Has it just been 25 years?! Gettysburg 125th Anniversary Edition reviewed

The 125th anniversary of something isn't usually a big deal, but Avalon Hill decided it was enough of a hook to latch onto for the 1988 update of the venerable Gettysburg title. The resulting Gettysburg 125th Anniversary Edition didn't bear much resemblance to its predecessor -- a good thing as it turns out.

While remaining an introductory level wargame, the 1988 version of Gettysburg introduced a new basic game engine that eventually became known as the "Smithsonian" series, which was applied to a diverse group of titles, most updates of of classic AH titles such as Midway, D-Day and Battle of the Bulge.

The essential element of the "Smithsonian" series was a combat system that eschewed the old CRT for a competitive D10 die roll modified by units strengths and other factors. Based on how much the winner won by, the loser suffered certain results.

While this worked pretty well in Gettysburg 1988, I didn't care for it as much in the other Smithsonian games, although I ended up buying and playing all of theme before I finally decided I didn't like it.

The only survivor of the bunch in my collection is Gettysburg 1988. The system seems to work reasonably well in this case.

Probably the biggest limitation of the system is that it's prone to more extreme results when there are smaller numbers of units involved. A 1-7 fighting another 1-7 can more easily double the result of its foe than a 10 factor stack fighting a 10-factor stack.

At start positions

Like the original Gettysburg, Gettysburg 1988 depicts the order of battle for both sides at the divisional level for infantry, with cavalry brigades and artillery battalions.  Unlike the older game, all the artillery battalions appear, so the Union has the proper edge in artillery strength. There's more differentiation between the infantry\ divisions than the 1964 game had, which helps the CSA a bit. The CSA player is, however, still vulnerable to bad luck because he has only nine infantry units. Eveyr loss will be keenly felt.

The victory conditions award significant points for holding specific points of geography, so the federal player will have to fight forward. A common problem with Gettysburg games is trying to properly capture the pace of the battle, and like most earlier efforts this version of Gettysburg doesn't grapple with that problem. While the actual battle saw extensive lulls in the action on July 2 and July 3, in Gettysburg 1988 that's not likely to happen and the game will therefore tend to be relatively more bloody than the real thing.

Mitigatuing that a bit is the game's option for starting on July 2 and on July 3, so that even though a full July 1st start game probably won;t see anything like Longstreet's two charges, players can still expereince them with the later start times.

Like many Gettysburg games, the 1988 edition brings the cavalry onto the main battlefield even though they really fought off map. An issue of The General included a map extension that lets players include the eastern cavalry field for those who have it.

Overall the game is a decent little introductory game, but comes off second best to some of the most recent forays that cover the battle with similar playing time but more interesting player decisions. As far as simulation value goes, it's fairly mediocre because of the lack of attention to command control and pacing alluded to.

Component durability -- boxes

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.

There's no coroner to pronounce it, but it seems to me Up Front is well and truly "dead>"

This update from MMP seems to make it certain that there will never be a reprint of Up Front.

I don't know what the legal issues are about the ownership of the game that are causing the problem and it doesn't seem that we'll ever find out because those that know will not or cannot talk about it. But it seems clear that whatever they are, they are intractable, and therefore I see little prospect that they'll ever be solved. It seems unlikely that it involves someone saying "no" and most instead I suspect that they just can't figure out who can say "yes."

Given that MMP apparently sunk considerable resources into the project the fact that they're calling it off now is a major blow. It truly is a pity, because Up Front is a fine game and ground-breaking one. Being a card game means that it's especially subject to wear and tear. I'm glad I bought an extra set of cards back when Avalon Hill was still around because I was concerned about that.

Avalon Hill was a small company and there were a number of instances over the years when they got into some legal disputes over game rights and they never seemed to come out on the winning end even when they seemed to be in the right. I can't help but wonder if they simply couldn't afford the kind of legal help they needed. Intellectual property law is notoriously complicated and I think that Hasbro probably inherited a mess when they bough AH. They've seemed more than willing to license wargames to MMP and let the rights to other games revert to designers in other cases as is demonstrated by the fairly long list of former AH games that have reappeared elsewhere. I don't think Up Front is some especially valuable property from the standpoint of Hasbro. so it's probable that the rights in question are simply too scrambled to untangle.

150th anniversary of the Civil War

Well, it's not exactly the 150th anniversary of the war itself, we're a few months away from the start of the bloodshed, but 150 years ago this week the election of Abraham Lincoln marked the events that proximately led to the outbreak of the war.

There are already a number of interesting sites marking the various 150s coming up, although this one is already establishing itself as one of the best.

Of all the wars associated with the hobby of board wargaming, none, perhaps, is more closely linked to the hobby than the American Civil War. It was the approaching centennial of that war that inspired the father of wargaming, Charles Roberts, to take the ground-breaking system he had used in his hypothetical first effort, Tactics, and apply it to a historical situation -- in this case the Battle of Gettysburg.

The sales success of that title (deeply flawed as the game was) that really launched Avalon Hill and the wargame hobby. It's always been true that history-based wargames have been much more popular than fictional ones. Gettysburg was followed by a whole series of historical wargames by AH, including several on the Civil War.

