Nevsky: Teutons and Rus in Collision is the first volume in Volko’s intended Levy & Campaign Series covering various medieval and perhaps other pre-industrial conflicts at the operational level. Readers have asked for a closer look at the mechanics in the new series, so we answer that call to arms here with the first installment from Volko of Nevsky gameplay, blow by blow, from the volume’s full-length scenario, “Crusade on Novgorod”. … (Note that all art shown here is playtest not final, and all particulars discussed remain provisional as development and testing continue.)
Per the name of the series, play in Nevsky proceeds through alternating “Levy” and “Campaign”, each pair of segments representing a period of 40 days—a traditional duration of basic feudal military obligation. In Part 1 of our detailed survey of the game’s mechanics, we begin with the Levy at the outset of the full scenario, one of six scenarios in the game. “Crusade on Novgorod” played to its conclusion would cover the entire war between Livonian Germans and the Kingdom of Denmark on the one side against Novgorod Rus on the other, from the Teutonic lunge at Novgorod’s ally Pskov in the Summer of 1240 to Aleksandr Nevsky’s famous, culminating victory in the Battle of the Ice in early April 1242.
Setup
We begin by setting up for the first 40 days of Summer 1240, with just a handful of Lords Mustered on either side and the remainder on the Feudal Calendar, awaiting Levy. …
The map in the middle shows Danish Estonia in the northwest, Crusader Livonia south of that, and Novgorodan Rus to the east. The map style will look familiar to anyone who has played on a point-to-point wargame map.
Wood cylinder game pieces on the map show that two Teuton Lords have Mustered to press eastward against Rus—Bishop Hermann of Dorpat and his Russian brother-in-law Yaroslav, an exiled Prince of Pskov. (Both sides feature Lords, Vassals, and Forces of several ethnicities, but for simplicity we call everyone on one side “Teuton” and on the other “Russian”.) On the far side of Lake Peipus, pro-Novgorod Gavrilo of Pskov will ready the Russian defense. The numerals on the pieces show each Lord’s Command rating: the number of actions that he will be able to take on each of his Command cards during Campaign.
Looking back at the previous image, we see west and east of the map (so at the Teutonic and Russian players’ positions, respectively) one mat for each of these Mustered Lords, holding their Forces, Assets, and other information. North of the map we see the Feudal Calendar that governs the Service of the various Teuton and Russian Lords over the course of the conflict. Let’s have a closer look at each of these, beginning with the Calendar.
Numbered Calendar boxes represent a series of 40-day periods serving as game turns, each comprising a Levy and a Campaign. Two such 40-day periods make up a Season. The round brown “Levy” marker in 40-Days box “1” shows that we are at the beginning of Summer, 1240.
In box “1” we also see several Lord cylinders: these are Lords Ready to Muster (Teutons in black, Russians in white), as indicated by their position at (or left of) the Levy marker. Contrast that with two other Lord cylinders that are further away along the Calendar, in box “5”: these are the Russian Lords Aleksandr and his brother Andrey. They are not yet Ready (as they and their father, the Grand Prince of Vladimir-Suzdal, are estranged from Novgorod’s nobles after the latter’s exile of Aleksandr).
We also see, in boxes “2” and “4”, a total of three rectangular markers corresponding to the three currently Mustered Lords: these “Service” markers show the current limit of Service of each Lord. When the Levy (turn) marker reaches a Lord’s Service marker, the Lord will Disband—he will pack up and go home! The numerals on the Service markers are reminders of that Lord’s Service rating, in 40-day periods. Yaroslav with a rating of “2” is not as willing to serve as long as Gavrilo and Hermann rated at “4”. That is the reason that the latter two set up with the Service limit further in the future on the Calendar than that of Yaroslav.
As you may have guessed, not only does the turn marker advance over time, but these Service markers and Lord cylinders also can slide left and right on the Calendar, as various circumstances influence the various Lords’ willingness to fight. So the Calendar will enable us to track and manage how the feudal system and specific events in the Campaign affect the Levy of the key lords (and, with an advanced rule, all their Vassals) and their Service over time. Enable a Lord to obtain Loot by Ravaging enemy territory, or just pay him Coin, and he will Serve longer. Allow his Forces to go without Provender, or to suffer a defeat in Battle, and he will Disband even short of his original obligation to you!
