Pawnderings

The future of D&D and RPGs

2012-01-23T22:07:00.002-05:00

And interesting article from an insider explaining why the RPG business is in trouble and some thoughts about where it may go from here.

Mussolini as Schrödinger's cat

2012-01-19T22:20:00.004-05:00

The Storch lands next to the hotel in preparation for evacuating Mussolini (represented by the German Victory Medal) under the protection of Otto Skorzeny (represented by the Green Battle Star counter). The landing site is well-guarded by German paratroopers, but note that each unit has lost a figure. At upper left is a unit of Italians (here depicted using Russian figures) trying to stop the evacuation.

Was he alive, or was he dead? It all depended upon when you looked, Thursday as Game Store Tony and I took a short break from our Russian Campaign to play a scenario from the new Memoir '44 Campaign Book 2, specifically the Rescue of Mussolini scenario from the Air Aces campaign.

I really wanted to try this one out because it's quite different from the typical Memoir '44 scenario. For one thing, victory is not based on medals -- but simply on Mussolini's fate. If he's rescued the Germans win, if not, they lose.

There are quite a few special rules and a chance to use pieces that don't see much use otherwise, such as the Storch liaison plane and paradrops.

The Italian force is comprised of eight regular infantry units deployed in four pairs across the hill and mountain hex adorned map. Mussolinui, himself, is represented by a German Objective marker in the Prison Camp Hex.

The German force is comprised of six elite infantry units which enter via the Paradrop procedure, which in Memoir '44 involves actually dropping the pieces from about a foot above the map! After they land the Germans can give a marker to one of the units representing the legendary German commando leader Otto Skorzeny. The fnal element of the German force is the Storch Liaison plane, which must be used to evacuate Mussolini.

On our first go around, the raid was pretty much a disaster. Two of the six German units were destroyed while landing and the others were scattered. While Skorzeny was able to lead two units in an assault on the prison that liberated Mussolini, the Italians seemed to have no shortage of useful cards, and were able to react energetically. A mad dash for some safe spot was unsuccessful and the Italians ended up mopping up the whole German force and recapturing Mussolini. The Storch was never brought on.

We set up and played again and this time it was the Germans who seemed to get most of the luck. Only one German unit was lost in landing and the three units in the eastern batch landed in a tight group near the hotel, as did one scattering unit from the western group. Skorzeny again led a charge on the hotel that liberated the deposed dictator but this time there were a bunch of supporting units along for the show. Meanwhile the Ilatlians had areal drought of usable cards, being stuck with several for a sector where they had no units.

The Storch was brought in, landed and took off with Mussolini for the win -- although possibly just in the nick of time, because the Italians had just drawn the Bombardment card, which Game Store Tony was clearly going to use on the grounded Storch if there had been another turn.

We agreed that we needed one more game to resolve the split, so we made plans to play a tie-breaker at the first opportunity!

Arkham gaming

2012-01-15T20:02:00.003-05:00

Had some nice gaming sessions at the opposite ends of the time spectrum at Arkham Asylum this weekend.

On the one hand there was a quick, 45- or 50-minute game of Memoir '44 on Friday where my Germans were able to make short work of a large force of Russians during our continuing grand campaign game. Even though Tony's Russians had son many troops they overlapped the enire baseline by two ove rand each side and had two more reinforcements the Germans were just hot on the dice and had pretty decent cards to back them up as they rolled to a 6-2 victory.

On the other hand all day Sunday was spent in a grand campaign of another sort as we played Axis & Allies 1940 Global rules using the Alpha +3 revisions. Three fellows from the Hartford group came down to play myself and Roy at Arkham. Two of the Hartford gamers played the Axis, with one controlling Italy and Germany and the other Japan. A Hartford colleague controlled the British and the French, Roy handled the Russians and I handled the USA, ANZAC and China.

To make a long story short, I think things went relatively satisfactory for the Soviets (Moscow was at least 2 turns away from falling when we ended on Turn 5), the ANZACs (Homeland safe, fleet just took Okinawa) USA (large fleet parked off Japan, troop convoys forming in USA, Philippines never fell) and China (Almost all territory liberated) but this didn;t make up for a series of disasters involving Britain. The British player was aware of the threat of a Germa

+n Sea Lion on Turn 3 but he forgot to move the destroyer he intended to sacrifice to block the North Sea approaches. This, of course, created a cascade of negative effects elsewhere, despite the fact that Britain recaptured London on the next turn. Perhaps the most damaging effect was that Italy was basically left alone to rampage throughout Africa and the Middle East. Italy's economy got up to 50 + bonuses and Italian troops were as far south as the Belgian Congo and as far east as Western India at game end! The Japanese essentially abandoned much in the way of effort against the US and China to concentrate on the British and managed to take India on Turn 5. This second blow caused the Allies to concede, as we judged this was not a recoverable situation. While the Soviets could hold out to turn 7 or maybe even 8, there was no prospect of relief for them even then and the German juggernaut was just gathering stean and had substantial Italian troops available for devastating one-two punches against Russia. I had some hope of the US and ANZAC taking Japan by turn 8 or 9, but this would have been far too late as the Germans were poised to take London AGAIN on turn 6. With the fall of Moscow (and necessarily the third Soviet city as well) the Axis would win a European victory on Turn 6, long before the US plans could bear fruit.

A sea of green US pieces surrounding Japan does no good as disasters elsewhere doom the Allies cause.

It was good playing against such experienced Axis players, however. I picked up a lot and have some ideas of what to do for next time. We were really hurt by the British error, which negated some pretty good play on the part of the Soviets. I didn't feel too bad about how I was doing but the problem for the US is that it's hard to start to have a game impact unless the Brits can hold out.

Overall, though, it was a good game. I don't know when we'll do another Arkham Global 1940, but we may make a trip up to the hartford group's "Bunker" this spring.

Off to a gamey start

2012-01-02T22:29:00.002-05:00

Here's starting the new year off right -- the girls and I sit down for a game of Bosworth.

2011 gaming year in retrospect

2011-12-26T19:50:00.008-05:00

Marengo scenario setup from Napoleon's War Volume II: The Gates of Moscow, one of my 2011 purchases.

2011 is almost over and what an unusual gaming year it was for me. The biggest development of the year was being laid off from my job. While having a considerable negative effect on my finances, perversely it was a boon gaming wise.

Nothing like having an awful of of time on your hands to inspire a lot of game-buying, and as near as I can tell I acquired about three dozen new games over the twelve months, about half new 2011 titles and the rest from previous years. In addition, I picked up expansions and bought a couple of cases worth of War at Sea naval miniatures as well. My back of the envelope calculations indicate this probably cost me somewhere around $1,800. Mitigating this shocking expense, however, was a very active year on eBay which grossed me around $1,900 from game and miniatures sales. After taking into account shipping costs and fees, the total out-of-pocket impact on my budget was just a few hundred dollars. More than half of the eBay income came from selling off two major collections (My TCS series games and my Lord of the Rings Tradeable Miniatures) which were painstakingly assembled over long periods of time and unlikely to be repeatable in 2012. As a result I'm going to have to severely curtail new game purchases -- at least until I find a job!

On the other hand, this was an exceptionally good playing year. This, again, was part of the fallout from losing my job. My biggest gaming constraint for years was the mismatch between my schedule and most potential opponents because I worked an evening shift. While I had most weekends off, they were so crowded with other life activities that my gaming opportunities were limited. Being laid off sure freed up my time! Also helping was getting involved in several local Meetup groups, being able to attend the Central Connecticut wargamers occasionally and a lot of activity at the local game shop Arkham Asyklum. All-in-all I played quite a few face-to-face games this year -- perhaps the most in decades.

As far as those acquisitions went, quite a few were continuations, expansions and sequels to various series I've enjoyed, such as Napoleon's War, Fluxx, Munchkin, Small World and Commands & Colors. There were also a fair number of notable new game such as Star Trek: Fleet Captains, Conquest of Nerath and Test of Fire.

Personally, my newest enthusiasm was for cooperative style games (and their semi-cooperative kin) represented by the Fly Frog Productions line of games such as Last Night on Earth and Fortune and Glory and similar tiles such as the Dungeons & Dragons adventuring games, Star Trek: Expeditions and Forbidden Island.

This also continued a trend towards lighter fare among my purchases. While I did pick up some hard-core simulations such as Persian Incursion and Lock n Load: Day of Heroes, the vast majority of the year's acquisitions were more along the lines of Test of Fire, Shenandoah and Napoleon's War -- definitely wargames, but not really simulations.

It's not hard to trace the origin of this trend -- it's just hard to get simulation games on the table. Opponents are scarce and time is precious these days for that sort of game, which tends to be time consuming -- and not just in table time. To get the most out of a good simulation game it really helps if both players are reasonably familiar with the game rules beforehand, which adds to the imnvestment in time compared to euro games and other lighter genres.

I've pretty much given up on worrying about it. While I occasionally break down and pick up an old school wargame such as Four Roads to Moscow, Falklands Showdown or Marengo: Morning Defeat, Afternoon Victory, I usually take a pass these days no matter how tempted I am. Every time I feel the urge I just ask myself the question: And just WHEN will that get played? Unless I can justify it despite the likely answer of "Never," I probably won't buy it.

Also helping me exercise some future purchasing discipline is the likely end of the line for my only active collectible game: Axis & Allies: War at Sea. While there's some slight glimmer of hope that another set may appear, it probably won't be in 2012. In any case, I won't start another collectible game. While I don't have the same heartburn many do about the limitations of the format, there is the serious problem of what happens when the game gets canceled. Experience has shown that even a very good game such as Dreamblade or Navia Dratp becomes almost impossible to get on the table once official support dries up. The Axis & Allies Miniatures (both land and sea) and the D&D miniatures lines have some utility outside of the official game rules, but the basic problem remains that the collectible format really relies on a stream of new material to work. Once the stream dries up the lake will inevitably dry up and vanish.

While I did acquire around three dozen games, which is a lot, the good news is that I had a very successful time getting the new games on the table -- playing at least 21 of them at least once. This is important because my experience has been that if I don't get a game played within the first year of owning it, there's a very good chance I'll never play it. Several of the not-played yet were late 2011 acquisitions such as Sheandoah, Merchants & Marauders and Julius Caesar which I fully expect to get played soon. Some others were solitaire or solitaire-capable games such as Hornet Leader: Carrier Air Operations and the D&D adventures games that I can always get around to playing someday. There's just a handful of games like When Lions Sailed and Four Roads to Moscow that have dubious prospects for future table time.

Job prospects for the coming year are hard to predict, but it seems very unlikely I'll ever work at a newspaper again, with the evening hours that usually requires, so I expect that I'll continue to see a fair opportunity for game playing in 2012. I expect game purchases to slow down a lot, though. I've already cut down on my pre-orders (just Commands & Colors titles and Wizard Kings expansions currently) and, as I said, I am done with collectible games. Or so I say. Time will tell!

Rich Baker starts a blog

2011-12-25T14:23:00.001-05:00

War at Sea designer Rich Baker has started a new blog which I'l be keeping a close eye on. With luck we will find out that War at Sea isn't quite dead yet.

Took the new Crusader Rex out for a spin

2011-12-22T20:11:00.003-05:00

Game Store Tony provided the willing Guinea Pig for a play through of the newest version of Crusader Rex. While he'd played block games before, he'd never played this game or its earlier versions. Your truly had played the earlier versions a couple of times, but this was the first outing for the new edition.

Overall, my impression of the new game is that it plays well and seems more strategic in a good sense. Now that most of the units can return if eliminated (only the military orders and Saladin's family are permanently dead) there's not the severe unit shortages that could occur in the old version.

Well, at least, there's not inherently unit shortages. In our particular game Tony's Crusaders lost two early battles with devastating losses and this put his side down for the count early. He made a valiant effort to come back and did manage to conquer Egypt briefly and dispatch two of Saladin's relatives, but before long the green blocks seemed to be everywhere. Frederick Barbarossa showed up, but we called the game before playing the final year because it was obvious the westerners had no hope of success. The Muslim's held six of the seven victory cities and were in enough strength up north that there was little chance of Barbarossa taking even one -- and every chance he might lose the one he guarded.

My aim is to get it back on the table in early 2012 and see how I cna do with the Outremers.

Sticker Shock

2011-12-18T12:05:00.004-05:00

No, not for the price (although at $59.99, $89.99 with a mounted map Shenandoah is a little on the pricey side), but for the new, tougher stickers that come with the game.

Fortunately Columbia took the precaution of including in the box a little note warning purchasers that they've switched to a new and stronger adhesive, but let me reinforce that warning. These are not your father's stickers any more. I've never had a lot of trouble with stickers coming off my earlier Columbia games with the exception of an old edition of Rommel in the Desert where it was a real problem, but it does happen occasionally. But I have seen complaints online so obviously it has been a problem, so it appears that Columbia has taken heed.

But take heed of their warning as well. You WILL need a razor or thin knife to take up the stickers neatly. Trying to peel them up with your fingers risks damage to the sticker edges. Likewise, take special care in applying the stickers because you will have a hard time repositioning a misapplied sticker without leaving some adhesive behind.

The need to apply stickers has always been one of the drawbacks for block games because it usually means you can't just play it out of the box (an issue at, for example, a convention) but the new adhesive will mean this is especially true. Columbia has been pretty good on customer service but I predict they will have to replace an unusually large number of sticker sheets for customers who end up damaging their stickers. As a matter of fact, it probably would have been a good idea to include a double set of the stickers to provide spares (much like GMT's practice)

Very bad news for Axis & Allies and D&D fans

2011-12-15T13:48:00.004-05:00

Lead D&D and A&A miniatures designer Rich Baker just posted that he's been let go from Wizards of the Coast!

This is, of course, awful personal news for him. Being laid off a week before Christmas sucks. Actually, speaking from experience, being laid off at any time sucks pretty bad, but the holidays is even worse.

It also throws the entire future of D&D and Axis & Allies miniatures products into doubt. WOTC has already indicated it was backing out of the painted miniature category. It appears that Pathfinder may have eaten in to D&D's market share a bit, but I'm inclined to think it's bigger than just one line's market share issues. I've suspected that the "Golden Era" of boxes full of plastic and painted collectible miniatures we have enjoyed over the last decade or so was an artifact of some temporary economic conditions (specifically the price differential between China and USA) and was coming to a close.

I'm not sure what WOTC's plans are for the D&D stuff. They were working on a new set of skirmish rules, but I don't know if that's going to see daylight now.

As far as the Axis & Allies miniatures line go, Baker said that his layoff did not mean any miniatures lines were being canceled and he seemed to offer some hope that he'd be able to work on some projects on a freelance basis. Realistically, I've thjought that the land miniatures line was all but certainly dead already and that the hoped-for Late War set was never happening. There was just too long a break since the last set and it would basically mean restarting the line. I also think Angels 20 (the new air game) is a dead duck. Whatever is already paid for in the pipeline will come out, but I doubt very much there's bee anything new started. I suppose there's a small bit of hope for a Set VII for War at Sea, but it's a slender one.

I think we can also lay to rest any thoughts of a reborn Heroscape. Among the other layoffs was the brand manager for the Avalon Hill and Axis & Allies lines, so even the future of the board games may now be in doubt. I know there was some talk about an exapnsion for Battle Cry and Larry Harris was working on a final set of rules for 1940 Global Axis & Allies. Without someone to guide these along I have my doubts. The sort of intensive attention wargames/RPGs need was never a good fit for Hasbro/WOTC anyway -- they're certainly no GMT!

Overall, a very sad day for fans of a number of popular games.

Lest you think I'm always a loser ... .

2011-12-14T22:31:00.003-05:00

While I got my head handed to me at Piepsk earlier in the day, I was able to make agood showing in TWO games of Acquire that night, coming out on top in both four-player games. I've only played the game a few times before, but I am starting to get a feel for the strategy.

As a side note, there are some odd gaps in my game experience Acquire has been out for decades but I only recently started playing it -- which is too bad because it really is a great classic game.

Both game developed quite differently. The first game saw a large, dominant corporation quickly get safe status and take over half the board while the other corporations did what they could with the rest. One of the seven corporations never made it onto the board at all. I was able to win because I had acquired a good position in that dominating company early on and ended up being the majority shareholder and decent positions in many nof the others. Still, it was a close game and I only won by less than $2 grand.

The second game, in contrast, shown at top. was much more free wheeling with all seven corporations making early appearances. There were even a few times players would have like dto have started new corporations but there were none available. This game was a little more decisive, as I was more than $5,00 ahead of the next player.

I'm still learning this game, but it seems important to keep money flowing and try to be at least a participant in most of the corporations. A couple f the players found themselves cash poor because they were heavily invested in some safe corps and unable to generate funds to take advantage of opportunities as they appeared. Because of this I was able to get majority or minority shareholder bonuses on the cheap by having one of a handful of shares in taken-over corporations for a nice return on the money. In afour-player game having 8 or 9 shares was often enough to control a safe corporation and even a single share might turn a tidy profit when a small chain gets taken over if no one had the money to invest in it. I hope to get this on the table a few more times over the next few months.

The massacre at Piepsk

2011-12-14T21:40:00.004-05:00

The Russians make an early move with some Berserkers.

Well, the scenraio is actually called The Hedgehog of Piepsk, which old school wargamers will recognize was the fourth scenario in the original Squad Leader.

I hauled out the old warhorse for some old school wargaming with Game Store Tony. I haven't played the scenario in 10 or 20 years, myself, so things were more even than they may appear, especially because one of Tony's more notable qualities is that he's a quick study.

I took the Germans in the interest of saving setup time, because I could plan a clever defense ahead of time. Well, I thought it was at least solid, if not clever. I placed four LMG-equipped squads in the four buildings in the center of town to form the main position. Covering the left flank was the MMG with a squad and 9-1 leader while the right flank was coverered by the HMG with a squad and the 9-2 leader. The 8-0 and radio were also posted on the left as the lines of sight seemed better. Finally the other 9-1 and two squads were posted in reserve behind the town in the center to react to the Soviet advance.

Tony's plan was a simple, wide front advance evenly spread around the board, with the LMGs, MMG and leaders seeded throughout the force.

Things got off to a decent start as the first few defensive fires from the German machine gun teams cut down Soviet stacks like wheat. A full dozen Soviet squads were KIA'd before the first German loss. I have to say, though, that I don't really like playing the Germans in SL because it seems like they're always relying on a few key units -- so long as they're doing their job the Germans are tough, but a moment of bad luck can be very costly. I actually prefer the Soviet and US forces which are more homogeneous.

Sure enough, a bad morale check on a fairly low odds attack cleared the left flank MMG and the Russians surged forward. Bad luck with the initial artillery placement and an ineffective FFE foiled my back up plan and the 8-0 was overrun.

After this point things went down hill as Tony was able to swarm the town. German ffire groups, even massive ones with 20+ FP were not able to finish off Soviet targets. Throw in some berserk Russians, some bloody close combats and the end came swiftly. The Germans losses in the second half of the game actually exceeded Soviet.

While I felt my battle plan had legitimate promise, the fact of the matter is that Tony wiped out the Gemran force to a man and captured all five buildings in just 8 turns of the 10-turn scenario -- not a result that could be termed "close."

The Grim Finale!

Nope. I just got owned, simple as that. Still, it was fun to bring the old game to the table again after so long.

Napoleon's War II: The Gates of Moscow review

2011-12-09T21:01:00.005-05:00

Battle of Austerlitz

The dueling Napoleonic game systems of GMT (Commands & Colors Napoleonics) and Worthington Games (Napoleon's War) continue their epic matchup with a new round of games. (No word on when, or if, there will be another entry in the third Napoleonic battle game system that came out last year, the Battles of Napoleon).

Once again Worthington Games beat GMT to the punch. While GMT will probably ship the second CC:N game this month (The Spanish Army) Worthington's Napoleon's War II: The Gates of Moscow has been out for a couple of months already.

Physically, the new game is familiar stuff -- two double-sided full-color cardstock mapboards depicting four Napoleonic battles (in this case Marengo, Aspern-Essling, Austerlitz and Borodino), a cardstock player aid card, an 8-page rule book, counters, three dice and 120 plastic figures. Once again the figures are the infantry, cavalry and cannon figures from the game Viktory II, repurposed quite well to serve here. The French are blue, as they were in the first game, with white for the Austrians and Green for the Russians -- an unsurprising and appropriate color scheme.

The rules have been streamlined a bit from the first game, with some small but significant changes. Perhaps the most important is that infantry firepower at 2-hex range has been reduced to just 1 die (hitting on a 6) instead of the previous 3-dice. This is a big improvement, as it encourages the infantry to get in close instead of engaging in ahistorical long-range firefights.

Another change which could be significant is that the Advanced Skirmisher rules have been eliminated. I say "could be" because it's an entire, lengthy section cut from the rules -- but I wouldn't know because I never tired using them. They seemed far more intricate and involved than waranted by the complexity level of the rest of the game system. Evidently many agreed. In any case, it's gone.

Artillery cannot be targeted by ranged fire until any cavalry or infantry unit in the hex is eliminated.

A few other changes and clarifications were added, all conveniently listed at the end of the rulebook for experienced players. A new optional rule for drawing the AP randomly through chits has been added, although I'm not really tempted to use it. It seems to draw out laying time and add a level of randomness to a system that's already pretty luck-driven.

The fundamentals of the game system are the same. Each turn a player rolls a D3 and adds the result to his base number to get an action point allowance for the turn, typically 4-7 CAP. Most game actions such as moving and firing cost one AP per unit, although a couple of special actions such as shock attacks cost 2. Combat typically involves rolling three dice (sometimes cut down to 2 dice for terrain) looking for a 6 to hit. Artillery and units engaged in shock combat can hit on a 5 or 6 or sometimes even a 4-6.

The four scenarios depict some of the iconic battles involving the Austrians, Russians and French and I fully expect to see a "battle pack" giving us more.

One change that I don't care for is that the setup locations are mo longer printed on the map, now players have to refer to the scenario card. This makes set up a little more work than it used to be and I don't think the small font used in earlier maps detracted from the look at all.

On the other hand, all the scenarios now include some territorial victory points for at least one side, which discourages the unhistorical gamey tactics that marred some of the first game's scenarios such as Ligny and Wavre. Now both players have to stand and fight.

The first scenario, chronologically, is Marengo, and in a first for the game system this has a free setup for one side as the standard scenario. While the French setup is fixed, the Austrian player can set up freely within a specified area. There are a lot of ways the battle can play out, depending upon the Austrian setup and this is probably one of the most replayable battle sin the whole game system. It's a pretty even match, too, as the infantry on both sides is depicted by 3-figure units.

The French start with six infantry, three cavalry and two artillery on the map, with one of each of the infantry and cavalry units being elite. The whole lot is led by Napoleon +3 (then actually Bonaparte). Coming in on turn 10 or after is the +2 leader Desaix with an elite infantry, a regular infantry, a cavalry and an artillery. The total French army is therefore 15 units with 42 figures.

The entire Austrian force starts on the map. Led by +2 Melas and +1 Zach, the Austrians have six regular and one elite infantry, 4 cavalry and 4 artillery for a total of also 15 units and 38 figures. Both sides are trying to get 7 victory points, with the Austrians having prize objective sworth 2 and 3 VPs on the French map edge.

Both sides are relatively well led. The French start with a base of just 3 CAP but jump up to 5 when the reinforcements arrive, while the Austrians have 4 CAP throughout. The scenario manages to capture the back and forth of the historical battle reasonably well.

The second scenario chronologically is Austerlitz. The Allied side uses both the white figures and the green figures, for the Austrians and Russians respectively. The Austrians are definitely weak links, however, with just 2 figures per infantry unit and no elites. The Russians will have to do most of the heavy lifting. The Austrian army totals six units with just 12 figures, while the Russians have 12 units and 32 figures. The allied leadership is abysmal, with Tsar Alexander +1 and Kaiser Francis II +1. The Allied base CAP is just 3.

Napoleon is present again, with his +3 self. He starts with 12 units and 36 figures and gets +2 Davout and four more units with 12 more figures on turn 5.

This is a long and bloody battle with a VP goal of 9 for both sides. The burden of attack in on the Allies, however, and the ensuing fight will usually bear at least a passing resemblance to the historical fight.

The third scenario is the weak sister of the bunch. At Asspern-Essling the Austrians are on their own with their 2-figure infantry and I don't see a realistic path to victory for them. It's just too easy for the French to rack up VP by killing Austrian infantry units There are territorial VP available for both sides, but they seem unlikely to come into play.

The Austrian force is comprised of 19 units but just 38 figures. Charles is a +2 leader but his assistant is just a +1. Both sides have a base of just 3 CAP, but the burden of attack is on the Austrians and their larger number of weaker units mean it is hard for them to do what they have to do with the CAP available.

