaving the right for paternal inheritance only. Maybe I'll get back to this.

[Clausewitz]

I've removed some quartering on these cards so that they better reflect the single family aspect.

[Clausewitz]

Cromwell later bought the estates of Lord Fanhope rather than inheriting them. Perhaps in a vesion with cash estates could be put on the property market - but that's beyond the scope of these rules.

[Clausewitz]

I also like the idea of heiresses being auctioned off in Parliament - but this would favour rich lords too much. The partition of great estates between daughters married to lesser barons is a nice game balancing mechanism.

[Clausewitz]

The ultimate aim is a PBEM game with estates continuingly cycled around, the Crown itself periodically changing dynasties, and new players entering as knights in the service of established lords fighting their way to the top through war and marriage.
After all the first Pole Duke of Suffolk was the son of a fishmonger. A hundred years later his direct descendent came within one battle (Stoke) of winning the Crown.

[Clausewitz]

That's all for now. Any help with estates and arms will be welcomed, particularly if anyone has access to a set of the Complete Peerage.


By the way if you missed it you can see the complete Shire Levy cards on the BGG page.

[Da Black Gobo]

I just wanted to say, your attention to detail is outstanding. A real labor of love. AH should stand up and take notice of this gem.

Sean

[VAGamer]

Will you be posting a set of comprehensive rules that spell out exactly how to use this new system?

I absolutely can't wait to fiddle around with these additions....

You've done a wonderful job - thank you for your hard work!

[Clausewitz]

If you read the post above on heirress rules you'll see that I've re-written it to make the rule clearer.

The extinct noble cards could be used to set up pre-1453 scenarios, but the main purpose is to allow nobles a stack of cards representing their accumulation of estates through heiresses. Then, when that line fails to produce a male heir, it's much easier to divide the noble cards into even stacks representing division between heiresses.

Actually, what I should have done is to omit titles from the cards altogether and create a complete set of title cards, so that titles could be easilt divided in the same way.

[Clausewitz]

OK, enough of the cards for now. I want to detail how I think the figures for the game should be designed. This is done partly with Eagle Games style tactical battles in mind.
First of all I'll assume a 2-7 player game. Each player can be represented by one of the 7 colours of Heraldry (Yellow, White, Red, Blue, Black, Green, Purple). An eighth set of horses, perhaps in a differnt shade of blue, will represent the armies of Scotland and France.
These will be the colour of the horses in a players set. Consider that medieval war horses were covered virtually from head to foot in a cloth depicting the Lord's arms and this seems a nice way of differencing the players pieces.
I suggest 12 horses per colour, as this seems a reasonable and convenient number to produce. This gives a natural limit of 12 nobles per player at any one time, with the mounted figure being placed on the map. If a player has more than this number of nobles in play the surplus must be placed in the retinue of a Lord as if they were mere knights, waiting their chance for promotion to an independent command. In the case of a stack, a commander of that army will be designated, whose figure will represent the stack on the board.
As to the Lords themselves, each noble must have his own figure, probably in a silver colour (Gold for Royalty?). It would be nice for them to be painted in coats of arms, but for practical purposes it's probably best to give each a flag of his arms to identify him more easily.
When transferring to the tactical battlefield the number of troops can be translated on a ten for one basis, i.e. if a noble has 50 troops in his retinue he gets 5 men-at-arms figures on the battlefield. The same rule applies to Shire Levies, Town Militias and Mercenary contingents. There would be no need for these figures to be in player colours as they would only be used in battles, and would always be under the command (and placed with) a player's noble on the battleboard.
We have to consider what proportion of troops might be archers, assuming separate archer units. Perhaps 1/3, or perhaps all shire levies could be considered as archers?
Perhaps we could include some peasants to mark revolts on the mapboard. I like the idea that if a noble doesn't put down a revolt he loses his income (i.e. the troops strength) for the effected estates.
Rules significantly different from Eagle battle rules would be the possibility of capturing nobles alive for ransom, although historically this should only really apply to battles between kings of different nations. (Incidentally I'll draw some Scots and French noble cards later, 12 of each should suffice.)
Also included must be the chance of nobles betraying their faction and going over to the enemy on the eve of a battle.

As always, all suggestions for improving this system are welcome, hope this gets your juices flowing.

[elbowsanchez]

would anything from Strelets*R (http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/StreletsR.html) work for your game???

also, i just picked up the may, 1964 issue of national geographic, includes this nice looking map...

http://www.abong.com/product/1964-05S.jpg

[VAGamer]

I like the idea of separate title cards.

Also, couldn't titles be stripped from nobles in Acts of Attainder? Separate title cards could allow for a victorious king to really put the screws to "rebellious" nobles...

I have read that the ratio of men-at-arms to archers was likely on the order of 1:1 during this period. So a 50 strength unit would be evenly divided between archers and billmen/men-at-arms.

Another interesting element of the tactical battles - many nobles chose to fight on foot as opposed to on horseback. They made less of a target that way for sure, but most importantly they did that so his retinue would know that the noble would not be fleeing the battle if things went badly - that he would be fighting and dying along with his men. Very often nobles DID stay on their horses and fled at the first sign of trouble.

I almost think the game could be played well on a large map of Britain (with the relevant portions of Scotland, Ireland and France) with a hex grid. I'm amazed in the reading I have done how much maneuvering went on prior to the battles, and how far some of these large armies could travel undetected as they closed in on London, etc. Of course both sides relied heavily on mounted scouts to report back on enemy troop movements, etc.

The emphasis too seemed to shift (once Edward IV was crowned) to stamping out Lancastrian strongholds in the north and in Wales, with much of the action involving the various strongholds (Bamburgh, Harlech, etc.). One of the elements I feel the original map failed to was the strategic advantage of holding geography.

