For the first game Richard was the Crusaders.
Far a slightly longer read, here is a more in depth AAR from Richard:
After last week's learning game, today we replayed Kingdom of Heaven Scenario 1, The First Crusade swapping sides so each player can play each side.
After last week's learning game, I made the observation that certain event cards can have a significant (possibly game changing) impact on the game. This can give rise to very swingy outcomes. This would normally ruin a lot of games, but given the relatively short playing time I think the best way to look at it is that it gives the game huge re-playability as the "fun" is in the ride not the outcome. Based upon today's games, I think it is fair to say that you really have no idea how things are going to play out. The game is truly brutal in the way it can crush what looks like a game winning move, but more on that later....
The first, First Crusade - No time to waste, Jerusalem is a long way to walk....
Christians: Richard
Muslims: Mark
Playing "On to Jerusalem" as their first card which grants 8 MPs as their first activation, the Crusaders marched across Anatolia and suffered heavily from attrition losing 3 steps, but blasted the Seljuk Emir at Herakleia, killing him and wiping out his army before making a cheeky Surrender request to the Seljuk Castle at Tarsus, which was rebuffed, as the Crusaders hurried on to Sis, a friendly Armenian stronghold, and avoiding a potentially costly and time consuming siege at Tarsus. Why would anyone fight for these small fry castles? Well, there just might be a reason, but more on that... in a later Crusade....
The Muslims play "Dispute with Byzantium" and the Byzantines desert the Crusaders opting for neutrality. This drops the VP total by 2 down to zero, as the Byzantine strongholds on Cyprus no longer count. The Crusaders won't forget this treachery and will look forward to the Fourth Crusade!
After resting momentarily at Sis the Crusaders waste no time in advancing to besiege Antioch, sweeping past the Seljuk force at Gaston which had moved into a position to intercept the Crusaders on their way to Antioch. The Seljuks were roughly trampled into dust, Kerbogha being killed in the process. With Antioch taken under siege, for the second game in a row, the Muslims play a siege card causing an epidemic to break out in the Crusader camp. Three step losses result and the epidemic does not spread to the Muslims besieged in Antioch. This is an exceptionally nasty card as it has the potential to decimate an army, but more on that later....
Despite the ravages of the epidemic, the Crusaders erect siege towers and then storm the garrison, Antioch falls! At last some progress, but the main goal, Jerusalem seems a long, long way off, if only there was some way one could teleport an entire army to where they needed to be....surely a flight of fancy and it would take more than prayers, but again, more on that later....
The Muslims play "Corsairs" and the Crusaders suffer another two step losses. (They start with 14 x 2 step units, and it is a constant battle against attrition). Attrition has the potential to do more damage than any field battle as the Muslims cannot muster any army which can stand up to them.
Leaving Bohemond and a garrison in Antioch, the main Crusader host moves near to Tarsus and plays "Castles Cowed", and Tarsus promptly ejects the Seljuks and converts to a Crusader stronghold. One extra VP to the Crusaders.
With only three turns in the scenario and with the Crusaders being constantly attritted away, the Crusaders need to secure as many VPs as soon as possible. Should they start the march to Jerusalem or secure some more VPs?
Edessa is ungarrisoned and the Crusaders cannot resist it as it is within striking range. Moving the main Crusader army en masse to the city (save Bohemond and his garrison at Antioch). The scenario rules require any cities captured by the Crusaders to have a Crusader leader in them after capture and will probably need a 2-3 unit garrison to hold them (this means you need to be careful which cities you try to capture as it will also dilute your forces).
The Edessans welcome the Crusaders and the city falls to the all conquering Crusaders after a surrender request.
Turn 1 finished and the Crusaders are satisfied. Edessa, Antioch and Tarsus under Crusader control, minus the loss of the Byzantine VPs from Cyprus for a total of 9 VP. Not bad, but Jerusalem must be taken to achieve a victory along with at least 13VP. Looks do-able on paper, but with the Crusader host just about as far from Jerusalem as possible, everything will need to go their way....
Turn 2 requires a decision to be made on the "Fatamid Diplomacy" mandatory event card. The Christians have first option and then the Muslims, and if neither takes the card, the event happens automatically if the pre-requisites are met. The Christian player elects to take the card as one of his hand of 7.
