Spielaffe ggf. eine Provision vom Händler oder Spieleanbieter, z.B. für solche mit Symbol. Das gilt auch für in Spielen erworbene Inhalte. Mehr Informationen. Von Rittern, Königen und Drachen. Wir stellen euch die besten aktuellen Mittelalter-Games vor, die ihr gespielt haben müsst! Erledige Aufgaben und gewinne ritterliche Duelle, um Nachfolger des Königs zu werden. Das Ritter-Spiel gibt es kostenfrei für dein Smartphone oder Tablet.
Ritter-SpielOnline-Einkauf von Games aus großartigem Angebot von Zubehör, Spiele, Konsolen, Interaktive Gaming-Figuren, Herunterladbare. Schnelligkeit: Reise auf die Ritterburg. Das brauchen Sie: Musik; Stühle oder Kissen. Beim ersten Spiel des Ritterturniers müssen die kleinen Ritter ihre. Baue ein riesiges Königreich und führe deine Armee zum Sieg! Ohne Download Browserspiel.
Ritter Spiel Neueste Ritter Spiele VideoTop 5: Schwertkämpfe in Spielen - Diese Spiele machen For Honor Konkurrenz Ritter-Spiel - Deutsche Community. likes. Eine deutsche Community zum Ritter-Spiel von Gameforge. Dies ist keine offizielle Community von Gameforge, von daher können wir hier nur begrenzt Support. Powered by Restream fan-cythis.com Spiel spielen. Kingdom Come: Deliverance hat das Mittelalter in die Moderne gebracht. Zeit, die besten mittelalterlichen Spiele zu küfan-cythis.com Sendung bei Gameswelt anscha. Das Ritter-Spiel auf einen Blick: *Über 90 Questen in neun verschiedenen Provinzen *Eine breite Auswahl von über 60 Waffen, Schilden und Rüstungen *Herausfordernde Kämpfe gegen andere Spieler. It is the ultimate game of skill. Ein Ritter Spiel is a dice-less battle game that allows players to be a general without the danger of real warfare. Ein Ritter Spiel games come in a box with a 21x16 inch hard board map, an order of battle, laminated rules, and wooden counters. TYPE: Ein Ritter Spiel – Dice-less War game.
Finally, the Break Point is the number of units that the army may lose before it breaks in morale. A typical army has a Movement of 2, Attack of 2, and Break Point of 2 i.
These numbers may seem really low, but it actually forces the player to focus on only those attacks where they can win, and win strongly. As a note, the Attack and Break Point ratings are defined as: Bad troops, poorly led, trained, or equipped.
Average troops, neither inspired nor cowardly. Good troops, we armed, trained, and led. Inspired troops, exceptionally led and trained. God-like troops who are destined by God to win an empire.
For the Movement rating, cavalry armies tend to have at least a 3 with great cavalry armies having a 4. Infantry armies have a rating of 2, with particularly sluggish armies like Early Greek Hoplite having a 1.
All use essentially the same system: each unit is a single base and all bases are a standard width. Any grids are one base width in size. Infantry move one base width and cavalry moves two base widths.
When units retreat light infantry retreat two base widths, heavy infantry one, and cavalry two. Maneuvering is where a lot of the differences are in the units.
Light Infantry units are the most maneuverable, by far, with everyone else fairly limited to how they can move. Given that this is a game of maneuver, this is the section of the rules that players have to place the most attention.
Once you get into a bad position, it is very hard to maneuver out of it. The Movement rating of the army indicates the number of units or groups that can move.
If units are grouped together bases touching and all facing the same direction then moving that group only uses one Movement point like a Command PIP in DBA.
So grouping units together is very important and as time and the effects of combat and terrain come into play, your forces will fragment into smaller groups, therefore limiting how many units can move each turn.
Terrain has little effect on movement. You can either move through it or you cannot. I can see adding some extra rules, however, like woods and towns breaking formation, but currently the rules have none.
Combat Combat is conducted by indicating a unit that is attacking and the units supporting the attack, and the unit being attacked.
The players then go down a list of combat results, finding the situation that matches the condition of the attack, and read the combat results which are almost always "are defeated".
Now I cannot give you the whole combat results lists — that is the intellectual property of Chris Engle and why you buy the game after all — but I can give you a sense of it.
Missile unit with two unopposed supporting missile units defeat everyone. To count as "supporting" a unit must be be able to attack the same target.
So if it is melee, they have to be adjacent and facing the target unit; if missile combat they have to be in range, line of fire, and line of sight.
In order to count as "unopposed" the supporting unit cannot be adjacent to an enemy unit other than the target.