As you mentioned previously, failing to quash a revolt should result in a loss of income and retinue from those holdings.

It cost the crown a considerable amount of money to pay Montagu to scurry around England stamping out the Lancastrian rebels - I think the game needs to reflect this, forcing players to make tough strategic decisions about what to invest in.

Just some thoughts. How is your map progressing?

[VAGamer]

I found this cool map of England showing the Lancastrian and Yorkist estates ca. 1455.

Map of England 1455 (http://vrcoll.fa.pitt.edu/medart/image/England/maps/msh1455.jpg)

[boylermaker]

Way, way, way too complicated for me. You might have a best seller among profs of mideval english history. Personally, I would like a version that I can wrap my head around in 24 hrs and actually teach to my friends. But hey, to each his own.

[Clausewitz]

Actually, the map is way too simplified - to talk about "Yorkist" and "Lancastrian" areas is absurd. Nobles loyalties changed with the wind.

You’ve all seen the event card expansion set haven’t you?
Assuming the use of miniatures and tactical battles, I’ve considered how to deal with the War with France and War with Scotland events. The player controlling the King may perhaps be permitted to initiate such a war under certain circumstances, but for now I’ll assume the war was started by the foreigners.

Roll 2d6. The result is the number of enemy nobles involved, which must be drawn randomly from the respective packs. Perhaps this number may dictate the number of nobles, or minimum troop strength needed to respond to the card. The King may have to contract with other players to raise the necessary quota. These rules, of course, require two sets of twelve enemy noble cards.

So here they are.

[Clausewitz]

For simplicity, these cards have no estates noted, and combine all troops into a single figure. One of the main objectives must be the capture of nobles for ransom, but how to represent this? Perhaps I’ll have to have money in the game after all.

[Clausewitz]

The Scots are a little weaker. (Must redo the Royal arms.)

[Clausewitz]

I suppose an expansion might cover Scotland, with the cards updated to show estates, and a set of Scottish title and Office cards.

[Clausewitz]

More Knights. Note I've updated many of the noble cards from previous posts.

[Clausewitz]

Some more dead barons risen from the grave...

[Clausewitz]

And yet more.

[Clausewitz]

Thought I'd create cards for Islands. Some of these are included on the noble cards, so will revise presently.

[Clausewitz]

More dead chaps.

[Clausewitz]

More Knights.

[Clausewitz]

More extinct nobles.

[Clausewitz]

A further load of knightly kinds.

[Clausewitz]

Attention Mod Squad!

It seems that this thread should be reposted on the OOP games section.

Grateful if you could do this.

[TDCGSL]

Howdy,

Did you ever develop a new map for these variant cards?

T. Cundiff

[boylermaker]

Has anything happened with this lately-what is its current status?

[drareg85]

the designer of this marvelous set
is kicked of this board by the admins.

you can find him now at the yahoo clubs,
Kingmaker club :D :eek:

[boylermaker]

Frankly, I'm not so much interested in him as in his creation: Is there anything beyond sample cards?

[drareg85]

if you are not intrested in the guy,
than don't look further??????????????????

[Uncle Peter]

Hello, Dave!

Latest cards here:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/avalonhillskingmakerclub/files

New Advanced set due soon!

[elbowsanchez]

your killing me clausie ;)

ES

[Uncle Peter]

New! Set 1

[Uncle Peter]

Set 2, Dave

[Uncle Peter]

3rd Wife here

[Uncle Peter]

Next new wife

[Uncle Peter]

The five wives of Uncle Peter

[Uncle Peter]

Six? Yes, please!

[Uncle Peter]

Seven heaven!

[Uncle Peter]

I eight your wife, Dave

[Uncle Peter]

I point Percy at porcelain

[Uncle Peter]

Perfect "10"

Advanced set still in womb.

Wait for breakwater.

Tickle Ka'yn behind knees for me. ;)

[Viridovix]

Sometimes, during playing, happens that a heir escape by ship... and often it's impossible to catch him, because the player keep his ship sailing.

Thus we decide to introduce the battle at sea. There are two kind of naval battle:

1. gun battle: only the power of the ships are involved and for semplicity such power il estimated proportional to the number of people they can carry (i.e. 100, 150 0r 200)

2. boarding battle: in this case the power of the ships are cumulated with carried force (e.g. ship 100 + stanley (50) = 150 vs ship 150 + beaufort (30) + scots archers (20) = 200 -> 3:4)

Thus, the event cards are drawn until a pink valid section is available: bad weather delays attack, 5:4 victory, and so on.

In both cases, Nobles can be killed by card but only in boarding game the can be captured by enemy. In gun battle, the loser ships are sunked and no nobles is saved...

[boylermaker]

Two solutions to your problem:

Bad weather will force him ashore eventually. Gather free moves and stalk him along the coast. He cannot hide forever.

If you are playing with the advanced rules, ignore him competely and go for the straight-up parliamentary victory. While he's at sea, he cannot stop you from seizing his towns and thus his common's votes.

[Viridovix]

Two solutions to your problem:

Bad weather will force him ashore eventually. Gather free moves and stalk him along the coast. He cannot hide forever.

:-) The problem is that often the bad weather happens when you are too far...

If you are playing with the advanced rules, ignore him competely and go for the straight-up parliamentary victory. While he's at sea, he cannot stop you from seizing his towns and thus his common's votes.

This is not possible to do: usually the player save the king on ship and keep the forces in England, to siege and gain towns too... :-)

I've seen that some other people suggest the naval battle as new rule set...

V.