\nInternational”, issue #2 and is reproduced here with the permission of Brian Walker,
\nthe former GI editor)<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n
KREMLIN<\/h2>\n
![\"Urs](\"https:\/\/www.westpark-gamers.de\/Ressourcen\/kremlin_a1.jpg\")
The object of Kremlin (reviewed last issue), is to
\nmanipulate mythical politicians in the Soviet Politburo with the aim of becoming Party
\nChief and waving at the October Parade in Red Square. In its first life Kremlin was
\ndesigned by Urs Hostettler<\/b> (pictured above) and published by his company Fata
\nMorgana, in Berne, Switzerland. In this short feature, Urs describes how he got the idea
\nfor the game, and his opinion of the newly released Avalon Hill version.<\/i><\/p>\n
How does one go about designing a game like Kremlin? It’s a question I’ve been
\nasked on more then one occasion.<\/p>\n
Well, it all started one night in March 1985, as I was watching TV at home in Berne.
\nTschernenko had just waved the long goodbye a few days earlier, and already the silver
\nscreen was awash with speculating specialists attempting to predict his successor.<\/p>\n
Old man Gromyko was Foreign Minister at the time, and as such, was able to nominate
\nthe new Party Chief. The hot money was on Marshal Ustinov who was just approaching the
\npeak of his career at 80. In the background were two young turks, Gorbachev from Moscow,
\nand Romanov from Leningrad. Both were in their late fifties and thus had a lot to lose
\nshould their bid for power fail (you don’t get a second chance).<\/p>\n
As I was listening I played around with some cards and decided to create my own
\nPolitburo, and work out a mechanism that would respect the principles of gerontocracy
\n(the rule of the old), but allow a hidden strategy whereby younger members also stood a
\nchance of gaining power.<\/p>\n
I worked on the game system for Kremlin<\/b> for about one year. Both Sigma
\nFile<\/b> (Gibson’s), and Down With the King<\/b> (Avalon Hill) were strong
\ninfluences in terms of game mechanics. At one point we thought of changing the setting to
\nthe Vatican, with the Pope taking the place of Party Chief, and visiting foreign
\ncountries instead of waving. But then the situation in Moscow changed so dramatically
\nthat we wondered if some evil Russian game developer had stolen our ideas; Ustinov died,
\nRomanov was demoted to candidate status, and Gromyko got the heave from the foreign
\nministry. Thus, Kremlin<\/b> was born.<\/p>\n
One of our objectives when designing Kremlin<\/b> was to produce a simulation of
\nSoviet political culture, which is why we place so much emphasis on controlling
\ncharacters in secret. Thus a player who has been playing very aggressively and dominating
\nthe game, can find himself rudely upstaged at the climax when he discovers that the
\ncharacter he thought he was controlling and who has been waving like a Queen, was really
\ncontrolled by somebody else!<\/p>\n
So in this sense it can be seen that our version is much more of a psychological game
\nthan the Avalon Hill one; a player can win by simply doing nothing the entire game.<\/p>\n
This is not a criticism of the AH version which I know went through a lot of rigorous
\nplaytesting. My main qualms were about re-situating the game in the eighties. Originally
\nthe game was set in the fifties – the grey era of Soviet politics. My intention was to
\nsatirize this period. I don’t really think many aspects of the game apply to what
\nGorby is currently trying to achieve, though this is something of a political point and
\ndoes not affect play in any way.<\/p>\n
As to the game itself, I am inclined to think that their version is more suitable for
\nthe American market with its emphasis on action. It can be quite boring to sit around for
\ntwo hours doing nothing, except revealing victory at the conclusion. But being perverse
\nby nature, how I like to win this way!<\/p>\n
But what of the American version? Better? Worse? or merely different? Our editor,
\nwho was partially responsible for AH’s decision to take the game, describes the
\nKremlin campaign.<\/i><\/p>\n
My brief from Avalon Hill was simply to write the character cards for their version.
\nHowever, their head of development Don Greenwood knew I’d played the game several
\ntimes in its original form, so sought my advice on some of his proposed rule changes.
\nWhen I read the first draft for these changes my heart sank. My American colleague Alan R
\nMoon had already seen the changes and had inevitably chimed in with his
\ntwo-penn’orth. Even so, I wasn’t prepared for the changes that Don had wrought.