Two other details to note on our Calendar: First, Teuton (black) and Russian (white) circular Victory points markers record who is winning so far: the black marker just off the left edge shows that the Teutons start the war with 0 VP; the Russians start at 3 (representing the independence that Novgorod’s nobles have just demonstrated by kicking Aleksandr out). Second, the Calendar reminds us of Seasonal effects printed at top and bottom: varying numbers of Command cards to be played in each Campaign of that Season; and which Transport can be used. These aspects will become important once we go on Campaign.
But first, let’s get to know our Campaigning Lords a bit more closely. To do that, we want to inspect those mats, that detail each Lord’s characteristics and what is located at his cylinder’s Locale on the map. Let’s start with the two Lords Mustered on the Teutonic side, Hermann and Yaroslav….
On their mats we see, at the upper right for example, that Lord’s ratings. We have already considered Service. “Fealty” refers to the die shown: a roll of that number or less will result in the Lord answering another Lord’s Levy to Serve. “Lordship” is the number of actions that the Lord can take during Levy (as we shall soon carry out). And “Command” is the number of actions that the Lord can take each time his Command card comes up during Campaign.
Beneath the Lords’ names we see their Mustered Forces: each wood piece is a unit of either Horse (wedge) or Foot (bar). Metallic painted pieces are Armored units. For example, Yaroslav has one unit of Armored Knights (silver wedge), one Unarmored Light Cavalry (brown wedge), and one Armored Men-at-Arms unit (steel bar).
At bottom, a combined “Assets & Vassals” box displays the Lord’s holdings on Campaign of Coin, Provender, and Transport (here, markers on the left of each box) and his Ready Vassals (Service markers to the right). Vassal will Muster additional Forces for the Lord as shown on their markers, as we shall demonstrate during the forthcoming Levy.
Below for comparison to the Teutons is the mat of Gavrilo, the Russian side’s defender of Pskov. As an aside, during setup the players already had a decision to make: most Lords begin with a small number of “Household” Transport of their choice already Levied—Carts, Sleds, Boats, or (for certain Lords only) Ships.
Transport both gathers and helps move Provender, which in turn represents the food, fodder, and other sundries on which a medieval army marches and fights. On the mats above and below, we see that the players opted for Carts in all cases, usable in the upcoming Campaign Season, and perhaps with an eye toward the land route between the Teutonic Lords’ Seats and their likely target of Pskov.
Levy – Events
Having set up the scenario, we commence the first Levy by drawing two Events each side (as with almost everything in the game—Teutons first, Russians second). Each side has its own “Arts of War” deck that doubles as an Event deck and a store of Capabilities that that side might select for Levy. Drawing Events now, we will pay attention only to the top half of each card drawn, where the Events appear. Here is the Teuton draw:
First up is Pope Gregory: the Event text refers to the Teutonic Lords Andreas and Rudolf, either of who, if on map, would get to Levy Summer Crusaders now. Neither is on map (both their cylinders are on the Calendar, awaiting their Muster). So Pope Gregory does not apply and is discarded back into the Arts of War deck without effect: for now, no Summer Crusaders show up.
Note the coat-of-arms symbols at the left edge of the Pope Gregory event. These symbols provide a reminder of which Lords the Event applies to, if there is any restriction: in this case, Andreas and Rudolf. As you play, you will find that these coats of arms become very familiar, instant heralds of which Lord is which.
The Teutons’ second Event, Ford, says “Hold” in bold-italic. The Teutonic player holds the card, hidden from the Russian player, until used. The Event will not apply until the Russians attack in a non-Winter Battle—at which point the Teuton player will have the option to play the Event or not.
Consider now the Capabilities on the bottom half of each card: Crusade has returned to the deck; but this Crossbowmen Capability is for a time at least unavailable to be Levied, because the Teutons are holding the Event. With the potential advantage that the Teutonic player receives in some future Battle, there is a cost in denied access to more Crossbowmen. This was simply a matter of fate. The cost is small, though, because there are other Crossbowmen at hand (other Crossbowmen cards in the deck) and, as we shall see, these specialists would anyway first have to be obtained at the cost of something else.