I had incorrectly taken it to mean that a unit would also be opposed if opposite an unengaged enemy missile when using missile combat, and quite liked it that way.
The list of combat results is in a specific order, ranking from most likely to least. For example: All troops defeat troops attacked in the rear or flank.
All troops defeat civilians. If a unit of Peasants civilians attack a unit of Knights from the rear it wins the combat because the rule "All troops defeat troops attacked in the rear or flank" has higher precedence than the rule "All troops defeat civilians".
If the Peasants were attacking from the front it would be a disastrous attack, resulting in their defeat. Not much of a reason to make that attack then!
All of the combat results lists are pretty much the same from rule set to rule set; each just provide variations based on the period and genre reflected by the rules.
Those sorts of rules, however, would not be in Fusilier , which is set in the Horse and Musket era. Those rules, however, would have rules about arquebuses, musketeers with and without bayonets , and artillery, which Ritter , set in the ancient and medieval times, would not.
All in all the combat works pretty well and you get the hang of the order in the list, so often you don't even need to reference it except in special circumstances.
Generally speaking, if your attack has support you will defeat the enemy; if not, it is sort of a rock-paper-scissors drill as to which unit types defeat which enemy under what circumstances.
There are also a number of optional rules, including those who cannot do without their dice. Throw 2D6 and a '12' means the loser of the combat becomes the winner, a '2' means the combat was a draw, anything else means the results as indicated stand.
Break Point This is another area where the rules stand out from most games. Other rules state when the game is won. Players play until the victory conditions are met, which is largely when the enemy breaks in morale.
Then they pick up the game, chat, and talk about shoulda' coulda' woulda'. Not in these rules. In fact, it might be necessary to fight a rearguard action with a few units in order to ensure that the remainder of the army makes it off safely.
If you lose units equal to twice your Break Point, your army then goes into Rout state. Everyone then is forced to make a beeline for the board edge.
Why would you want to play out the rout of an army? Remember that these rules are to play out the battles in a larger campaign game.
Rather than rolling dice for how many units get swept up in the rout, you actually play it out. Historically, it didn't have much internal cohesion and Ritter lets you represent that easily.
Ein Ritter Spiel puts the rules on a grid, rather than using free-form movement. It includes muskets, so it spans Ritter through Fusilier.
But the army lists came from Fusilier, not Ein Ritter Spiel. I like the distinction between light and heavy infantry and did not feel the inclusion of skirmisher was necessary for Fusilier.
I also felt that ERS was clearer in its writing. As far as I know, ERS is not published. Chris gave me the rules for free when I ordered Ritter and Jabberywocky off of his web site.
Good to hear that another person knows and has tried the rules. I agree that it would do well with a good campaign system. Post a Comment.
Dale's Wargames. In the last blog post I provided a review for a set of rules by Chris Engle that cover a number of periods and genres.
The background of the scenario is as follows: Napoleon mistakenly believed that most of the Prussian army face him at Jena, and ordered Bernadotte and Davout to concentrate and attack the Prussians from the rear.
As Gudin's infantry division advanced in a dense fog, it clashed with the Prussians in the village of Hassenhausen and drove them out. As the fog lifted, Blücher rashly led forward with the Prussian cavalry.
Gudin's men formed square and repulsed the assault. Davout could now see he was greatly outnumbered and ordered Friant and Morand to march to his aid immediately.
He also sent urgent appeals to Bernadotte and his I Corps to support him. Bernadotte, most likely out of professional jealousy, left Davout to fight alone.
Meanwhile Emperor Frederick and Brunswick, the Prussian commanders, were surprised to find French units to their front. Their indecision delayed massing the Prussian infantry and artillery to drive the French from Hassenhausen till 10 am.
By that time, Friant, with his division and the corps artillery, arrived to secure the French right and repulse the Prussians. During the attack, Brunswick was killed and Schmettau was wounded, causing more command confusion.
A full hour elapsed before the next Prussian attack went in against the weak French left. The Prussian high command remained passive, and did little to bring up fresh troops.
Davout on the other hand, wasted no time attacking and driving the Prussians from the field in the afternoon, winning the most signal victory of his career.
For many years thereafter, the III Corps retained an aura of invincibility. Napoleon was justifiably furious with Bernadotte and meant to court-martial his, but he never did — a mistake in retrospect.
I made a game board for this scenario some time ago. Why this particular scenario has been lost over time, but the idea was that it would make game setup and teardown much easier.
We thought "why don't they do this with all the scenario maps? They were convenient. I think I just wanted to see how it would turn out.