Kurmudgeon Krieg, part 1 of many to come ....

Critiques of Koenig Krieg, version 3, 1st edition.

First of all, it is important to note that I am very fond of this game. Version 3 has introduced many ideas, some of which were to clarify the original rules, some of which were made to distinguish between their primary period and Napoleonics, and some of which were created in order to expand the scope of the rules from a purely European theater to the whole world in which Lace Armies were engaged. Thus, a K.K. player can now game Turks versus Persians and Indonesians versus Dutch and so forth.

Again, I like these rules and will cheerfully play them as written with other gamers.
However ...
Very often I have problems with particular sections and passages. The one which amused me the most was the reference to Frederick in which he “arrested” the Silesians when he overran those provinces (I wonder if this was the inspiration for concentration camps? LOL). .
In my pompous opinion, quite a few of these new rules introduced unnecessary complications and moved away from the pristine simplicity of the original.
Secondarily, the guys who put this set together were Australians and sometimes unaware of how their wording would read to Americans.
Thirdly, as a former teacher of English, there are several passages which cause me to cringe.

Indeed, my very first critique will be a grammatical note. In the second paragraph on page three, they wrote “There are .... army lists, a.... battle points system (BPS) for determining the winner of battles and you can now play tournaments.”
First of all, the predicate here is a series, but the series is not done correctly. The first two points are noun phrases and the last is an independent clause. Secondarily, I follow the newer rule in which ALL equivalent items in a series are separated by commas. Hence, “.... winner of battles, and provision for tournament play.” would be one possible (there are several others) correction.
Now things may be done differently still in Australia, so I’ll only comment on the first few and afterwards ignore in this critique ...


Page 4: Series ... should be “Front, Rear, and Flank Zones” Other wise “Rear and Flank” are one item which together are parallel to “Front.”

Page 5:
* One could add a comment that this game is very, very easily adapted to the Marlborough era (War of Spanish Succession) and also with a few amendments to Napoleonic warfare.
* Under “A Battlefield” the idea that the battles were fought in wide open areas primarily applies to Eastern Front engagements ... and ignores the very cluttered nature of conflict along the Rhine, in the Low Countries, and even in the Alpine regions.

Page 6:
* Scale – one inch equals 150 to 200 YARDS??? So you’ve got the smoothbore musket engaging at half a kilometer away??? No, it should be FEET!!

* Basing – I found the statement that basing was “slightly exaggerated” to be an amusing understatement.
* I noticed that Skirmish infantry had bases of half depth ... as I’ve found this to be unstable, I hope you all don’t mind if I stick with the old system.
* Camels and elephants have the same size bases?? How small are the Elephants? LOL
* IMPO: Tribal and Brave basing is an unnecessary complication.
* Commander Basing, is the width given the SIDE of the base or its DIAMETER FROM SIDE TO SIDE???

Page 7: Second column, second paragraph. Insert comma between “...as laid out” and “but all players ...”

Page 8:
* Turn represents “up to half an hour” ??? I thought the default was 15 minutes??
* Rounds – “includes” does not agree with subject, should be “include”.
* Segments — “e.g.” should be followed by a colon “:”. “... action segment (comma) and morale ..”
* Command and Control: — “rallying” and “replacing” are gerunds. “Identify” is not. (And the missing comma ... I know: that is old rule if you all decide to keep it that way).

Page 10:
I’ll need to redo my generals ... but I do have one command base which is two infantry figures ...
I’ll have to rebase them all anyway (sigh).
But ...
* is there any unit which does NOT automatically rally??
* WHY are Army Generals replaced right away while lower formations take three turns???

Page 11:
Are there minimum / maximum sizes for Brigade commanders?

Page 12:
When Army General is attached ... is “-1" check across the board as if dead ... or is that “-1" from the Army General’s rating?

Page 13:
(Close Combat) Initiative: Do the players activate by UNIT or by FORMATION (the book says “formation” ... and I though close combat was by unit?)

Page 14: Note that the “fall back” of a cavalry unit failing to break the bayonets is now 2 inches and not to the start position (of old rules). Yes, I know, cavalry could charge from 2 inches, but it could also charge from one inch, right??