From Roberto Chiavini

The Crusades (SPI)

I've waited for years the occasion to try this famous Richard Berg's
design of his days at sPI. I've heard both good and awful things on this
project, and my overall impression after a few hours spent with it is a
positive one, even if not totally convincing. 

The game suffers from its S&T map and counters limits imposed by the
magazine (a single map and 200 counters), but it's two games in one (the
Third Crusade, the two players scenario – the one this short review is
based on – and the First Crusade, a multiplayer scenario, with several
other rules that are not covered in this review). 

Graphics are good for a game from the mid-Seventies, with larger than
usual hexes (as the cities inside these hexes are an hex by themselves,
facilitating the siege/attrition rules), and counters that represent
mostly leaders. The Crusaders have only leader units with army strength
that is taken in account through an extra sheet, while the Sarecens have
leaders and counters for generic strength points. In the Third Crusade
scenario, leaders have only a combat rating (used for the tactical
matrix – one of the finest innovations of this design), while in the
First Crusade scenario they have also a Guile rating, used in diplomacy.

The game uses simultaneous movement, so the moves must be written by
both players at the start of the turn; this is an annoyance for today
wargamers, and it's probably the aspect that may deter people from
trying this game most than any other rule. But with this rule, it's
possible to reproduce the almost constant instability of the zone of
operations. 

Only the leaders may move, with a movement range of 5 for the Crusaders
and 6 for the Saracens. Movement is stopped by enemy units or zone of
influence and if two enemy stacks enter the same hex, combat is
mandatory or siege is possible (if one of the army is inside a city). 

Combat uses a tactical matrix that may give column modifiers for both
players (and there is even the possibility of no combat), while the CRT
gives percentage of losses for the stacks involved and possibly retreat.

The most interesting aspect of the game is attrition, that is fixed,
based on the size of the army moving (or even staying in place for more
than one turn, other than in a city), and the distance moved (with three
kind of terrains) that expresses a result varying from zero to several
points of loss. Even the siege rules are very good, forcing the besieger
to try an assault, or risking hars losses for attrition. 

There are also naval rules (simple, but effective) and the ever present,
in a Berg's design, Random Event Table, that adds much to the enjoyment
of the game for the historical buffs out there. Victory is based on the
accumulation of VPs, obtained through the control of a dozen or so key
cities on the map. 

The game plays like a sort of Frederick the Great (the SPI/AH game of
the same age), with attrition playing a great part in the strategy of
both armies, combat limited to a few intense battles, with siege
preferred over a possible devastation of an army (and the loss of the
game). 

With a different kind of activation (what of trying to use a chit
activation system for such a design?) and a few other modification to
the possibly too controlled attrition rules, the game seems definitely a
winner (and already as it stands, it's a good addition to your wargames
library) and probably the multiplayer version is even more fun and
addictive. 

I rate the game 7 in a 1-10 scale.