El Cantar de mios Almorávides
A review of Almoravid: Reconquista and Riposte in Spain, 1085-1086 by Volko Ruhnke, released by GMT Games
If The Shores of Tripoli was the game that I played the most times in 2022, the game I spent the most time playing was Almoravid: Reconquista and Riposte in Spain, 1085-1086 designed by Volko Ruhnke and released by GMT Games. The reasons for this are simple: i) I’ve always been interested in Medieval history and how it was portrayed in modern discourse; ii) I greatly enjoyed Nevsky: Teutons and Rus in Collision, 1240-1242 (the first game in the Levy & Campaign series); iii) I did some playtesting of Almoravid earlier (disclaimer: I’ve received my copy of the game thanks to it); iv) I came to love the story it tells.
So, what makes Almoravid the game for spending time with? Afterall, it covers only two years of events (and those are not the most famous final years of the Reconquista), it has fidliness in some sub-systems, there is some general structure of the narrative arc... You could find reasons for initial scepticism, and answer to the raised question is not very straightforward. It is a combination of different elements, such as a clear narrative, the role of that individual characters play, a clear connection between mechanics and context, and the importance of logistics and careful planning that makes you want to come back and engage with the game time after time.
I’d like to start with what for me is the key strength of the Levy & Campaign series – the story told by each game and the role that individual characters play in it. In the case of Almoravid, the flow of the narrative is dictated by the actual events of 1085-1086 and the political and military structures in the Iberian Peninsula and North Africa of that particular time. This makes it likely that over repeated plays you will start noticing a certain dynamic running over multiple plays, but this overarching structure comes natural and is dictated by clear military and political factors relevant for the game’s context.
This clear structure of the game helps immerse a player in the narrative and is facilitated by the limited time covered by the game and the large-scale events that took place at the time. The first year sees King Alfonso attempting to capture Toledo with Taifas in disarray and on the back foot. The second year of the game sees (at least often) the arrival of the Almoravids from North Africa, greatly strengthening the Muslim forces. In this way you know what your key options are, just as Alfonso or Taifas’ leaders did. Whether you pursue them is another matter, but the framework provided by Volko gives incentives that put boundaries on the sandbox, which greatly helps the storytelling.
Another key element in Almoravid’s story telling is the role that individual Lords play. Each player has a cast of characters they can bring to the theatre. The most important personality here is Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, more famously known as El Cid. His historical disagreements with the Leónese Crown are reflected in the game, by giving him space to switch sides during the game, some of the time fighting for the Christians and some for the Muslims. Otherwise, the key characteristics of the Lords are all focused on the military aspects of situation (Service, Lordship, and Command) that reflect the relationship with the Seignor and the Vassals, the mustering capacity, and the actions to undertake. Yet, during the game, especially the longer scenarios, these Lords still become personal to you. Not only because losing a Lord is costly, but also because each play you write an epopeya, an epic poem, a cantar for each of them. In your game, the would be El Cantar de mio Cid can easily become El Cantar de mio Álvar. True, the game does not model their non-military / non-political lives, but it is easy to imagine what social impacts the death of a Lord or his return without pay would have in his land. I once lost count Pedro Ansúrez way south, deep in the Taifas’ territories far from his Seat. It did get emotional (admittedly, not least because my Summer plans were ruined by then).
One of the key reasons for uneasiness before delving deeper into Almoravid was the uncertainty about the sufficiency in differences from the first game in the series. I’ll list some general mechanical changes below, but the more important question is, if Almoravid transports you to a noticeable different context than Nevsky. The answer is a very strong and clear yes.
First, the geography is different. I don’t mean it just in the sense of having a different map on the table. The change in scenery affects interacts with the different game systems. For example, logistics of supplying your troops is a key element in the Levy & Campaign games and both Nevsky and Almoravid both reflect their context well. Here, in the Iberian Peninsula you won’t see any sleds, but crossing mountain passes will be a factor to consider. What’s worse, mules eat (i.e. they count towards your army size when calculating how much provender was used by a Lord and his troops) and can put you in a tight spot. Another example is the role of Gardens, when Foraging that can help you in a siege. Indeed, some of the infrastructure in Andalusia used to provide water and food is very impressive.