Here is the Russian Event draw: “Valdemar” and “No Event”. No Event is self-explanatory: three such cards are in each Arts of War deck to make Event draws less predictable and to prevent players from overly engineering (via Levy of Capability cards) which Events they will receive. Valdemar refers to the Calendar, so let’s return there….
The Valdemar Event text tells the Russian player to shift either Knut & Abel (the Teutonic Lord cylinder with the white-cross-on-red coat of arms) or that Service marker by 1 box. Knut & Abel—Danish royal princes who might fight in the Baltic conflict—are not yet Mustered, so they are on the Calendar and their Service marker is not. The Russian player shifts the Knut & Abel cylinder by one box forward: this is the direction that is advantageous to the Russians, because it delays the Danes’ possible arrival.
The Valdemar Event further instructs “no Muster of or by” Knut & Abel for this Levy. That is, even if the Knut & Abel cylinder shifted again to Ready them, they could not be selected to Muster. And, if they happened to be already on the map instead of on the Calendar, they could not participate in this Levy’s “Muster” phase to Levy anyone or anything else themselves. The bold-italic “This Levy” in the Event text also means that the card will stay out for this Levy segment, so the Raiders Capability on the same card will not be available for a time: a small hindrance to the Russians, similar to the Crossbowmen case discussed above.
After drawing Events, the Levy segment provides an opportunity to pay Lords to extend their Service (as we considered above) and then the requirement to Disband Lords whose Service time is up as well as an option to Disband Lords early (for example, if they have been badly worn on Campaign and would benefit from re-Muster later). None of that is either applicable or attractive here at the very beginning of the scenario. So let’s proceed to the meat of the Levy segment, the Muster phase.
Levy – Muster
Each Lord on Friendly ground (Teutons then Russians) now gets a number of actions up to his “Lordship” rating to Levy additional resources for the coming Campaign.
Lordship represents that Lord’s wherewithal within the feudal system to mobilize resources for war. In any order or combination, each Levy action may either:
(a) attempt to Muster another Ready Lord of equal or lower Service (rolling against that Lord’s Fealty rating), OR
(b) automatically Muster a Ready Vassal to add his Forces to the Lord’s mat, OR
(c) add one Transport Asset, OR
(d) convert all that Lord’s Sleds to Carts (or vice versa—the same draft teams are re‑hitching to new vehicles), OR
(e) add one Capability card (to a maximum of two cards attached to each Lord, plus general Capabilities up to the side’s total number of Mustered Lords).
The Teutons begin with Hermann, who has Lordship of “3” (see the upper right of his mat, shown earlier in this post and further below). The player could expend all of Hermann’s actions on the same kind of resource. But instead the player mixes it up—Hermann uses his 3 Levy actions to:
- Acquire one Capability, plus
- Muster one Vassal, plus
- Add one Transport.
To acquire a Capability for Herman, the Teuton player simply looks through the Teutonic Arts of War deck to pick out what is desired, being careful to check the coat-of-arms symbols to ensure that Hermann is able to Levy that specific card.
The player chooses Converts—a Capability that will make Hermann faster on the March. There are two copies in the deck, so the player selects the one bearing the Event (on the top half of the card) that seems less interesting (since that Event will herewith be out of the draw deck). The player is hoping to make use of Vodian Treachery in the upcoming Teutonic offensive, so leaves that copy of Converts in the deck and provides Hermann the other.
Converts text says “This Lord” in bold-italic: that indicates that Capability will affect the Levying Lord only. (Other types of Capabilities may help the entire Teutonic or Russian side.) The player provides Hermann the Converts Capability by tucking the card under the bottom of Hermann’ mat, so that the Capability shows, while the now out-of-play Event text does not (see the image of Hermann’s mat below). Room remains for a second “This Lord” Capability at Hermann’s mat, perhaps to be added during some future Levy.
Next, the player notes that Converts will require some Light Horse to be of full use to Hermann and that Hermann has no such unit in his starting Retinue. So Hermann’s second of three Levy actions will Muster one of his Vassals: Ugaunian Auxiliaries will provide a Light House unit plus a unit of Militia Foot to Hermann’s army. The player slide the Vassal’s Service marker forward on Hermann’s mat from the “Assets & Vassals” area to the “Forces” area and places one Light Horse and one Militia piece on it (see image below).
