For me anyway, Volko Ruhnke’s Levy and Campaign series is probably the most interesting thing happening in wargaming right now. Most medieval wargames have focused on specific battles, usually as hex and counter games, and while my posts on Men of Iron should be evidence enough that I enjoy these games, my historical interests tend more operational and strategic rather than tactical. There are exceptions, such as the Columbia block games, but even these only capture a fragment of what makes medieval conflict so fascinating to me. Many great medieval victories (and defeats) are as much the result of the weeks and months that lead up to them as they are the prowess of the fighters on the day. That is what makes Levy and Campaign so exciting to me - it makes those weeks and months the centre of the gaming experience. The games include battles, of course, but the more you play the fewer battles you are likely to risk while the challenge of moving and supplying your armies remains constant!
I enjoyed my initial explorations of Nevsky and I was excited to receive Almoravid due to the promise that the Taifa politics would add more of a political dimension to the system. It also features the famous El Cid and captures a major shift in Iberian history with the arrival of the Almoravid dynasty from Morocco - so basically catnip to a medieval obsessive like myself. Almoravid promised to be more of a game system I already enjoyed but with new features to add new interesting decisions and elements to the game, how could I not be excited? Also, thanks to an online tournament organised by fans of the game, I was finally able to play Levy and Campaign multiplayer getting several games of Almoravid with human opponents under my belt - an experience which definitely improved my enjoyment of the series and also proved that I’m quite bad at Levy and Campaign.
For those who may not be familiar, Levy and Campaign is the latest system from Volko Ruhnke, the designer behind the COIN series. In L&C he has moved his attention from modern counterinsurgency to medieval logistics and operational warfare. The core features of L&C are a focus on logistics - being able to reliably feed your army is at least as important as whether you can win a battle - as well as how the system is structured and how it handles player activation. The game is split into two phases called, you guessed it, the Levy and Campaign phases. In the Levy phase you will do all the preparation you require for the upcoming campaign. You will add modes of transport to your Lords’ individual mats which will help you transport food and supplies more efficiently. You will also decide whether to recruit more Lords. Since lords only serve for a limited amount of time, which is tracked on the game calendar, you will probably need to recruit more from your available pool. However, recruitment’s success is determined by a the roll of a die so you have to choose whether to add more Lords (who you may not even be able to activate) or whether to bolster the group you already have. You can also add Capabilities, special abilities printed on cards that will help you specialise your Lords, possibly making them better at siege warfare or raiding, for example.
Here are two Christian lord mats with their wooden units, and tokens representing transport, coin, and provender. They also have Capabilities tucked in under their mats. In the distance you can see their cylinders on the map - in this case they are besieging the city of Toledo whose garrison is represented by the lone wooden pieces on the map.
At the end of the Levy phase you make a plan for your campaign by constructing a deck, the size of which is dictated by the season that turn is taking place in. Each Lord has a set of cards and you assemble the deck from cards representing the Lords you have on the map right now. Then during the campaign phase you take it in turns to draw the top card of your deck and activate that Lord, taking a number of actions based on their Command value. Actions include, but are not limited to, moving around the map, acquiring supplies, ravaging territory for supplies and victory points, prosecuting sieges, or raising funds via taxation. Once both player’s decks have run out you move the turn track forward and begin again with the Levy phase.
Almoravid abandons some of the logistical complexity of Nevsky - the types of transport are reduced from four (Carts, Sleds, Boats, Ships) to just two (Carts, Mules) and there is far less seasonal variation - but in exchange it adds an extra layer of politics to consider. Eleventh Century Iberia was a region of significant political diversity. In the north of the peninsula were the Christian kingdoms of Léon-Castile, Aragon, and Navarre but most of Iberia was made up of Muslim lordships of varying sizes and importance. These are broadly known as the Taifa Lordships, or sometimes Taifa Kingdoms. They were fractured and often in disagreement with each other as much as with their Christian neighbours to the north. During the period of Almoravid it was common practice for Taifa lords to pay a tribute, called Parias, to the Christians in order to maintain peace. It is maybe worth noting that the practice of paying someone to not invade you was pretty common in the Middle Ages.