Napoleon is, of course, on the field again, aided by +1 Massena. He starts with 13 units and 33 figures and potentially gets three more units with 7 figures as reinforcements. Unlike the battles of Marengo and Austerlitz, these reinforcements are not as vital to the French plans. The Austrians can spend AP to try to destroy the bridge the reinforcements need to enter, but it hardly seems worth the CAP expense.

The Austrians need to get 7 VP while the French need 8 or to avoid an Austrian victory.

The final scenario is Borodino (or Bordino as it's spelled on the scenario card!). This is, as one would expect for Borodino, a knock-down drag-out wrestling match between two evenly matched forces. The Russians have THREE leaders, Kutusov +2 and two +1 leaders. They have 15 units with 42 figures well deployed in redoubts and behind rivers.

Napoleon, on the field yet again, at +3 , has a +2 Davout and a +1 Ney to help. His 16 units have 45 figures and therefor a slight numerical edge, but it will be a challenging slog into the teeth of the Russian host. Good stuff. Both sides are striving for 8 VP, with the burden of attack on the French to win in 30 turns.

Overall, I think this game is a big success. The system has been cleaned up a bit and the scenarios seem well-selected. Games should still take aoiut an hour from opening the box, which seems to be the goal these days. There's plenty of luck to provide drama but players still seem in control of their fate a bit more than the card-driven system of CC:N. The CAP system guarantees some variability but the base CAP means that each player can count on a certain minimum level of activity every turn.

Ill health gets in the way of blogging

2011-12-01T19:55:00.002-05:00

I've had a nasty bout of the flu which crimped my style pretty hard. I hope to be back to active blogging shortly.

Test of Fire -- Union strategies

2011-11-16T19:14:00.002-05:00

Test of Fire has been unexpected hit among my more hard-core wargaming crew. Unexpected, because it's a fairly simple game, really, and counter-pushers are used to more intricate fare. But not a surprise, because if there's one thing I've come to appreciate, it's Martin Wallace's talent as a game designer. So for every wargame of his I have tried, starting with Waterloo, continuing with Gettysburg and culminating now with Test of Fire, has been a startlingly great game (and a reasonable wargame as well).

It's the test of table generalship which, in the end, brings us back to the table for yet another try. A wargame that fails to truly engage the player-general's brain may see a play or two out of historical curiosity or study, but then it sits on a dusty shelf to be admired until meeting its fate on eBay.

But the ones that get the player-general's mental juices flowing hit the tbale again and again and prompt great debates over strategy and what-I-should-have -done and demands for rematches. Test of Fire is showing potential for growing into a classic.

One friend has already figured that he has the CSA locked and dares challenges ... .

Well, I am impressed enough with Wallace's design already to doubt very thoroughly whether either side has any sort of lock on victory, so I would never claim that there's a fool-proof Federal battle plan. But neither would I sit behind Bull Run expecting victory in due course -- not against an experienced opponent.

Now, clearly, the burden of attack falls on the federal player and Union players who dawdle or fail to carefully set the stage for a successful crossing are likely to find themselves either desperately racing the clock after marshaling their imposing host OR getting battered so heavily as they try to push their way across the river quickly that they lose due to Rout.

For now I'm going to assume the fixed historical set-up, although the semi-free set-up will definitely complicate things for a over-confident CSA player. One rule that can't really be optional for a serious competitive game is the Ford Card Placement rule. Having the Ford show up too close to the end (or maybe not even at all) is too big of a handicap for the Union. Using the optional rule means that the Ford Card will be available somewhere in the top half of the Federal deck and able to play a useful role.

I think the first thing that the Union player has to keep in kind is that his biggest advantage over the Rebels is not numbers (the numerical edge is actually quite slight 29 tp 25) but in flexibility. The edge is action dice is more significant at 4 to 3. The Rebels have four specific points they have to defend -- and they can't afford to give up more than one of those. So the Union player's job is to put the pressure on, stress the Rebel line along it's length and wait for it to fracture someplace -- while not losing so much time that the cards runs out or troops that Rout happens.

It's mandatory that the Federals make the most out their initial setup. They've got the Rebels outflanked and there's no sense in not striking while the iron is hot. McDowell needs to be on that flank to start so that the USA can use any 6's as extra movement rolls. A strong flanking push can often take Henry House Hill before the Rebels can react, but otherwise they need to be in position to threaten it early because it's important to get the Rebels to commit (and maybe over-commit) significant forces that way.

As soon as the initial Henry House Hill foray is settled, McDowell needs to move to the cneter of the battlefield for the next phase, which is to start pressuring all along Bull Run's crossing and potential crossing looking for a weak spot. The Ford card should be in hand, now, waiting for an opportunity. If the rebel is not careful and has not watched after the security of his base, it can bea nasty trick to wait until you've saved a move card or two and get a good turn of move rolls and rush a couple or three infantry units across the 0-rated crossing on the eastern end of Bull Run and scoot down the Orange & Alexandria RR to Manassas Junction for the win. Even a garrison of two units is vulnerable to being bum-rushed. (Centreville likewise bears watching, but simple precautions should suffice to make that a real long-shot for the Rebels and I'd even encourage an aggressive Rebel opponent to try it.)

Typically the Ford card will be more useful boosting a 1-rated crossing to a 2-rated one. Whichever one is best will depend on the tactical situation, but the odds of a successful crossing can be boosted considerably by laying the proper groundwork. While the Ford is still unplayed every likely crossing needs to be beefed up to be a credible threat. Consider moving the guns to Lewis Ford if Ball's Ford is too heavily defended. Try to build up a full hand of "good" cards for winning a tough crossing (Artillery, Move, Hold are best, Firepower, Friendly Fire and Retreat also useful). The Union should never hold onto Rout cards, in my opinion.

Once you're ready, drop the Ford and go for the win. If the South committed so many troops to defend Henry House Hill that you never ended up taking it, then thye should be so weak along the river that there's a good chance you can take the other two stars and/or Manassas Junction. Otherwise, you should have Henry House Hill already and the rebels can afford to lose NONE of the remaining points.

Is there a "perfect plan" for the Union? Absolutely not. You could easily do all this and still fall short, especially if the Rebel player plays prudently. But so far the games I have seen have been far from a cakewalk for the Rebels.

Grody Brody

2011-11-05T23:16:00.005-04:00

Well, it was a near-run thing as they like to say, but my Germans fell one victory medal short in a game against Game Store Tony in our new campaign refighting Barbarossa from Campaign Book 1.

Things got off to a decent enough start, but the Russian Cavalry was unusually deadly in its charges and the German Heroic Leader had an off day, so it ended up being a 5-4 Russian victory. So far Army Group Center got off to a gangbusters start while Army Group North is pretty well stalled. Brody is the first battle in the Army Group South series. The next battle will require the Germans to do very well and win by at least THREE medals in order to win the scenario for campaign purposes, so we shall see ... .

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

2011-10-31T19:47:00.002-04:00

Happy Halloween!

Here be dragons

2011-10-30T21:18:00.005-04:00

My eldest daughter is sending me a copy of this abstract strategy game called Dragon face that she thought I'd like.

And while the game doesn't contain dragons (the name apparently refers to the art on the "emperor" piece), it did get me thinking about how much of a fan of dragons I am. There may be no easier way to get me to cough up a few bucks than to make sure your game design includes a few dragons! And I'm not even that much of a fantasy gamer, really, but I have a soft spot for dragons.

There are, of course, dragons prominently featured in all the Dungeons and Dragons branded games and I have dragons in D&D Miniatures, D&D Conquest of Nerath, D&D Castle Ravenloft, D&D The Legend of Drizzt, D&D The Wrath of Ashardalon (Arshadalon is the dragon) and the Heroscape system D&D Underdark game. And there are dragon in the main Heroscape game, too. I have a drake among my Lost Worlds books and there are dragons scattered among the various Magic: The Gathering decks, but I also got the duel deck that features dragons vs. knights. There are dragons in Dreamblade, Wizard Kings and Small World. Most of my dragons are the western concept ones (with wings) but I do have a couple of really handsome painted Chinese style one for Arcane Legions. The game is middling but the dragons look great. I even have a ship named Dragon in Axis & Allies War at Sea! That is, however, actually named after the type of mounted soldier called a dragoon in English.

Still, few things will spice up things than a large, awesome dragon. In some games, such as Small World, the dragons are just bit players, but they have a more properly dragon-like prominence in Conquest of Nerath and the other D&D games and I always try to get one in my army when I'm playing Wizard Kings. Oddly enough, the one fantasy game where dragons don't play much of a role is the War of the Ring. While Smaug famously was central in The Hobbit, Tolkien didn't depict any dragons taking part in the Lord of the Ring events (although the Fell beasts were somewhat draco-like) which is one small disappointment I had with the work. There's no indication in Tolkien that dragons were extinct or that Smaug was the last one, but it appears they stood aloof from the contest. Still, it would have been nice to have one make a cameo!

Test of Fire -- a review and recommendation

2011-10-29T20:21:00.009-04:00

Test of Fire is one of the more delightful little games to come around in the last few years.

Designed by the notable Martin Wallace, probably best known to Geekdom for Liberte, Brass and Steam, Test of Fire is an elegant, entertaining and economical wargame depicting the first major battle of the American Civil War -- The Battle of First Bull Run (Or First Manassas) in 1861. This is billed as being the first in a series of 150th Anniversary Civil War games to come out over the next few years.

This is not Wallace's first foray into wargames, he's published a few others over the past few years -- each showing a fresh approach that eschews many wargame conventions while still delivering historically satisfying and challenging games. Compared to Waterloo, Gettysburg or a Few Acres of Snow, Test of Fire is much simpler, with a near-Zen like paucity of rules. Only the barest essential needed to make the game work are included, and it's quite likely this review will be longer than the game rules!

When teaching the game I normally start by explaining the victory conditions. Like many euro games, there are multiple ways to win in Test of Fire. The most direct is to capture the enemy base. If the federals take Manassas Junction they win, if the Rebels grab Centerville they win. This is an instantaneous and decisive victory, but prudent play should preclude this path. (Not everyone plays prudently, though, and I have won that way!)

The second way to win is possibly the most controversial, as it is a little bit on the dicey side. Each side has a deck of action cards that include some called "Rout" which give the player an opportunity for an instant win by taking two D6 rolling them -- if the total is equal to or less than the number of enemy units eliminated at that point the enemy army routs and you win! Naturally there's no chance of winning this way until at least 2 enemy units are destroyed but the chances of winning escalate rapidly with each additional casualty. There will be many that don't like this sort of victory condition -- but in it's favor is the inconvenient fact that this is exactly what happened! Test of Fire is not the first game on this battle to resort to this sort of mechanic. In the Decision Games Blue & Gray quad version, for example, there is a victory roll each turn that is also based on lost and disrupted units.

The final, and standard way of winning is based on the Union progress in capturing significant territory on the Rebel side of the river. While there's no turn track, there is a time limit. When one player's deck of action cards runs out, the next time they are forced to draw a card the game ends at the completion of the Rebel turn. At that point the status of three starred locations on the rebel side of the board are checked, if the Federals control at least 2 of three three, they win, otherwise the CSA wins.

The components are top-notch, euro style and seem to be a good value for the $29 MSRP. There's sturdy box, a full-color mounted map board depicting the Bull Run area divided into areas, thick counters in blue and gray for the respective armies, a ford marker, a couple of card board command cards for each army, 12 dice in blue and gray, two decks of cards and a full-color 16-page rule book with examples of play and historical notes. The Union army is the larger, with 29 infantry units, two artillery units and a leader while the opposing Confederates have 24 infantry units, two artillery units and one (or optionally two) leaders.

A player's turn starts by rolling dice -- four for the Union, three for the Confederates -- and sorting them according to the command card. For every 1 rolled, the player can draw a card from their deck. For every 2 or 3 rolled they can conduct one artillery fire. For every 4 or 5 they can make one move and for every 6 they have a choice between drawing a card, firing an artillery unit in the same are as a leader or conducting a move in the same area as a leader. Players can execute the dice moves and play any suitable cards in any order and a big part of the game is the proper sequencing of actions.

Artillery fire consists of rolling one die looking for a 5 or a 6 to hit. If a hit is scored, a subsequent roll determines the effect. A 6 damages a unit, flipping a full-strength infantry unit to its reduced side or eliminating a reduced unit. Otherwise the targeted player has to retreat a unit from the area.

Regular infantry combat is a function of movement. Each move order can move 1-3 units into an adjacent area, depending on the boundary crossed. The default is 2 units, with woods and portions of the river reducing it to 1 and roads increasing it to 3 units. At a few spots the crossing value is 0 and so the river is impassible. At other spots the boundary is marked 2/1, meaning two units can cross if the opposite bank is unoccupied by the enemy, otherwise just 1 unit can cross per move.

While moving into an enemy-occupied area will trigger combat, it does not trigger it immediately, so the moving player has an opportunity to reinforce an attack or even launch multiple waves of attackers. -- Civil War style. For an example, if a player had three moves available, they could use them to move two units into an adjacent space with one move, then move two more units in with a second move and then fight a battle at that point. If repulsed they could use the third move to send in two more units (or the same units from the first wave if they survived) and fight a second battle.

Infantry combat is more deadly than artillery fire. each defending infantry unit gets to roll two dice (whether at full strength or reduced, to a maximum of 6 dice) with every 5 or 6 resulting in a hit (or a 4-6 if defending a hill area). For every hit rolled a subsequent roll is made for effect, with a 4-6 causing damage while a 1-3 forces a retreat. As with artillery fire, the owning player apportions the damage and retreats. Combat is just one round, and if the attacker fails to clear the area of defenders, then the attacker retreats. Leaders and artillery units retreat if left alone in an area with enemy infantry.

A key element of the design are the action decks, which are asymmetrical. Both decks contain some of the same cards, although often in different proportions -- and the Federal Deck is larger than the CSA deck, 29 to 26. All cars can be played at any time appropriate for their effects and take effect immediately.

Both armies have the previously mentioned Rout cards (3 for the USA, 4 for the CSA) which allow for a roll to win if 2 or more enemy units have been eliminated. Both also have Move cards, which allow for a free bonus Move under the same rules as die-ordered move. The USA deck has more of these (6) than the CSA (I2) as befits their role as the aggressor. Each side can enhance the fire of its artillery by playing an Artillery card (6 Union, 3 Confederate) which allows an extra die when making an artillery shot. The effects of hits can be enhanced by playing Retreat cards (4 Union, 3 Rebel) to force a retreating unit to retreat an extra area. Conversely a Hold card (2 USA, 5 CSA) can be played to cancel a retreat. Both sides can play a Lost Orders card (3 each) to cancel one order die result, which can be very powerful at the right moment. Both sides also have access to some cards that affect an infantry battle. A Friendly Fire card (1 each) causes an player to roll one to-hit die against his own unit during a battle, while Firepower cards (3 each) give an extra die in battle (to the usual maximum of 6, total).

Each army also has a few unique cards. For the Confederate side, these come in the form of two Cavalry cards that give a free 3-die or 5-die attack agansit a Union-occupied area south of Bull Run. For the Union side the unique card is a Ford, whoich allows the Union player to place the ford marker on any one river boundary, increasing its crossing allowance by 1. So this powerful card can make an impassible 0 area into a 1, boost a 1 to a 2 or a 2/1 to a 3/1.

Players can have no more than 5 cards in their hand at the end of their turn, discouraging card hoarding.

Both sides have a wide range of strategies to follow, despite the fixed historical set up, which encouarges a Union flanking attack, but does not require it. Indeed, if the Union commits too much to the flanking attack, they may find it stalling well short of victory as the Confederates mass against it. The Union player is better off posing credible threats all along Bull Run in order to keep the defenders spread out.

The nature of the game turns, with short impulses of movement and combat passing back and forth between the players provides something close to the illusion of simultaneous movement without the usual headaches of a simove system. Players act in turn, but it's very hard to stael a march on the enemy that they can't react to.

The game is rated at 45 minutes, which seems very accurate for experienced player, but even newbies can be taught the game from scratch and see it finished in less than 90 minutes, tops.

And it's a very fun system, highly interactive and full of strategic choices. The Rout mechanic may bother some, but it seems reasonable given the history and it provides some entertaining tension while rewarding aggressive play. The short playing time means that even if a Rout card "robs" you of a victory, there's time for an immediate rematch.

Overall, this is one of the best introductory level wargames to come along in a long time and it looks to be an instant classic. Recommended.

Some other new stuff come in

2011-10-29T15:28:00.004-04:00

A few other new arrivals of note:

Victoria Cross II (shown above). This is a redo of the venerable (and inaugural) Worthington Games title. Major difference sin presentation include an overhead view of the Rorke's Drifty battlefield (instead of the perspective view used before ) and cardboard counters in place of the wood block. sticker combo of the earlier version. Major content differences include the addition of the complete Battle of Isandlwana as wella s the original battle of Rorke's Drift. I played the Isandlwana battle and got crushed as the British! Very historical, I'll need further plays to assess whether the British have a decent chance or I just played very badly the first time!

Napoleon's War II: The Gates of Moscow. Been awaiting this one and I expect to try it it next week. No surprises in the presentation.

Got some custom dice for Twilight Struggle and for Labyrinth. No special reason aside from the fact that they look cool.

Two cases of War at Sea's newest expansion, Surface Action. This was a very successful case purchase, as I got all 16 rares between the two cases. Some intersting models and intersting additions to the game system. The game badly needs some additional "official" scenarios that will play off some of the new special abilities and units. Right now the Standard dueling force scenario is really the only one well supported. THe Convoy scenario is still broken and virtaully unwinnable for the convoy player. Fixing that scenario and adding one for amphibious landings would be a big boost.

New Stuff! Some handsome arrivals.

2011-10-19T21:10:00.003-04:00

As usual, good stuff seems to come in bunches. Today Fortune & Glory: The Cliffhanger Game arrived at the local game shop and Star Trek: Fleet Captains showed up on the porch, courtesy of the Post Office.

My first impression of both games was "wow." They're both really great looking.

I've seen a number of complaints on BoardGame Geek about the Star Trek game, which seem to fall into tow general categories -- broken ship models and cheap components for the price. As far as the first, I didn't have much of a problem. Just two ships were broken, and each was easily repaired with a dab of super glue. As far as value goes, it seemed to be around what I expect a $100 game to contain. It may be that I'm just used to the somewhat inflated prices of wargames compared to euro games, but the game contains a large full-color mounted board, 24 clix-based detailed starship models, a bag full of die-cut counters, a thick stack of map tiles (thin, but easy to shuffle because of that), full-color rulebook and a couple hundred linen playing cards in several decks. There's a well-designed insert that holds everything and a huge box. About the only thing that's clearly cheese are the two dice included in the game, which are some of the sorriest little dice I've ever seen in a board game. Those will have to be replaced.

Fortune & Glory has few complaints about component quality as far as I can see. Like other Flying Frog games it's full of neat stuff -- lots of cards, mounted board, fistfuls of miniature figures, counters,etc. There have been a few complaints about the kind of game it is, and those have, i think, more validity in that you definitely have to understand that this is a very heavy themed Ameritrash game, not a euro. There's very high random element in the game, players will sometimes find themselves in a tough spot through no fault of their own and there's little variety in moves. Again, as a wargamer, I'm kind of inured to the Fates and I enjoy games with strong narratives, so Fly Frog's games are just my cup of tea. For those born and raised on Knizia euros, Fortune & Glory may well seem like a chaotic mess that too often fails to reward good play. Point taken, but I don't really care. The game's got Nazis! Mobsters and a freakin' Zeppelin! Yeah. About the only thing that concerns me about getting this on the table more often is that it's clearly a longer-playing game that the other Flying Frog games with a listed playing time of 90-180 minutes. It's been my experience that games can easily take twice the listed time with rookies, so that takes it out of the random game night appearance and means it will be better as the featured game for a planned game day.

Jena revisited -- a battle anniversary session report

2011-10-14T21:21:00.007-04:00

Battle of Jena set up

Any day now I expect to get the new game in Worthington's Napoleon's War series, but they've already posted the rules online so I thought I'd take advantage of today's 205th anniversary of the Battle of Jena to see how the changes in the rules affect things.

There are a number of changes and clarifications in the rules listed on the last page of the new rule book, which I appreciate. In most cases the changes are fairly minor or make thing more clear.

One very significant change, however, reduces infantry;s long-range firepower and this had an immediately noticeable affect on today's game. As originally published, Infantry units rolled 3 dice at a range of 1 or 2 hexes, hitting on a 6. Shock Combat increased the effectiveness of infantry to hitting on a 5 or 6 when adjacent, but at a cost of 2 action points instead of the 1 AP cost of regular fire. What this tended to do was encourage infantry units to hang around at 2 hex range and shoot at each other and only risk Shock Combat when a particular position really needed to be taken. This wasn't really very authentic for combat using smoothbore muskets.

Now infantry firing at a range of 2 hexes only rolls ONE die instead of 3, making a long-range firefight a pretty inefficient way to kill units (just one D6 roll for every AP expended, a profligate expenditure of a valuable resource that tends to be in short supply in the game. This encourages infantry to close in and also reduces the risk of the approach march as well.

Heavy combat in the center as the Prussian Guard (black) challenges the French Guard (white) and line (blue) as the rest of the Prussian Army (grey) looks on.

In our replay of Jena we saw this, as both sides brought their infantry in close. My French ended up prevailing because of the fragility of the 2-figure Prussian Line Infantry, but the Prussian Guard (represented by the black figures) was able to go into the teeth of the French position, and while surrounded by French Guard (white figures) and line troops (blue figures) and live long-enough to fight it's way out again.

Overall, the rule change seems to be an improvement, and I'm looking forward to trying some of the new battles.

10 worst games of all time

2011-10-14T21:18:00.001-04:00

Reader Rose King lists 10 real howlers here. It's hard to argue that any of them are good games, that's for sure. I remember Dr. Ruth's Game of Good Sex -- published by a wargame company, no less! Really odd.

Time flies!

2011-10-12T21:02:00.003-04:00

I haven't had a chance to do much blogging these past couple of weeks, but it's not because I haven't had some game-related news to report.

I just took over the New London County Board Games meetup up after the original organizer had to step down.

You can check it out here

I've schedule a meetup for next week for Settlers of Catan and on Oct. 22 we will be playing Axis & Allies 1940 Global.

Speaking of Axis & Allies, we're just a week away from getting a couple of cases of the new Surface Action set. more on that later.

Some other notable recent acquisitions include Test of Fire and the new edition of Crusader Rex.

Looks like a second Campaign Book is on the way for Memoir '44!

2011-09-26T13:57:00.003-04:00

Days of Wonder's site has a link to order a new campaign book. It says there are 11 different campaigns involved, which is similar tot he number that were in the first campaign book. There's no mention of any "Grand Campaign" rules however and the breadth of campaigns mentioned int he write-up would seem to preclude the kind of links seen in the first book.

This looks like a nice product and it's definitely on my list.

Polarizing

2011-09-23T22:26:00.005-04:00

Test of Fire -- action around Henry House Hill

It's not just politics that seem to be becoming more polarized -- my tastes in games are going in two different directions as well.

As I get older I find I'm appreciating games on the far ends of the realism/playability spectrum and losing interest in the much that's in the middle.

On the one hand, I'm really enjoying games such as Test of Fire. It is, by no stretch, a simulation. But it does manage to capture the overall flavor of the Battle of First Bull Run with an elegantly spare set of rules -- practically a Japanese rock garden as far as wargame rules go -- that's also a lot of fun and extremely quick to play (45 minutes to an hour).

And on the other hand, when I really want to understand the "what-ifs" of History I find myself drawn to games such as Command at Sea or Persian Incursion.

The problem is that medium complexity wargames no longer hit a "sweet spot" for me. They're generally too lengthy and work-intensive and yet I've lost faith that the work leads to a significantly more accurate simulation. Some of the newer designs I've come across sometimes seem to do things differently simply for the sake of doing things differently. And some design abstractions seem to be inadequately justified to me. I'm often left wondering why things are done a certain way and the designer doesn't enlighten. There are exceptions, of course, but that's the trend I'm seeing. Now there's no question that a game like Harpoon 4 is a lot of work, but at the end of the day you see what the work is for and its explicit nature makes it easy for you to modify as you see fit. As soon as the designer starts abstracting things, a certain opaqueness descends on the design. Even if you tiker with it, you can't be sure you're having the desired effect on realism. If you add an artillery unit that's missing from the OB are you really making the game more realistic. Maybe the designer already factored it into the strength of another unit -- or maybe you're over-estimating the effect of the unit and the designer was justified in leaving it out.

On the other end, a game like Test of Fire isn't about that sort of thing anyway. It's about providing an entertaining game narrative that captures the overall flavor of the battle without worrying overmuch about any details. And it only takes an hour.