First off though are replacements. The Christians don't get any replacements, but the Seljuks get 3 and the Damascenes and Aleppians 1 each. The Muslim player elects to resurrect Kerbogha using 2 points (umm, aren't the Christians the only ones that should be doing that kind of thing?....).
Next it's mustering and the Muslim player brings on the rest of his forces. Whilst the Crusaders are a very powerful force, the constant attrition and the need to leave behind garrisons with leaders, mean that they get weaker and weaker as the scenario progresses, so the relative strength of the Muslims increases if they can avoid major losses.
On to the strategy phase, and as the pre-requisites for the favourable play of "Fatamid Diplomacy" are currently in force, the Christian player elects to play this card first. A 5 is rolled, which means that there is a Shi'ite rebellion in Damascus and Aleppo resulting in none of the units from these powers being able to leave their provinces. Good for the Christians as it means they won't be able to interfere with the march to Jerusalem.
The Muslim player strikes back, playing "Trouble in Europe" forcing a crusader leader and 1D6 of steps he can command out of the game. A 4 is rolled and 2 full strength Crusader units along with Tancred are out of the game. Ouch! The plan had been to leave Tancred, who is the weakest Crusader leader, and a couple of battered units to garrison Edessa, which is very vulnerable, being within a single move from the Seljuk capital Mosul. This now means the main Crusader force is further weakened as Baldwin will now have to stay in Edessa along with 3 weakened Crusader units. Hopefully they can hold off any Seljuk challenge.
Everything depends on capturing Jerusalem.
Leaving Baldwin to hold Edessa, Raymond of Toulouse and the remaining, but significantly diminished Crusader host start off on the long march to Jerusalem. They are immediately slowed by play of "Bad Weather" by the Muslim player, who moves the recently resurrected Kherboga to Edessa and invests the city and instituting a blockade. It will be a very long siege...the city's defences are worn down, but the Seljuks baulk at an assault, deeming it too risky with only a handful of units and relative parity with the besieged Crusaders inside.
With no time to lose, the Christians press south, bypassing Muslim strongholds and arriving at the walls of Jerusalem. There are 2 Seljuk units in the garrison and this gives Jerusalem a resistance factor of 5. A lucky roll of 6 on a D6 will cause the city to fall to a call to surrender.
The Christians' prayers are answered and Jerusalem falls!
The turn ends with the Seljuks still besieging Edessa over the winter thanks to Kerbogha being able to maintain units in the field with a lucky die roll. Normally, they would need to demobilise.
The equation for a win is that the Christians must either hold Edessa or capture another VP location to secure the win. If the Muslims can re-capture Edessa and hold everything else, it will be a draw.
Turn 3.
The Christians are unlikely to be able to relieve Edessa in time, so they decide to try for Acre as a back up in case Edessa falls.
Theoretically, it's possible to get Acre to surrender and the Christians try this, but their luck has been well and truly used up. With a resistance factor of 5, it's going to be a very difficult nut to crack, especially as Crusader Commander Bouillon has had to remain in Jerusalem with a small garrison. Complicating things further, the available cards have limited applicability either because of manpower requirements, e.g not being met to fill in the moat requiring 3 manpower, (The Crusader force is 2.5!) and also having to hold cards back to defend Edessa.
The Muslims whittle down the Edessa fortifications, getting the resistance factor down to zero momentarily, but they lack the strength to take on the small 3 step Crusader garrison.
With the number of cards running down and the turn and scenario soon to end, the Christian player plays a risky siege card, needing a 1-3 on a D6 for it to work. The gambit works with with help of a "Traitor in enemy ranks" reducing the resistance factor of Acre by 3 and the with resulting successful assault by Raymond of Toulouse, Acre falls, and with it a guaranteed Christian victory, even if they lose Edessa.
In the final move of the game, the Christians send out a solitary Crusader unit from Antioch to attack the Muslims besieging Edessa. The Crusader sacrifices himself, weakening the besiegers who are now too weak to successfully assault.
Scenario win to the Christians with Jerusalem captured and 19 VP. More than the 13 required.
This is a very tough scenario to win. The Christians got lucky with the successful call to surrender on Jerusalem making all the difference. As mentioned, the game is very swingy, but at least we had some action....