The game of Almoravid covers a specific series of campaigns where the Christians led by King Alfonso VI of León-Castile successfully conquered Toledo in central Iberia. In response the Taifa lords invited the Almoravid dynasty from Morocco to Iberia. The Almoravids would eventually conquer the remaining Taifa and establish a more unified political opposition to the Christians for the next generation before fading away themselves in the mid-eleventh century. Since the Taifa are so central to this period’s history, it makes sense that Almoravid (the game) devotes extra rules to their fractious rule. In Almoravid a Muslim region can be in one of three states: Independent, Parias, or Reconquista. A Parias region is neutral to both sides and largely inactive from play. A region is Independent when its Lord is on the map, i.e. he has been levied by the Muslim player., and Independent Taifa are friendly to the Muslim player. If the Christians take the capital of a region it becomes Reconquista - making it friendly to the Christians and giving a large helping of victory points. Further rules track what happens when a region transitions between these three states.
I think the Taifa politics systems are really interesting and while they add an extra layer of complexity, the player aids are very good and you pick it up pretty quickly. If I had one problem with it it would be that changes don’t happen as much over the course of a game as I would like. In particular I think it would be more interesting if regions switched between Parias and Independent more, but the penalty to the Muslim side for a region switching to Parias can be so punishing that if it happens several times in one game it can render the situation almost unwinnable for the Muslim player. I wouldn’t call this a flaw in the game, and arguably it reflects the history where there’s only so many changes in political allegiance one could expect in what is essentially a two year period. I just think that this system is really interesting and I didn’t feel like I got to interact with it quite as much in a single game as I personally would have liked. Maybe I just wish there were more games that included Taifa politics to scratch that itch for me!
Almoravid fully laid out - it’s a beautiful thing to behold but the board is larger than Nevsky’s and fitting everything together can get very cramped very quickly.
The aesthetics of Almoravid are amazing - the map in particular is gorgeous. While I would gripe that it is a bit too big in my opinion, at least from a practical perspective as it doesn’t fit on my table, it is a lovely thing to have in front of you and I found the layout of the various routes to be very engaging. It struck a good balance between offering me many options to choose from when taking my turns while also having me tearing my hair out when I realised that there is no direct route between Point A and Point B and now I need to go the long way around to counter an unexpected move from my opponent. I think game maps should provide both choice and a little frustration and Almoravid’s definitely succeeds at that. It also ensured that my individual games felt quite different - we weren’t repeating the same campaigns every session but rather trying different avenues of attack and defence. There are a lot of possible ways a game of Almoravid can develop and that can be attributed at least in part to the map. The art for the rest of the game is also gorgeous, from the cards to the lords mats and wooden pieces.
But while I can complain about the practicality of the board as much as I want, there’s no denying that it’s an amazing thing to behold.
Almoravid also contains all the elements of Levy and Campaign that I already enjoyed and which I continued to enjoy as I play it more. I like the scale of the conflict, focusing on just a few years in particular detail. I also really like how chaotic and unreliable the battles can be which pushes you to avoid them for the most part. In Almoravid in particular the Muslims tend to be far weaker, with the individual lords struggling to muster large armies to directly oppose the Christians. Instead you are more interested in bogging them down in sieges or finding other means to limit their effectiveness. Then when the titular Almoravids arrive things are very different. Their armies are huge and an immediate threat to anyone who gets in their way. This also gives the game one of its most interesting decisions - as the Muslim player when do you call for help from Africa? The Almoravids are extremely powerful, but they will eventually run out of steam because they can’t afford to keep that army in the field forever. Call them too early and the Christians may survive to continue causing you trouble but wait too long and it may be too late.
As the second entry in the Levy and Campaign series I was naturally curious about the complexity of learning it when I already knew Nevsky. I actually put off playing it for weeks because I was intimidated by the prospect of learning a whole new L&C game, but it turns out that was foolish. The rulebook helpfully highlights the differences from Nevsky and I was able to basically just skim the rules in about ten minutes and be ready to play. It took me longer than that to fully internalise all of its systems, but for me the biggest hurdle is getting to the point where I can actually be playing. I’m happy to be playing poorly so long as I’m actually playing!