This is too cool

2011-09-21T14:16:00.004-04:00

About 50 or so re-enactors gathered to commemorate the 2,500th anniversary of the Battle of Marathon this week.

2011 is, of course the actual 2,500th year since the battle of 490 BC because there's no "Year Zero" in the calendar system we use.

I didn't have the ability to travel to Greece this year, but I did commemorate the anniversary a few weeks ago with an Epic game of Marathon using Commands & Colors -- which the Greeks won, although perhaps not quite so decisively has they did historically.

Test of Fire -- testing, testing

2011-09-20T18:56:00.004-04:00

It's ideal when you can open a box with a game that came in the mail and less than 24 hours later see it hit the table, but that happy circumstance came about with Mayfair's new Test of Fire.

Originally this was supposed to some out in time for the 150th anniversary of the battle, but, as such things tend to do in the wargame hobby, the release date slipped a bit and ity just arrived in September. Well, at least it's still the 150th anniversary year.

Test of Fire is an introductory historical wargame by noted euro game designer Martin Wallace. While not his first historical wargame, Wallace is definitely much better known as a euro designer and he's been careful to state that his wargames are not simulations in any way. I think he's being a little too humble, though, because no introductory warggame is going to manage to be much of a simulation and Wallace's games so far have shown a reasonable level of historical fidelity considering their scope. I think they compare very favorably to more traditional wargames. About the only thing Wallace designs definitely avoid it's being tied down to any particular unit or time scale. While units are differentiated by type, as appropriate, they're not labeled in any way. So, while we know that the Red Elite Federal unit in Gdettysburg is the "Iron Brigade," the figure doesn't say that.

Likewise in Test of Fire we don't see any unit identifications. The vast bulk of both armies is formed of infantry units, which seem to represent about 1,000 troops. Each army has two artillery units, which seem to represent nothing more than an aggregatuon of firepower in a sectoir. Both armies historically divided their artillery units up into a number of separate batteries. Each army has a commanding general (or, optionally, two commanding generals for the CSA). The presence of Stuart's cavalry is represented by a card ad the federal horsemen present are ignored altogether.

The mounted mapbaord is divided into areas representing the battlefield at Bull Run. Some area boundaries are marked with a number that shows how many units can be moved acroiss the boundary at once, with the default for unmarked ares being 2. Roads allow 3 units, woods just one. Along the river the values range from 0 to 2.

In addition to their on-board troops, each side has access to its own deck of cards which provide various bonuses and special events.

Game play is straightforward. Each player in his turn rolls a number of D6 (4 for the Union, 3 for the CSA) with the die results controlling which actions the player can take. For every 1 rolled the player can draw a card. For every 2 or 3 rolled an artillery unit can fire at an adjacent area with a 5 or 6 being a "hit." A subsequent roll determines the effect, with a 6 causing damage to a unit while a 1-5 forces a unit to retreat. For every 4 or 5 rolled a player can move one group of units from one area to an adjacent area, subject to the boundary limits. Finally, a 6 allows a player a choice between firing an artillery unit with a general, condcuting a move with units in the same are as a general or drawing a card.

Combat is also very simple and straightforward. Units use move actions to enter an enemy occupied area. As the timing of actions is under player control, more than one move action can be taken before a battle is fought. Infantry units roll 2 dice per unit involved, up to a maximum of 6 dice worth, with the defender firing first. Eacgh 5 or 6 is a hit (4-6 if defending a hill) with a subsequent roll resolving the hit effect: 1-3 is a retreat, 4-6 is damage. Damage flips an infanrty unit or destorys an alaready flipped unit. Artillery and leaders don't take direct part in the combat and have to retreat if left alone in the space with an enemy infantry unit. The attackers has one round of combat to clear the defenders from the space, otherwise the attacking units retreat.

Victory is assessed several possible ways. Most basically, if a side captures the enemy home base (Centerville or Manassas) then it wins, but barring very reckless play this shouldn't happen. When the cards run out, the next time a card would ahve to be drawn then the game ends on the completion of the Confederate turn. If the federals have two of the three starred areas on the Rebel side of Bull Run, then they win, otherwise the Confederates prevail. Finally, and perhaps most controversially, each side has a number of "Rout" cards they can play. each entitles the player to roll 2D6 and if the total is equal two or less than the number of enemy infantry units lost then that side wins. This obviously makes the game potentially very dicey, with a sudden death victory possible as soon as 2 enemy units are lost.

About the most that can be said for this is that's basically what happened historically, and a similar idea is seen in the Decision Games Blue & Gray First Bull Run quad. The game moves very fast, so there will generally be time to pick up and start again if a quick end happens.

The basic situation is familiar, the federal army is heavily weighted to its right flank as it prepares to march around the flank of the rebel army, which is, in turn, strongest on its own right.

Our first game took a bit over an hour, which seems good for a virgin out-of-the-box play. I can see experienced payers cooking through the game in the advertised 45 minutes easy.

Like all of Wallace's wargames, Test of Fire manages to skin the cat in a very different way from the traditional hex-and-counter game while being at least as historical and fun. The situation's historical constraints make this less wide-open than most euros, of course, but players do seem to have several viable approaches besides the strict historical plans.

The MSRP is under $30 so overall I'd rate this as a good value.

Opening Salvos preview -- 8 ships revealed!!

2011-09-19T22:32:00.003-04:00

USS Montana

Rich Baker's blog revealed 8 sip images with data cards that will likely be the 8 ships in his Opening Salvos for Set VI -- and an interesting bunch it is, too.

The big boys are the USS Montana, weighing in at 80 points with absolutely monstrous stats and a new version of the Yamato.

For cruisers we have the Sheffield from the Bismarck hunt and an Italian fast light cruiser.

For carriers we have the Japanese Taiho, which was expected and the British Eagle, which was not.

And for support units there's a common LST and a German minesweeper! All good stuff.

Brazil in World War II

2011-09-04T12:58:00.003-04:00

It's not well-known, but Brazilian troops saw ground combat in Europe in World War II. As a matter of fact, the Italian campaign was the first in history to include troops from every inhabited continent -- with North American, South American, African, Asian and ANZAC troops as well as Europeans taking part.

Back in the 1980s my first contribution to Strategy & Tactics magaizne was an article about "The Other BEF," referring to the Brazilian Expeditionary Force that fought in Italy. Now, it wasn't exactly a secret to wargamers that Brazil fought in Italy -- there's a counter for the Brazilian Division in Anzio -- but I think my article was the first one in a wargaming publication to go into any detail about it.

My main source was the account of the division's operation written by its commander, a copy of which was in the library of the Field Artillery School at Fort Sill where I was student at the time. I supplemented the account with some American sources as well, especially the IV Corps report. These were what I had available at the time, which was, naturally, less than satisfying.

So I was intrigued when I saw that Osprey was publishing a book on the topic by Brazilian authors which could take advantage of Brazilian accounts. I was relieved to find that my account was correct in general, although I naturally didn't have much of the unit-level detail and battle accounts that the Osprey book features.

The Brazilian's biggest contribution to the war effort was making it's geographical position available to the Allies for air ferry missions to Africa and anti-submarine work against U-boats. It took a lot of time to ready the Brazilian Division for ground combat given the lack of domestic military equipment and experience. Still, the Brazilains arrived at an opportune time for the Italian front, as troop shortages had become acute in that secondary theater. (To the point that a neighboring unit was Task Force 45, a brigade-sized group of anti-aircraft artillerymen pressed into service as infantry!)

The Brazilians had hard-won experience against German troops over the winter but played major role in the final breakout and pursuit across Northern Italy that resulted in the first mass capitulation of Axis troops in Europe. In addition to the Brazilian Division, that country also contributed a squadron of fighter pilots that also served in Italy as well as some support formations.

It's an interesting story and I'm glad it's been told.

Gale Force Nine license for Axis & Allies products lapsed.

2011-08-27T00:03:00.001-04:00

I don't know if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but I didn't see it at first glance: Gale Force Nine reports that there license for Axis & Allies products has lapsed so they can no longer produce or sell those items.

this means that the vinyl War at Sea map, the tokens and the stands for the ships are all gone. I liked the map, especially, and I'm sorry that's gone. I used the tokens for both AAM and WAS but I believe Litko has tokens that are usable substitutes. I never tried the stands.

Weather effects

2011-08-25T18:48:00.003-04:00

As we start to batten down the hatches in preparation for the arrival of Mean Irene, it prmpted some pondering on the effect of weather in wargame -- or more precisely, the effect of extreme weather.

For the most part, until fairly recently in history, any sort of severe weather pretty much brought a halt to military proceedings. It was challenging enough to feed, clothe and move troops during normal times in the ancient era and most of the black powder era, without trying to do it in bad weather. The cases of major battles or campaign fought in extreme weather conditions or notable in part because they were so rare -- such as Washington's crossing of the Delaware.

Often bad weather caused battles to be postponed or even canceled. This all began to change as the Industrial Revolution gained steam and it became easier to supply armies and the general wealth increased. Railroads and steamships reduced the impact of bad weather on movements and fighting through poor campaign seasons and in the face of bad weatehr became more common.

By the 20th century warfare had reached the point where ideas such as "winter quarters" were obsolete and fighting continued year round through the seasons. It also expanded geographically into cold weather climates, jungles and deserts and other extreme locales.

One offshoot of this evolution is that modern-era wargames often have to take weather into account -- whereas it's an exceptional thing in ancient and black powder era games. But there's bad weather and then there's bad weather, and when we are talking about monstrous storms such as Irene, then there's no question of trying to represent tactical combat -- fighting would be impossible. But the time scale covered by most larger scale operational and strategic games doesn't lend itself to dealing with transient events such as hurricanes. A strategic level wargame depicting the entire US east Coast would probably involve turns covering a week or a month or more, whereas the entire hurricane event will be over in a week.

Here and there a game will through in a severe weather rule (Columbia Game's Pacific Victory and typhoons, for example) but generally it's ignored unless it's part of a larger climate. This does mean tha some historically significant storm events (such as the storm that aborted the probable Battle of Newport in the American Revolution) can't get an adequate representation.

Some new design techniques such as card-driven games may provide a way around that, though.

Hauled out an old-timer today

2011-08-23T20:53:00.004-04:00

Yes, I hauled out one of my all-time favorite game -- a set of miniatures rules from the 1980s called The Complete Brigadier.

Covering the heart of the black power era, from 1680 to 1880, The Complete Brigadier is a very tactical game ruthlessly focus on the perspective of a brigade-level commander.

My miniatures for this set of rules are from Flaying Pan & Blanket Amalgamated, 20 mm scale American Revolution figures. It just so happened that a couple of decades ago I often had staff duty officer while stationed in Germany. And because we were a nuclear-capable missile unit, we had secret message traffic all night long, so the SDO could not nap. As a consequence I had quite a bit of time on mu hands on a weekly basis and I used it to paint up a few hundred figures. I haven't had that kind of time since.

I won't say that they are well-painted, but they;re passable for wargame purposes.

I like the rules because they're very straightforward and while reasonably complex, they are intuitive. The rules concentrate on formations and orders and are deterministic when it comes to fireing and melee. There are enough modifiers that the outcome of combats is not overly predictable.

I ran a demo of the game at the local game shop today. I commanded a British force comprised of two regular foot battalions, a small converged grenadier battalion, an even smaller squadron of dragoons, a full-sized artillery battery and some Indians. Deployed off to one flank across a stream were three large battalions of Hessians, but unknown to the American player this was just a distraction force. The Hessians didn't know the stream was fordable and would therefore not take part in the attack.

The American player -- experienced with board games and Magic: The Gathering but not historical miniatures -- had a force comprised of a battalion of Continetnal Line, a battalion of militia, small battalions of light infantry and riflemen, a troop of dragoons and a small artillery battery. His missionw as to defend the hill, specifically the mansion near the top.

Because the opposing player was a newbie, a treated this as demo game, without a focus on victory for one side or the other. That said, it was an interesting and well-fought battle.

The Americans basically deployed in two lines of units -- with the first line made up of the militia, the Continentals and the light infantry, while the dragoons, rifles and artillery formed the second line.

For my part I placed the Indians on the far left, with an eye towards having them sweep on a wide flanking move though some woods. On the right I placed the lights and the dragoons, whose mission was to fix the Americans in front of them. In a compact mass in the center I placed the grenadiers and foot, with the artillery lined up in column on the road. I hoped to outflank the main American line with fire support form the guns.

The battle more or less followed the plan, with the inevitable adjustments due to the enemy's vote. On the right the lights advanced into firing range of both the American light infantry and the rifles while the dragoons attracted the attention of the gunners. There ensued a long exchange of fire that the lights and dragoons eventually lost. The good news is that this tied up half the American force for most of the battle, but the bad news was that it was costly.

The American player was not content to passively accept the attack and moved the Continentals and the dragoon troop up to meet the main British attack. The dragoons and the light infantry were pushed back by the advancing British foot units and as the game ended due to time on Turn 10 the British grenadiers and the Buffs were about to take the house. The American dragoons with the rebel general attached were last seen sabering the fleeing remnants of the other British foot unit but were out of the battle. Likewise the Continentals could not resist the opportunity to charge the British guns just as they were about to unlimber -- chasing them back and eventually capturing the whole lot. This also, however, removed the only regular formed Ameircan unit fromt he critical point.

Left holding the bag were the hapless militia, who were hit on both flanks. On one side was the Buffs, while on the other side were the Indians, who had completed their sweeping move and were now in the American rear area. The militia dissolved in a quick rout.

Overall, with two turns left, the Americans had no formed troops left in position to contest the objective, but the game ended due to time before the final moves could be made.

Still, it was a hard-fought battle, with the British side suffering more heavily. Of the American units the Continentals, the light infantry and the artillery were all unscathed., while the rifles had 9 of 12 left and the dragoons 5 of 6 figures left. Only the militia unit was completely destroyed.

On the British side, in contrast, the light infantry, dragoons on one foot unit had all routed off the field and the artillery battery were prisoners! The grenadiers had 10of 12 left while the Buffs had 22 of 24 figures left. Only the Indians had avoided loss.

Perhaps I was too hard on Archibald

2011-08-20T22:23:00.004-04:00

My first impression of the Archibald, the human cannonball hero in Invasion From Outr Space was that he was a hard hero to use effectively. His talent of "Fire Me!" would likely see him stuck in the middle of a bunch of angry Martians every time it was used and he'd die a quick death without accomplishing much.

Well, he proved me wrong Friday at a game session of the Central Connecticut Wargamers.

We were playing a four-player scenario of Abduction. Two opposing players handled the Martians, while Mark Kalina had Angelica the bearded lady and R.J. Flanagan, the ringmaster. I started with Lucrezia the contortionist and Cassidy the trick shooter.

The first half of the game went passably well for the heroes, as the novice Martian players had some trouble marshaling their resources effectively and the initial board configuration was favorable to the heroes with four of the six allies in a clump on the Ferris Wheel/Trapeze Tent board. The Purple Martian player also had early bad luck in getting his troops beamed down.

Eventually the Martians started to get their act together and the heroes became hard-pressed. Bosley the elephant and Jimmy the stable boy were off by themselves and picked off by the Martians, although Cassidy did pick off a few Martians headed for Jimmy. Soon it became clear that the Heroes had to concentrate their forces to protect the clump, though, as the Martians gathered a large force, including the Zard beast, nearby.

Despite some heroism that saw Lucrezia defeat the Zard Beast in hand-to-hand combat and blast a full back of Martians with a bomb, overwhelming Martian numbers finally told. A Saucer blast took out poor Cassidy. While this brought in Jo Jo, the dancing bear was too far away to be an immediate help. And immediate help was what the Heroes needed as Lucrezia finally fell to an assault by a full Martian pack led by the newly arrived Martian Leader. The full back was stacked with two of the remaining allies (the twins and Doc Mesmer) and was just two squares (one move by the Martian Leader pack) from a saucer. Neither Angelica nor RJ was in a position to intervene. It was basically game over on the next Martian move barring some amazing turn of luck -- as the Martian players noted gloatingly.

Well, that amazing luck arrived in the form of Archibald, who arrived nearby. He rolled just enough to movement to make it to the cannon that's next tot he trapeze tent, climbed in and fired himself through the tent (oh, and that part of it was on fire) to land on top of the Martian leader's pack. Bam! All three regular Martians were killed and the Leader was wounded -- and Archibald promptly boxed him into oblivion as well. RJ and Angelica also had good turns knocking off Martians and suddenly the worm had turned.

The Martian regrouped and brought in a new wave and redirected their efforts against the Ferris Wheel, where Texas Jack and the Fuji Merman were hiding out. JoJo came to the rescue here, battling back the Martians, for a few turns. Angelica and RJ, who were guarding the twins and Mesmer, were trapped by fire covering both exits of the Trapeze Tent at a critical moment, and suddenly it looked like Jo Jo was about to be overwhelmed by a new Martian Leader-led full pack. Archibald rolled up a Power Token and dashed to another nearby cannon. Again he fired himself through the Ferris Wheel and right into the Martian Leader's pack. Bam! Three dead regular Martians and a wounded Martian Leader were the result. And once again Archibald boxed the dazed Martian Leader out!

Now time was running out for the Martians -- with just a couple of turns left they couldn't abduct allies in time so they had to concentrate on killing heroes instead. Poor Archibald's number came up and the big galoot of a Hero fell in a barrage of ray gun fire. Hannah the fire breather rushed onto the scene, but she was on the other side of the board and there simply wasn't time for her to reach the action.

It came down to a final turn's assault on Jo Jo, the dancing bear, by five Martians, including a full pack in the bear's square. The ray gun blasts left Jo Jo hanging on by a thread -- one more wound and the Martians would win! In a card-enhanced 4-die to 2-die fight JoJo rolled a 6 and with the bear's talent and a power token to boost it to a seven and the game was saved. (In the Hero turn JoJo would simply step back out of range so there wouldn't be a fight in the Hero turn.)

While they didn't survive, Lucrezia and, especially, Archibald were clearly the heroes of the fight. Archibald took out two Martian leaders and two full packs and several other Martians as well. Lucrezia killed the Zard beast and a full pack as well as a couple of other stray Martians. Cassidy did quite a bit of damage before she fell as well, taking out pairs of Martians three or four times. Jo Jo was also devastating. Angelica was effective when she finally got into the fight, but she had a lot of low movement rolls. RJ Flanagan did his thing, although he's not much of a fighter. Hannah is normally a powerful Hero, but she showed up on the next-to-last turn this time and played no part in the outcome.

Everyone agreed that it was a highly entertaining story -- and that the Martians had the game in the bag until Archibald's timely appearance and amazing heroics. It was very B-movie cinematic.

No new OGRE until at least (?!) 2012

2011-08-18T22:13:00.003-04:00

1977 OGRE

Wow, this news from Steve Jackson is a real bummer.

Jackson:

I haven't done a good enough job recently of communicating the status of Ogre 6th Edition. The status is: Still planned, still the super-fancy as per the prototypes you can see on that page (and which I expect will show up in the display case at PAX in a couple of weeks) . . .

And definitely still not on track for 2011. I warned everyone in May that it might not happen in 2011, and now I can say it definitely won't. I knew that at the end of June, before I took July off, and I should have shared.

He goes on to note that he gets more mail about this project than any other one -- to say this is highly anticipated would be an understatement.

An undercurrent to Jackson's announced plans is a hint that this may be the last edition of Ogre, ever. The base game has been out of print for a very long time despite a high level of demand, so clearly demand is not the only factor at play here.

I wonder if there isn;t some emotional attachment involved as well. Ogre was Jackson's first design -- and it was/is a big hit. It started out as a very inexpensive, bare-bones wargame and it looks like it may go out in a super deluxe version that could fairly be described as a collector's edition. It's supposed to include most of the content from GEV and Shcokwave as well, which pretty much guarantees there will not be any expansion of follow-up products. He said that there will be just the one print run and he'll let the after market fight over it from then on.

Cute cooperative game -- Forbidden Island

2011-08-13T23:21:00.005-04:00

Tried out a recent cooperative game called Forbidden Island at the local game shop and liked it enough that I brought it home, where it proved to be a hit with the kids as well.

The basic idea is a party of advaneturers searching for clues on a slowly sinking island that will lead them to four treasures -- which they have to find and take off the island.

The components in the Gamewright edition are nice. Everything comes in a tin with a well-designed plastic insert, There's a small, full-color rule book, a cardboard water level tarck with a plastic slider, six wooden pawns to represent the adventurers, four failry large palstic miniatures representing the four treasures, 24 double-sided cardboard tiles to represent the island and a deck of 58 cards. 24 of those are "flood cards" one for each isand tile adn six are character cards, one for each pawn. the remaining 28 cards make up the treasure deck.

The game starts by randomly laying out the island tiles in 6 rows of 2, 4, 6, 6, 4 and 2 tiles each, forming a rough diamond shape. Players randomly pick a character from the six available, each of which has a special ability and a specific starting tile.

Six cards from the flood deck are selected, flipping the named tiles to their flooded tile. If a flooded tile gets flooded again, it "sinks into the abyss" and is removed from the game, along with it's card.

On a player's turn he can take three actions with his pawn. The available options are to move to an adjacent tile, but not diagonally, to "shore up" and adjacent tile by flipping a flooded tile back to its dry side, give a treasure card to anotehr player on the same tile or "capture a Treasure" by turning in four cards that match the treasure on one of two tiles that bear the image of that treasure. Players can repeat the same action, so a player could move three tiles, flip three tiles or trade three cards or any combination of those.

After a player has completed all actions he draws two cards from the treasure deck. Most of these are simple treasure cards, five for each treasure figurine. They have no game effect aside from needing to discard four of them while on an appropriate tile to claim the treasure. There are two helpful treasure cards -- sandbags, which allow the flipping of a flooded tile anywhere on the board without costing an action and Helicopter Lift, which allows moving any or all pawns from one tile to any other tile. You also need a Helicopter Lift at the end of the game to win. After gathering all four figurines, the explorers much gather at the helicopter landing zone called tile (Fool's Landing) and leave via the play of a Helicopter Lift card. There are also three Water Rises cards, which move the water mater up one tick on the meter.

Complicating this is the last part of a player's turn, where he draws Flood Cards to see which tiles get flipped or sink into the abyss. The number of cards drawn depends on the current state of the water meter, but ranges from 2 to 5 per player turn. As a tile that gets flipped twice disappears the island can rapidly turn into a tough place to move around. No dawdling!

The difficulty level of the game is adjusted by changing the starting level of the water meter. At Novice or Normal levels the Flood Card draw starts at 2, while at the Elite and Legendary levels it starts at 3.

The two plays today were at Novice Level and the players won each time, but they caught some lucky breaks in the set up and I can see how it would get tougher at the more difficult levels.

Playing time is rated at about 30 minutes and that seems about right, which probably puts it in the category of a supplementary game for a night's entertainment, rather than the main course. It also works a s a kid's game.

It's a good value for the money as well. I paid just $20 for my copy at the game store and I've seen it online for less.

Memoir '44 Grand Campaign finished

2011-08-10T21:44:00.003-04:00

Finished my first Grand Campaign from the Campaign book against Game Store Tony. It was a very near run thing, but Tony's Germans managed to prevail with a pretty convincing 6-3 win in the final game. This game him a 2 point Major Victory in the campaign and a 4-2 overall Grand Campaign victory.

It all did come down to the last game, though and had the medal count been reversed the Allies would have won a Minor campaign victory, worth 1 point, and therefore edged out a 3-2 Grand Campaign win. Nicely balanced.

Next we're moving on to the Russian front for a Grand Campaign of Barbarossa. Unlike the Normandy Campaign set up, where the outcomes of different battles would direct the Grand Campaign down different Campaign paths, in the Barbarossa Grand Campaign there are just some small variations among the battles played, but all three Campaigns get played -- one each for Army Group North, Center and South. The twist is that you play the first half of all three Campaigns first and then go back and play the send half of the campaigns. This seems like it will make it hard to gauge overall progress toward victory in the early going.

The battles will also be interesting. All will be played with the Red Army Commissar rule, which basically forces the Soviet player to play his command cards a turn behind the action. He plays his command card under the Commissar and then executes it the next turn (with certain exceptions such as Ambush and Counterattack). Game Store Tony has volunteered to play the Soviet side for this campaign.

A few more thoughts on Invasion From Outer Space

2011-08-09T22:02:00.004-04:00

I think it's worth pointing out that Invasion, while a skirmish-level "wargame," doesn't get into any nitty gritty details about what your character is doing in the sens of tracking postures, facing or the like. You character is simply in a space, carrying one or two items. About the only detail that's tracked is whether it's a 2-handed item, in which case you can just carry one. This is much less detail than, for example, Munchkin.