\nRightly or wrongly, Avalon Hill had acquired a reputation for making games more complex,
\nmerely for the sake of it. At first glance, Don’s changes seemed to confirm this
\nview. How wrong can a comrade be? My initial reaction was along the lines of ‘why
\nchange a winning team?’ After all, the game had sold very well in Europe, even with
\nminimal production standards and limited distribution. Some of the changes seemed petty,
\nlike changing the ‘Kremlin Wall’ (under which Soviet heroes are buried) to the
\n‘Graveyard’. To his credit Don later admitted that this was ‘dumb’ and
\nreinstated the unique Soviet structure.<\/p>\n
![\"Kremlin](\"https:\/\/www.westpark-gamers.de\/Ressourcen\/kremlin_a2.jpg\")
Like many who had played the original game I was
\ndisappointed to see Anatol Fuckoff and Andrei Pissin purged, but this was expected so no
\nresistance was offered. Don also asked me to come up with some alternative names for the
\ncharacters as it was felt that the Teutonic humour of the originals would be lost on the
\nEnglish speaking market. I demurred; apart from having a sentimental attachment to Tigran
\nZenjarplan et al, I felt that they added atmosphere to what was already a
\n‘foreign’ game. Attempting to change the names into jokey English ones seemed
\nunnecessary, though I did agree to come up with two to replace Anatol and Andrei. As I
\ndidn’t hear from Don again on this point I assumed that the originals were to be
\nretained. It wasn’t until I saw the finished product that I was aware the names had
\nbeen changed. My own afterthought contributions had missed the deadline anyway, but who
\nknows, perhaps Betty Boobsky might turn up in a future edition?<\/p>\n
As to the rule changes, my main concern was the removing of the hidden influence
\npoints and being able to win with three different<\/i> wavers. I felt the effect of
\nthis would be to produce a more muddled game, lacking the clarity and the psychological
\nelements of the original. The crux of the argument was that I felt Kremlin<\/b> was
\nessentially a fun game, while Don seemed to be trying to turn it into an altogether more
\nstrategic affair via increased rules.<\/p>\n
Then there were the political problems inherent in re-situating the game in the
\neighties and sticking Gorbachev on the cover. Urs and I were adamant that the game was
\nmeant to reflect the Cold War period under Stalin, and was in no way representative of
\nGorby and perestroika<\/i>. Don countered this by stating that having a recognisable
\nand topical figure on the box would help increase the game’s ‘saleability’:
\nan assertion with which I could never agree.<\/p>\n
By now letters were flying backwards and forward across the Atlantic on a daily basis.
\nSuperficially it was almost a Hollywood scenario; the creative artists seeing their
\nmasterpiece disfigured by a monolithic corporation. But that’s a rather pretentious
\nnotion; in truth we both knew that Don was working very hard to produce the best possible
\nresult for all parties.<\/p>\n
Eventually though, our persistence paid off; Don agreed to reinstate the original
\nrules, albeit in a shaded area in the rulebook, a move that had the faint whiff of
\ntokenism, a feeling compounded by the somewhat less than complete rules in this section.
\nIn addition there were also to be basic and advanced rulebooks which mollified us
\nsomewhat. By this time though, my guns were firmly trained on the cover. I felt more
\nstrongly about it than Urs, who was more philosophical, remarking that the ‘Americans
\nprobably understand then-market better than us’. Be that as it may, the Gorby cover
\nhas now been ditched in favour of a colourful collection of Soviet iconography, making
\nthe game appear less serious. Little wonder Don was to remark later: ‘This was the
\ntoughest game I’ve ever worked on’.<\/p>\n
But to return to the original question; is Kremlin<\/b> now a better<\/i> game?
