Comments on KING OF KINGS


There are a few problems with this game ...

One is that too much luck is involved in finding a winner. You may be dominating the game, but if your monarch dies in the Events Phase, you lose all your Achievements and probably the game. Or you can retire right there and let the game go on, but how much fun is that?

Another is that the game actually encourages not fighting. But this is not very enjoyable as there is little else offered in the game. It does result in only occasional battles, which is probably good for those wishing to play using ANCIENTS or miniatures, but boring otherwise.

Some of the scenarios are also unbalanced. For example, it's hard to see how the under-powered Egypt can ever hope to win the Punic Wars scenario.

The game provides a reasonable framework of military forces, but a lot more is needed in simulation of the problems besetting a monarch at home. If he also had to deal with unruly nobles, recalcitrant taxpayers, diseases and other problems, this could be a very interesting game. Instead of buying a Monuments or Roads chit, how about actually building the road or monument? Assuming you could get the populace behind this.

You have to love the Scenario list (participants in parens):

There are rules problems here as well. A magazine (Fire & Movement issue no. 72, March-April 1991) reviewer felt forced to publish with it a page and a half of errata. The game has been re-issued as Imperator which may be an improvement, but the designer admitted in a review (Fire & Movement, July-August 1993) that errata is still needed.

Also ...

Wed Dec 13 12:08:09 PST 2000
Reviewing the Reviewer