This opens up the possibility for some house rules if you want to create a stronger narrative for the game, at the cost of slowing it down. Still, I could see importing some rules from more detailed skirmish-level games without too much trouble. This would work especially well if you have just one hero per player. If there's a drawback to the game it is that it might be too simple for the more hard-core gamer types if they're only handling one character.

I also think that inexperienced hero teams should probably be given an extra "life" or two, as the learning curve is really quite steep. In a game the other night the Heroes got off to a real strong start in am "Invasion" scenario, killing 16 Martians without a loss -- and then they lost two heroes in the same turn and were done. Perhaps a group with no experienced players should be given two extra heroes in the Invasion scenario (and they really have no business playing any of the other scenarios at all). If a set of Heroes has half or more inexperienced players they should get one extra hero life. In this case I'd define an inexperienced player as someone who has never played, has only played the Invasion scenario or hasn't played in a year or more.

As I mentioned, there are two scenarios (Blow 'em Out of the Sky and Unleashed) that are really for experienced players only and I don't think they can afford to have any inexperienced players to have a chance, but should they insist they probably should also get extra chances with dead heroes.

Another balancing mechanic would be to give players an extra hero card or two, but I think more replacement heroes is probably more helpful. Using the cards properly requires some undertsanding of the game and probably won't help a newbie much, while being able to survive a run of bad luck that leaves your hero dead is the sort of break a newbie can use.

Invasion From Outer Space: The Martian Game

2011-08-08T21:20:00.011-04:00

Invasion From Outer Space: The Martian Game, is a very campy cinematic-style 2010 wargame from Flying Frog Productions, using the same system from its zombie game Last Night on Earth.

When I say "cinematic-style," I mean that the game doesn't try to depict "reality" as such, but rather attempts to capture the "reality" of a movie or television show -- which we know isn't quite reality at all.

The game relentlessly evokes a cinematic style, with developed "characters," scenarios that resemble movie plots, artwork that appears to be "stills" from a movie and it even includes a soundtrack.
In a touch of brilliance, the game pits Mars Attacks! style Martian invaders against Circus Performers! Now, I'm unaware of any actual movie that had that match up, but there should have been.

On one side are the Martians, controlled by one or two players, depending upon the number of players in the game (helpfully divided into blue and purple Martians) comprising a regukar force of 18 soldiers and two Martian "champions" -- a leader and a"Zard beast."

The game is asymmetric, with the Martin s acting together through the turn phases -- so all Martians move at the same time and fire their ray guns at the same time, for example. In contrast, the heroes each take their turns individually, so each hero moves, shoots and fights before the next one acts at all.

Both sides have decks of cards they can draw from, although this is also asymmetrical. The Martians get 2 cards per turn, with the possibility for more, while the Heroes get more cards by giving up their movement for a turn and "searching" while in a building. This entitles them to draw one card. Giving up a move is a pretty severe penalty for the heroes, however, as greater mobility is one of their key advantages over the Martians. Most of the time the Martians move a single square per turn, while the human heroes move 1-6 spaces depending on an die roll.
And yes, the board uses squares. The heavy card stock board is a full-color overhead view of a circus or carnival. There's a double-sided central board (one side depicts a "big-top" tent while the flip side is then open "fairgrounds." There are six L-shaped single-sided boards depicting various other portions of the circus. Four of these are randomly selcted and arranged around the central board to make a 21-inch by 21-inch playing surface.

The highlight of the components are the figures. There are 18 regular Martian soldiers in three poses and two colors. These come with clear plastic "domes" you glue on for the proper effect. There are also the two aforementioned Martian champions, a leader and a beast in a neutral steel blue beacuse they can be used by either player if there are two Martian players.

The Hero side is comprised of eight highly detailed (very suitable for painting by those so inclined and talented) grey plastic heroes.

There are two decks of sturdy cards, one each for the Heroes and for the Martians. Both sets include "events" that can be played to aid your side or hinder the other. The Humans also have access to various helpful items, many of which are weapons, while the Martians have "Technology" cards that can enhance them in sundry ways.

Other components include dice, thick card stock templates, hero cards, scenario cards and other play aids and several counter sheets of glossy counters. It's all very snazzy and attractive. There 32-page full-color illustrated rule book book explains the fairly straightforward game system comprehensively and even inldes rules for combining the Last Night of Earth game with Invasion You can have the circus performers fight off zombies instead of Martians, for example, or have the Martians invade the town instead of the circus. You can even combine the two games into a massive three-sided Humans vs. Zombies vs. Martians battle that can accommodate up to 8 players.

There's a basic game that leaves out a few of the more involved rules and a third of each deck and has just one scenario -- "Invasion" -- which is basically a straightforward battle. Most groups will want to transition quickly into the "Advanced" game which adds four more scenarios.

The rule book doesn't provide much guidance, except to note that the learning curve is steeper for the hero side, but the most balanced for new players is definitely the Invasion Scenario. The Heroes are trying to kill 20 Martians before they lose two of their own. It's worth mentioning that the Hero side si always comprised of four heroes, no matter how many players there are. In a 2-player game one person controls all four heroes, while in a 5- or 6-player game each hero is controlled by one player. If a Hero is killed, then a new one comes on the board immediately to replace the fallen one. Two of the scenarios "Abduction" and "Wipe Them Out" involve the Heroes trying to protect circus allies or crowds, respectively, with the burden of attack on the Martian side. These are still very challenging for inexperienced heroes, but not hopeless. The other two scenarios, "Blow 'em Out of the Sky" and "Unleashed" are for experienced heroes players only. Both involve finding specific cards from the deck as prerequisites for the actions needed to win and the burden for victory rests with the Hero side.

That's not to say that the Heroes don't have some advantages. They are, as noted, potentially much faster than the Martians and if they find ranged weapons they will usually out-range the Martians. For some reason the Martian ray guns are very short-ranged -- just one square. (I don't know why, heavier Earth gravity, perhaps, or maybe thicker Earth air). Even a revolver has a range of three squares, in contrast. And the Martian fire isn't all that accruate, hitting on a 5 or 6 on a D6. Three Martians can share a square and if they do, they get several advantages -- including shooting better -- they now hit on a 4-6. But the humans get a saving roll against each potential hit. each has an "agility rating" but even the least agile has a 50% chance of dodging a ray gun blast.

When Heroes and Martians are in the same square they "fight." Each Martian rolls one die, while each Hero rolls two dice -- with various cards and special abilities potentially affecting the results. The higesht single die roll determines the winner. So, for example, if a Hero is fighting a single martian and rolls a 3 and 5 while the Martian rolls a 4, then the Hero wins. If, however, the Martian had rolled a 6, he would win. The loser take a "wound," which is enough to kill an ordinary Martian. All the heroes and the Martian champions can take more than one wound.

The entire system is quick and intuitive and easy to teach to new players. It';s also quite colorful, a s quick rundown of the Heroes reveals.

The two strongest Heroes are Carl, the Strongman and Jo Jo, the Dancing Bear. While nether one can use guns, they both have special abilities that help them in a fight. Every Hero has several special abilities, inlcuding one that is called a "Talent." Talents are especially powerful, but require spending a "Power Token" to use. Each Hero starts the game with a Power Token and has a 33% chance of getting an additional one every turn, to a maximum of three. For example, Carl always rolls an extra fight die as part of his "Heavyweight" special ability, but in addition he can spend a Power Token to activate his "Bash Heads" talent which allows him to do an extra wound whenever he wins a fight. Carl and Jo Jo are both tough, taking four wounds to kill, although they are somewhat vulnerable to the ray guns -- only dodging on a roll of 4+. They'll normally be used to wade into hand-to-hand combat with Martians.

At the other extreme are Lucrezia, the Contortionist, and R.J. Flannigan, the Ringmaster. They die on their second wound, but are very agile, dodging on a 2 or better. They each have some movement bonuses and have some healing ability. Lucrezia and heal herself of one wound if she give sup a move, while R.J. can heal himself or another hero by spending a Power Token and rolling a 3+. They're best used to search for stuff, although their dodging ability is useful to frustrate Martian ray gun fire.

The other three ladies among the heroes can form some deadly combos, depending on who is in the game. Hannah, the fire breather, has a devastating Fireball attack than can take out more than one Martian at once while Cassidy, the Trick Shooter is deadly with firearms. Angelica, the Bearded Woman, has the unique talent of Teamwork, which lets her copy any other hero's Talent. This can be a nasty if she teams up with Hannah, of Cassidy (assuming Angelica gets a gun)> It also combos nicely with R.J. healing ability and Carl's head bashing. These three are of average toughness, taking three wounds to kill and dodge on a 3+.

With similar stats is Archibald, the Human Cannonball, but his talents eems alkittle hard to use efefctively. He can fire himself from one of the circus cannons scattered around the board with a potentially deadly effect on any martians he lands on. That's good, but it also means he's likely to end up in the middle of some Martians when he's done.

Besides their stats, each Hero has a little background bio, helping to set the proper movie-like mood. For example. Lucrezia, the Contortionist "Left at the stoop of the ringmaster's wagon as an infant, the only life Lucrezia has ever known is that of the circus. As the youngest performer, her exotic nature and fantastic abilities only further her desire to discover the truth of her mysterious past ... and her terrible nightmare."

While all game designs are collaborative efforts, Invasion has an impressively Hollywood style list of credits, including 19 listed "Cast" members. And it has a soundtrack.

I'm no music critic, and the sound track is nice enough, but I have to admit that it didn't seem very 1950s-ish. Still, it wouldn't hurt to have it playing softly in the background. Overall this is a really nice production and I've had some fun introducing it to new players. The game warns that it has a "mature" theme, but I don't think it's especially problematical for most ages. The scariness is rather cartoonish and while it's rated as being for 12 and up, in reality younger kids can easily grasp the game concepts and probably have seen worse on TV on a Saturday afternoon.

Sorry for the hiatus

2011-08-08T21:19:00.001-04:00

Among the travails of volunteer blogging is that sometimes life crowds you out.

Wings of War: Session and casualty report

2011-07-20T22:12:00.006-04:00

One of the pitfalls of a public gaming day is the risk of mishaps, and so it was on a fine July afternoon that my Werner Voss Albatros D.III met its end in its maiden flight. Sigh.

The day's inaugural battle at the redoubtable Arkham Asylum was a small version of my "Lafyatte, We Are Here' scenario. On the Allied side were a rocket-armed Nieuport 16 and a Nieuport 17, both from the Lafyatte Escadrille. On the German side was the above-mentioned Albatros, defending a Balloon with the help of three ground-based machine-gun nests.

As the balloon-busting mission is inherently challenging, I took the two Nieuprots while a rookie player (one of the Magic: The Gathering crowd at Arkham Asylum) took the Albatros.

It was an entertaining battle, as the rookie flew decently enough and I, too, am really a rookie, having just a few game under my belt as well. I'm pretty familiar with the rules, but like a newbie out of flight school I still need some seasoning in battle. In any case I was able to get qute a few shots on the balloon, but not enough to down it. My planes took a few hits, but neither was in danger of going down, barring an unlucky hit. I hadn't been tracking turns, but my guess is that were were close to or slightly past the 12-turn stand when the German player announced this would have to be his last turn. Ah, if only we'd just ended it there. While willing enough, the rookie was rather obviously much more comfortable rifling through cards than handling miniatures gently and there had already been a few close calls when somehow his hand brushed across the table and the Albatros went flying (I didn't see the move). Instinctively he did the wrong thing and stepped back and there was quite a loud crunch as Voss' plane became a compete wreck.

He gallantly offered twice to pay for the model, but I refused. I had invited him to play, after all, and frankly, I blamed myself because I had allowed the model to be too close to the table edge -- it was actually off of the playing mat and should have been replaced with the card, hindsight (and my future practice) tells.

There was a break in the action and when we resumed I ran through a couple of solitaire games with Frank Luke alone in his SPAD 13 against the balloon and its machine guns. The first mssision ended in the first shot as the balloon blew up! Fun, but not really very instructive. So I played through again and managed to down the balloon in just under the 12 turns on the second play through. This is an indication of how challenging the balloon busting mission is -- even unopposed it can be tough.

At left, Frank Luke lines up for a shot at the balloon.

A new rookie pilot, intrigued by the balloon busting (and thankfully much more adept with his hands) took up the challenge of defending the balloon. This time it was Luke and Rickenbacker against a Fokker D.VII. I gave Luke incendiary bullets and made him a bullet-checker, so he'd have less change to jam.

The new rookie, while new to Wings of War, was another experienced Magic player and also has played a few of the other wargames I've brought to the store on occasion. While not a wargamer, he's a smart dude and a quick learner. And, as I found out, the Fokker D.VII is areal nasty foe. Indeed, this was the very first time I'd seen it on the board nad it's shockingly maneuverable. It has several maneuvers that I haven't seen available to any other plane, as matter of fact.

Still, things got off to a decent start. While the Fokker nicked Luke on the way in, he and Captain Eddie were able to get multiple shots on the balloon and start to whittle it down. The ground fire wasn't too bad . I was able to wiggle Luke in through a gap in the anti-aircraft ring and Rickenbacker's direct challenge to a gun resulted in a couple of "0" damage draws. So far so good.

At right, the Fokker just misses a shot at Luke.

Meanwhile the Fokker was able to draw a bead on Rickenbacker for a close range shot. The first card drawn was another "0" but the second was the dreaded explosion! Captain Eddie was gone, just like that. Naturally this cahnged the tnor of the fight considerably. Luke doggedly made passes at the balloon, which stubbornly refused to go down, despite being set on fire a couple of time. Luke managed a couple of passing shots on the Fokker as well, including a few nicely lined up on the tail. (After the battle the German player revealed that all the Fokker hits were "0" or "1." ) Finally Luke scored with an "explosion" card and the balloon was down -- but Luke himself got caught up in the blast and his battered SPAD 13 went down as well. The Fokker was also within the blast zone, but survived with a total of 11 hits.

The nice thing about Wings of War is that it's easy to pick up, and I plan to host another round of battles in a couple of weeks --although with a little more care to prevent real casualties .

The balloons are tough to take out -- I think next time I'll let the Germans try their hand at it. The Fokker D.VII was a shock. It's clearly far better than a SPAD 13. I'll have to throw a Snipe into the mix next time I use those.

Losing faith

2011-07-18T21:31:00.004-04:00

Yep, I'm beginning to lose faith that the official published "historical" scenarios got play tested at all.

Our latest challenge to the faith involved one of the two scenarios that came with the North Africa 1940-1943 Map Guide: Operation Battleaxe.

Now, it looked to be a promising scenario as far as entertainment went, with a grand total of 17 AFV between the two sides and three maps to fight over, but even as I collected the tanks needed for the scenario I had my doubts about the German chances.

While, from a point value perspective, the Germans had an edge, 125 points to 100, but the British had Matildas! I strongly suspected that this would be the key fact about the order of battle. As has been my practice, I adjusted the order of battle to reflect that more historically accurate pieces have become available since the scenario was published -- in this case I substituted two DAK infantry men for the listed Wehrmacht Veteran Infantryman units listed. I didn't adjust the British OBeven though the Germans were down 2 points because I didn't think the difference was enough to warrant it. As events played out the differences between the units would not have mattered.

The first game of the match I took the British. The German objective was to either capture the town or have three units on the road at the end of any turn. I judged that the town victory condition was likely to be moot, because if the Germans were strong enough to take the town against resistance then they'd undoubtedly be strong enough to have three units on the road.

So I placed two riflemen in the town to prevent the Germans from simply waltzing in, while the 2-pounder anti-tank gun and the third rifleman prepared to occupy the small knoll southwest of the town. The Matilda troop set up near the town while the Crusader troop was to the East. My basic battle plan was to rush the Crusaders forward to give the Germans pause, but avoid a decisive engagement with them until the Matildas came up. The ATG was going to backstop the defense against any leakers. The Germans set up in line abreast across the bottom south end of of the map, with the tanks on the right.

The ensuing battle went more or less according to plan. The Crusaders did rush forth. The Germans advanced cautiously in the face of a couple of Overwatch markers and soon enough the Matilda troop was up. For the next several turns there was parry and thrust, probe and dance -- with most of the shooting on both sides at long range. The Germans were getting the worse of it, however, generally losing a vehicle a turn. Finally, with the clock running out the fastest German survivors, a halftrack bearing an infantry unit and the armored car, made a dash for the road along the east edge of the map. The British were so lightly prssed that I had been able to reinforce the backstop ATG with wo Crusaders and between them they were able to shoot up the attack. Total British losses were a Crusader destroyed and one Matilda damaged. The Gemrans lost everything except for one Panzer III and a couple of Panzer IVs.

The flip side match went much the same. The British setup was similar, except that the Matlidas and Crsuades were interspersed. I palced the light Germans units on the left, intending on them skulking about in the Wadi while the tanks won their fight. The Panzer IVs and IIIs set up in a group on the right. I planned to advance using the cover of the hill complex on the right side of the map and some strategic placement of smoke from the Panzer IIIs.

Things went more or less by plan, although without success. The smoke helped a nit, but the Overwatch rule still cost the Germans a bit and in the end they still came out the worst in the tank dogfight that developed around the small brush area on the east side of the center map. British losses were somewhat heavier than the first game, with three of the four Crusaders destroyed and the fourth one damaged. With similar losses on the German side, but everything still came down to a last turn rush by German survivors (A Panzer IV, the armored car and a halftrack carrying an infantryman). The British only needed to get one of them to prevent the win and the 2-pounder was up to the task, blowing up the halftrack -- And the three Matildas still hadn't taken their shots.

The Matildas are simply too tough to handle, while the 2 pounder gun on all the British armor and the ATG is adequate against the German armor at battle ranges. The Panzer IIIs and the Crusaders are an even match. While the smoke is useful, it's no more so than the Vanguard special ability which lets the British advance far enough to put pressure on the Germans from the first game turn.

So far I haven't been very impressed with the historical scenarios offered, which is too bad, because they provide a chance to play a different style of game than the straightforward duel of a competitive point-based scenario. Given the obvious mismatches so far, I suspect that there was little play testing done.

It's better to be lucky than good

2011-07-13T22:16:00.003-04:00

After a long dry spell, Game Store Tony and I were able to resume our Civil War series of Battle Cry (150th anniversary edition) games.

As usual, he was the Confederates while I took the Union force as we squared off at Oak Grove, Virginia. This was a skirmish just before the beginning of the Seven Days battle. The USA forces were 10 infantry units and three artillery under three generals. (A cavalry unit later appeared as a reinforcement by card play). The CSA side was identical in starting strength. The Federals under Hooker had a hand size of 4 command cards and moved first. The Rebels, under Huger, had a five card hand. d

The biggest handicap for the Federal side is it's small hand of just 4 command cards. The awkward thing about the 4-card hand is that it can feel like a curse if you get a bunch of good cards. You'd like to be able to hold onto them to play at an opportune moment, but you really have to keep cards churning through your hand or you risk being stuck with a dead hand and unable to really act at all for a few turns.

As it so happened, in our game I was blessed with a long string of very useful cards such as a Battle Cry, a Call For Reinforcements, three Leadership, a Bombardment and some others and was not forced to play them too inefficiently. Helping out as well were the dice, which seemed unusually deadly for me in the early going.

The basic outline of the engagement were moderate advances by Robinson's and Grover's brigades on the Union left and center, respectively, while Sickles made a more aggressive push on the right. This was exactly the opposite of the historical result, which saw Sickles being held up while the other Union brigades progressed. Every attempt by the Rebels to advance, in contrast, seemed to wither in the face of heavy fire.

By the late game, although each side was tied at 4 flags apiece, this was misleading because the Confederates had a whole slew of weakened 1- and 2-figure infantry brigades while most of the Union troops were at full strength. The final CSA losses came at the hands of Robinson's infantry on the left and a reinforcing cavalry unit under Sickles on the Union right for a final score of 6-4.

Time wise it was a longer than usual battle, taking more than an hour to play

The Whites of Their Eyes

2011-07-11T10:53:00.003-04:00

The redoubtable Mark K. and I had a great game day -- as is so often the case we pretty much traded wins all day long -- split matches of Commands & Colors: Ancients and Hold The Line, he notched a convincing win of Washington's Warm while I eked out an unconvincing win in Richard III. He managed to break the tie with a win in Martian Fluxx though ... .

The Hold the Line game was actually a scenario from Clash for a Continent, the Battle of Bunker Hill. Now, even by the loose standards of HTL this Bunker Hill wasn't very Bunker Hill-like. There's not much resemblance between the order of battle and the layout of the ground between the scenario and the actual event, except in the very broadest sense of some British troops making a frontal assault on a hill held by Americans.

The scenario features some "regular" Americans, some "Light Infantry" and a few cannons!! backed up by some militia along a line of hills and a rail fence. This is quite kind to the American quality level and yet basically ignores the field fortifications the Americans erected. The famous reboudt is nowhere to be seen, for example. The British force seems reasonable, with some elites, some regulars and some light infantry. It appears to me that the scenario isn't meant to represent the entire battle, but is meant to depict the final British assault alone.

For the first game I took the Americans while Mark commanded the British. He endeavored to make his main effort on his left against the right corner of the American ridge, which he managed to take, albeit at some considerable loss. My survivors fell back towards the left. I had meanwhile redeployed the artillery from the American fence to the ridge -- a move that Mark considered ill-advised. While the cannons definitely beefed up the firepower of the main line, it opened up the possibility for a dash for the victory point hexes by the British left flank Light Infantry. Decent shooting at the last moment by a couple of American militia units (taking advantage of flanking fire) cut down the British lights as they crossed the fence -- but it was a very near-run thing indeed and one bad roll would have given the Mark the win. As it turned out, though, the failure of the Lights left the British facing a tough situation and the Americans were able to get the kill they needed for a 6-6 win. (The Briitsh needed 7 VPs to win, the Americans just 6)

When it was my turn with the British I decided to hit the other corner of the American hill line and was able to break into the American line at relatively less cost. At that point I had a choice between turning toward the Victory Point area behind the fence OR trying to roll up the Americans in the other direction. In retrospect, I made the wrong choice. I tried a push for the lucrative VP areas, but Mark had retained the artillery and the high quality infantry on that flank and my British troops did not have the necessary edge to prevail. Had I gone the other way I would have had a numerical and quality edge and that flank was within supporting distance by the British reserves. Instead I "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory" and the game ended with another 6-6 American win.

Overall it seems like a good balanced scenario -- it's just not very authentic, even considering the abstractness of the game.

A little better today

2011-07-06T22:42:00.003-04:00

Played a game f Battle Cry at the local store today against one of the game store denizens I've played before. He's generally a Magic: The Gathering player but has played BC before. We played the Oak Grove scenario and overall the game went very well for my side (the CSA) as he was never able to coordinate a sustained drive while I happened to pull a whole bunch of Right Flank cards and was therefore able to launch a multi-turn, multi-unit drive that mostly cleared that side. the final flag score was 6-2 for me.
Hooray.

Not a good showing by me

2011-07-05T20:08:00.003-04:00

Played a double of Axis & Allies Miniatures today at the local game shop and got schooled a bit.

We were playing the "Ridge Too Far" scenario from the Axis & Allies Extended rules.

As has been my custom, I modified the printed scenario slightly in order to account for units that have become available since the scenario was printed. In this case the changes were quite minor. I substituted the now-available MG 34 for the scenario's MG-42 because the scenario is set in July 1941, before the service date for the MG-42. In order to balance off the 2-point reduction in the German force's point total I substituted two Soviet Conscript infantry for two of the Moison-Nagants in the printed scenario.

The only other change was purely cosmetic, I proxied a regular Panzer IVD model for the Elite Pz IVD in the scenario while using the older version's stat card.

The map was No. 7 of the larger 3-inch sized series. The main features were five hexes of hills running from north to south just West of the middle of the map. A village was just east of that and a 4-hex patch of woods was northeast of the village. A small pond and some other trees rounded out the terrain. The five hill hexes were the objectives to be held by Turn 6. The Soviet force could set up on the hills, but any units that did so were disrupted. The rest of the Soviets set up within five hexes of the east edge, which meant they could just reach the village. The Germans could start with two infiltrators in the 4-hex patch of wood to the northeast of the town, while the rest of the German task force entered from the west ion Turn 1.

The Soviet force comprised one T-34/76 (real nasty in 1941!) a BT-7, a Commissar, a sniper, an ATR, an SMG squad, a grenadier squad, three Moison-Nagant squads and two conscript squads.

The attacking German force was one SS leader, an SS stormtrooper squad, three Kar 98 squads, one light mortar, one MG-43 team, one elite Pz IV tank and two Pz IIID tanks.