Almoravid offers enough differences from Nevsky to feel distinct but has enough similarity to make it easier to learn, which I think is an ideal balance for games in a shared system like this. I could see some people not being interested enough in owning both, but that comes down mostly to personal taste and interest. I’m obsessed with operational medieval warfare so I am very excited to have played Almoravid and even more excited for all the L&C games currently in development. At the same time, the only WWII game I own is Memoir ‘44 and I’m not very interested in buying more, so I can appreciate for people who are less interested in medieval conflict one L&C game is probably enough.
Before we get on to my few dislikes, I want to talk a bit about my experience playing Almoravid. I think I made a small error playing through the scenarios mostly in order - jumping into the grand campaign after an initial learning scenario feels like it might be the right thing to do. The full campaign feels like the purest form of these games, even if it is also the biggest time commitment. Particularly in Almoravid where the question of when to bring the titular Almoravids onto the map is crucial, it felt like a lot was missing in shorter scenarios. You either have to bring them on immediately, because it takes two turns to bring both lords and you want to take some time prepping them to be effective, or else the scenario has literally already made the decision for you. This isn’t strictly a bad thing, but I think contrary to what you might expect these smaller scenarios offer more to people who are already familiar with the game and looking for a specific experience. In my opinion, playing (and messing up) in the grand campaign is a better starting option. Remember, you don’t have to play all the way to the end - if it is clearly unwinnable halfway, just stop and start again. There’s no medal for playing a game after it stops being fun.
Almoravid was the first time I played Levy and Campaign against a human opponent and the experience was a significant improvement upon the solitaire game. Don’t get me wrong, I still like Levy and Campaign solitaire but I think I will only be playing solo as a way to learn the game or to explore certain scenarios or familiarise myself with some of the systems. As a game I enjoyed the two player experience significantly more for two reasons. The first is fairly obvious - in a two player game my opponent makes decisions during the Campaign phase that I cannot predict. This allows for more interesting game outcomes as my play style and priorities clash with theirs. The other big advantage of two player L&C is that it helps to share the mental load. The Levy phase in particular can be quite the brain burner and only have to do one of those in a turn was a huge relief. When I do play solitaire I generally leave the game set up and take turns slowly over the course of days, spreading out the mental exhaustion as much as possible.
Much of my time playing Almoravid was using the excellent Vassal module - a much more manageable way to play but you are missing out on something not having the physical components. I have to say the system works really well as play by email.
I also played with the optional Hidden Mats and Advanced Vassals rules for the first time. In Hidden Mats you can’t see what your opponent has on each of their Lords’ mats, so you don’t know how big their armies are or what Capabilities they may have until you fight a battle with that Lord. The Advanced Vassals rules means that whenever you Levy a Vassal instead of just adding units to your Lords mat you also add a tracker to the calendar and when the turn tracker advances to that point the vassal takes its units and goes home.
I didn’t find the Hidden Mats very interesting if I’m honest. In L&C you’re often trying to avoid battle and the Hidden Mats felt like it leaned even harder into that. It wasn’t bad, but it didn’t add enough to my experience that I intend to be playing with it regularly. I understand that some people really like it and I’m happy for them, but I don’t think it’s for me.
In contrast, I really liked the advanced Vassals rules. Partly this is because I’m obviously a huge medieval history nerd so more tracking of things like feudal relationships and service limits appeals to me. I found it made the decision of when to Levy vassals more interesting, and I’m always up for more interesting decisions in a game. I can’t say that I’ll be playing with Advanced Vassals every game but it is definitely a rule I aim to use more going forward.