Finally, realizing the Hermann will have to Feed this expanded army and will need more Transport if it is to move quickly, the player uses Hermann’s last Levy action to add a second detachment of Carts, placing a “Cart” marker with Hermann’s Assets.
Yaroslav is next up for the Teutons’ Muster phase. The less powerful Yaroslav has a Lordship rating of only “1”. The player chooses to continue seeing to the feeding of the Teutonic army in the field by having Yaroslav also add a second Cart marker to his Assets (below), so concluding the Teutons’ current Muster.
The Russian player’s turn: Gavrilo uses his 3 Lordship to Levy two of his Vassals to provide a total of four additional Foot units, plus give his now sizable infantry army Streltsy Archery Capability (see Gavrilo’s mat in the image below).
Note that the players could speed play by carrying out their Musters simultaneously, with the Russian player delaying any final decisions only if interested in reacting to anything that the Teutons had Levied. Also, Nevsky [link] includes a rules option to hide each side’s mats behind a screen, so that players will not exactly know what each enemy Lord has Levied until meeting him in combat.
The Russian player should be concerned that the Russian side, with only a single Lord in play, is vulnerable to a sudden end to the whole war: if either side starts a Campaign with no Lord left on the map, the other side immediately wins, regardless of victory points. Gavrilo could have used one or more Levy actions try to Muster a second Lord to back him up. But the player has decided not to risk a failed Fealty die roll and—as we shall see momentarily—will instead provide that backup via a surer “Call to Arms” out of Novgorod….
Levy – Call to Arms
After all on-map Lords have had their chance to Muster military resources for themselves, each side’s higher political authorities may intervene to reinforce this for future Campaigns. Because the nature of the authority for the Teutons and Russians is quite dissimilar, the way the game provides this Call to Arms differs for each player.
The Teutonic higher political authority is the Pope; on this Latin frontier distant from Rome, this power is held in the person of his Legate, William of Modena. His legation is arranged via a Capability card of the same name, he comes and goes, and his ability to spur Teutonic Lords on in their crusade is mostly limited to his immediate Locale as shown in the game by a purple pawn. William of Modena is not in effect at the moment, so the Teutons do not participate in a Call to Arms this 40 Days.
The Russian Call to Arms issues from the city council of Novgorod, in Russian, the veche. In the game, the Veche has a holding box at the corner of the map (see the lower right of the game board in the first image of this post). The Veche box may hold some Coin as well as victory point markers. The Coin represents Novgorod’s war chest derived from its wealth as a key center along Baltic-to-Black-Sea and Caspian-Sea trade routes; it is available for Pay of any Russian Lords at various times during the game’s sequence, as needed to keep Russian Lords in the fight. The VP markers there (the same that also are used on the map to show VP for Conquered Locales) represent the degree to which Novgorod’s nobles are maintaining their independence from potentially tyrannical Lords, and especially from the Grand Prince of Vladimir-Suzdal and his sons Aleksandr and Andrey.
During Call to Arms, the Veche may either expend VP to invite Russian Lords to greater efforts on the city’s behalf. Or—if Aleksandr or Andrey are Ready to serve—they may earn VP by declining their help. Recall that Aleksandr or Andrey are not yet Ready: as we saw in the setup at the outset, their cylinders are waiting ahead on the Calendar, in box “5”, so the latter option does not yet apply.
The Russian player may, however, expend one of the three VP markers already in the Veche box to undertake one of the following actions:
(a) automatically Muster any one Ready Lord (without having to roll his Fealty), OR
(b) slide a Lord’s cylinder on the Calendar by one box left—so as to Ready him sooner, OR
(c) enable a Lord on the map at Novgorod immediately to use his Lordship for Levy actions (in effect, an extra Muster phase for that Lord).
There is no Lord at Novgorod right now, and the player is less interested in encouraging the distant Aleksandr or Andrey. But this is the Russians’ opportunity to protect themselves against defeat should disaster befall Gavrilo, so close at Pskov to the border and the Teutonic threat.