I took the Germans first. I put the MG-34 and the light mortar in the woods where they didn't accomplish much. The MG team was able to disprupt the BT-7 a couple of times but the light mortar died right off. I tired a frontal attack on the 3-hex ridge, whcih the Soviets had kinldy filed with troops (to be disrupted) with a supporting effort through some woods on the north side with the rest of the German foot troops. The Soviets took heavy losses, but the darn ATR got a lucky shot and damaged the elite Pz IV! I compounded the error by pushing one of the Pz III too aggressively onto the ridge where it was close assaulted to death by Soviet infantry.

By Turn 5 the Gernan attack was wrecked, with all three tanks and the majority of the foot troops gone. While the Soviets had taken some serious losses among their infantry, they still had both tanks undamaged and we called the game on account of hopelessness.

On the flip side I did better. I used the "Overwatch" rule for the first time extensively and the threat from the T-34, in particular, really constricted German movement over the first half of the game. The Germans were, however, able to pincer the two Soviet units holding the northern two hillocks (grenadier and SMG) between the MG 34 team and the SS stormtrooper from the woods and the German main body from the west.

My dice were cold in both games, but in the first game I made enough mistakes that I couldn't fairly blame the dice. In the second game, however, the Soviet shooting was abysmal, with multiple fusillades of fire unable to gun down exposed German infantry in the open and missing a Pz III in the open as well. Only the overwhelming firepower of the T-34 was able to score a kill on one Pz III. Gemran return fire was able to disrupt and damage both Soviet tanks eventually, despite being in cover and the Germans edged to a win, with control of two hills compared to control of one for the Soviets.

Overall a disappointing outing because I didn't feel like I put forth my best efforts, especially in the first game. It does appear to be a well-balanced and fair scenario.

Happy July 4th!!

2011-07-04T23:29:00.002-04:00

Today was game day, but not board games. I spent the day on a trip to Fenway Park.

Our Red Sox fell short against the Toronto Blue Jays, but they gave it a good shot at 9-7 after a real shaky start down 7-0 after 3 innings!

It's my first trip to Femway in years and actually my first trip back to Boston in quite a while. The changes never cease to amaze me. I really loved Bosto while I was in college, but the Boston of the mid-1970s was definitely a much dingier place than the city of 2011!

We arrived early enough to take a sightseeing stroll down to Copley Square. Interestingly there was a new statue monument on Commonwealth Avenue. Dedicated in 2003, the Boston Women's Memorial features life-sized bronze statues of Abigail Adams, Phyllis Wheatley and Lucy Stone.

Boston's full of history, and it's not done adding to it!

Conquest of Nerath -- Yep, it's D&D meets A&A

2011-07-02T11:18:00.003-04:00

When I saw the promotional materials for the new Wizards of the Coast game Conquest of Nerath my first thought was "looks like Dungeons & Dragons meets Axis & Allies."

Well, first impressions aren't always wrong, after all, and saying Nerath is D&D meets A&A turns out to be a quite fair shorthand description.

It is not fair to say that the Dungeons and Dragons theme has just been slapped on to Axis & Allies, however. It's more accurate to say that the underlying game engine driving A&A has been repurposed to explore new strategic situations ans tactical combinations. A lot will seem familiar to veeram A&A players, but a dragon, for example, is not just a relabeled heavy bomber, but has its own unique tactical interactions.

The stargeic situtaion is completely different, of course, Unconstrained by historical facts or actual geography, the world of Nerath features much more evenly matched combatants. While each "nation" has the same force pool to draw from, each also has a unique deck of cards that provide a different "flavor" for each.

Combat is also unique and provides a D&D flavor by using different polyhedral dice for each kind of troop. The "hit" number is always 6+, but a lowly foot soldier rolls a D6 and therefore has just a 1 in 6 chance of a hit while a fighter rolls a D10 and therefore have a 5 in 10 chance of a hit.

The four nations each have a home area in a corner of the board, but they also have forward outposts in enemy territory. The central island has territory from all four nations on it, so conflict will be immediate.

One part of Conquest of Nerath that has no analog in Axis in Allies is the dungeons. Scattered across the board are dungeon spaces. Each is guarded by one or two hidden monsters that can only be attacked by two types of player units termed heroes: wizards and fighters. Players attack the space with a party of wizards and fighters and fight a battle against the guards. If the guards are defeated then the player can draw a treasure cards. These generally have powerful game effects and provide victory points as well.

Victory in the game is determined by victory points. Conquering an enemy home territory is worth one VP< capturing the enemy capital is worth 5 VP and most treasure cards provide VP as well, usually one or two each. The game can be played as a four-way free-for-all or as two alliances. Game lengths can be varied by setting different levels of victory pints needed.

There's a lot going on in this game, but based on my first play I noticed that the interrelationships between the units ny not be what an A&A player might expect. For example, the "foot soldiers" each side has are not as useful as their A&A analog of infantry. While A&A infantry is more powerful on defense, Nerath foot soldiers are equally worthless on attack and defense. While a fighter only costs twice as much as a foot soldier he is five times more likely to hit, moves twice as fast, can explore dungeons and can fight at sea aboard a ship. While a dragon costs five times as much as a foot soldier, it flies 3 areas each time it moves and it moves twice per turn,it rolls a D20 in its attack, and it takes 2 hits to destroy. The end result is that infantry will be much less common in this game than is typical in A&A, I expect.

A final word on component quality. Everything is the typical high-quality presentation we've seen with WOTC products. Nice cards, well-sculpted miniatures, thick counters, etc. Players may want to beef up the number of dice -- the plethora of dice sizes (D6,D8,D10,D12, D20) means that there aren't that many of each type and as an A&A-0style game you know you'll be throwing fistfuls. And there's just one player aid card summarizing the build costs and combat capabilities of the units. You'll want to make copies. This was not a good decision and is really inexplicbale, as Axis & Allies games have always included such cards for every player's reference during play or put the information on the boards.

Overall, though, a nice product and the table consensus was that this will see a lot of table time.

Slapshot arrives

2011-07-01T16:36:00.005-04:00

Well, a quick first impression is that Slapshot isn't really a silly card game at all -- at least not in the same way as Munchkin or or Fluxx. The only thing silly are the names of the "players" (admittedly, those are truly silly: Moby Stick, Friar Puck and Snow Balls for example).

But the game, itself, is a Knizia-like hand-management card game and there's clearly some room for skill. It reminds me a little of Battle Line -- one could call it a sort of chaotic, multi-player Battle Line. The basic idea is the same, where players compare the opposing values of their cards with the higher total generally winning, but with some exceptions.

I'll have to try it a few times but it seems to have potential.

I should mention what's in the game.

First off, it comes in a smaller version of the standard Columbia slipcase style box, which means it comprises a black card-board inner box and a light card-board outer sleeve. So far as I know, this is new packaging for Columbia, but it could obviously be used for other smaller products. It's similar in size to the plastic VHS style box previously used for Wizard Kings and Victory expansions and it's possible this replaces those.

Inside the box are the rules, just four 5- by 8-inch pages, one of which is taken up the player roster. There's an 8.5 by 11-inch folded playing board and a plastic card tray with three bays. Six ordinary Columbia wooden blocks serve as player scoring tokens.

Finally there are the 54 player cards. I don't know how these compare to the Avalon Hill version, because I never owned it, but the cards are playing-card quality (although not expensive playing card quality).

Playing card games generally seem a bit over-packaged to me, because generally the heart of the game is just a deck of cards and rules and the other components are really ancillary. The larger box really seems just to primarily designed to win shelf space and justify a higher purchase price. That said, the presentation is nice and the overall price is still pretty much on the low side for what's available these days.

The perils of pre-order

2011-06-28T15:28:00.004-04:00

So I was checking my bank statement this week and I spotted a pre-authorized withdrawal from Columbia Games for about $18 and I was, like, huh?

I couldn't remember what I had pre-ordered from them that could possibly cost that little, but then I vaguely recalled an announcement that Slapshot was charging. Slapshot? I didn't order Slapshot, did I? I was incredulous.

Now, admittedly, I do have a weakness for silly theme card games. I have most of the Fluxx line and nearly every part of the Munchkin and Nuclear War lines as well. I even have We Didn't Playtest This At All. But I couldn't recall pre-ordering Slapshot.

Slapshot's been around a very long time -- originally published by Avalon Hill, it's enjoyed a kind of cult following at the World Boardgaming Championships. This has been my main exposure to it, and I have to admit that they always look like they're having a raucous good time at the annual Slapshot tournament. But the game have never grabbed me, despite all that. While I grew up in New England, I never warmed to hockey as a sport. Even though the Bruins recently took the Stanley Cup, I wasn't very excited about it. Hockey's behind Football, baseball, the NBA, the WNBA and even soccer among professional team sports I follow.

And yet, here it was, irrefutable documentary proof that, at some point, I was bitten by the game-buying bug and pre-ordered Slapshot! There's no question it's a legit order. I checked my pre-order page and there it was. I just can't imagine why?

One bad side effect of the pre-order system is that there's often such a lengthy delay between the opening of the pre-order status and the actual appearance of the game that this sort of thing can happen. I've ended up with tow copies of a game because I forgot I pre-ordered it. I've been hit with an unexpected charge because a pre-order hits the credit card without notice (fortunately some companies have taken to sending out reminders beforehand). and sometimes a pre-order doesn't go through because the card has expired.

The pre-order system has its good points, but I try to use it sparingly, mostly just for games I am absolutely certain I plan to get -- which still leaves Slapshot an inexplicable anomaly.

Well, it's on its way, I guess, so I see no harm in checking (pun intended) it out.

So, Adolf, why, exactly, the rush?

2011-06-21T20:42:00.006-04:00

Europe in 1941 with initial Barbarossa gains
Note also that significant neutral powers such as Sweden and Spain were economically within the Axis sphere

Observers generally agree that Hitler's biggest error in World War II was attacking the Soviet Union and exposing Germany to a 2-front war. It didn't work out so well, after all.

But it's often pointed out that a war between the two great European dictators was inevitable, after all, and Hitler had little choice but to settle things one way or the other. True, I think, but also missing the point. It wasn't the question of IF, but of WHEN. Part of the reason why Stalin was caught by surprise was that he judged that the Germans weren't likely to start the war so soon. And Stalin was probably right.

While Hitler was evidently trying to capitalize on a known German advantage in quality while it lasted, I see little reason to think that advantage was in any immediate danger of narrowing. Indeed, more attention to war preparedness on the German side and an earlier start to the campaign season (undistracted by Balkan adventures) in 1942 would probably have seen very similar results to the 1941 campaign -- but with another 6-8 weeks of campaigning. Sure, the T-34s and KV-1s would have been a nasty surprise, but German successes had never depended on superior tanks anyway and there's every reason to think that the Russian tank crews would have been unable to translate their better tanks into tactical success.

A delay in the start of Barbarossa until 1942 would have had some other interesting implications. For one, it would have meant Britain fighting on alone for yet another year. Undoubtedly, without the need to immediately divert resources for the upcoming Russian campaign, events in the Middle East and the Med (Greece, Crete, Iraq, Western Desert) could have easily taken a very grim turn for the Allies without requiring all that much in extra German effort. Another Panzer division or two, a Luftwaffe air group and it's easy to see the Germans overwhelming the overstretched British.

What about the Americans? Well, the trajectory of events driving the USA and Japan to war was largely independent of the Russo-German question. It's probable that Japan and the US would have gone to war more or less on the historical schedule and it's an open question whether Hitler would have repeated his historical mistake of gratuitously declaring war on the US (he wasn't required to by treaty because Japan had attacked the US) . If he didn't, it's hard to see how FDR could have even brought up declaring war on the Germans when it was Japan that had attacked, let alone following any kind of "Germany First" strategy. The natural course of events would have focused American attention on the Pacific first -- bad for Japan but a boon for Hitler. Undoubtedly the Russians and Japanese would have followed their historical course and avoided hostilities for now.

So instead of merging into one grand Second World War in 1941, we may have seen two large regional wars instead. A sputtering European/ expanded Middle Eastern theater and something similar to the historical Pacific War. There would have been a slight overlap in combatants, as the British had their Far East interests, but they may have been unable to make even a token defense given the crisis elsewhere.

A more patient Hitler, striking Russia in the spring of 1942, would have had a much more favorable strategic situation to deal with than he had in 1942. Britain, still isolated, would have beset by even more foes and without as strong help from the USA as it historically received. America would have been emotionally and logistically well and truly committed to the Pacific War and unlikely to change course in mid-stream and Russia, with the training, doctrine and leadership deficiencies from the year before still endemic, would have still been vulnrable to being blitzed into defeat.

Of course, Hitler was not known for his patience, but he could muster it on occasion. And it's hard to see what urgent requirement was driving the need to start the Russo-German War in 1941, rather than waiting less than a year more.

Last few days before the storm

2011-06-19T19:45:00.006-04:00

David Low, Someone is taking someone for a walk (1939)

On June 22, 1941 the entire nature of World War II changed with the Gemran invasion of the Soviet Union, inaugerating the most massive land campaign seen in history -- and one unlikely to ever be matched, given the changing nature of warfare in the decades since. We won't ever see multiple army groups with millions of men locked in combat over a thousand mile front for more than four years again.

The Eastern Front has held a fascination for wargamers since the hobby's beginning. The classic Avalon Hill Stalingrad was just the first in a long series of games covering every conceivable aspect of the war, at every level. Proof that there seems to be a wargame on everything is one of the four games included in the 2010 Against the Odds Annual called Codeword: Barbarossa - Preparing for the German-Soviet War. It may be a stretch to call this a wargame at all, because it ends when the war starts, but it's an interesting exercise as the two players try to create the conditions for a successful campaign when (and if, war breaks out).

It's rated at having a "low" solitaire suitability, which is too bad because it seems to be the kind of game that will be hard to get on the table against an opponent (obscure topic magazine wargame -- in this case competing against three other wargames in the same issue). I did fiddle with it a bit solitaire and it's an unusual enough game that I think players will need to play it a few times to get the hang of it -- so I can't write a proper review.

I am intrigued though, so I do hope to get a chance to play it sometime. Essentially the players have to balance aggressive actions such as redeploying to the front and raising new troops with a need to to be so provocative that the war starts before they are ready. Each side has to select from a menu of strategies and the final victory point total depends on the interaction between the chosen strategies and how well your deployment matches the strategy.

Map detail

The choices for the Germans are "Historical," "Northern Emphasis," "Moscow Central" and "Ukraine Emphasis." Interestingly this seems to imply that the Historical German strategy lacked a clear focus. The Soviet choices don't include a "historical" option but are "Border Defense," "Defense in Depth" and "Offensive." I think the first of those is the closest to the historical strategy, although in the end the Soviets were forced into a defense in depth. An "Offensive" strategy was explicitly rejected by Stalin and it's hard to see how a real-life adoption of that strategy would have been anything other than disastrous. Still, it's an option in the game and the Soviets can try it.

Component durability -- boxes

2011-06-12T22:13:00.004-04:00

Boxes are historically the weakest component for game durability -- even considering that they get the most abuse.

Until fairly recently, game manufacturers almost invariably designed boxes primarily for their marketing suitability. And you still see the effects of this focus with the kind of family games you'll see in a discount store. Large flat boxes with garish print and flimsy construction may be OK for a game of Monopoly, Sorry or Barbie Fashion Show that's fated to end up in pieces before the week is out, but it's very frustrating for serious adult gamers who expect to get years of play out of their games. I used to hate the old Avalon Hill flat boxes. They just didn't hold up to much Geek carry at all. Invariably you ended up with split ends and if you tried stacking them more than a couple high you ended up with crushed boxes. If anything the old SPI plastic flat boxes were worse. The plastic would crack, the cardboard back would come off the tray part. Just awful.

On the other hand the Avalon Hill bookcase game format and the similar Bookshelf games from 3M were great -- especially when sleeved. I have some of those games that are more than 40 years old and still intact. While AH was in business I would sometimes order replacement boxes, although I rarely ahd to do so with bookcase boxes. On the other hand my Midway box is the third one (and it's fallen apart now).

One of the salutary effects of the German game influx has been to improve the overall quality of game boxes. Even back in the 1980s when I was stationed in Germany I was struck by how much better quality the German game components were. The boxes were much sturdier as a rule.

These days, while a few wargame makers still publish boxes that won't hold up to well, the majority seem to have realized that wargames have a long life-span and the box needs to be designed accordingly. Outstanding among the publishers is GMT with its heavy duty game boxes -- I like to call them the "armored box." These seem like they'll last many a trip to cons and game buddy houses. The squarish box design used by a lot of companies now such as Hasbro, Flying Frog, Fantasy Flight, Days of Wonder and others also seems pretty durable and stackable.

Counters, miniatures and blocks -- more durability discussion

2011-06-07T21:59:00.005-04:00

IJN cruiser Kumano from the Avalon Hill game Midway. 1969 counter on the right, a somewhat newer one (ca. 1980) on the left

Comments on mounted vs. unmounted maps below prompted me to consider the durability of other common game components. Maps, as a matter of fact, even the paper kind, are rarely the component that fails first in my experience.

Usually the first component that starts to disintegrate is the rule book, especially if it's a complex game or one with poorly drafted rules and you're in the darn thing all the time. Good quality paper and printing is really useful in rule books, but this is an area where many companies scrimp an use cheap paper. Still, there's not an awful lot that can be done about this, past using good quality paper and writing clear rules. A rule book is necessarily going to get a lot of handling by sweaty fingers.

Another component that should use high quality material (but often doesn't) is cards, if the game uses them. It's my practice to buy extra cards if the game uses them a lot and it looks like I'll get to play it a lot. I bought an extra set of cards for Up Front, for example, although I still haven't busted the seal. While my original card are still usable, they are showing some wear and given the likelihood that Up Front will never be reprinted I'm glad I have it. Some other games where I bought back up card sets included Commands & Colors Ancients, Gunslinger and Memoir '44.

Finally there are the unit pieces. The winner in the durability contest are figures hands down. While occasionally they can get damaged or destroyed if stepped on, for the most part they remain in near pristine condition if minimally cared for. I have copies of Broadside and Dogfight from the 60s that I bought on eBay that are in pretty tough shape in many ways, but the planes and ships are in good shape. I have metal painted miniatures that are decades old and I'm quite certain will be around long after I'm gone. Even the pre-painted miniatures from collectible games I expect are virtually immortal so long as they are not abused.

Nearly as good are wooden blocks. I have had some cases where stickers have come off a block or two, but with the exception of an old copy of Rommel in the Desert, in no cases has it been common and many of my block games are getting long in the tooth. And those block games that have embossed or screen printed blocks seem as permanent as the plastic figures. They could be used as grave goods.

Card board counters, on the other hand, are another story. The oils from hands and the friction from the playing surface and stacking means that counters can get some serious wear, even if the game isn't played often. Back when Avalon Hill was in business I ordered replacement counters for a number of games over the years, such as Afrika Korps and Midway. Most companies don't offer this service though, and I can see problems down the line for some games in my collection. The main reason why this isn't a bigger problem is that I have so many games that few get the kind of intense play that AH games got back in the day. And many popular games go though multiple printings, sometimes with multiple companies, so that you can get a newer (Perhaps improved) copy later. Some games I have in my collection that are NOT the original copy I owned include OGRE, The Awful Green Things From Outer Space, A House Divided, For The People, Bitter Woods, Monopoly, War of 1812, Wizard Kings and Quebec 1759.

Another factor with cardboard counters is different degrees of wear. It's often the case that some counters and markers see more use than others. It's not unusual for the turn marker to wear down to a nub first. In games where you have to draw activation chits these often wear out fast as well. Sometimes a unit spends a lot more time on the board than others. The German panzer regiments in Afrika Korps often show a lot more wear than any other pieces -- while the British substitute units are sometimes in mint condition! Usually this doesn't have an impact in play, but I could see times when it might matter, such as if the game uses inverted units.

Counters do have many advantages, of course. They can hold much more game information than blocks or figures. They cost less to make and weigh less when shipping. You can stack them. So lots of times they're a good choice. But there is a trade off in durability.

One thing that game makers could do more often is offer replacement parts. I think cards should always be available for separate purchase. You shouldn't have to buy a whole new game just because the cards wore out. Rule books should be online. That way they can be updated easily and players can download a new and updated version oft he rules when their original comes apart. And I think counter sheets should be available. One thing I also hate seeing is blank counters on a counter sheet. Put something on it. Extra "Game Turn" makers never hurt. There's no excuse for blanks in any game that uses any kind of status markers, either.

For me, because I tend to dabble in a large range of games rather than play any one game intensively,. durability usually revolves around storage issues. But a lot of people like to play the heck out of their favorite games -- and for that sort of player how well the game components stand up to repeated usage is important. It's a real shame to have your game fall apart before you're tired of it.

Invasion From Outer Space

2011-06-02T22:33:00.003-04:00

Played this campy Martian invasion game with the kids over the last two nights. I can't give it a full session report, as I discovered halfway through that we had been playing a few key points wrong, but it was still a lot of fun. We were playing the basic Invasion scenario, except I beefed up the number of dead Heroes needed for the Martians to win by one (to Three) given the differential in experience.

I took all the Martians, while the Fifth Grader, Third Grader and First Grader shared control of four heroes. Fifth Grader had ringmaster R.J. Flanagan and human cannonball Archibald. R.J.'s healing ability was heavily used, although he had a little troouble making the necessary die roll while healing himself. Still, despite both heroes being on the verge of death several times, they managed to survive and took out around seven or eight Martians including the 20th one for the win on the last turn.

Poor Third Grader had bad luck with her characters. Both Jo Jo the Dancing Bear and trick shooter Cassidy were taken down by swarms of Martians while only losing a few in return. Third Grader's third Hero, the Strongman, was near death at game end as well.

Little Miss First Grader was literally hot with Hannah, the Firebreather. Her first Fireball wiped out an entire 3-Martian pack and this was a harbinger of things to come. Hannah also found a sword during her searches, which wiped out another pair of Martians, Another few fireballs took out three more Martians AND the Zard Beast (with a little help from an event card). Altogether Hannah accounted for about half of the 20 dead Martians, including nearly all of the first dozen.

Everyone had a chance to get familiar with the basic mechanics, although some rules errros make me wary of deriving too many lessons from the affair. Everyone did enjoy the game, however, and was ready to play again.

Mounted or not?

2011-06-01T22:05:00.002-04:00

I'll admit to a game prejudice. I prefer mounted boards.

This may be because my formative years were spent with Avalon Hill games. I came across SPI and some of the other paper map companies a little later on.

One welcome trend I've been seeing is the proliferation of mounted map boards -- often as upgrades for games that originally came out with paper or cardboard maps. Some recent examples include Commands & Colors Ancients, Paths of Glory, Twilight Struggle, The Awful Green Things From Outer Space and Shiloh (Columbia Games).

The debate between mounted map fans and the unmounted aficionados is one that can't really be settled, one way or the other. Partisans of each can point to various reasons why their favorite display is better.

Obviously the biggest advantage of paper or cardboard maps is expense, followed closely by weight and space. A paper map game costs less to make, costs less to ship and, all things being equal, will take up less space in storage. For some purposes paper maps are indispensable -- magazines with games in them, for example, would be impractical with mounted boards for reasons of postage alone. Many players like to overlay Plexiglas on their maps to preserve the surface, smooth out wrinkles and hold the map in place. All valid points, although the reason why you need to smooth out wrinkles and hold the map down is because it's NOT mounted. In some games it's convenient to be able to write on the playing surface, which is easy to to with Plexiglas. Some players also like to use magnetized counter holders which is easy to do with a papper map placed on a metal sheet. They can be mounted on a wall or stored in drawers (specially made or map drawers) between plays. Paper maps and cardboard maps also avoid problems where map cuts meet. There can be a seamless transition between two map sections separated by a cut, whereas a mounted mapborad often is forced to leave a small gap.

Despite all these factors, when given a choice I'll opt for a mounted board. The main advantages I see in mounted boards is durability and providing a steady playing surface. Durability comes in both short-term and long-term ways. For the short-term, mounted map boards are usually more resistant to accidents such as spills and tears. For the long-term, if properly stored, mounted map boards can last decades. I have a 1961 edition of Avalon Hill's Civil War wargame which appears practically new -- despite being 50 years old! In contrast, long-term storage of a paper map is brutal and I have several games that have seen little table time that have maps splitting at the folds. A mounted map is less likely to be disturbed during a game than an unsecured paper or cardboard map. Securing the paper map usually means either taping it down or that trusty bit of Plexglas. Plexiglas isn't as portable as a folded mounted mapboard, however, a factor if you're not playing at home. A mounted mapboard can allow a game to be played on a less than ideal surface such as a picnic table, rough wooden table or even a blanket or the bed. Finally, and very subjectively, there's an aura of quality about a mounted board that makes the playing experience just a little better.

