Clash of Monarchs

Reading this session report on BGG...

www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1378449/cro...side-1st-mn-bootcamp

...really reminded me of how much I love Clash of Monarchs. I think it's my highest rated wargame still. A real GMT gem that didn't get much press. Very playable and satisfying, the campaign plays quite well and you can actually finish it. Someday I'd love to get back to it, but I'm such a lazy ass with VASSAL that I know I'd never get through a campaign that wasn't in person. Map does suck for in person play a bit, but it's not impossible.

Any of you ever play much of this? I know it looks super intimidating but it isn't too bad.

If you want to give a try over VASSAL, I'm always game.

I've heard you talk this up for a long time, but it would be a massive shelf toad for me. (and yet I still keep looking at it...)

I own it but have never played it.

Never played, don't own. I'm a fan of Card Driven War game. I also love 18th century history and warfare. It's my favorite time period but most of the reviews I've read are pretty mixed. So Sax, what makes Clash of Monarch so awesome?

Glad you asked...

boardgamegeek.com/thread/450717/long-slo...etter-clash-monarchs

I think that expresses most of how I feel. I think, ultimately, that even though it's a big, big game, the basic movement and battle mechanics are rock solid---and cleverly balanced.

I played a couple times and only got a few turns in, but I *really* liked what I saw.

What prevents CoM from reaching the table is basically a combo of game length and rules. The full campaign is probably a 20 hour affair , easily the longest of any CDG, all others being basically single sitting games. While there are shorter scenarios, players lose the long game aspect off the off map skirmish/raiding which is quite clever. The rules are somewhat complex, but from memory they did seem well organized, and I've ever heard grousing from more experienced players ( whose opinions I trust ) about them. I can play A LOT of my collection with only a brief glance at rules, but this one would require a pretty thorough review of the rules before sitting down to play.

The appeal is several fold. First, its a very interesting situation. Second, while the game uses cards, the game had kind of a hex and counter feel as well - it didn't feel as abstracted as other CDGs - you'lll always have something to do, unlike some other CDG where a hand of shitty cards has you spinning your wheels.


The map is not the show stopper some claim it to be. I've seen worse, I've also seen much better. Its pretty much a poster child though for how oblivious Mark Mahaffey is to feedback and game ergonomics, something he's sadly become somewhat known for. He's got talent, he just needs to be willing to listen and be reigned in from time to time.

I've come tantalizingly close to setting up matches at conventions but it doesn't pan out. One of these days. Its somewhat of a shelf toad, but one I won't unload. Someday...

I'd really like to see this designe do another CDG; the genre seems to have dramatically slowed down as of late, but could use another meaty game ( albeit one with a developer, unlike say Triumph of Chaos ) .

Actually, Bob Kalinowski is doing another CDG. On the War of Austrian Succession, which is the precursor to the 7 year war.

Sounds like there's some interest... I think it's a bummer that the designer made a bunch of post-release changes to the map and to iron out some cheese. It makes the game seem half baked when the rules as written in the box are very, very good. Besides the diplomacy rules, I think COM feels pretty well developed.

I have this weird love of the French position in Clash of Monarchs partly because it is so comically frustrating and annoying. When you do finally put a beat down on Ferdinand (and you certainly can if you do it right) it is like the most satisfying thing in the entire world. In one game I think I got into like 3-4 losing battles in a row attacking Ferdinand until I finally crushed his pathetic army with the French deluge. A good gaming memory.

Wow, that review was from 2009. Nice review. I like comparison to Hannibal and other CDG to get a feel for the game play. I like the fact that it's 2-4 player game. Besides Successors there's not many 3 player CDG. I guess CoM will go on my list of most likely game I'll purchase but never play. I think I'm much more likely to play War of the Ring, Maria or Friedrich if I had 3 players and 4+ hours. Luckily, I can probably get a used copy for $30-40.

You should be able to get it for cheap. FWIW, I think you can sell it for the same or more pretty easily. It's out of print and I SINCERELY doubt that GMT is going to reprint it. May be a game that in a few years goes for some extra cash on ebay or whatever.

I would argue the game is probably best 2 or 3 player rather than 4, the British position can be kind of a no brainer/automatic in some respects. You generally only have one stack of dudes and the best leader, so it's just about activating him to whip the French when you can and giving as much money and things to the Prussians as you can.