Medieval Intrigue and Missed Opportunities.

Sometimes it is very difficult to get a particular title played; this could be for various reasons. Some players dislike the theme of the game (wargames or war-themed games are often a difficulty with one group I attend), others are turned off by some particular mechanical aspect (such as a heavily-random element). In the case of Krakow 1325 AD, neither of these kept it from the table; for Krakow, it was the combination of the required number of players and my willingness to bring it out.

Around one month ago, over two years after I purchased the game at Essen, Krakow 1325 AD finally saw its first play at our group. I am now at a loss as to why it took me so long.

Krakow is a relatively unusual concept in modern strategy boardgames, in a number of ways. The design is for exactly four players (yes, a three-player expansion is available, but the game is clearly best suited to four); it's also a partnership game, in that players seated opposite are partners for the entire game. You don't think that's unusual? Well, how about the fact that the partners are not really partners at all, and have their own hidden interest?

Well, alright; if you take those characteristics in isolation, you've seen them all before; but when they're combined with each other, and to the core mechanism of area influence, you have something unique. I could be wrong, but I don't think I have ever played anything like Krakow 1325 AD.

The game board represents the city of Krakow, divided in a number of districts with areas of influence. Each turn, one player leads a trick by playing a single card which will allow him to place influence for his team (him and his partner) in a particular district. In turn, the other players then oppose or support this card, by playing one from their hand. If the lead player and his partner win the trick, then the influence is placed and the lead card goes into a pile, which will score for the social caste it represents. If not, then it has been successfully opposed and a new trick is led by the winner of the last trick. This continues until all tricks for the season have been played, when new cards are dealt and the process begins again. After four seasons, the year is over and scoring takes place. Social castes are also scored, according to the cards that won tricks.

The game can be played for one, two or three game years, depending on how long you wish to play for. When the game finishes, players combine their “secret” score with their known score; the highest score wins, referring to tiebreakers as necessary.

You can probably see why I never really pushed this game to get it played; it all sounds very run-of-the-mill and humdrum. However, Krakow is an excellent experience; we played with the intent of finishing after one game year, but the group were so taken with it we continued to play the long, three-year game. By this time, most players had a good idea of who represented which social caste; but that uncertainty adds to the experience.

Ultimately, the game is a card game; hand management is everything, and like Bridge, you rely heavily on your partner for success. At the same time, you are trying to underhandedly undermine your partner's social caste, without helping the opposing factions too much. It's these wheels within wheels which add great interest to what would otherwise be just another trick-taking card game.

If your group is usually four, or you can easily table four at your group, this game is an excellent choice; however, this characteristic is possibly the main reason it took so long for me to get it played. It has, historically, been a rare occurrence for our group to consist of exactly four at the table; even rarer than that was for my bringing the game along to coincide with a table of exactly four. When the opportunity to play it finally came, it was worth it.

I remember talking to the designer, Peter Strujf, at Essen a couple of years ago. I was very nearly put off by the number of players required; it could probably be played with two players as it is, but I doubt it would be as good (and two is still not a good number for a multiplayer group). I bought a copy anyway, and I was glad I did.

Let's face it, every game ever designed has a sweet spot for the number of players, and very few actually scale well. I have so many games in my collection that I will not play with a particular number of players after bad experiences, I tend to think they have only scaled them in the first place with a mind to sell more copies. Nothing wrong with that, but I would rather be able to hit that sweet spot first time; which is why I appreciate what Peter has done with his design. True, he has issued an expansion to take it to three players, but I just cannot see it being as good as playing with four.

So if your table is typically four, you have a penchant for card games and area influence, and you like something with a bit more theme than usual, you really ought to seek out a copy of Krakow 1325 AD.