I won't thumb my nose at an game just because it has an unmounted mapboard. I have no shortage of unmounted map games in my collection. Some of my favorite manufacturers almost never use mounted boards, such as Columbia Games and MMP. But finding out a game has a mounted mapboard is definitely a selling point for me and I'm willing to lay out a little extra dough for one -- or buy one separately. I'll probably get the mounted For the People map, for example, just like I picked up the mounted maps for Commands & Colors Ancients when they became available.

Memorial Day

2011-05-30T18:51:00.004-04:00

DOD photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley

President Barack Obama called it a privilege to commemorate Memorial Day with thousands who came to pay their respects during the annual remembrance ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery on May 30, 2011. “To those of you who mourn the loss of a loved one today, my heart goes out to you,” he said. “This day is about you, and the fallen heroes that you loved."

Review copies and what I think about them

2011-05-29T23:05:00.004-04:00

Prompted by this blog at BoardGame Geek, I thought I'd share my thoughts on review copies.

I have. on occasion, gotten review copies. Back when I reviewed some games for Fire & Movement magazine I was sent copies of the games. Since I've become a game blogger I've received one review copy, although that game hasn't been reviewed because I've been unable to get anyone to play it.

The vast majority of games that I've written reviews of here and on Boardgame Geek were purchased by me. While I wouldn't turn down a review copy if I were sent one, unlike the blogger referenced above I wouldn't write to publishers asking for a copy, either.

In journalism there's a long-standing low-level debate about free stuff and to what extent it could be considered a problem. Some publications prohibit staff from accepting freebies. Most accept it for purposes of reviews. Some take the stuff without worrying about it at all. You send them free stuff and they take it with no obligation at all -- they didn't ask for it.

For me the limiting factor is rounding up enough playing opportunities to do a good job for a review, not the cost of the games. Getting more free games wouldn't help.

The Awful Green Things From Outer Space -- 8th edition

2011-05-28T18:00:00.007-04:00

Captain Yid counter sheet

So there's a new, eighth edition of the classic Tom Wham game The Awful Green Things From Outer Space, first published in 1980. So the question is, if you already have a copy, should you get this one. (Obviously if you don't have a copy, you should buy it now It's a great fun little game that's demonstrated its staying power many time over.)

In a word, yes. This is, by far the nicest edition of the game ever published. It's important to note that functionally, for play purposes, this edition is exactly like the Seventh Edition. Indeed, TAGTFOS is a remarkably stable game design. The only significant change its undergone is that the last few editions have included the "Outside the Znutar" optional rules that first appeared as a separate supplement long ago.

I won't spend much time on game play, as the game as been extensively discussed over the years. The brief version is that a multiracial crew of aliens is defending their ship against an infestation of the game's namesake Awful Green Things, whose most salient characteristic is an exceptionally fast growth rate. The crew embarks on a desperate search for weapons that can kill the creatures before they overrun the ship, but the effects of the weapons are unknown until tried on the Green Things. There are no changes in game play between the Seventh Edition and the new Eighth Edition. The changes are purely cosmetic.

But saying the changes are cosmetic is not to slight the significance of the changes. This is a very fine version of the game. Steve Jackson Games is often criticized for its -- to put it kindly -- economical production standards. The Seventh Edition, published in 200, had a retail price of $19.95, which would translate to about $26.06 in 2011 dollars, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Yet the 8th edition's retail price is $24.99, so it's actually less expensive in comparable dollars!

The changes are evident right from the top. The new box is deeper and sturdier than the old version. While not quite up to the standards of the GMT "armored" box, this is a good quality tough box that should stand up to a lot of Geek carry.

When you open up the new box you'll find three sheets of thick double-sided die-cut counters, much thicker than the thin card stock counters of Edition Seven.

The new edition includes a high quality mounted board, compared to the thin paper playing sheet included in the Seventh Edition. The space ship depiction is the same size, but the Weapons Display area is bigger and the overall layout more attractive. And did I say that the board was mounted?

The Eighth Edition rule book is 12 pages, just as the Seventh Edition was, but now it's in full color on glossy pages -- and yes, the "Voyages of the Znutar" comic is now in full color as well.

Both editions come with five green dice. The Seventh Edition dice are smaller, but glow in the dark. How, exactly, you're supposed to play in the dark escapes me. The new edition's green dice are larger, but the "1" face is the "Munchkin" symbol from the Munchkin game. Some people have interpreted this as using dice from Munchkin, but I think it may simply be a branding issue, ast Munchkin is what SJG is best known for now.

Finally the new edition includes a cardboard insert.

Overall, if you're a Green Things fan, this is the edition to have.

Bismarck saga -- sunk

2011-05-27T10:11:00.003-04:00

The Bismarck is seen sinking from the HMS Dorsetshire after being torpedoed.

At 10:15 a.m. the order to abandon ship was given on the Bismarck.

At 10:30 a.m. the HMS Dorsetshire torpedoes the Bismarck.

At 10:40 p.m. the Bismarck sinks. An estimated 800 men are in the water.

Bismarck survivors being pulled aboard the Dorsetshire.

The HMS Dorsetshire rescues 86 survivors and the destroyer HMS Maori rescues another 25. A lookout reports seeing a periscope so the British break off rescue operations for fear if U-boat attack.

Later the U-Boat U-74 arrives at the scene and rescues three survivors and the German weather ship Sachsenwald finds two more.

Bismarck saga -- blasted

2011-05-27T09:02:00.007-04:00

HMS Rodney (right) blasts the Bismarck (shrouded in smoke at left)

At 9:02 a.m. the forward turrets on the Bismarck are knocked out and over the next 25 minutes the Bismarck is hit repeatedly large shells from the Rodney and the KGV and 8-inch shells from the heavy cruiser HMS Norfolk..

At 9:15 a.m. the Rodney closes to just 6 miles from the Bismarck, an indication of how ineffective the Bismarck's reurn fire was becoming.

At 9:27 a.m. the Bismarck's "Dora" turret is knocked out.

At 9:30 the Bismarck's guns are silenced and the ship is blazing.

At 9:40 a.m. the heavy cruiser HMS Dorsetshire joins in the pummeling of the Bismarck.

At 10:15 a.m. Adm. Tovey orders the Rodney and KGV to break off. The battleships are critically low on fuel and have just enough to make it back to port. It's evident that gunfire alone will not be enough to sink the Bismarck, so the Dorsetshire is orderd to use torpedos to finish it off.

Bismarck saga -- caught

2011-05-27T08:53:00.003-04:00

At 8:45 a.m. on May 27, 1941 the Bismarck was sighted from the HMS Rodney and the HMS King George V. The KGV was a sister ship to the Prince of Wales with 10 14-inch guns, although it had been in service longer and had worked through some of its teething issues. The Rodney was an example of an older battleship design philosophy that emphasized firepower and protection over speed. If it hadn't been for the crippling rudder hit on the Bismarck the 23-knot Rodney would have been too slow to force an engagement on the Bismarck. With none 16-inch guns the Rodney was a mortal threat to the Bismarck.

At 8:47 a.m. the Rodney opened fire.

At 8:48 a.m. the KGV opened fire.

At 8:49 a.m. the Bismarck opened fire.

At 8:59 a.m. the Bismarck receives its first 16-inch hit from the Rodney, destroying the main fire control director and largely deciding the action at that point.

Bismarck saga --a sleepless night

2011-05-26T22:22:00.003-04:00

At 10:30 p.m. on May 26, 1941 a destroyer flotilla led by the already legendary Capt. Philip Vian appraoched the Bismarck. Comprised of four British Tribal-class DDs (Cossack, Sikh, Zulu and Maori) and the Polish-manned Piorun (British-made N-class DD), the flotilla would spend the night harassing the Bismarck with torpedo runs. About 20 torpedoes were fired altogether, but none hit. On the other hand, the Bismarck wasn't able to hit any of the attacking destroyers either.

This is probably due to Adm. Leutjens ill-advised order to keep the crew constantly at battle stations even when not under attack. Indeed, after the Battle of Denmark Strait, which was notable for very accurate German gunnery, the entire rest of the campaign was marked by very poor German shooting. None of the 24 Swordfish that attacked the Bismarck in two strikes was shot down. None of Vian's destroyers were hit. Neither the Prince of Wales nor the Sheffield were hit directly when the Bismarck fired at them. During the final battle on May 27 the Bismark one again scored no hits at all.

Bismarck saga -- Luck runs out

2011-05-26T20:32:00.006-04:00

Fairy Swordfish are shown flying over the Ark Royal

At 8:47 p.m. the British Swordfish flight catches up to the Bismarck. While the flight leader had planned to launch a coordinated attack, the worsening weather conditions and heavy AA fire from the Bismarck conspired to break up the attack into disjointed runs in small groups.

Only one of the first 14 torpedoes fired hits the Bismarck, square amidships -- just like the Victorious strike -- and as in the previous case the German torpedo protection system and armor belt was enough to keep the damage from the small 18-inch aerial torpedo carried by the Swordfish to a minimum.

Just as it appeared that the Bismarck might escape, the 15th Swordfish made its run. Fatefully, the Bismarck attempted to turn away from the torpedo, a maneuver that proved to be a mistake as instead of hitting the well-armored middle of the ship, the torpedo struck at the very stern of the ship. It would be decades later before the true nature of the damage suffered by this hit was discovered when Dr. Robert Ballard located the wreck. It appears that the blat jammed her starboard rudder right into the propeller shaft. It's also possible that the blast blew off the port rudder. The Germans didn't know what they were dealing with, but this was a scale of damage unrepairable at sea. The Bismarck was doomed. It was 9:05 p.m.

At 9:30 p.m. the Sheffield runs up on the slowed Bismarck, which opens fire at 15,000 yards. No direct hits are scored on the cruiser, but splinters from near misses kill several crewmen and knock out the ship's radar set. The Sheffield is able to determine that the Bismarck is steering an erratic course, the first indication that the British have that their quarry may not escape after all. Just a few minutes alter, at 9:40 p.m. the Bismarck notifies Berlin of its plight.

Bismarck saga -- shadowed again

2011-05-26T19:58:00.002-04:00

At 3 p.m. The HMS Ark Royal, from Force H out of Gibraltar, launched a strike of 15 Swordfish torpedo bombers armed with torpedoes equipped with magnetic fuses.

The slow Swordfish take a long time to reach the vicinity of the Bismarck and at 4:10 p.m. they line up for torpedo runs -- at the wrong ship! The pilots hadn't been briefed that the HMS Sheffield, also from Force H, had been dispatched ahead to locate the Bismarck and was between the Ark Royal and the German battleship. The HMS Sheffield withheld fire and dodged some torpedoes, while some other torpedoes exploded on contact with the water because of faults with the magnetic fuses. The Swordfish returned to the Ark Royal, where the faulty fuses were replaced with standard contact fuses.

At 5:40 p.m. the British light cruiser HMS Sheffield, makes contact with the Bismarck and begins shadowing it at maximum radar range. Ark Royal moves closer to the Bismarck to cut down on the flying time while the third ship in Force H, the battlcruiser Renown, maintains its distance from the Bismarck. The British are unwilling to risk another battlecruiser, especially one older and weaker than the Hood, in a confrontation with the Bismarck.

At 7:10 p.m. the Ark Royal launches another strike, again with 15 Swordfish.

There's the Bismarck!

2011-05-26T10:16:00.003-04:00

The RAF-manned Catalina that spotted the Bismarck on May 26, 1941

More than 24 hours had passed since the British last had a fix on the Bismarck's position when a an RAF PBY Catalina sea plane co-piloted by an American Ensign named Leonard Smith spotted a ship in the middle of the Atlatic at 10:30 a.m.

In a later interview Smith described what happened:
“[A]t 1010 I sighted what was first believed to be Bismarck. . . . I immediately took control from ‘George’ [the automatic pilot]; started slow climbing turn to starboard, keeping ship sited to port, while the British officer went aft to prepare [the] contact report. My plan was to take cover in the clouds, get close to the ship as possible; making definite recognition and then shadow the ship from best point of vantage. Upon reaching 2,000 feet we broke out of a cloud formation and were met by a terrific anti-aircraft barrage from our starboard quarter.”

The intense AA fire confirmed that the ship was, indeed, the Bismarck. The last 24 hours of the Bismarck's existence had begun.

Eventually the Catalina lost contact with the Bismarck, but by afternoon the British regained contact with the light cruiser HMS Sheffield and the Bismarck would never shake off its pursuers again.

Bismarck Saga -- Where's the Bismarck?

2011-05-25T21:55:00.004-04:00

The 25th of May was probably the most nerve-wracking period of the entire Bismarck escapade for the British. After the Bismarck eluded its pursers early that morning the British frantically searched for the .German battleship. Their only clue was an intercepted radio report from Luetjens that described the Battle oft he Denmark Straits. One wonders why the German admiral took the chance of being triangulated when he had just so clverly outfoxed the British. It's possible he though he was still being shadowed, although there's no direct evidence of that. It was a reckless move, but in keeping with the peculiarly lax German attitude toward operational security which had characterized their operations so far.

On the other hand, the intercepted message and the triangulated position, while better than nothing, were not enough to actually find the German battleship. The best they could do was cut down the area being searched, but the open ocean is immense and even a 41,000-ton, 823-foot-long battleship is quite tiny in the middle of the ocean.

Heraklion -- sides switch, results don't

2011-05-25T16:09:00.004-04:00

So a few days after the first game the same opponent and I sat down for a refight of the Herkalion scenario from the Axis & Allies Expanded rules book. The last battle saw a handy British victory, despite the fact we made a set up error that favored the Germans.

Given that history I viewed my chances with some skepticism and events proved it to be warranted.

The error we made before involved overlooking the requirement that no German units be set up adjacent to each other. This was a heavy burden, as it essentially forced the Germans into a broad front attack. I thought I'd try to make lemonade from that lemon by planning on an enveloping attack on the village while the Veteran Fallschirmjaeger took advantage of his special ability to move while disrupted to head for the board edge victory hexes, which I though was the most promising route to victory.

That plan didn't survive the British setup however, as BOTH British heavy firepower units -- the Vickers and the Bofors, set up in the woods south of the pond to cover the entire open southern approach route. While this risked a quick elimination, it also seemed to make a rush across the open ground suicidal so long as they survived. The British set up the Bren gunner, the Aussie soldier and an SMLE rifleman on the ridge north of the village. Inside the village were the rest of the SMLE and the three Greeks.

I set up the light mortar in the small patch of woods in the north, the expert sniper int he bluffs and the MG-34 in the southern woods. The other troops set up on open ground ready to dash to cover -- two regular FJ and the hero in the north and the other FJ and the veteran FJ in the south.

Unfortunately for the Germans the British won the first few initiative rolls, which meant the Bren gunner was very useful suppressing the mortar until it could be killed. The sniper and the MG 34 took out the Bofors and Vickers, but it took until the end of Turn 2, which meant that there wasn't enough time for any Germans to reach to board edge victory area. Forced by lack of time to attack the town the German paratroopers made a valiant effort, but there were too many British targets and they found a lot of cover as well. Meanwhile the Germans continued to drop and by Turn 6 all that remained was one FJ, the sniper and the MG 34 team and no mathematical chance of controlling the village.

Overall this appears to be a tough scenario for the Germans. The point differential is misleading, because the Germans don't get to use their paratrooper SA. I'd add a couple more FJ to the OB or perhaps another MG team. Another possibility would be to give the Germans am Early War Stuka in support. This would be in keeping with the theme.

Bismarck saga -- air attack

2011-05-25T00:35:00.002-04:00

The HMS Victorious was still in the process of working up its air group when it was deployed along with the Home Fleet to counter the Bismarck breakout. It was understrength and inexperienced -- but it was also all that was available early on the morning of May 25.

Nine Swordfish torpedo planes took off from the Victorious to launch an attack on the Bismarck, reaching the battleship about 12:15 a.m. t first the inexperienced Swordfish pilots lined up on the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Modoc, which happened to be near the Bismarck. That the plots could mistake the much smaller US ship for the battleship is telling and suggest how had it would have been for them to single out the Bismarck if the Prinz Eugen was still accompanying it.

In any case the Swordfish sorted out their error and made runs at the Bismarck. Interestingly the Bismarck's anti-aircraft fire was not able to shoot down any planes. It's been suggested that the ancient biplanes were too slow for the Bismarck's modern AA fire control to track! In any case, none were shot down and the British even managed to score a torpedo hit amidships. The 18-inch weapon wasn't able to penetrate the Bismarck's armored belt, however, and damage was slight.

At 1:31 a.m. the Bismarck exchange fire with the Prince of Wales again, but no hits were scored. A few hours later, around 3:15 a.m. the Bismarck, through some cleverly timed maneuvering, gave the British shadows the slip as they zigged after a zag. After pulling out of radar range the Bismarck circled back behind the British pursuers and then set out towards France. It was quite some time before the British realized the Bismarck had given them the slip.

Some thoughts on Denmark Strait

2011-05-24T23:54:00.002-04:00

The Battle of the Denmark Strait was one of the most dramatic episodes in World War II, which had no shortage of drama. As such it's one of the most popular topics for wargames, dating all the way back to Avalon Hill's original Bismarck game in 1961.

As an operational game the Bismarck campaign has a lot of potential and has successfully been made into games several times. The Battle of Denmark Strait, however, presents somewhat of a problem. It's really hard to fit it into a wargame format.

Today, for example, I played out the Denmark Strait matchup three times with two different players using Axis & Allies War at Sea. Now, WAS is admittedly not the first word in simulation. But the four ships involved in the historical battle are explicitly represented int he game, and most of them have special abilities that are explicitly modeled on what happened at this battle. And still there was really no context, as the Bismark and Prinz Eugen were handily defeated thrice. In game terms this isn't surprising, because the two German ships add up to 70 points while the British pair top out at 102 points. Yet one has to wonder whether this is a problem with the game or actually a reflection of the historical improbability of the actual result.

In the Avalanche Press Second World War at Sea series game Bismarck the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen add up to 151 points while the Prince of Wales and Hood are 165 points -- closer, but still showing an edge for the British. (And also not including the two shadowing British cruisers). Considering that all the British need do is achieve significant damage to the Bismarck and they win and the straight point value seems to understate the British edge.

Mongoose Publishing's Victory at Sea rules have Fleet Allocation Points. If we consider the Denmark Strait to be a "Raid" level scenario than the German fleet is worth 5 FAP and the British squadron is worth 8 FAP. Another way to look at the matcup is to note that the two German ships will be rolling a total of 12 dice with a potential maximum of 28 damage dice (24 of which are 'AP') contrasted with the British battle line salvo of 18 dice with 44 potential damage dice (all AP).

At the high end of the realism scale with the Command at Sea system there's no point system at all, but the design notes for the Denmark Strait point out that the chance of the hit that blew up the Hood happening under the CaS rules comes out to .00016! That's a 1 in 6,250 chance. They say" This is small comfort for the crew of the Hood, but it demonstrates the difficulty in duplicating a historical result."

So the bottom line is that by any reasonable measure of likelihood the Bismarck's sortie should have come to an abrupt and aborted end that early morning inf May, 1941. The British strategy for dealing with a potential raid would had worked perfectly. The raiders were spotted before they even left Norway. Appropriate and effective deployments were made. The cruiser pickets successfully detected the German breakout attempt and shadowed it superbly. A more than adequate countering force intercepted just as the British planned and was literally a few minutes away from closing the range enough that the Hood's weak deck armor would no longer be an issue. Most wargame refights of Denmark strait -- whether using the super detailed Command at Sea or the highly abstracted War at Sea -- will reflect this reality. The Bismarck should lose.

Had it played out that way in reality, the Bismarck affair would have played a much smaller role in the lore of World War II, probably ranking somewhere below the exploits of the Graf Spee and Scharnhorst.

But one shell hit changed all that. The dramatic destruction of the Hood instantly changed the odds in the battle and combined with the Prince of Wales teething troubles and the mental shock of the Hood's loss allowed the Bismarck to break out and created the high drama that captured the public imagination.

Bismarck saga -- Prinz Eugen escapes

2011-05-24T18:54:00.003-04:00

sat 6:15 p.m. the Bismarck confronts its pursuers, the battleship Prince of Wales and the cruisers Norfolk and Suffolk and shots are exchanged -- although no hits. This skirmish provides cover for the Prinz Eugen which speeds up and pulls out of radar range and escapes.

The Prinz Eugen later meets up with a tanker and refuels, but is unable to locate any convoys because the British have diverted them away from the PE's likely hunting grounds. On the 29th the cruiser developed a problem with its engines and headed for France uneventfully. On June 1 the cruiser reached Brest.

One decision I haven't seen examined much was this detachment of the Prinz Eugen. The ship didn't accomplish much and wasn't well suited for the raider role anyway. I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to have the PE continue to accompany the Bismarck. A the very least it added some AA capability. Also worth considering is the possible benefit of having another ship present to confuse attacking aircraft. As it we will see, the aircraft attacking the Bismarck were prone to mistaken identity attacks anyway -- in one case lining up to hit a small American coast guard cutter and in the second case actually attacking a British light cruiser. How much more likely would be a mistaken attack if there were two ships in the same vicinity as similar-appearing as the Prinz Eugen and the Bismarck? As it was, it was just a lucky shot that finally doomed the German battleship. Perhaps if it had been present the Prinz Eugen could have been the unlucky one. In any case, it would have been useful to force the British to divide up their meager air assets -- a total of 24 Swordfish were available between the two British carriers.

Battle of Denmark Strait -- May 24, 1941

2011-05-23T22:07:00.012-04:00

Bismarck firing during the Battle of the Denmark Strait

At 5:37 a.m. the German task force detects the approaching British battleships at a range 0f 17 miles. At first the Germans believe that the approaching ships are more cruisers, sent to relieve the pair that have been shadowing the Bismarck since late the day before.

At 5:50 a.m. the Germans identify the approaching ships as the HMS Hood and a King George V class battleship (They don't realize the Prince of Wales is operational.)
5:52 a.m. the Hood and Prince of Wales open fire. Adm. Tovey orders both ships to fire on the lead German ship, which he believes is the Bismarck., based on earlier reports from the Norfolk and Suffolk and the similarity in profile between the two German ships. The gunnery officer on the Prince of Wales, however, realizes the mistake and that ship opens fire on the Bismarck.

5:54 a.m. Prinz Eugen opens fire on the Hood and scores a hit on the first salvo. starting a fire amidships.

Bismarck fires on the Hood

5:55 a.m. Bismarck opens fire on the Hood.

5:57 a.m. Prinz Eugen shifts fire to the Prince of Wales on its sixth salvo.

The Prince of Wales' firepower has been reduced to 4 guns because of a malfunction of the "B" turret (which has 2 guns) after the first salvo. The Bismarck and Prinz Eugen can fire full broadsides at the approaching British ships, which can only fire their forward guns in turn.

5:59 a.m. The Bismarck has now straddled the Hood and fires three salvos at maximum rate of fire.

The Hood explodes, as seen from the Prinz Eugen

6:00 a.m. A shell from the Bismarck its the Hood near the stern, apparently penetrating the thin deck armor and exploding in a magazine servicing the Hood's 4-inch guns. The ensuing blast sets off the main battery magazine under the X turret and then the Y turret a split second later, blowing the ship in two. An enormous billowing cloud of smoke marks the spot and the two ends of the Hood form a huge V and the ship quickly sinks. There would be only three survivors.

6:02 a.m. Bismarck switches fire to the Prince of Wales, scoring hits. The Prince of Wales also finds the range and starts hitting the Bismarck.Prince of Wales, right, makes smoke to escape while a pall of smoke, left, marks the sinking of the Hood

6:05 a.m. The Prince of Wales is getting the worst of the exchange of fire, being hit multiple times by both Germans ships. It makes smoke and pulls away. The fire of the Prinz Eugen is interrupted as the Bismarck pulls ahead of the cruiser.

6:03-6:14 a.m. The Germans ships maneuver to avoid reported torpedo wakes, although there's no indication that either British ship fired any.

6:09 a.m. Bismarck ceases fire. At first it appears that one of the three hits scored by the Prince of Wales was significant, but soon damage control reports an oil slick and a shot that passed though the bow of the German battleship is letting in a considerable amount of water, causing it to be down at the bow and labor a bit in the heavy seas.

Bismarck saga -- discovered

2011-05-23T21:37:00.002-04:00

At 7:22 p.m. the British heavy cruiser HMS Suffolk spots the Bismarck as the German task forcve tries to run the Denmarck Strait between the ice pack off Greenland the the minefields off Iceland. The Suffolk is not spotted right away and ducks into some fog, getting off a contact report. The Suffolk notes that the Bismarck is in the lead, followed by the Prinz Eugen.

Soon the heavy cruiser HMS Norfolk joins the Suffolk and the two cruisers shadow the Germans.