The Veche expends 1 VP to Muster a Ready Lord, selecting Domash of Novgorod (see image below). The player takes the Domash cylinder from the Calendar and places it at Domash’s Seat (Novgorod, as shown by Domash’s coat of arms at that Locale). The player then grab’s Domash’s mat, sets it next to Gavrilo’s, and loads the mat up with Domash’s starting Forces, Assets (choosing three Carts and a Ship), and Vassal markers.
On the Calendar, the white circular VP marker slides down by one box, from “3” to “2”, to record the expenditure of the VP marker from the Veche box.
The Russian Call to Arms to Domash completes the phase and with it the Levy segment of the first 40 Days. Player flips the “Levy” marker on the Calendar over to “Campaign” (in the same box “1”) and proceed with Campaigning – to which we will turn in similar detail in Part 2!
Volko, I am highly intrigued by this Levy & Campaign system – I’ll admit that I know nothing about this period – but that has not dampened my excitement to try it. My head is already spinning from daydreaming about other campaigns and periods this system could work with… Could you see it being applied without much difficulty to three or more sided conflicts ?(coalitions or non-team play) I was mentally applying what you’ve illustrated here to the Battle of Red Cliff, Three Kingdoms China… Regardless I am heartily looking forward to Vol. 1
Neil —
Thanks! Fascinating, I have not at all thought about a 3-way conflict… Does the China campaign that you have in mind have simultaneous operations going on by each of multiple sides, or is it a matter of two coalitions?
The campaign in NEVSKY (like much feudal warfare) was in effect a war of coalitions. For example, the Sword Brethren had been warring on other Latin powers in Livonia and Estonia until an alliance formed in the late 1230s that soon went on campaign against the Russians (who had naturally been battling one another)….
— Volko
Hi Volko,
The Three Kingdoms period was a true tripartite conflict politically, with most of the era seeing temporary and shifting alliances by the perceived ‘weaker’ two powers against the current dominant third. So in effect, most battles were two-sided affairs (Red Cliffs saw the dominant Wei power under Cao Cao at odds with the middling Wu state under Sun Quan, allied with the weakened Shu under Liu Bei). That being said, several times over the period would see alliances break mid-campaign or battles started alongside of false friends…
The system of levy and vassals, supply and provender would work well within the framework of the period I think. Might be an interesting fit.
Neil,
It sounds like a most usual case of shifting alliances within the span of an operational campaign! I can’t see why Levy&Campaign could not be adapted to cover something like that.
What was the span of time (months, years,…?) over which alliances broke and reformed mid-campaign?
Volko
Hi Volko,
While the conflicts of the Three Kingdoms era lasted over a half century until the destruction of Shu Han and the Eastern Wu by Cao Wei (in turn usurped from within by the Jin) most operational campaigns were short (months to a year and a half) there are several instances of alliances crumbling mid-campaign as one power or the another smelled opportunity or fell prey to the offers of the dominant power. This is especially true of the ‘smaller’ powers (at least a half dozen during the period in the conflict who jockeyed for position or curried favour with one of the big three. Regardless of the three player option within this framework, I think the logistics of the campaigns of the period (relying on both regular ‘provincial’ troops and militias of limited service and/or abilities; problems of supply; neutral or indifferent junior powers who may support either side with enough inducement, etc.) might fit quite well with L&C.
Hi Neil,
Yes, that sure does sound like one or more of the several months to year-and-a-half campaigns would fit the L&C system well.
I sure would love to see someone design that! (I feel that I have several years of medieval Europe already on the docket for myself….)
Cheers!
Volko
Tell Neil I share his enthusiasm for the Three Kingdoms of China period. Though I thought it would be good as a COIN game, I am leaning toward a COIN hybrid with some components of L&C. Good thinking…
Mr. Ruhnke,
Do you think a Lewis & Clark game (Missouri River and Snake/Columbia River, to the Pacific and back) would work under this Levy/Campaign system, or would it play better under the COIN system of play?
The Corps of Discovery (platoon size force), with contracted civilians (boatmen and trappers/guides) would be a static element, whilst all the various friendly/unfriendly indian tribes can be the 2nd (or even 3rd) element from which conflict arise. They were very lucky, sustaining only 1 death and receiving only one combat (flesh) wound , i’ve always wondered What if they had not been so lucky.
