Alan Snider  - Oct 10, 2005 1:15 pm (#10945 Total: 10970)  
On the Playtest Table: Khyber Pass Games' "The Battle of the Little 
Bighorn"; and announcing the "Northern Knights Wargaming Group" 
in Vancouver, Canada with a retail store of it's own at 
http://www.stalag17wargames.com/ 	 

GAMENIGHT (catchup), Sept 30: I have managed to get a bit behind in my
posting of game reports, so I'll take the time to catch up... On Sept
30th, Terence Co and I sat down to give "Crusader Rex" a spin; with
Terence taking the Christians (Franks) and I took the Muslims
(Saracens). 

I decided that I'd head straight to Beaufort, stage for a turn, then go
crashing into Tyre and Beirut on my next turn. This would effectively
split the Christian forces in two, making it easier to deal with them.
This plan worked to perfection. and I was able to take both cities. The
Christians are in no position to do much attacking during the first 2
years of the game, so I did not fear a counterattack. I left 1 unit in
Beaufort on the turn prior to the attack to ensure this would not
happen. 

From the Christian point of view, things began to look bleak, as the
Muslims managed to take much of the port cities in between Acre and
Tripoli. This left Antioch and Jerusalem as the remaining Christian
strongholds, although Acre looked to be a tough nut to crack for awhile.
In my mind, it just made sense to finish a turn with forces in place to
attack in a designated region (within movement limits), then launch the
attack on the following turn in the first 2 card plays. Even better to
rig up a staging turn as the second player by playing a 1 card to gather
troops in a friendly or occupied city and launch the attack the next
turn with the play of a 3 card (first player turn) to ensure there can
be no Christian response to the impending attack. 

The one advantage that the Christians have is the "knights' charge"
which adds to the ability "to hit" in battles. there were a few
occasions in which Terence used this capability to maximum advantage,
and was able to inflict equal or greater losses on the Muslims in
battle. This ensured that in the battle of Triploi, the price was steep
for its' capture. This slowed the Muslim ability to advnce again right
away, as the Muslims only get one replacement per cardplay. 

By the end of 1188, Tripoli was in Muslim hands, and everything but
Antioch in the north as well. As far as coastal/port cities go, the
Chrisitians still held from Acre to Gaza (and Jeruslaem). There was a
excursion in 1189 from Egypt to attempt to take out Gaza, but a well
thought out response from the Christians allowed them to react and
reinforce the battle. The Christians did well to hold onto Gaza and send
the Muslims packing after 2 combat rounds... 

The next thought I had was to use a 3 card to naval move some of the
better Egyptian units up near Antioch, as the Christians were fairly
weak in their defence of that VP city; and the fact that the Muslims
controlled all of the northern ports (except St. Simeon). I thought
about taking that city out prior to my move, but either way the
Christians would have to determine which city they would most vigorously
defend (Antioch or Acre). Terence surprised me by equally spliting
forces betwen the two locations. 

Part way through 1889, the Christians had 2 out of 3 units in both the
German and English reinforcements, so I knew a huge force would arrive
quite soon. The decision that would have to be made would be whether to
be happy with the gains so far, and attempt to defend them for the
victory, or risk losing some troops to further hamper the Christian
comeback by capturing as many winter quarters locations as possible.
This would leave them in a tough situation. 

I managed to take Acre in 1890, but Antioch looked to be impossible to
capture, especially since the Christians were motivated to attack that
year as they could not provision them in winter and would lose tons of
troops. Terence pushed back pretty hard and forged a bit of a perimeter
around Antioch, while at the same time retaking Latakia. This was not
enough, as they lost much during the winter attrition. It is my sense
that denying or funneling late arriving crusader troops into locations
(ports) of your choice is key to the Muslim victory. Even better to take
away winter quarter to let attrition take its' toll. 

While we did not finish the game, we did make it to the end of 1190,
with the Muslims in a lead in cities and the Christians hurt by their
reinforcement rate and ability to find winter quarters. Terence thought
the Muslims looked in a good position for the victory, and he was likely
correct. 

I really have grown to like this game, as it offers plenty of tough
choices and strategic options. At first it seems a bit on the easy side,
but once one gets into the gameplay, then one realizes all the different
play options and subtle strategy contained therein. I particularly liked
how the crusader expeditions are launched from Germany, England, and
France; in that one can see how close the Christian player is getting to
a burst of aid, and the Muslim player must adjust his overall strategy
accordingly. 

I intend to play this game again, if only to try playing the Christians.
They look to be the greater challenge, and must utilize their forces in
a much different way. I imagine there is as much difference between the
2 sides as players experince in Sword of Rome (4 players). I find this
to be a great quality in game; when there is a whole "new" game so to
speak when you change sides; as one gets a entirely different perpective
of the conflict due to the fact that one must approach the war/battle in
such a different way. Crusader Rex is one of the best games I have come
across to have this feature.