The Rococo of Unhappy King Charles

David Kennedy, 9 October 2025

The exuberant beauty of the design for Phalanx’s Unhappy King Charles is an aesthetic triumph. Its elegance bewitches the gamer. Unhappy King Charles succeeds brilliantly as a marriage of game design and artistry that is rare in the world of boardgaming. Frankly, I am at a loss to think of any peers. It stands alone.

click images to enlarge

Picking up the box, one is struck by the handsome visage of King Charles adorning the box. Tilt the box slightly and the stern countenance of Cromwell glares at you foreshadowing the conflict. At this moment, one realizes you are being drawn into another world beyond a mere boardgame.

The setting for Unhappy King Charles is the First English Civil War in 1642-46 when the tensions between Parliament and the Monarchy burst into open warfare. The end result was to see the surrender of King Charles and Parliament asserting its political dominance as the supreme authority in England. The game allows players to re-fight this epic moment in English history.

 

Out of the Box

The gameboard represents 17th century England. It is divided into five distinct regions:

• The North
• The East
• The Midlands
• Wales
• The South

Each region is dotted with towns, ports, fortresses, and strongholds of Local Notables. The fortresses have different classes. Bigger is better. A few of the towns in each region are Recruitment Areas for each side. These are vital for raising brigades to fight for your cause.

Scattered across the map are nine areas of Economic Infrastructure, like The Wool Road, The Wine Trade, Lead Mines and so forth. These don’t affect gameplay, but are used in case the calculation of victory points is necessary at the end of the game.
The map does contain some geographic detail of mountains and forests. But, these are muted, more decorative.

The real geography is the web of roads connecting all these places. There are some roads through mountains that are less efficient. There is a single maritime road connecting Hull and Gainsborough. I presume this represents rivers or canals. It is an intriguing detail. The geography of the gameboard is very intricate. Aside from the standpoint of pure maneuver, there is a great depth and richness to the geography.

The value of towns and fortresses is defined by so many factors. The strength of the fortress. Is it a recruitment area? How many connections does it have? Is it part of Economic Infrastructure Area? How many other towns in that region do I already control? Does it host a Local Notable? What enemy forces are nearby? What forces do I possess?
Multiply this dynamic across the entirety of the board and it is easy to see how information overload is possible.

It is all conducive to cunning plots and devious machinations. This, of course, makes for delightful gameplay where you seek to get the drop on the bad guys. Clearly, it also rewards the experienced player who can ingest all these variables efficiently, determine what opportunities need to be prioritized, and execute them effectively.

The game mechanics only emphasize all these dynamics. War in 17th century was a different affair compared to the nature of modern warfare. Here warfare is intensely local. Leadership is crucial. The game comes with a large cast of characters—local notables, regional generals and field generals. Only field generals can command outside their region. Furthermore, only a handful of generals can command major armies of more than four brigades. Local notables are vital in asserting local control.

Different generals have different abilities:

• Strategy is how effectively he can maneuver his armies.
• Battle is how effectively he can command in combat.
• Subordination is a general’s rank. Those of higher rank obviously commands. Curiously, two commanders of the same level cannot share the same space.

(As an aside, is it just me or are the Royalist leaders on average more handsome? Perhaps, they had an appreciation for the importance of skilled portrait artists?)

The primitive logistics of the era constrain the movements of armies. Bigger isn’t necessarily better. Smaller armies are more nimble and move more quickly. The ability of an Army to maintain itself in the field is limited. That mighty killer stack of nine brigades should only be raised for a specific and momentary purpose after carefully preparing the battlefield beforehand.

Desertion, disease, inertia and sloth will blight and degrade any and all forces you raise. Every single turn will see this happen. As the war grinds on, this dynamic only increases as mutual exhaustion grows.

 

Blow Wind! Come, Wrack!

Combat is also of a piece of the era. When the enemy attacks, the defender led by a General can seek to evade. Roll a 4-6 on a d6 and the evasion succeeds. If the evading General has a lower Strategy Rating they gain a +1 DRM. Conversely, if the evading General has a higher Strategy Rating they gain a -1 DRM. If the enemy advances through the mountains, a -1 DRM is applied as the terrain helps conceal their approach. Consistent with the notion that larger armies more difficult to maneuver and control, smaller forces can, regardless of the movement point costs, move two areas away.

Failing that, the both sides can choose to disperse their forces rather than fight. This decision is made after both sides reveal their forces. (Defender goes first.) Thus, an attacker could walk into an ambush and decide ‘the better part of valor is discretion’.

In either case, dispersal will see an army effectively evaporate as they are moved to the Dispersed box. From here, they can be reconstituted later. Clearly, battle will typically come when both sides are motivated, be it with confidence, necessity or desperation.

 

Cry ‘Havoc!’ – Combat

Combat is straightforward. Each player rolls a single d6.

• The Combat Value of their troops is added.
• The Battle Rating of their General is added.
• Modifiers from a Combat card are applied.

The two numbers are compared. Draws favoring either side or an Indecisive Victory are common with a brigade eliminated and one side retreating. Only if the difference between the two numbers is 5+ is the result a Major Victory. Two brigades are lost and the victor draws and plays a Strategy card. In the latter years of the war, one of the eliminated enemy Brigades can switch sides!

A Decisive Victory can be achieved if the victor played a Decisive Victory Combat card. Now, they can draw and play two Strategy cards. Strong leadership or a well-timed combat card (only one allowed) can be the decisive edge.

That said, decisive victories are rare and difficult to achieve. I would also point out that experience is invaluable. Remember, the intricacies of the geography favors the knowledgeable and devious commander. A dollop of good timing certainly aids the cause of victory in battle. Consistently getting the drop on the bad guys clearly takes some skill.