Also, how about a COIN game featuring the Philippine insurrection of the early 1900s, arguably our first foray into systematic counter-insurgency (as oppose to the less systematic stuff of the indian Wars whilst pushing West). The turn coat phenomena of black-Americans is of special interest to me, ie. David Fagen.
not unlike communist sympathizers (to spies) during the Cold War, even Muslim converts under GWOT, but black-Americans’ special brand of counter-insurgency (both as turn coats, insurgency and as American agents , Buffalo soldiers affecting COIN is less studied). Looking forward to People Power, but please consider re-visiting the Philippine insurrection of the 1900s.
To re-cap, 1) Lewis & Clark expedition, 2) Philippine insurrection of the 1900s.
p.s. ~ wooden pieces look very elegant and refine, we’re not playing Risk or A&A after all, lol!
Hi Sarah!
Applying a logistical wargame system to Lewis & Clark is such a cool idea! I suppose that it could be two-player, with one player running whatever native Americans are seeking to thwart the expedition. But the first thing I think of is a solitaire or coop game, in which the game system is taking on the roles of local tribes of varying posture toward the Corps of Discovery.
One would then have to put the main design effort into that game system running the tribes. But one could throw out or strictly streamline all the medieval combat related elements of the Levy & Campaign system.
It would be “L&C does “L&C”!
Regarding 1900s Philippines, there is this from my friend and a great designer of games on “brush war” topics: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/115128/amigos-and-insurrectos-philippine-insurrection-189
I am unlikely to do any further COIN Series designs myself. But perhaps People Power designer Ken Tee could be persuaded to do a followup volume or expansion on the 1900s insurgency??
Best regards,
Volko
Persuaded? At this time, I am solely devoting all my “design time” in getting People Power ready for publication. Afterwards, depending on my inclination and audience input as well as interest (on the topics I discussed with you before); my next project (COIN/ COIN hybrid) will either involve the Reconstruction, the Three Kingdoms of China, the Sengoku Jidai or Warring States period of Japan. All are in the initial stages of research as well as some notes here and there as well as some ideas I’ve shared with a few. Then there is also my bliss (inside joke) to consider…
Thank you , Mr. Ruhnke!
I’d love to see a Lewis & Clark game. Also , thanks, will look into ‘Amigos & Insurrectos’. But I hope Michael Tee does (if you can forward the idea) look into the 1900s COIN game possibility. I did read his difficulty in connecting Luzon/Visayas with the stuff going on in Mindanao for People Power, so maybe (just an idea) why not divvy up the 3 regions for the 1900s Philippines— the US military had more autonomy in Mindanao, ie. with the Moros but also in east side of the island and why Davao city can be rightly claimed as an American settlement– just as much as Virginia City, Nevada was (wild west type boom town). Or why not just focus strictly in Mindanao for 1900s Philippine COIN? just a thought… i’ve always wondered what happened to the bulk firearms bought by the Moro contingent at the St. Louis World Fair of 1904.
But , more specific to this current blog, as I read the rule play for Nevsky and this L&C system , the film “Spy Game” w/ Robert Redford and Brad Pitt comes to mind. Have you seen that film? Basically, Redford’s in CIA HQ maneuvering thru the bureaucratic halls, to get Operation Dinner Out going. Reading this blog, I’m convinced a hybrid COIN and L&C system might be interesting in creating a game like the film “Spy Game” (just replace Operation Dinner Out w/ other now public operations) with maneuvering thru various fiefdoms/mandarins in HQ, then carrying out operations in the field, hence the applications to the Levy & Campaign system. Does that make sense? or am I reading the process wrongly. It is applicable , correct? What do you think?
Can’t wait to play Nevsky and go hands on with the L&C system. Thanks again!
Hi Sarah, you bet, I will definitely ensure that Ken Tee reads this!
I have not seen that film, actually, so I will take your word for it. I could certainly see COIN applied to bureaucratic maneuvering. Many design issues to be addressed in creating a COIN-L&C hybrid (whatever the topic!). These are certainly creative ideas for applications! Best, Volko
Hey Volko,
I’ve read the posts and you’ve given me some ideas already. I’d love to exchange them with Sarah (and Neil as well) on the topics they raised in connection to COIN as well as the latest L&C series.
