Plantagenet Preview

I don't think that I've mentioned it on the blog, but I've  had some involvement in the development of GMT's upcoming game on the Wars of the Roses. It's called "Plantagenet - Cousins War of England 1459 -1485".

Because there's so little interest in the subject in this country they couldn't find any English person to take the subject on, the development for the game was done by Francisco "Pako" Gradaille, who lives in Barcelona (joke). 

It's been over two years since I got a Linkedin request from Pako. He'd come across my Edgcote book, and got in touch to ask me a few questions. Since then we've had numerous discussions on how the Wars were fought, what was important and what makes them different. So much so that I've ended up being credited as "Historical Adviser" on the game. Seeing as my views sometimes cut across conventional wargamer-like ideas on the period that might make for an interesting ride going forwards.

The immediate view might be why do we need another WotR boardgame when we have Kingmaker? Especially as Kingmaker is in a new edition from Gibson games. I wrote the historical summary for that as well, but the games are quite different. The Gibson version is very much a multi-player game and doesn't really hold out to be a simulation. The GMT game is a 1-2 player, and comes with linked scenarios that set up the major phases of the Wars. You can play them all through or pick and choose. As it is in the "Levy and Campaign" series it has quite a focus on raising armies and keeping them in the field. It is also about building affinities and influence and has a lot of period flavour driven by the "Arts of War" decks. These allow for things like the Towton shooting into the wind incident, and building an artillery camp. The decks are different for each scenario, giving a range of playing experiences. I took issue with all the Shakespeare quotes in development ("He's not a historian!") but everyone else thinks they add flavour.

The finished product does look like quality, although I'm not a fan of the box art. Here's a short video of Pako unboxing his pre-production copy for component checking: 

I don't know how many times I've gone over how to pronounce my first name, but I'm not in a place to criticise the man's English pronunciation given my complete lack of Spanish.

If you want more info about how it plays and the design concepts, then Volko Ruhnke who is responsible for the whole series has put together a 20 minute video you can watch:

When I watched it through it was a trifle strange hearing my somewhat trenchant views being shared by someone else (BTW I wasn't consulted on the script for that video, so if you don't agree with him, it's not my fault. Well, not entirely).  However, it is right that campaigns are generally short, and they are fought with the intention of pinning the enemy and defeating them in battle and mostly the purpose is not to destroy the country you want to end up ruling (although my oft used phrase "We didn't do that in England, it's what France is for" isn't repeated). So, yes, I'm good with the analysis overall.

Alas for me in my immediate circle of wargaming friends we don't really do this type of game, and I don't know when I'm going to find the time to play it either. Hopefully I will be able to work things out and fit it in somehow.

Reflecting on the development process, what was refreshing was discussing the period with people who don't have so much skin in the game. In England people interested in the period normally pick sides quickly, becoming Yorkists or Lancastrians, or even more specifically Ricardians. We all, whether we realise it or not, will have some memory of what we think happened whether from long ago lessons half forgot, or having another Phillipa Gregory historical drama in the background on the telly. To other cultures it is almost less emotional and more analytical, with less baggage being brought to the table. The seemingly odd choice of having a Spaniard design a game on something so uniquely English looks like a really solid decision.

Let's see how it goes, although I suspect there may be some flack coming from a couple of the comments on the game page on GMT:

"Please do not inflict several instances of inaccurate heraldry upon what looks to be an otherwise excellent design." (How I hate heraldry obsessives. Get over it. People changed their arms due to circumstances)

"The Great North Road from London goes via St Albans to Peterborough. Nobody would go via Northampton" (Well, the GNR goes via Hatfield for a start. There are anyway, two North/South routes and the one via Northampton is why we have two major battles in the county.)

Honestly, you can't please everyone one. Especially when it comes to heraldry.