The process of Reconquista was linked not only to military campaigns, but also political developments and fragmentation. The game accounts for the bickering among the characters ‘on the same’ side through its politics sub-system. For Christians it is mainly about El Cid switching allegiance, but for Muslims the Taifas are much more politically divided. Thematically, there could likely be more conflicts within each side to take into account, but it would not simply work in a two player game. The included sub-system of mechanics for Taifa Politics works well, is easy to connect to the historical reality, and achieves it job in providing incentives for both players. This step of the series deeper into Medieval politics is not only fitting but a very welcome one, as variations in political structures could play a very important role in determining how free the players are to act. I am very curious in what the next game in the series, Inferno: Guelphs and Ghibellines Vie for Tuscany, 1259-1261, will provide on this point, considering the Medieval forms of government of the Italian city-states.
The entry of the Almoravid armies also adds a lot to the theme. It contextualises the collection of the Taifa Coin raising the dilemma for the player, if they should wait for the allies to come, or if the resources or actions would be better spent elsewhere. For Christians, the looming threat from the south is a kind of a sword of Damocles. It is a historic context that you may well disregard in your first play, only to find yourself in a tough spot in 1086. On the other hand, your opponent may mismanage the logistics for the Almoravid Lords, leaving Christians open routes to campaign across the Peninsula.
There are also more general changes in the mechanics. Allowing to bypass the strongholds was a nice change giving more freedom for the players. While there are arguments why this wouldn’t work in Nevsky thematically, in Almoravid this option helps with the game flow. Some other changes, such as on maximum storming capacity will also see their way into the upcoming Levy & Campaign games. Almoravid here helps mature the whole system.
I have also mentioned logistics as being one of the strengths of Almoravid (as well as the whole Levy & Campaign series). It shifts the focus from battles to ensuring that armies are able to move and fight. Medieval warfare was more complex than the public imagination often holds, and while battles, such as Tannenberg, Agincourt, or Hastings, captivate, raiding, avoiding battles, and other processes were no less if not more important. In Almoravid, managing the Almoravid Lords Yusuf and Sir is a challenge in itself, with large armies and fewer means to transport the needed provender. Battles, of course, are still there (at least for me, the games tended to lead to a larger one), but how they are depicted does not take the whole focus of campaigning. In that sense, the series reminds me of Cathal J. Nolan’s argument in The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost.
The quality of production is high with beautiful art by Ivan Caceres Cruz and a functional map by Chechu Nieto Sanchez. The playbook provides a very deep overview of the context of the game, which clearly shows how much of actual research was put into Almoravid’s design and development. This was also the case for Nevsky, so in addition to looking forward to the new games in the series, I’m looking forward to their playbooks nearly as much solely for their educational value. Finally, kudos to GMT Games for fixing the colour issue for some of the units by adding additional ones in the correct colour.
Certainly, Almoravid is not a game for everyone. It does have a specific topic and the shift of focus on logistics will not be everyone’s cup of tea. If you want a longer timeframe or more of a sandbox feeling in the game, then likely you would find it too fiddly. That’s a concern I’ve heard quite a bit, but for me it is an inherent element in making you think about supplying your troops and ensuring that even in a nightmare scenario, you would still have means to provide for them.
The rules also are quite complex and take time to internalize (and you should be ready to miss something, when playing). I must admit, it still takes me time to remember and implement sallying. You may be intrigued by the system from the very start, but in order to game it, you must give it the time and care it needs. Of course, after you learn one game in the series, the others will come easier, though they are different enough to still require time to get all the changes. If you are a rules-perfectionist, you might be annoyed by your opponent or you missing some minor detail during the turn even if you know the rules well. I would argue that one miss or another doesn’t disturb the overall flow of the game, but it is worth keeping in mind that it can very well happen.
Finally, one of the criticisms I’ve heard was about the applicability of the 40 day vassalage across the different contexts. However, in my view, the game (and the series) responds to this well. Lords and Vassals have different level of tolerance for the initial service time, and you can then move on to modifying it through pay. This helps to account for there being no standing armies at the time while also limiting the complexity of the game.
As you likely noticed, I really enjoyed playing Almoravid as I did Nevsky. The differences between the games in the same system also make me want to look for more, and with Inferno release already being close, 2023 will also very likely be full of levying and campaigning. And now to paraphrase El Cantar de mio Cid, el review es leído, datnos del vino.