At 8:30 p.m. a break in visibility allows the Bismarck to spot the Norfolk and it sends a few rounds at the British ship, which ducks into the mist. No hits are scored, but the blast from the guns damages the Bismarck's forward radar, so the battleship switches positions with the Prinz Eugen, which now leads. The British don't spot the change. This will have an impact a few hours later.

The two British cruisers will continue to shadow the German task force through the night using the radar on the Suffolk track their course while remaining outside of visibility range.

Bismarck Saga -- Tovey sails

2011-05-22T22:22:00.003-04:00

Vice Adm. Sir John Tovey, commander of the Home Fleet, leaves Scapa Flow at 11 p.m. in his flagship the King George V with the aircraft carrier Victorious.

Although the KGV is a powerful ship, it's still suffering from some teething problems, especially with its main battery mounts. The Victorious is a new carrier, but its effectiveness is much less than one would expect because its air group was inexperienced and understrength -- but the emergency was too great to leave it behind.

Bismarck Saga - close call

2011-05-21T23:44:00.002-04:00

Around 8 p.m. the Bismarck task force left the Korsfjord and headed out to sea. Controversially, Admiral Guenther Luetjens decided to leave before the Bismarck's fuel tanks had been topped off.

Just a few hours later, at 12:15 a.m. on May 22, Vice Adm. Lancelot Holland (great name) left Scapa Flow with the HMS Hood and the HMS Prince of Wales. This was a much quicker reaction than German planning had assumed.

At 2 a.m. British aircraft attacked Grimstadfjord, but the Bismarck group had departed six hours earlier.

And early the next morning, at 4:20 a.m. the German destroyers escorting the Bismarck and the Prinz Eugen dropped away, returning to Norway.

Bismarck saga -- elsewhere the war goes on

2011-05-21T14:51:00.006-04:00

Maleme Airfield map detail from Hunters From the Sky

It's expedient for the purposes of narrative coherence in historical accounts to carry a story through from beginning to end, so naturally the story of the Bismarck normally doesn't discuss concurrent events elsewhere nor do histories dealing with topics such as the invasion of Crete normally mention the high drama in the Atlantic that was going on at roughly the same time.

But for Churchill, the Admiralty and other decision makers it was hard to give undivided attention to anything, a fact that armchair strategists and critics would do well to remember.

Even as the Bismarck lay in a Norwegian fjord, making final preparations for its sortie and the British admiralty began making its preparations to cope with that potential threat, the battle for Crete was raging. At almost the same moment that the British became aware that the Bismarck was at sea German glider troops and paratroopers were landing on Crete. While the Germans landed at several points, the key battle turned out to be at Maleme. The Capture of that airfield on May 21, 1941, was the turning point, as the Germans were able to start landing additional troops and heavy weapons.

Bismarck saga -- spotted again

2011-05-21T13:15:00.004-04:00

Aerial photo of the Bismarck

At 1:15 p.m. on May 21, 1941, the Bismarck was spotted by a reconnaissance Spitfire in Grimstadfjord, Norway.

Bismarck saga -- Norway

2011-05-21T07:33:00.002-04:00

The Bismarck task force entered Korsfjord, near Bergen around 8 a.m. on May 21, 1941.

Last World War I combat veteran dies

2011-05-20T16:31:00.002-04:00

News comes that the last veteran of World War I who served in action has died , 93 years after the end of the war.

The is a woman still alive in England who served as a uniformed waitress in England who is believed to be the last surviving "service member" from the Great War.

Shortly the war will have passed out of living memory for good.

World War II is just a couple decades behind -- if it's similar to the WWI story we will lose the last veteran of World War II somewhere around 2038-2040. God willing I may see that day, should I live to be 85.

Bismarck saga -- spotted

2011-05-20T12:59:00.005-04:00

The Swedish warship Gotland as depicted in the Axis & Allies War at Sea naval miniatures game

Around 1 p.m. the Bismarck was spotted by the Swedish warship Gotland in the Kattegat, the sea region between Norway, Sweden and Denmark. As Sweden was a neutral power there was nothing the Bismarck could do about it and the Germans assumed that the British would learn about the Bismarck sortie from the Swedes. And, in fact, they did, although it's easy to overstate the impact of the Gotland's sighting report because it was just one of three, independent, sources that reported that the Bismarck was at sea. The British also learned about the sailing from an agent in Gotenhafen and from a spotting report from the Norwegian resistance.

The Gotland was an interesting and unique ship. Since the invention of flight there have been various attempts to combine the advantages of an aviation ship with the conventional capabilities of a surface warship. Some famous examples include the Japanese scout cruiser Chikuma, the Japanese hybrid battleship Hyuga, the French helicopter cruiser Jean Bart and the Russian ships Moskva and Kiev. Generally these experiments have come up short, with a vessel that's not robust enough for it surface role and yet inadequate in the aviation role compared to a dedicated ship.

The Gotland was on the small end for such hybrids at 4,600 tons, and was never tested in actual combat in its role of providing spotting aircraft for the nation's fleet of coastal battleships. It carried an air group of six recon float planes and a main battery of 6 6-inch guns. Yet in spotting the Bismarck the odd little cruiser arguable played a bigger wartime role than most other hybrids. While the British had reports from several sources that the Bismarck sailed, a spotting by a regular professional naval unit had to be considered definitive.

Bismarck saga -- Danish waters

2011-05-19T23:40:00.002-04:00

A satellite view shows the Great Belt, in the center, through Denmark

About 2 a.m. on May 20 the Bismarck task force transited the Great Belt in Danish waters, taking about 4 hours.

Bismarck saga -- German destroyers

2011-05-19T23:00:00.006-04:00

Narvik-class German destroyer

Around 11:30 p.m. on May 19 a third German destroyer joined the Bismarck's task force as it got ready to pass through the narrow waters between Denmark and Sweden.

It may be wondered why no destroyers accompanied the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen on their foray. Surely a flotilla of escorts would have been useful.

In fact, however, destroyers were inherently limited in ways that precluded using them on long-range commerce-raiding missions. They were small ships which limited the amount of fuel they could carry -- but being tactically useful required them to move fast, which burned prodigious amounts of fuel. In addition the very rough sea conditions common in the North Atlantic often meant they had to slow down in order to avoid serious damage. In many cases a battleship or cruiser could move through stormy seas faster than a destroyer. Being slowed by rough weather was tolerable when acting as an escort vessel -- the merchant ships were slower anyway and the rough seas affected them as well. Likewise the destroyer's main foe, submarines, was also a small vessel that was slow under water and above water was affected just as badly by rough weather.

Every navy found keeping destroyers fueled up a major challenge, but German destroyers, in particular, were short-legged, being designed for use close to home in the North Sea and Baltic. The Narvik class destroyers such as Z-23 were typical, having a range of just 2,180 nautical miles at a speed of 19 knots. In comparison, standard British destroyers like the J, K & L class or the Tribal class destroyers that harried the Bismarck in its final hours had a range of more than 5,000 nautical miles at a sped of 15 knots. Even so, there were several instances during the Bismarck operation where British destroyer operations were affected by fuel considerations.

This is illustrated in the Avalanche Press Second World War at Sea series game Bismarck where the destroyer Z-23 has just 5 fuel boxes while the tribal-class destroyer Zulu has 6 and the JKL-class DD Javelin has 7 fuel boxes. In SWWAS a box provides enough fuel to travel 24 squares on the operational map -- at 1 square per turn! A square represents 36 nautical miles. If, on the other hand, a destroyer goes at its top speed of 3 it will use half of a box in that one turn and the entire box on the next. The Bismarck has 13 fuel boxes -- enough to travel up to 312 zones at slow speed. The purpose-built commerce raiding pocket battleships such as the Admiral Scheer have 22 fuel boxes, enough for 528 zones and transoceanic range.

As we will see, even larger ships such as cruisers, battleships and aircraft carriers, often had fuel problems.

No, the Bismarck, which had a range of more than 8,000 miles at 19 knots and the Prinz Eugen, 7,000 nautical miles at 20 knots, were on their own once they left waters close to Germany. Even their much longer cruising ranges were insufficient for a war cruise and they relied on access to hidden German tankers to refuel at sea and remain on station long enough to be a threat.

Courtesy GROGnads from BoardgameGeek

2011-05-19T21:57:00.000-04:00

Bismarck Saga -- The Prinz Eugen

2011-05-19T19:51:00.005-04:00

Prinz Eugen

Accompanying the Bismarck on her ill-fated sortie was the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen, named after Prince Eugene who collaborated so effectively with the British general Marlborough in the 1700s.

The Prinz Eugen was a very large heavy cruiser, displacing over 16,000 tons, making it over half again as large as the British "treaty' heavy cruisers it was likely to face. It was also much more modern than British counterparts such as the Norfolk and Suffolk, being 10 years newer.

The Prinz Eugen was well-armored, with a 3-inch belt, 1.25-inch deck and over 6 inches on the turret faces and conning tower. It's firepower wasn't especially powerful considering the great size of the ship, with just 8 8-inch guns like the British heavies -- considerably fewer than the main batteries of many Japanese and American heavy cruisers. It did have the advantage of the excellent German optics however. The secondary armament comprised a dozen 4.1-inch guns.

One interesting aspect of the design was that it was deliberately made to resemble the German capital ships and it especially resembled the Bismarck at a distance. This seemingly minor point would play a significant role in the upcoming operation. Compare the appearance of the Prinz Eugen, above, with the silhouette view of the Bismarck, below, taken from Prinz Eugen.

Unlike the Bismarck, which had a remarkably short active career, the Prinz Eugen was a fortunate ship and survived World War II. It was finally expended as a target during atomic testing after the war. Much of what we know from the German perspective comes from the Prinz Eugen, including several dramatic photographs from the Battle of the Denmark Straits.

Bismarck and Prinz Eugen rendevous with escorts

2011-05-19T12:01:00.002-04:00

Around noon on May 19, the Bismarck the the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen rendezvous with two destroyers off the island of Ruegen in the Baltic.

Bismarck Saga

2011-05-19T01:30:00.002-04:00

2 a.m., May 19, the Bismarck departs Gdyania on its way to Norway.

70th anniversary of the Bismarck saga

2011-05-18T12:40:00.005-04:00

Bismarck seen from the cruiser Prinz Eugen

70 years ago today, around noon, the Battleship Bismarck left dockside at Gotenhafen (Gdynia, now Gdanysk, Poland) in the Baltic Sea, marking the beginning of Operation Rheinubung. It would actually leave the next day, spending the balance of this day at anchor in the harbor taking on stores.

The Bismarck story is one of the best-known of World War II, being one of the few batles to reallt permeate the public conciousness. Ther ehave ben best-selling books, a movie and the famous undersea explorer Dr. Robert Ballard's discobery of the ship's wreck to keep the ship's story in the public eye for decades. It is, indeed, a story of high drama and I'll be following along the next 10 days as we mark various 70th anniversary events assocaited with the ship's sinking.

The Bismarck, itself, was one of the most powerful battleships to see action in World War II. A handsome-looking ship, it does have some critics. The main battery of eight 15-inch guns was powerful, but the four-turret, 2-mount each layout was a bit old-fashioned compared to the triple-turrets favored by fast battleship designers in America, Japan and Italy. The single-pupose secondary armament (5.9-inch anti-ship weapons) and tertiary armament (4.1-inch AA guns) was also less efficient than the dual-purpose weapons in the latest foreign designs.

Where the Bismarck excelled was in overall toughness. It was heavily armored, with 12-inch belt armor and 14-inch turret and conning tower armor. The deck was 3.5 inches, which is not exceptional, but the ship was very efficiently subdivided and in the event it proved very hard to sink her.

Its maximum speed of 30 knots was matched by only a handful of Royal Navy warships, none as powerful as the Bismarck.

Overall the Bismarck overmatched any single British capital ship, so the British planned on double-teaming the Bismarck to even the odds.

AAM Heraklion session report

2011-05-17T23:58:00.012-04:00

As official support for the Axis & Allies Miniatures game fades away one thing that's become less common is new official scenarios, although the online fan community has kept up its output. While there were quite a few official scenarios published before the scale change, the only new scenarios have appeared in the Expanded Rule Book and the Eastern Front and Desert Map Packs. There haven't been any published since Early War and Counter Offensive came out.

One consequence of this is that a lot of early scenarios used various proxies for units that later became available in the system, so as I've revisited those old scenarios I've adjusted the orders of battles to reflect the availability of new units.

This week marks the 70th anniversary of the Invasion of Crete, and it just so happens there's an official scenario from the Expanded Rules that covers a portion of the fighting -- Heraklion on page 44. So we played the first game of a match set, with me taking the Allies.

The scenario uses Maps 5 and 7 from the Expanded Rules. The battlefield features a small, 3-hex village near the center of the 2-map arrangement, with a 1-hex pond next to it and surrounded by several patches of woods and some hills.

The Axis forces are from the German 1st Battalion, 1st Fallschirmjaeger (Parachute) Regiment. The published order of battle includes an MG 42 machine gun team, but that weapon wasn't actually fielded until 1942. The new Counteroffensive set, however, now gives the Germans the MG 34 that they started the war with, so I substituted that. Being slightly less powerful than the MG 42 this MG team is only valued at 8 points, so I boosted one of the FJ units in the original OB to a Veteran FJ to keep the Germans even in points. As the Invasion of Crete was probably the high point for the German parachutists this seemed appropriate. That gave the German player three regular Fallschirmjaegers and the one Veteran FJ unit. Rounding out the German force was a light mortar, a Wehrmacht Expert Sniper and a Grizzled Veteran German hero.

The German units were set up at start instead of using the Paratrooper special ability.

The Allies, however, set up first. The Allied force, representing elements of the 14th Infantry Brigade, comprised the following: Four SMLE No. 4 Rifle units, one Vickers Machine-Gun Team, one Veteran (Australian) SMLE Rifleman, one Bren Machine Gunner, one 40mm Bofors L60 and three Greek Soldiers. The Greek soldiers, which became available with the North Africa set, replaced the three Communist Partisans in the original OB, which the scenario notes "represent the Greek soldiers who fought heroically with substandard equipment." In this case the point values were the same, so no further adjustment was required.

The German victory conditions were to either control all three hexes of the village OR have a unit in cover on the east edge of Map 7, which essentially meant in the hill or woods hex on that edge.

My biggest concern during the set up was to keep the Germans from getting an early shot at the Bofors, which was very vulnerable to the sniper and the MG 34. By scenario special rule the Bofors was also "Dug In," so I'd be unable to move it after the initial placement. I decided to place it on the small knoll east of the town where it could fire on all three town hexes and also cover the approaches to the East Edge victory hexes, while being out of sight from any German set-up hex. In the village itself I placed the four SMLE rifles and the Bren gunner while the Vickers went into the patch of woods south of the pond where it could cover the front of the town with grazing fire. The Veteran Aussie garrisoned the East edge victory hexes and formed my reserve while I set up the Greeks divided between the two patches of woods north and south of the Bofors knoll., ready to either reinforce the town or block any German dash for the East edge. The Greek Fury 2 special ability would give then 2 extra attack dice for the rest of the game once a German unit bit the dust, so it seemed best to keep them out of the initial firefight if possible.

Here we made a mistake, although I think it helped my opponent. By scenario rules the German units were to deploy second within five hexes of the West edge of map 5 -- but not adjacent to each other. I overlooked that, however, so the Germans set up in a tight group just West of the patch of woods west of the village -- except for the Sniper, who started in the woods in the southwest corner of the map. This part of the German deployment was a bit flawed because the sniper didn't start with a line of sight to the Vickers team.

My German opponent's apparent plan was to rely on the defensive strength of his FJ and Hero infantry (five units with defense of 5!) to carry though a frontal attack on the village via the West woods.

The first turn was spent moving the strike force into position while the sniper took a shot that managed to disrupt one SMLE rifle in town. The three regular FJ occupied the northernmost woods hex facing the ton while the hero, veteran FJ and MG 34 team took the south hex. The mortar stayed back for now due to stacking limits. The British reaction was to move the Bren gunner to the ridge north of town, joined by one Greek soldier while the SMLE and other Greek units stayed in the village.

The next four turns were basically a slugging match between the two forces across the narrow gap between the woods and the village. The Bren gunner gave the Allies an early break by suppressing the MG34 long enough for Vickers and riflemen to take it out. Frustratingly for the Germans the Vickers team proved to be especially adept at making its cover rolls and despite several potential kill shots, the Germans never could do more than disrupt it.

Meanwhile, it turned out that the knoll where the Bofors set up had a line of fire to the woods hex with the FJ squads and the withering fire (9 dice) from that weapon started to pay off and soon a FJ was down, giving the Greek soldiers their bonus. By turn 5 the Germans had lost two FJ and the MG 34 while the Allies were down two SMLE and the Bren. As it was becoming apparent that the Germans weren't going to try for the East edge victory hexes the Aussie SMLE moved forward.

With time running out the Germans made a dash into the town on Turn 6, losing the hero. The Germans conceded at that point as it was clear there were simply too many surviving Allied soldiers for the Germans to kill in the time remaining -- four perfect kill shots with 100% failed cover rolls would still leave at least one Allied unit alive in town.

Next session we will switch sides. I think the Allied set up was pretty effective and I expect to see my opponent adopt something similar, although perhaps a little more forward deployed because he tends to play aggressively and my set up may have left some units underemployed.

Even though the German force is rated at 65 points to the Allied 48 points, this does look like a challenge for the Germans -- especially because on my turn playing I'll have to follow the actual rules and set up with the Germans spread out!

Based on this session, I think that I'll have to try a more maneuver-oriented strategy when it's my turn as the Germans. Stay tuned.

Dungeons & Dragons meets Axis & Allies?

2011-05-17T19:47:00.004-04:00

Conquest of Nerath

One wonders after seeing the promotional pictures just released by WOTC.

It looks like an A&A-style global conquest game simply set in a fantasy universe.

Projects upcoming

2011-05-14T19:40:00.002-04:00

Daily posts have been sparse lately, I'm afraid. Besides coping with the fallout from the layoff I have been working on some game-rated projects which I hope to have up and running soon which will goose the post frequency a bit.

In the meantime I thought I'd mention a little side trip I took off into Ameritrash land with recent acquisitions of Last Night on Earth, A Touch of Evil and Invasion From Outer Space. These are all full of thematic flavor of the most campy sort, but that's what makes them fun. The production values are top-notch and the game systems are straightforward, fast-playing and fun. I'm hoping to post a session report shortly.

More hints from Baker about the upcoming War at Sea set

2011-05-08T22:19:00.003-04:00

His latest blog contain a big hint that the Montana will be among the ships in the new set. It's already been figured out by sharp-eyed bloggers that an O-class German battlecruiser will be in the set, so we have at least two hypothetical ships in the set already. This will bring complaints from the usual quarters, of course, but I don't have any problem with hypothetical ships myself. One of the nice things about naval wagrames is the ability to test out interesting what-ifs in any case.

There simply aren't that many naval battles in history to be restricted to historical match-ups. Naval battles are much more rare than land battles for a host of reasons, so hypothetical s have always been part of the landscape for naval gamers. I don't see an awful lot of difference between a game that allows a duel between the Bismark and the Iowa and one that allows a duel between the Friedrich der Grosse and the Montana. Both were impossible unless history played out quite differently.

I do agree that RB's plans need to make sure that the key historical pieces make it to collectors before the line ends, but we're in pretty good shape on that score. I think the only gaping hole in the line at this point is the Hiryu, which is a mandatory ship given its participation in Pearl Harbor and Midway.

Battle of the Starter Sea -- analysis and strategy for the Axis & Allies War at Sea 2010 Starter -- Part II: The Allies

2011-05-01T19:16:00.005-04:00

Continuing the discussion of strategy and tactics for the 2010 Starter Set, we now turn to the Allied Task Force.

Like the Japanese squadron, the centerpiece of the Allied force is a high-quality cruiser, the Cleveland-class light cruiser USS Montpelier. In the context of World War II there's little operational difference between "light" cruisers and "heavy" cruisers built under the terms of the interwar naval treaties, as the 6-inch gun "lights" made up in rate of fire and number of guns any deficiency in firepower they might have had compared to their 8-inch gun "heavy" sisters. War at Sea reflects this as well, with Montepelier's point value, armor and attack dice comparable to many heavies. The Montpelier is just one point less than Haguro. While its close-range main battery gunnery is a little lower than the Japanese ship's, it has higher secondary factors and a longer range main battery and its armor value is higher as well. Indeed, the only major hole in its capabilities is a lack of torpedoes.

On the other hand, the Montpelier really doesn't want to get close enough to use torpedoes anyway, as its biggest advantage over the Haguro is range. The Extended Range 4 special ability allows it to fire at the Haguro without being shot at in return if teh Montpelier is undamaged and the Haguro is four squares away. Montpelier's Flagship 1 SA makes that happy state of affairs slightly more likely than not because the Allies will tend to win the initiative more often. It is a slight edge, however, and it's hard to guarantee the Haguro won't get within range on occasion. The Montpelier's 5 Armor value gives it a reasonable chance of avoiding damage from a long-range Haguro shot, which is important for retaining that range advantage and the Radar Fire Control SA which gives the US cruiser an extra die when attacking. The Montpelier's Heavy Antiair SA allows it to provide an AA umbrella over the entire task force if they stay close, which is very useful in thwarting the Betty's attempts to pick off a destroyer.

The Montpelier in the larger game: A useful unit at a reasonable cost that should figure in US fleet builds.

The second-most powerful Allied unit is the TBF-1 Avenger torpedo bomber. While its attacks are not execptionally strong, they are enough to provide a real threat to the Japanese ships and sub. But the more frustrating value from the Japanse standpoint is the Avenger's more value of 5 and Vital armor of 8, which mean that it's hard to abort the plane and even harder to shoot it down. The Haguro's AA value is just 7 and the Terutsuki is a 6, so it will take a better than average rill to abort the TBF and a very good roll to shoot it down. But wait, there's more. The Aenger is also "Rugged," so an attack that rolls exactly 8 successes only succeeds in shooting the Avenger down half the time, otherwise it's aborted. Once per game the Avenger can make a 6-die bomb attack instead of its torpedo attack, which is a good way to crippled the Terutsuki.

The TBF-1 Avenger in the larger game: This version of the Avenger is slightly less capable than the one in the Task Force set, but it's also cheaper, so it a useful addition to the US order of battle.

The two Allied destroyers are very similar in combat value and points. The USS Taylor's special ability of Sub Hunter, its 3 armor value and 6 AA value mark it as the unit that might risk an indepedent foray to hunt the I-25 or claim the objective. Besides being slightly more vulnerable, the HMAS Nizam's smoke screen ability can come in handy if the Allied side loses an inititiative roll.

The USS Taylor and HMAS NIzam in the larger game. Both ships have multiple sister ships in the game with a varying assortment of special abilities, so which one gets used will depend on the build strategy in play and nationality/year restrictions. Compared to the HMS Javelin the Nizam is more surface battle oriented while the Hr. Ms. Van Galen is not quite as good -- but it's Dutch. The US has a bunch of Fletcher-class destroyers to choose from, with the Taylor in the middle on points.

Overall strategy for the Allies involves trying to keep the range long so the Montpelier can gain an early edge over the Haguro. Meanwhile the Avenger and the Taylor try to suppress the I-25.

Battle of the Starter Sea -- analysis and strategy for the Axis & Allies War at Sea 2010 Starter -- Part I: The IJN

2011-04-30T22:31:00.005-04:00

The current Starter Set for the War at Sea Axis & Allies naval miniatures game provides an interesting tactical puzzle for the players as well as being a good introduction to the game system.

At less than 50 points worth of units per side and just a total of 8 pieces it's definitely on the smaller side, but there's a considerable amount of reply value as the Starter shows that you don't need battleships to have a good game.

Each side has its strengths and weaknesses but they're evenly matched and good play will generally prevail even in a game as dicey as WAS. Either side can win, but winning consistently will mean paying close attention to both sides' values and special abilities.

The Axis side is represented by a pair of surface ships supported by one sub and a patrol bomber, giving the Japanese player a wide variety of threats.

The centerpieces of the Japanese force is the Heavy Cruiser Haguro, which fought throughout the Pacific campaign and met its demise in the last surface action fought during the Pacific War.

At 18 points it's the highest valued unit in the set and it justifies that high value with a nice array of powerful attacks. At a range of 0 or 1 the Haguro will roll 10 dice with its main battery gunnery, which is the highest total available in the set. This is 2 more dice than the base roll of the Allied forces' counterpart, the USS Montpelier, and is enough to almost guarantee getting at least a hit on the Montpelier. The Haguro's advantage drops off rapidly with range, however. At range 2 the Haguro only rolls 9 dice, while the Montpelier still rolls 8 and may roll 9 dice if it's still undamaged and has its Radar Fire Control SA. At Range 3 both ships roll 7 base dice and an undamaged Montpelier actually has a 1-die advantage. The American cruiser, if undamaged, also has a Range 4 shot of 8 dice. So the Haguro generally wants to close the range if possible. The Haguro's secondary gunnery factors of 4-4-3 are adequate to pose a threat to either of the enemy destroyers, but its AA value of 7 is only enough to occasionally abort the American Avenger and it will take a very good roll to shoot it down.