\nAfter all the static I gave Don he’ll probably kill me when I say, yes, I believe it
\nis. In retrospect, I think I probably suffered a knee-jerk reaction to the changes per
\nse<\/i>, rather than the effect of these changes, in my mistaken desire to retain the
\n‘purity’ of the original. Ugh! these words taste awful.<\/p>\nThe Kremlin Reshuffle<\/h3>\n
Declared Influence<\/h4>\n
The main change from the original is the removal of secret influence; in the original
\na player could win if he had as much or more undeclared<\/i> influence points in the
\nParty Chief as the player controlling him<\/u> openly. It is still possible to have the
\nbest of both worlds here by adopting the rule that a player can still claim a wave for
\nhis faction by declaring influence points equal to, or in excess of the player
\ncontrolling that politician, immediately prior to phase 8 (Waving at the October Parade).
\nOf course it is also possible to play the game as per the original rules, but bear in
\nmind that in this version declared influence points are not lost if the politician is
\ndispatched to Siberia, something the American rulebook fails to point out.<\/p>\nThree Time Wavers<\/h4>\n
The second major change is the ability to win if your faction<\/i> has waved three
\ntimes, irrespective of who did the waving. In the original, the same<\/i> politician
\nhad to wave three times for victory to be claimed. The effect of this is to make the game
\nmore fluid. In the Swiss version it became very difficult to become a three time waver,
\nespecially in a five or six player game.<\/p>\nSiberia I Declare<\/h4>\n
Losing declared influence points on politicians dispatched to the icy wastes is, at
\nfirst glance, a fairly radical change. The effect of this should make players more
\ncircumspect in their bidding. But in reality players become power crazed and go the whole
\nhog anyway, thus rendering this change rather less radical than it appears initially.<\/p>\n
Tie Breaker<\/h4>\n
This has to be one of the best changes Don came up with. Ties are now broken by the
\nplayer with the third highest declared influence points on a particular politician,
\nrather than simply by the player who declared first, though this method is still used in
\nthe event of ties unresolved by the first method.<\/p>\n
The effect of this is to involve more players in decision making which is always a
\ngood thing in any game, but especially this one.<\/p>\n
The Options<\/h3>\n
Optional rule should there be no Party Chief at the end of phase 5 in year
\neleven:<\/b> Although this situation does not often occur it can be a problem when it
\ndoes, as it means that a player controlling the Foreign Minister decides who will win the
\ngame by announcing the next Party Chief. Clearly not a satisfactory solution. To resolve
\nthis, we suggest that the winner is the faction with the most recorded waves. In the
\nevent of a tie then the player controlling the highest ranked politician wins the
\ngame.<\/p>\nJobs For The Boys<\/h4>\n
The plus and minus signs on the politician cards refer to their suitability for
\ncertain offices. We seldom used this in the original but that was more due to the
\nfiddliness of constantly changing ages, but more relevantly it was so difficult to get
\nanyone to wave three times, let alone make sure that your men had the jobs. Now both
\nthese factors have been eliminated this option seems a good one since it makes the
\npromotion phase considerably more strategic.<\/p>\n
Adding Influencing Points<\/h4>\n
Should be considered mandatory rather than optional.<\/p>\n
The Intrigue Cards<\/h4>\n
Difficult to decide about the usefulness of these. Certainly they add uncertainty and
\nmake for a more fluctuating game, but rather at the expense of planning. The blackmail
\ncards are not my cup of vodka at all, though this is more to do with my distaste for
\ngames where you have to strike bargains with players.<\/p>\n
Historical Revolutionary Variant<\/h4>\n
This is the new expansion kit released by Avalon Hill featuring historical
\npoliticians. So a big hello to Josef Stalin. The concept of having real politicians who
\nare replaced by mythical politicians when they die is indeed a wonderful one.
\nUnfortunately it simply doesn’t work. The main problem is one of age. Uncle Joe
\nchecks in at 44, so no matter how much purging he does you can be sure it will be a long
\ntime before he checks out.<\/p>\n
Likewise Leon Trotsky (45), and Nikita Krushchev (30). The suggestion I would make is
\nthat you add 30 to the ages of the ‘real’ politicians.<\/p>\n
Let’s hope I don’t end up eating these words as well.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
(This article was originally published in “Games International”, issue #2 and is reproduced here with the permission of Brian Walker, the former GI editor) KREMLIN The object of Kremlin (reviewed last issue), is to manipulate mythical politicians in the Soviet Politburo with the aim of becoming Party Chief and waving at the October Parade … KREMLIN<\/span> weiterlesen