The dynamics of combat only emphasize the grinding nature of the conflict. Big battles will help move events in your favor. But, ultimate victory comes from the day-to-day cat-and-mouse of accumulating and expanding political control.

 

O Sweet Revenge – How to Win

Victory in Unhappy King Charles has a few paths. There is a dramatic Automatic Victory option for each side. For Parliament, forcing King Charles to surrender. For the Royalists, the knock-out blow is control of London and three Regions for two consecutive turns. However, these circumstances are more akin to coup de grâce moments than ever-present dangers. Things have to be going badly for these opportunities to arise.

The true coin of the realm for victory in Unhappy King Charles are PC markers. The game is not about winning battles per se, although well-timed that can be most helpful. Battles and sieges are but means to an end. Indeed, the game is all about seizing and maintaining Political Control of territory.

One of the ways Political Control manifests in victory is through the concept of Power Base. On the Turn Track, there is a Power Base value listed. Notably, as the game proceeds, this value increases. Each turn during the Power Base Phase, if either side falls below this value, they lose immediately. Fascinatingly, if both sides fall below this value, both lose.

If the game ends before one side is triumphant, Political Control is used to calculate victory. Using control of Regions and Economic Infrastructure, if Parliament has 11+ Victory Points they win. Otherwise, the Royalist player wins.

CDG in the UK

To make it all work, Unhappy King Charles uses the card-driven game mechanics pioneered by Mark Herman’s classic We the People. That means the game engine is powered by what it calls Strategy cards of which there are three major types: Campaigns, Operations, Events.

Each turn players randomly draw a hand of these cards. Depending on who has the initiative, a card is played and resolved. Back and forth it goes until these cards are exhausted. This is the heart of the game.

• Campaigns allow the player to activate two (minor) or three (major) different Generals to move, bombard and (Local Notables only) raid. Movement often leads to battle.
• Operations allow a player to do one thing: place PC markers, recruit, raid, activate a general.
• Events represent historical events that favor either side. Some are neutral. Some are mandatory and must be played. There are even response events that can be played in response to specific events. Lastly, there are some cards that can effect the resolution of a battle or juice the results to favor you even more.

The effect of the card play is to model effectively and atmospherically the dynamics of warfare in the English Civil War. Tempo and initiative are crucial. Each player is constantly trying to control the flow of events; make their enemies dance to their tune.

That these Strategy cards have Event cards only enriches this gameplay. Since cards can be discarded instead of played, it creates this delightful feeling for the player. They can possess insider knowledge to affect the timing of some events to their advantage or quietly putting the kibosh on enemy plans. It really pulls the player into the narrative and the era.

As an opinionated gamer, I am also delighted the see the decks of Strategy cards have a narrative arc that reflects the history. There are three decks. Moreover, each deck is seeded to be with a key event:

1. Early War – “Raising the Royal Standard”
2. Mid War – “The Army of the Solemn League and Covenant”
3. Late War – “New Model Army”

This structural detail is vital in anchoring the gameplay in the historical flow of the events of the English Civil War.

Another delightful detail is how the various game mechanics reinforce the growing mutual exhaustion each side faces. Early on, the Power Base thresholds are lower, as each side determination to prevail is strong. As the struggle drags on, your troops are more likely to desert.

One of the dividends of major victories in battles late in the war are Turncoats. Troops can and will start to defect and join the victorious. Indeed, as the war drags on there is a limit to the number of troops to be recruited.

All of these details model the rising exhaustion of each side over the course of the game. This, each deck will feel different. These feelings will affect each players’ decisions as they sense time running out.

Cruel Necessity vs. UKC

I’ll admit my experience with the English Civil War is very limited. This is unfortunate because the conflict is rife with drama for gamers. More importantly, the English Civil War was a crucible for ideas of limited government, individual rights, and parliamentary sovereignty. All of which became cornerstones of Western political thought and institutions. It is one of the big moments in the history of the West.

Years ago, I was part of the playtest crew for VPG’s Cruel Necessity. Despite its promise and all the talent involved, the game simply doesn’t work. It seeks to cover the entirety of the three wars of the era. While it evokes the period and history (battles are similarly indecisive), at the end of the day, it isn’t fun to play. It is a joyless slog. By comparison, Unhappy King Charles is the promised land for players seeking a strategic game about the English Civil War.

 

The Melancholy of Henrietta

As a seasoned solo gamer, I was intrigued by the prospect of playing Unhappy King Charles. The game looked so damn good. That it came with a dedicated solo mode was exciting. Even better, it is a variant of the esteemed Stuka Joe’s CDG solo method. There lies the rub.

The solo mode is just a method to facilitate two-handed play. For true fans of the English Civil War and the gamer who need an opponent, it is useful. No doubt, it is also helps the rookie learn the ropes. But, for solo gamer like myself, it doesn’t make for a compelling solo game experience. Sure, I’ve played games two-handed. But, that is definitely a different type of gaming experience. If Henrietta meets your solo gaming requirements, go for it!

 

Actum Est

The triumph of Unhappy King Charles lies in its merging of theme, mechanics and aesthetics. The design offers compelling gameplay that rewards skill, knowledge and experience to uniquely evoke the era it covers. In the familiar turn of phrase from the olde Avalon Hill: “Now YOU command”, it does exactly that. Art often bumps against the limits of its conventions. Here in Unhappy King Charles it transcends them to achieve the sublime.

 

---

Thank you for visiting the Regiment of Strategy Gaming and riding with The Armchair Dragoons.
Rather than list a bunch of social media links, the easiest thing to do is to check out our LinkTree, which connects you to all of our various locales around the web.
You can also support The Armchair Dragoons through our Patreon, and find us at a variety of conventions and other events.
Feel free to talk back to us either in our discussion forum, or in the comments below.