Sincerely,
Ken
Hi there Sarah,
I’ve read all your posts to Volko regarding the Philippines circa 1900s as well as others in regards to People Power.
The “difficulty” that you surmised in your post did was not about the geography itself but that the Moros (as Volko stated during a live playtest years ago) did not have any military or political weight to affect events in Luzon and the Visayas so were isolated and were on the defensive for most of the conflicts which involved it. The map in the link shows the situation quite well.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Philippines_Christian-Muslim_Division_Map_%28by_majority%29.png
Regarding the possibility in shifting a COIN game in the Philippines to the 1900s and the American occupation. There’s definitely an open field for that. Another game that encapsulates that is Bolos and Krags which is designed by Terence Co and published by Fiery Dragon. I have to ask thought, why only 3 regions? And I must add that the only reason why the US military had more autonomy in Mindanao is that the Philippine Revolutionary Army had already surrendered therefore freeing more forces and resources for the Mindanao campaigns.
Oh and I came across this which may hold some answers to your query on the Moro firearms at the St. Louis 1904 World’s Fair.
https://www.buybooksontheweb.com/peek.aspx?id=1988
http://www.morolandhistory.com/05.pg-kris-vs-krag/2.moro_firearms.htm
I did see Spy Game but it has been awhile. All I remember is that Redford was mentoring Pitt while the latter ended up getting imprisoned while saving his lover but the former was able to get him out. “Never forget what’s in front of you.”
Sincerely,
Ken
Good lord! Replace those weird wooden pieces with period correct plastic miniatures!
Heh, no such thing as period correct plastic for the 1240s!
Maybe the comment was in jest, but I actually think the wooden pieces work really well, its like a birds eye view of the army formation, with metalic for plate armour and tan for leather or other.
Minatures would also serve no gameplay purpose, just sat on a card.
The more I hear about this, the more I cant wait to try out the system!
Thanks Joseph (naturally, just the reaction that I love to read!). Cheers, Volko
Very interesting system! Love the heraldry. Glad to see a historical setting I know a little about ( feudal) but one I want to learn more about (Baltic states and Russia). Mechanics cover a lot but seem very straightforward. I like the calendar boxes for holding lords and service, but the VP markers seem out of place on the calendar. I’d prefer a small, separate VP track. The lords’ mats are awesome and provide so much well organized information. I look forward to reading about the battle system too to see how the various cavalry and infantry, light and armored, will fight.
Hi Rich,
I thought that I posted a reply here, but don’t see it now (maybe I put it in the wrong place).
Thanks for all that useful feedback! I hear you re the VP markers, but a challenge is that every square inch of the 17×22 board is taken up, and I don’t want to reduce room on either the map or the overall calendar size. So what I have done in response to your observation is to designate one of the two circle spaces on the calendar–next to each box numeral–as the Victory circle to hold the VP markers; the other circle is sufficient along for the turn marker (“Levy/Campaign”). I think that will help.
Please stay tuned for Parts 2 through 5 of the Replay: they will give great detail about how the various units fight!
Thanks!
Volko
I understand the space constraints. I think your solution is very good. The tokens floating around in the larger boxes seemed to mix them up too much and potentially be confusing. Having them in a set area consistently and next to the number that applies, is a reasonable solution. Thanks for listening.
Hi Volko,
Being the fan and happy owner of your other designs – Labyrinth and Falling Sky – i’ll wait for Nevsky more than any others. The reason is that I was born in Pskov – the center of action in Nevsky. It’s really a very undercovered period in wargames and so nice to know that such a great designer is taking on it.
Thanks and looking forward to new material on the game.
Sincerely, Alexander
Greetings Alexander!
That is so cool for me to read that a native of Pskov may end up playing this game! I had the good fortune to visit Pskov as a tourist in 1994, and I was so taken with the retored military architecture of the kremlin there. Of course, I took many photos, and now I have used some of them in my playtest materials for Nevsky. I hope to have imagery of Pskov front and center in the final production art for the game. It is such an evocative and beautiful place on earth.
Also glad to read that you have enjoyed Labyrinth and Falling Sky. Thank you!