The Haguro's nastiest punch rests with its torpedo battery. With 3 dice at ranges of 0-1 and 2 dice all the way out to Range 3 the Haguro threatens instant death to any Allies ship within range -- the Montpelier being just as vulnerable as the Allied destroyers because of the Long Lace's 3-point slam.

The Haguro's special ability of "Tough Cruiser" is useful, with two Allied DD's in the game. Most of the time DD gunnery will fail to damage the Japanese heavy cruiser.

The Haguro in the larger game: The Haguro is the third Nachi-class cruiser to appear in the game and arguably the best of the lot. The Myoko from the base set is vastly too expensive at 24 points to justify a competitive purchase, there being cheaper ways to get a +1 flagship. It will probably only be used in games with class restrictions or historical scenarios. The Nachi from the Task Force set costs 1 point more than the Haguro, which probably doesn't justify its "Cruiser Killer" SA. Overall the Haguro is one of the better values among the IJN heavy cruisers with powerful surface gunnery and a strong torpedo battery.

The Terutsuki makes a good consort for the Haguro, although it's a mistake to consider it an escort for the larger ship. It benefits from the Haguro's proximity much more than the Haguro does from the Terutsuki. Dispatching the Terutsuki off independently (perhaps to seize an objective) is nearly suicidal as long as the Avenger is around -- and the weak Japanese AA means that the Avenger will be around. A bomb attack from the Avenger is almost certain to at least cripple the Terutsuki. The Terutsuki should stick to Haguro like its shadow, providing an extra chance to abort the Avenger, an additional anti-DD gunnery shot and a extra torpedo factor or two.

The Terutsuki in the larger game: The Terutsuki is pretty comparable to other IJN destroyers, although its "Rapid Fire" SA may be attractive if you expect to face a surface-heavy build.

The I-25 submarine is actually the No. 2 unit on the IJN side and the Japanese player will face an early decision on employment. It's tempting to send it to operate away from the Haguro-Terutsuki pair, but a bit risky as the Allies have three units that can credibly attack it. I think it's better to operate within supporting range of the surface group to force the Allies to choose between ASW efforts and dealing with the Haguro. I think it's worth stacking the I-25 with the surface units the first few turns to keep the Avenger from scoring early on I-25 until the main battle is about to begin.

The I-25 in the larger game: It's cheaper than I-26 and has a better SA than I-19, so its worthwhile considering for IJN builds.

Betty is the weak sister in the IJN lineup, but the G4M1 is hardly useless. The key, I think, is to be patient. Resist the temptation to try for a potshot torpedo run in the first turn or two, as all this will probably do is cost you the Betty for no result. The Montpelier's Heavy Antiair and the decent AA values on the other ships, combined with the miserable defenses of the Betty, mean there's little chance of getting through. On the other hand, if the Allied player splits off one of the destroyers to hunt I-25 or try to grab an objective then the Betty should strike. A little luck and the Allies will be down a DD. The Excellent Endurance SA will give you another chance if, as is likely, you get aborted the first time.

The Betty in the larger game: This Betty is the same 6 points as the Base Set version of the plane and the SA's are comparably useful -- which is to say not too much given the short expectancy of the plane against USN AA fire.

So the basic approach for the Japanese is to maneuver the Haguro/Terutsuki pair as a unit, looking for a chance to combine against part of the Allied fleet is the split up to grab objectives or otherwise slug it out at close range with guns and torpedoes, with the aide of the I-25. The Betty should be used cautiously at first, saving it for use against an isolated DD or a cripple.

War at Sea Starter Set review

2011-04-29T18:13:00.012-04:00

A successful starter set for a collectible miniatures games should hit a few marks: It should be affordable; It should provide a taste of the game system and It should provide a satisfactory game right out of the box before a player has to make any other purchases.

It's generally been fairly easy to hit these marks with starter sets for collectible card games. The relatively low production costs for cards makes it feasible to include two playable pre-selected decks with each starter kit. This has been nearly universal practice with CCGs since the beginning and even now, established games such as Magic: The Gathering offer products such as "duel" decks that are not exactly starters (being aimed at more experienced players) but provide a similar experience of a ready-to-play game right out of the box.

The higher per-unit costs of miniatures has made this much harder to do with collectible miniatures games. While a CCG starter will usually include a 100-120 cards plus ancillary materials for less than $15-$20, most CMG's starters only have 6-12 miniatures in them, which is rarely enough for a game. In some cases, such as Navia Dratp, the expectation was that each player would buy his "half" of a starter so that between the two of them a game could be gotten up. In practice, however, most players needed to buy both halves of the starter and recruit a buddy to play, which effectively doubled the price. Early starters for Wizards of the Coast and some other companies included a random assortment of figures in the starter, as well as in boosters. This was a problem because there was no guarantee that the randomized output of a starter pack would provide a balanced game.

Eventually WOTC hit on the idea of non-randomized starters with a specific set of visible figures, leaving the randomization to the boosters alone. This made it possible to insure that the starter was playable out of the box and it also allowed the rule book to use examples of play using the actual miniatures that the player had in front of him.

The current War at Sea Starter set is of this sort, which a specific assortment of 8 miniatures included. The miniatures are all exclusive to the Starter Set, which means there's no duplication with the boosters, but they are all repaints of miniatures that have previously appeared -- no doubt saving on design and production costs.

The 8 miniatures are carefully chosen to provide a chance for players to exercise most parts of the basic game system and also provide a good even match. Besides the 8 miniatures the box includes a rule book, two double-sided map sheets which join together to form the playing surface, a light cardstock set of die-cut markers and four dice.

The rules are a new "improved" version that makes some changes over the original rules based on player feedback. The game's sequence of play is straightforward. It starts with an Initiative phase to determine which player performs actions first in each subsequent phase. In this game "winning" the initiative allows you to go second, which is an advantage because you get to react to your opponent's moves. Next is a Sea Movement Phase where the players move all ships and submarines within their movement allowance. Next is the Air Mission Phase, where players alternate placing aircraft anywhere on the map. This is followed by an Air Defense phase where ships and aircraft attack enemy planes. Planes that are shot down or "aborted" now will not get to attack later. In the Air Attack surviving aircraft have their turn to attack ships and submarines, with damage taking effect immediately. In the Surface Attack phase, surface ships attack enemy surface ships and submarines with gunnery and torpedoes or anti-submarine attacks. In the Submarine Attack phase. surviving subs have their turn to attack enemy ships and subs. In the Air Return phase air units return to their bases (on land or aircraft carriers) and finally in the End of Turn step victory is assessed.

As with all collectible games, War at Sea is a "exceptions-based" game where special abilities can supersede the regular rules.

The "Axis" side is represented by four Imperial Japanese Navy units: The heavy cruiser Haguro, the destroyer Terutsuki, the submarine I-25 and a G4MI "Betty" patrol bomber. Under the game's point system this adds up to 46 points of units with variety of capabilities.

The miniatures themselves have no game-specific information on them, a feature which makes them easily usable in other games. Besides the eye-candy, all the miniature does in game play is show the location of the ship. All the game-related information is on the data card. The Haguro's card shows the ship's name, nationality, service entry date and point cost along the top.

The ship's speed is "2," which means it can usually move two squares on the battle map during the Sea Movement Phase.

The Haguro has four different attacks available to it. The first is its "Main Battery" attack, depicted by a turret icon with the letter M. The power of this attack varies, with the Haguro rolling a number of dice depending on the range in squares to the target ship. For example, if the target is in the same square or an adjacent square the Haguro rolls 10 dice, but if the enemy shp is 3 squares away the attack is made rolling 7 dice. The dice are standard D^, with "successes usually being achieved on rolls of 4 or 5, and a 6 counting as TWO successes. The number of successes is compared to the Armor Value of the target ship, so if the Haguro were firing at a similar ship and it got at least 4 successes it would inflict ONE hull point of damage. The Haguro has 3 hull points, so three hits will remove it from play. If the attack is so successful that it rolls successes equal to or greater than the Vital Armor value (10 in the Haguro's case) then the ship is sunk outright.

The Haguro also has a "Secondary Battery" (shown by a turret icon with a 2) that works the same way, but with fewer dice and a lesser range. Both the Main and Secondary gunnery attacks can only be used against enemy ships, not subs or aircraft.

The third attack available to the Haguro is its antiaircraft attack, shown by an icon of an aircraft in cross hairs. The Haguro can roll 7 dice to attack an air unit in the same square.

The final attack value for the Haguro is its torpedo value. Like gunnery attacks, torpedo attacks only affect ships, but unlike gunnery attacks torpedoes directly inflict hull point damage on the target with every roll of a 6 being a success. Normally torpedoes do 2 points of damage each, but the Long-Lance Torpedo special ability boosts this by one point to 3 points. This is enough to sink most cruisers and smaller ships instantly and is the forte of the Japanese fleet.

The Haguro has no ability to attack enemy submarines, although this will not be a factor in Starter set battles because the Allies player doesn't have a submarine.

As stated above, the Haguro's armor value is 4, which is the number of successes needed to score one hull point of damage on it, while its Vital Armor is 10, which means 10 successes are needed to sink it at once. It can take 3 Hull Points of damage, which is typical for cruisers in the game. The first hull point loss has no game effect, but the second one causes the Haguro to be "crippled" which reduces its speed, armor values and attacks by 1. The third hull point loss removes the Haguro from the game.

The destroyer Terutsuki is similar to the Haguro, except smaller and less capable in most ways, although it does have an anti-submarine attack value, depicted by the depth charge icon. This works similarly to gunnery, but only affects submarines. The Terutsuki also has Long-Lance torpedoes, however, giving it a dangerous punch despite its small size. Like most destroyers the Terutsuki doesn't have much staying power. It's easy to damage with an armor value of only 2 and with just two hull hits it's easy to cripple and sink it.

The third unit in the Japanese fleet is the submarine I-25. Although submarines are obviously vessels of war, in game terms they are not "Ships" but a separate category of unit. Submarines cannot attack planes and cannot be affected by gunnery attacks or most torpedo attacks. They also attack in their own phase of the turn. Like most subs, I-25 can use its torpedo value to attack an enemy sub in the same square with its "submerged shot" SA. This is the only way torpedoes can be used against submarines. Like all submarines in the game, the I-25 moves at speed 1, just 1 square per turn.

The weakest unit in the Japanese array is the "Betty" patrol bomber. It has an ASW value of 2, which it won't get to use in Starter set battle due to the absence of Allied subs, but it also only has a torpedo value of 2 -- and these are not Long-Lance . The biggest challenge for the Betty will be surviving long enough to get off a shot, however, as its defense of 4 and vital armor of 6 are low enough to cause it real problems. Damage to aircraft is handled differently than damage to ships and subs. All aircraft have just 1 "hull point." Achieving enough successes to match the Armor value "aborts: the plane, essentially canceling its attack for the turn. Matching the Vital Armor removes the plane from the game. On the other hand, like all aircraft, the Betty has a Speed of A, meaning it can be placed in any square. However, being land-based. after flying a mission the Betty acquires a "Rearming" marker which it takes a turn to remove, so generally the Betty can only be used every other turn. It does have a special ability, though, called Excellent Endurance, which allows it once per game to remove the rearming counter and therefor fly on consecutive turns.

So the Japanese starter squadron comprises a dangerous surface action group accompanied by an effective submarine but supported by a fairly weak air arm that will have to be used cautiously.

The Allied fleet poses an interesting counterpoint to the Japanese force. The lead unit is the USS Montpelier, a Cleveland-class light cruiser from the United States Navy. Compared to the Haguro, the Montpelier comes in at one less point. It has a flag icon with a number 1 which indicates it's a "Flagship" and gets +1 on initiative rolls. Compared to the Haguro the Montpelier's ,main guns are somewhat weaker while its secondaries are stronger, but its Special Abilities go a long way toward evening things up.

Extended Range 4 allows the Montpelier to fire an extra square so long as it's undamaged. Combined with the Flagship bonus, this means that there's a good chance to Montpelier will be able to shoot at Haguro on occasion without the Haguro being able to shoot back. Radar Fire Control allows the undamaged Montpelier to fire using an extra die as well, further evening the odds. Finally, the Montpelier has Heavy Anti-air, which allows it to affect aircraft in adjacent squares as well, making life even more difficult for the Betty. The Montpelier's edge is reduced when damaged, but its armor value is 5, better than Haguro and giving it some chance of avoiding damage even if the Haguro gets a long-range shot at it.

The biggest weakness of the Montpelier, and one it shares with almost all USN cruisers, is a complete lack of torpedoes.

Aiding the Montpelier are two Allied destroyers. One is the USS Taylor, a Fletcher-class destroyer, at 9 points, and the 8-point Australian destroyer HMAS Nizam. Both have very similar values, with the Nizam a little stronger in gunnery and the Taylor better attacking aircraft. The Taylor is a little tougher with an armor value of 3, but both ships are vulnerable. The Taylor has the same radar fire control ability as the Montpelier, and a Sub Hunter SA that makes it more likely to find an enemy sub to attack. The Nizam has an SA that lets it place a smoke screen which blocks line of sight and makes ships in the same square harder to hit.

The fourth Allies unit is a TBF-1 Avenger squadron. This plane is worth almost twice as many points as the Japanese Betty and is all-around a more formidable unit. It has an ASW vale of 3, making it a threat to I-25 and also a torpedo value of 2 making it a danger to surface targets as well. Once per game it can perform a bomb attack with 6 dice instead of its torpedo attack, which is especially threatening to the Terutsuki. Perhaps the most frustrating thing for the Japanese player is that it will be very hard to make the Avenger go away. Its armor value is a 5, making it hard to abort for either Japanese ship with average luck and its Vital Armor of 8 mean that even good luck will rarely shoot the Avenger down.

The total point value of the Allied force is 45 points, although the Avenger may be slightly overcosted because it's normally carrier-based (which allows it to fly every turn) but the Allied side has no carrier in the starter set so the Avenger is forced to fly every other turn instead. That said, the Allied force is a well-balanced and efficient force that will give the Japanese a good fight.

The mix of forces and the interaction between the two squadrons provides fodder for various tactics and strategies and the chance to exercise most parts of the game. In that sense I think this is one of the best starter sets ever designed because there's considerable replay value within it and it gives the purchaser a very good sense of what they're getting into. Even if the purchaser never buys any boosters, he still has a playable small board wargame with some cool bits.

OK, more hot babes!

2011-04-28T18:20:00.002-04:00

This look interesting. Check out the lava lass or whatever she is.

Dead collectible games -- what are they good for? Part II

2011-04-23T20:53:00.004-04:00

Part II of my pondering (pawndering?) on the retained usefulness of out-of-print collectible games.

Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures
I backed into this one, after picking up a few miniatures and finding out that that my stepson liked playing. It's a decent little skirmish-level wargame and has the added advantage of being usable for role-playing as well, should I ever decide to get back into that. I didn't go too far into the game, ending up with just about 200 figures, which is enough for my local purposes. The competitive scene was already winding down when I first got into the game and so that never played much of a role in my purchases. DDM doesn't take up too much space (a couple of shoebox-sized boxes and a map tube) so its relatively low-impact as far as space and trouble goes and I'll probably keep it unless I have to move out-of-town. Its probably not worth shipping off in that situation.

Navia Dratp

Another relatively low-impact game space wise, Navia Dratp is really an odd duck. It really is a good game, as the high ratings it gets from people on Boardgmae Geek who've tried it attest. But it was probably one of the worst-marketed games in history. Between the strange theme, the tongue-twisting terms and obscure names it's amazing anyone bought it. But the worst aspect of the marketing plan was making it a collectible game. It really wasn't necessary. Unlike the open-ended universe of D&D or Dreamblade, or even the finite but large potential of Axis & Allies , it's hard to see how the game could have supported hundreds of different figures or dozens of expansions even if it had taken off. It turned out to be a moot point, however, as the game bit the dust as the second expansion came out and in effect it turned into the expandable games= it probably should have been in the first place. It really is quite good, however, and because my collection is big enough to support two players with a wide variety of units this remains a keeper -- even if I move.

Lord of the Rings Tradeable Miniatures Game

I liked the miniatures and the theme, but the game was rather ordinary as far as fun and interest go, and since its been discontinued I've had a very hard time getting it on the table. While it was still a supported system there was a game shop that hosted some gaming in it but that dried up and despite multiple attempts since this one just can't provoke any interest. I'm probably going to give up and unload this one as not worth the space devoted to it. Over the years I've been pretty ruthless about culling wargames that can't make the cut of getting table-time and one thing I've learned is that once it's gone I rarely miss it. In the case of LOTR I do like the miniatures and the game system is OK, but I don't like them enough to stare at them unplayed. Better they find a home elsewhere. It's really too bad, because I did build up a pretty decent collection overall, with a few hundred figures. There's room in my game room for a handful of games that may not get played much or at all, but not much. None of my usual reasons of nostalgia, study or historical interest apply in this case and so these guys are eBay bound.

Back from break ... or is that bad break?

2011-04-23T20:43:00.002-04:00

In my non-gaming life, as some may know, I'm a journalist working for a good daily newspaper here in Connecticut. These are not good times for the newspaper business as a whole, and while my paper is not doing worse than the industry average, that's not really a very high bar.

No, it's rather similar to that famous scene near the climax of the movie Titanic when Jack and Rose and a few other people were perched on the upright stern of the rapidly sinking ship. It was better than being anywhere else on the boat -- but they were still going down.

As it happens I thought I was a little closer to the stern than I turned out to be, as Monday I found out I was being laid off from the newspaper. This isn't the first time that's happened in my career, but the circumstances are quite different this time than from those earlier episodes where I was able to quickly move to another paper.

It's not in my nature to be either a Debbie Downer nor shrink from facing a challenge thrown my way by life. I'm still sorting through options at this time, but I'm confident that things will work out one way or the other.

I suppose a small silver lining is that this opens up my schedule a little bit for the short-term and there are some writing and gaming projects I've been wanting to get to that I now have no excuse to neglect.

Brief break from blogging ...

2011-04-20T23:01:00.002-04:00

I'm taking a few days off while I digest a development in my personal life.

Dead collectible games -- what are they good for? Part I

2011-04-17T22:49:00.007-04:00

With the possible exception of Magic: The Gathering, which seems immortal, there comes a time in the life cycle of every collectible game when it "dies." That is, it's discontinued by its maker, official company support comes to an end, tournaments and sponsored or "sanctioned" events are no more and the would-be collector/player is faced with the question of "now what?"

It's in the nature of collectible games that they're much more dependent on the continued support of the game maker, a steady flow of new material and some sort of tournament style venue for play. This is much less true for other types of games. Indeed, an ordinary boardgame can "live on" almost indefinitely once published. A good example are the old Avalon Hill games Dune or Up Front which, due to licensing and rights issues, seem highly unlikely to ever see print again despite proven long-term popularity. It's hard for new players to break in, sadly, but both games have a devoted fan base and the existing copies of the game (undoubtedly carefully treated) will see many more years of play despite the demise of official support.

On the other hand, collectible games that, even though popular, fail to meet market goals and are discontinued by their game maker leave the collectors and players who sank their treasure into the game in a quandary. While it's possible that demand for their collection will increase eventually (because, after all, no new ones are being made) over the short term so far the usual pattern has been for the bottom to more or less fall out of the market for most games.

The lack of official support means the end of tournament play, which is problematical for games that are highly competitive. The lack of official sponsorship means that playing opportunities will quickly dry up and opponents will be hard to find.

Finally, the end of the line usually means that the game is still incomplete in important ways unless it's had a long run. There may be pieces, powers, factions and aspects of the game that are left high and dry because the planned follow-ons will never materialize.

So what now?

The answer will vary depending on the game and the collector, but here's how I see what's in MY collection and how I answer that question.

Axis & Allies Miniatures:

This game system hasn't been declared officially "dead" yet, but there's been no announcement of when the next set (Late War) is scheduled to appear and in my opinion there's a good chance it will never come -- or if it does, it will be the last expansion. This game has had a good long runs, however, and there aren't too many critical holes in the lineup. This game is much less dependent on the tournament scene than most collectibles because a large part of its market is made up of purchasers who are buying it purely for collection or to use the miniatures in other games. Wisely, the miniatures are easily usable in other games and with the scale change in the second half of the run are mostly compatible with other military miniatures. I expect to keep these and find them useful while playing other games and for the occasional game of AAM, itself.

Axis & Allies War at Sea Naval Miniatures:

This is not dead yet and it looks to have several more sets of life in it, BUT as a history-based line there are natural limits on how long it can go on, as opposed to a fictional setting. There's already been some trouble filling out the Axis fleets because they simply weren't very big. As an expedient some what-if ships have already appeared and some ships that appeared earlier in the series are being reissued but at some point the well will run dry. Like its AAM, however, A&A War at Sea miniatures can easily be used with other wargames and while it's a unique scale, the line has gotten large enough that it includes nearly every important ship from th war and if it goes on for 2-3 more sets there's not going to be naught but odds and ends left out. This is a real keeper. The War at Sea game is a good lite wargame (rather better than the land game, in my view) and is always be useful for more traditional gaming as well.

Dreamblade:

Dreamblade is both quite dead and yet still pretty popular. While the plug was pulled a little early (after just four expansions after the base set) the existing universe of product is just big enough to make it a workable game for the long haul. This game has been hurt by the collapse of the tournament scene, so opponents with their own sets are scarce, but if you own a big enough collection (I have a few hundred figures) so that you can provide a drafting pool then you can get some reasonable gaming in. I've had some success getting people to play. It's really a pretty good game, fundamentally, so I expect to keep it for occasional play. The game pieces aren't really usable for any other purposes, though, which is limiting.

Heroclix:

This game was 'dead" and then resurrected in a new incarnation. From what I can see, there's less vitality in the new version, but there's still some life. It's no thanks to me, however. I bought and played the game when it was WizKids. largely because it was the most gaming action I could find locally for a while, but when that sanctioned game scene evaporated I cut way back on my collection. I now have about 200 or so, left, mostly DC and I can't see re-entering the tournament scene by buying new product. For me what I have will have to last me as fodder for casual play. The game isn't bad, but it's also not one of my top interests. It's another game where the pieces aren't really usable for other purposes and I haven't been ale to generate much interest in scenario-based play in my local area. Nearly everybody who plays this seems only interested in playing it competitively -- and I'm not getting back into that scene. So this game's future on my shelf is very much up in the air. I've been chipping away at the edges of the collection through eBay sales for a while and if I ever have to move this is probably the first or second collection to go en masse.

More to come .... .

And so it begins -- 150th anniversary of the Civil War

2011-04-12T22:28:00.004-04:00

And so it began 150 years ago today -- The American Civil War -- variously known as the War Between the States, the War of Secession, etc. In a sense I am looking for to this 150th. I think anything that nurtures a sense of history in the public is a good thing, and public appreciation of the Civil War in particular is needed because it's not quite dead history yet.

Compared to just about any other war that Americans fought the controversy over the meaning, events and consequences of the war still reverberate. While there's some controversy over the wars we are fighting today in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even lingering bitterness over Vietnam, I'm confident that the 150th anniversary of those wars will be as little remarked as the anniversaries of the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War or the Spanish-American War. Indeed, the recent 20th anniversary of the First Gulf War passed with hardly a mention in the media.

Today I commemorated the opening of the Civil War with a Civil War Game day at Arkham Asylum where we played games from the centennial of 1961 (Avalon Hill's Civil War) and the 150th Anniversary edition of Battle Cry. Over the next few years, God willing, I hope to reprise that with other game days marking significant battle anniversaries from the war. Next up will be First Bull Run in July.

Interesting news from Rich Baker on Angels 20 and War at Sea Set VI

2011-04-05T23:26:00.002-04:00

A new entry in Rich Baker's Hasbro blog has some interesting tidbits. First off, the Japanese carrier Taiho will be in the new set. This was probably the best-designed Japanese carrier of the war -- comparable to the US Essex class. But poor damage control led to its loss during the Battle of the Philippine Sea when fuel vapors ignited.

He also talked a little about a new type of unit, the Installation, which will be represented by Fort Drum, which was a heavily fortified island in Manila Bay. This is an interesting sculpt at least and may bring the game in some new direction. It badly needs some other kinds of scenarios besides the sea control and convoy battles.

He also talks about the new Angels 20 air game which is looking more tempting all the time. He reveals that one of the planes will be the I-16 Russian fighter and one of the models will be in Nationalist Chinese colors! So with I-16s and P-40s the Chinese actually get some interesting choices to play with.