RENAISSANCE LAND WARFARE:
18TH CENTURY EUROPEAN:
Koenig Krieg

Brief Description Intended to cover everything from skirmishes in the forests of North America, to set-piece battles in Central Europe. Rules emphasize the parity between artillery, infantry, and cavalry. Includes siege and campaign rules. Optional rules adapt the game system to the late 17th century as well.
Period 1688-1786 (including the War of the Spanish Succession, Seven Years War, War of Austrian Succession, and War of American Independence; and European, American, and Indian theaters of war)
Scale
One figure 50 men
2 pieces of artillery with crew
One game turn 15 minutes
One inch 200 feet
Designed for use with 15mm figures
(double all measurements for 25mm figures)
Basing
Troop Type # of figures size of base
(frontage x depth)
Formed Infantry 4 3/4" x 1/2"
Unformed Infantry 2 1/2" x 1/2"
Cavalry 2 1" x 1"
Artillery 1 gun,
2 crew		 1" x 1 1/2"
Contents 90-page booklet, 1 reference sheet, 1 black-and-white mapsheet
Designer Barry Gray
Publisher Current edition published 1996 by Freikorps 15 and Outland Games, and includes the products previously published separately as the first edition rulebook, Festung Krieg, La Guerre du Roi, and Der Grosse Koenig

What You Think

Brian Weathersby ([email protected])
I have KK, and over all I like the system. My complaint is with the current edition of the rules put out by Outland Games. The proofreading on my set is horrible! Misspellings abound, charts are incorrect (look at the 500-pt army on pg. 5) and the explanatory diagram on pg. 16 does not have any labels attached to the units, although the text refers to the units by label. While these may seem like petty complaints, if your presentation is not good then your concepts/ideas will not get the consideration they deserve, now matter how good they are.

Having said all that, I do like the game, as I mentioned earlier. The deployment phase is much better than the usual let's set up and then start moving wargame. Now you have to think about deployment, and use your light troops (clearly I play Austrians) as they are intended. Since it is a grand tactical game, I don't miss the detail within each battalion, a la Johnny Reb or Empire. Overall, I think the system is good and does what it was designed to do. I just wish the new owners would clean it up!

Dr. Brendan Moyle ([email protected])
I'd like to respond to a few of John Kelly's comments.

What always has to be borne in mind is that KK is a grand-tactical game. Low-level accuracy, such as would be relevant for a battalion or squadron commander, is kept at a minimum. Clearly there are 'false' rules at the battalion level, but this misses the mark. If a rule doesn't contribute to a brigade-level simulation, then its inclusion will simply be friction.

JOHN'S COMMENTMY RESPONSE
There are no orders, a circumstance which allows units to react nearly instantly to the opponent. Redeploying units from one end of the battlefield to the next is merely a matter of moving them there, as there are no command obstacles. Reacting is only possible if the 'reacting' unit has not previously acted that turn. Otherwise they will be frozen in place. KK generates uncertainty over what units act in what sequence by their initiative system. Command obstacles include a command radius for generals. Pin rules can also be exploited to prevent rapid redeployment by opponents.
Artillery ranges are too short. 12 pdrs have a maximum range of 700 yds, despite the fact that BP Hughes in his work Firepower estimates a 60% hit percentage at 900 yds. Hughes appears to be very optimistic over the accuracy of these guns. After all, Old Fritz relegated the 12pdrs to the rear, based on their poor performance.

As an aside on the range for 12 pdrs in the SYW, it is worth noting that gun trials carried out by the English were done at 700 yards. That is, in comparing performance of such artillery, the 700 yard mark was used. 700 yards may not have been the maximum range of such artillery but tactically it was clearly believed to be the effective range.

Cavalry are never blown and may charge turn after turn. There is no such thing as disorder in these rules. Charging cavalry lose a figure every time they charge - which, aside from any fire-casualties, slows them down over time. Note that the rule design notes argue that cavalry charges where chiefly a psychological contest. Is a 'disorder' unit formation necessary for a grand tactical game?
Counterbattery seems too effective. Historically it was ineffective. Agreed. We have a house rule that 'halves' counter-battery accuracy. Not too hard
John P Kelly ([email protected])
These grand tactical rules are a fast playing set that are great, if you don't want to sweat the details and like rolling a handful of die hoping for a bunch of 6's. They have a number of short comings and will not be terribly satisfying to the scrupulous gamer interested in a historical simulation.

  • There are no orders, a circumstance which allows units to react nearly instantly to the opponent. Redeploying units from one end of the battlefield to the next is merely a matter of moving them there, as there are no command obstacles.
  • Artillery ranges are too short. 12 pdrs have a maximum range of 700 yds, despite the fact that BP Hughes in his work Firepower estimates a 60% hit percentage at 900 yds.
  • Melee is very bloody, which is good as units need not check morale (for casualty level) till they have taken 50% casualties.
  • Cavalry are never blown and may charge turn after turn. There is no such thing as disorder in these rules.
  • Counterbattery seems too effective. Historically it was ineffective.

In short, these rules require a large dose of beer and pretzels for proper enjoyment.

Mark Cuomo ([email protected])
A fast-playing set of Seven Years War rules, giving the players a good feel for warfare of the period. The system translates well to earlier periods, also. Well worth the price. A easy set of rules to teach to novice gamers, with enough tactical 'meat' to keep the grognards at the table...
Jim Davis ([email protected])
I have been playing KK since it was published. The first time I read the rules, I decided they were strange and useless. I was eventually enticed by a free set and leared to love them. I found they gave a great Seven Years War battle, and were easy to learn and teach. Most players pick up the basic rules in two or three turns, but the use of brigades, when to move first, why a better commander helps all take time to appriciate. The set-up and pre-battle manuever and scouting add a lot to the flavor. The two-deep mounting looks good, and the national armies seem to follow what I've read about them. Good set of rules.
Sven Lugar ([email protected])

I have played Koenig Krieg since 1982 or 1983, and have had some legendary battles using the system. I've used both first and second edition rules. I find it the perfect system to introduce wargaming to new players because of its straight-forward, fast, and easy-to-learn design. It captures the flavor of the armies and the tactics of the period, without delving into overly complex rules that make many games unplayable for the beginner. It provides a realistic balance between the three major arms of an army. It is simple and realistic enough to afford the veteran player with enjoyment and a fast game.

I've known many players to incorporate various concepts and rules from the game into their own house-rules for a broad variety of periods. It has a wonderful set-up system, and hidden movement rules that put the fog back into the opening of a battle. I can't think of a basic wargame that I would rather recommend.

If you would like to add your opinion to this webpage, use the following form or send email to the editor.

Your Name
Email Address (required)
Review/Opinion

Online Resources

If you know of other resources for this game, please let us know by sending email. If you have material you would like to make available to the Net, also let us know.

Last Updates
2 November 1999comments by Brian Weathersby
13 August 1999expanded artillery comments by Dr. Brendan Moyle
7 August 1999comments by Dr. Brendan Moyle
6 July 1999comments by John P Kelly
21 April 1999comments by Mark Cuomo
Comments or corrections?