Best regards, Volko
Hi Volko,
Wow, amazing to hear you visited Pskov. Its often overlooked by tourists and overshadowed by St. Petersburg’s beauty that is just some 4 hours drive away (and it’s where I live now). But it has a lot of history saved and restored to see, for sure.
I forgot to ask in the previous mail: what made you choose this topic that I’m sure is quite exotic for western gamers? Was it that visit to Pskov you couldnt forget? 🙂 Or probably some books on the topic?
P.S. If you need some more pictures of Pskov’s old towers or churches,it would be a great pleasure for me to send you them. I plan to visit my town in June and can hunt for some pics without modern infrastructure in the frame.
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for asking about my choice of topic: in part, it is because I hope that it will be exotic for much of GMT’s audience.
— I certainly was inspired by my 1990s tour of Russian historical sites that included Pskov, but also StPetersburg, Ivangorod, Novgorod, and the Golden Ring.
— Also, a performing arts park near my home often shows big-screen films with live orchestral and choral performance of the score. The first such performance that I saw there was Eisenstein/Prokofiev’s “Nevsky”, digitally restored with full choir, soloist, symphony…that blew me away.
— Finally, my father is East Prussian, and I have wanted to do something with a Baltic flavor.
More generally, I want the Levy & Campaign Series to present some aspects of cultural clash (not just this or that feudal baron fighting in the middle of the Empire). So my intent is to tour the four corners of medieval Europe, starting with Russia/Linovia, then Scotland, Spain, Holy Land.
Each volume then should include at some asymmetry–not as stark as in, say, Labyrinth, but some cultural contrast in the feudal structures as well as the military practice. And medieval Russians versus Teutonic knights offers that.
Regarding images of medieval Pskov, thank you! Absolutely do not do anything extra on my behalf, but I would love to see anything medieval that you may happen to have. Perhaps via Twitter? I’m @Volko26.
Best regards, Volko
Can you recommend some good books on this subject?
Hi Rich, here is what I have as of now as a selection of references useful for the game:
Warfare on the Baltic Frontier
Christiansen, Eric. The Northern Crusades (1997 Second Edition of 1980 original).
Jensen, Kurt Villads, “Bigger and Better: Arms Race and Change in War Technology in the Baltic in the Early Thirteenth Century”, and Mäesalu, Ain, “Mechanical Artillery and Warfare in the Chronicle of Henry”, in Crusading and Chronicle Writing on the Medieval Baltic Frontier—A Companion to the Chronicle of Henry of Livonia (2011).
Nicolle, David. Lake Peipus 1242—Battle of the Ice (1996).
Selart, Anti. Livonia, Rus’ and the Baltic Crusades in the Thirteenth Century (2007).
Urban, William. The Teutonic Knights—A Military History (2003).
Medieval Russia
Fennell, John. The Crisis of Medieval Russia 1200-1304 (1983).
Nicolle, David and Angus McBride. Armies of Medieval Russia 750-1250 (1999).
Paul, Michael C. “Secular Power and the Archbishops of Novgorod before the Muscovite Conquest”, in Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, Vol8, No2 (2007).
General Medieval Military Operations
Delbrück, Hans. History of the Art of War within the Framework of Political History, Volume III—Medieval Warfare (1923).
France, John. Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300 (1999).
Keen, Maurice, ed. Medieval Warfare—A History (1999).
Oman, C.W.C. The Art of War in the Middle Ages (1885).
Verbruggen, J.F. The Art of Warfare in Western Europe During the Middle Ages (1997).
-Volko
Thanks! Much appreciated. I’m familiar with most of the titles you list under “General Medieval Military Operations”, especially Keen and Oman. I found a copy of Urban’s The Teutonic Knights – A Military History and was debating whether it was worth getting, but since it’s on your list, I will buy it. Selart’s book sounds good and will probably be next. Thanks again.
Urban’s book is good, but more focused on Prussia than Livonia, unfortunately for our purpose here. Selart is excellent if a touch polemical in downplaying the importance of Teuton-Russian conflict.
Thank you once more for the helpful feedback on the victory markers!
Best, Volko
This looks very cool Volko on a topic that has not gotten any serious consideration in the past. I look forward to you running me through it the next time I see you.
Mark
Thank you Mark. THAT would be a very great pleasure for me!!
Best, vfr