Which brings us to:
The Second First Crusade - why walk, when you can cruise?....
Christians: Mark
Muslims: Richard
Now we've all heard about Peter the Hermit and his peasants' crusade. Lesser know is the is the crusade led by Thomas the Cook and his "day trip to Jerusalem" package tour crusade. This is an account of that event.
Events started badly on the march through Anatolia, with 4 losses to attrition. The Emir and his border guards were swept into the dust of the Anatolian plain with the Emir held hostage after his capture, but 1 step loss inflicted on the Crusaders. Onward the Christians swept to .... Seluecia??? What? Why?
What's he doing thought the Muslim player to himself. After the trial game, it was obvious that going after these strongholds was a waste of time and effort as they didn't really offer anything and there is the risk of nasty siege defence cards. Wasn't he paying attention?
Seleucia falls to an assault, but another 2 step losses. (The Crusaders start out with 28). So up to 7 losses already.
The Muslims hit back with "Corsairs" and another 2 step losses on the Crusaders. 9 already.
Next up, the Christians play "Venetian Fleet lends aid", allowing the Christians to transport 10 units and a leader from a port to another port on the Mediterranean. Oh I see now, says the Muslim player, he needed Seleucia which is a port to make that card work.
The Christians land at....Jaffa! right on Jerusalem's door step.
This is SO UNFAIR said the Muslim player who had just had Kerbogha stopped by bad weather as he raced towards Antioch from Mosul, ready to intercept the Crusaders and shadow them into attrition oblivion on their long march to Jerusalem. Pointless now, as half the Crusader army is nowhere nearby.
With this potentially game winning move pulled out of the bag, it was going to very hard to stop the Christians with half their army already poised to strike at Jerusalem. It couldn't get much better for the Christians could it?
The Christians play "Genovese Fleet lends aid", and you guessed it, they ship the rest of their army to Jaffa which is now in Christian hands, although they did take a few more losses. The Muslim player spins into despair. There are 2 units in the Jerusalem garrison, with the whole Crusader army on the doorstep and it's only turn 1! Talk about lucky cards!!!! A completely game winning position right? SO UNFAIR!!!! Talk about SWINGY!!!
With the odds stacked against them, all the Muslims can do is move Kerbogha and 3 units down to near Jerusalem as fast as possible, but it looks hopeless against the still powerful Crusader force. What is going to stop this? Two units slip into the city to offer up some extra resistance to the soon to arrive Crusaders.
Turn 2.
The pre-requisites for Fatamid Diplomacy are not met, but the Christian player takes the "3" activation card anyway.
They play "On to Jerusalem!" giving them 8 Movement points, three of which they spend processing around Jaffa gaining favourable attrition drms for when they bring Jerusalem under siege. They take some attrition losses, but things are looking bleak for the Muslims.
Now at this point, it is salient to recall the earlier discussed potentially game changing effects that certain cards can have. To wit:
The Muslims play the "Epidemic" siege event. (This card or equivalent has appeared 4 times in 3 games). The Christians roll very badly and lose 6 units and a leader. Their army is whittled down to 5 units and they have no hope of capturing Jerusalem. Ironically, They play "Byzantine Fleet lends aid" and sail off! There's no way they can win with 5 units! (That is five reduced units too).
What just happened? An amazing game winning move getting the entire Crusader army to the gates of Jerusalem without having to slog its way there, foiled by the play of Epidemic and very bad luck.
I must say that the Christian player took this much better than I think I would have if it had happened to me. This kind of randomness is usually a game killer for me. (Perhaps the Christian player can let us know how he felt).
As can be seen from what happened in both plays of the same scenario, the game can swing wildly. Perhaps, perversely, this should be considered a major strength of this game in that it offers massive re-playability.
I do enjoy the subject matter and I've found the resolution of sieges to me the most enjoyable aspect of the game (It certainly consumes the most thought as to how to play it out). This particular scenario is the "Learning" scenario in the game, it is very short and so perhaps this exacerbates the luck and swing. As Mark said, because the game plays quickly and can be finished in a single relatively short session, you just have to accept that sometimes, things are not going to go your way. Makes for an exciting journey, I guess.
Next time, we are playing the Second Crusade. Looking forward to seeing how that one plays out.