Hopefully by now it is clear that I really enjoy Levy and Campaign in general and Almoravid in particular but I would be remiss if I didn’t note some of the things I didn’t particularly like. The most significant issue I had with Almoravid arises from the logical decision to reduce the types of transportation. The fact that there are fewer transport options has a significant impact on the decisions made during the Levy phase of each turn. In Almoravid, a lot more time is spent levying Capabiilities rather than transport. This is further enhanced by the greater difficulty in undertaking sieges in Almoravid. Eleventh century Iberia had far more impressive fortresses than the Baltic in the thirteenth century and this is reflected in the increased challenge in prosecuting a siege in Almoravid. To effectively take a fortress you will need more than just a few Lords and a big army, you need Capabilities to bring things like siege engines to bear on the fortress. Alternatively, if you want to have an effective raiding force or to make the most out of characters like El Cid or the Almoravids you will need to equip the right capabilities to those Lords.
This means that you will spend more time flicking through the Arts of War deck and I must confess that this is my least favourite aspect of the series. I spent far too long trying to learn the different Capabilities and keep them in mind when planning my strategies and I found this really quite challenging. It wasn’t just that I felt this was necessary for optimal or highly competitive play but to even be moderately effective in Almoravid it felt like you needed to have a good understanding of the capabilities in your Arts of War deck - or else be prepared to spend a long time flicking through it every Levy to remind yourself what is in it. I found this really slowed down the Levy phase of each turn and wasn’t something I enjoyed as much as just levying maybe one or two capabilities and then mostly adding transport and troops.
Almoravid also felt like it had a lot more Coins dispersed among its many lords. The Lords on average show up with much more Coin when Levied so even without Taxing you can have quite a lot of money in circulation. There were also more rules to increase available coin, such as how the Christians receive a pile of Coin whenever a Taifa switches to Parias. This makes it far more feasible to run armies off of Coin rather than food - especially since one Coin can be equal in value to any amount of provender when it comes to managing service limits. From a historical point of view I have no problem with this and in the specific case of the Almoravid armies I think it’s really interesting. Feeding the huge African armies is hardly feasible so you kind of have to build up a big war chest to make the most out of them. However, as both sides can effectively do this and you can do it for more than just the Africans it can feel like it further de-emphasised what I like most about the game - the logistics. Why bother wracking your brain over how to get enough transport and provender to feed all these soldiers when one Coin will do the trick?
I do want to make it clear that transport is not useless in Almoravid! On a few occasions I had opponents create long supply lines which they used to create stashes of Provender. Then another Lord could march there and feed. This required planning ahead, a classic Levy and Campaign requirement, but it felt different than I was used to in Nevsky. That said, the Supply rules changed in Almoravid and the change will eventually be implemented backwards into Nevsky so it will be interesting to see how that changes the Nevsky experience. Also, I may just not be very good at Nevsky! Overall, though, Almoravid felt like it had less of an emphasis on how you are going to move provender with your army across the difficult landscape and instead transport is key to maintaining supply lines and when in doubt just use money instead. I don’t think this is strictly a bad change, it helps to differentiate Almoravid from Nevsky and I suspect that for some people Nevsky’s large number of transport types was off-putting, but I miss my two kinds of boats..
I don’t think any of the above represents bad history, in fact the changes seem to be primarily derived from the difference in Almoravid’s setting from Nevsky’s. It wouldn’t make sense to require players to get sleds or boats to travel around eleventh-century Iberia. There were Roman roads to use! Iberia was also much wealthier so it makes sense that there is more Coin going around between the Lords and the fortresses were better so taking one was a more involved process. It’s just that these elements push the game more in a direction I enjoy less. I still enjoyed Almoravid, but it did leave me missing some of Nevsky’s more prominent features.
In the end I have decided not to keep Almoravid in my wargame collection. It’s not because I don’t like it - I have had a lot of fun playing it - but it leans into elements of the Levy and Campaign system that don’t appeal to me as much. Also, and this is key, there are so many new Levy and Campaign designs coming out in the next few years that I want to make room to try new things. If the whole system was just these two games I would absolutely keep both of them, but with Inferno: Guelphs and Ghibellines Vie for Tuscany, 1259-1261 possibly shipping before the end of this year, I need to make room for some campaigning in Italy! In the meantime I intend to get Nevsky out and to once again struggle to transport enough food for my knights to feed in the frozen Russian winter (or worse, the muddy spring).