So it's deeply fitting that Hasbro is re-releasing a 150th Anniversary edition of Battle Cry this month, which could, maybe, introduce some new players to the joys of history-based board wargaming.

New Battle Cry shows up on Hasbro site

Well, not exactly a lot of hype, but the new edition of Battle Cry is on Hasbro's site now.

Charles S. Roberts

Charles S. Roberts, founder of the modern wargame hobby, has dies at age 80, according to an obituary in the Baltimore Sun.

Interestingly, the Sun obituary barely mentions Roberts' association with wargaming and in th portion that does it makes a factual error, claiming that he sold Avalon Hill to Parker Brothers in the 1960s. Actually, of course, as is widely known, Mr. Roberts sold Avalon Hill to one of his creditors, Monarch Printing, which formed Monarch Avalon. Many years later, long after Mr. Robets' time that company was sold to Hasbro, which also owns Parker Brothers, which possibly accounts for the writer's confusion, although as far as I know Avalon Hill and Parker Brothers brands have never been associated under the Hasbro banner.

The bulk of the obituary talks about Mr. Roberts in the context of his expertise on the history of railroads.Evidently he made quite a name for himself in that field. As there are more railroad buffs than wargamers, this is a defensible editorial choice, I suppose.

Still, for wargamers, Mr. Roberts holds a special place, as he was the first to conceive of creating civilian board wargames based on the actual capabilities of military units (in Tactics and Tactics II) and crucially, based on historical battles (Gettysburg, D-Day, Waterloo and Midway). The authenticity of his wargames was naturally a bit crude, given their unprecedented nature and the milited sources available, but even this was a bit of a blessing, as correcting the errors of his games is what inspired other players to satrt designing their new and improved versions of history's greatest battles and created a hobby.

While Mr. Roberts will, of course, be missed most by his family and those friends who knew him personally, he also will be mourned by many who never eben played one on his games, but have enjoyed years of enjoyment from taking part in the hobby he made possible.

Which Borg not to resist

Star Trek's Borg famous claim "resistance is futile," and I think the same is probably true for wargame designer Richard Borg's creations. I know I haven't been able to resist buying anything related to his Commands & Colors system. I'm not alone in the collective, either, as Borg's designs are among the most popular wargames ever published.

Still, sometimes you have to choose and prospective purchasers may wonder which is the best choice for them. Each game has its vehement fans, but here is what I believe is a fairly objective rundown of their strengths and weaknesses.

Really, they are close enough in quality and game play (with the possible exception of Battle Cry) that I think the main consideration should be which theme a player finds the most interesting. pick that first.

From purely a game play perspective they each have strengths and weaknesses.

Battle Cry (American Civil War) is the weakest of the lot, simply because it was the first, and the subsequent designs have all refined the concept. If Battle Cry had expansions like the others I'm sure it would have kept up, but it's a one-off design.

Command & Colors: Ancients (Ancient battles of the Classical Era) matches its era well and is probably the most tactically intricate because of all the different troop types, which often have fairly subtle differences between them. Terrain plays a smaller role in this game than the others as ancient armies tended to fight on the flattest and clearest terrain available.

BattleLore (fantasy but also historical medieval) is similar to C&C:A, especially when played with the Medieval Rules. Adding Lore adds some interesting new twists to the game system. The fantasy aspects of the game are not overpowering and it is still an army-level game and not a sort of role-playing experience.

Memoir '44 (World War II) is a lot more about terrain and combined arms effects. The interaction between the units is more subtle than it is in C&C:A because of the long ranges involved. Just because units are not near each other doesn't mean they don't affect each other. And the air pack adds a new dimension of course. There's more variety in the scenarios compared to the other games, which are almost all line-them-up-and-fight battles, with a few notable exceptions.

You may also want to consider how they are marketed.

Battle Cry (Hasbro/Avalon Hill) is a single, self-contained game, but it's out of print.

BattleLore (originally Days of Wonder, now Fantasy Flight Games) and Memoir '44 (Days of Wonder) each start with a self-contained base game that you can add to as finances and interests allow, although that may change for BattleLore as it is moving to a new publisher. While some of the expansions require parts from other expansions there are always scenarios that require nothing more than the base game and that particular expansion to play.

C&A:A (GMT Games) has a self-contained starter and then each of the expansions is a major purchase as well. These expansion tend to build on each other, so I would say this series is something you'd want to commit to in a serious way to get the most out of it.

ZOCs

I grew up on ZOCs.

No, it wasn't a breakfast cereal. It was the infamous "Zone of Control." All the earliest Avalon Hill classics had them, as did most of the old SPI quads and their kin. I learned about them so early in my wargame career that for a long time I gave them little thought, despite some articles in MOVES magazine about them. It was easy to forget what an artificial thing they were, and how they could distort game tactics.

Mastering the effects of ZOCs was required for good play in those old classics, but I don't think they really added much in the way of realism. One of the refreshing things about XTR's games was that almost all of them dispensed with ZOCs.

When you really think about it, a ZOC probably means that the there's a mismatch between the size of a unit and the size of the hexes. If a division can cover a 12-mile front then perhaps the hexes ought to be 12-miles across and not 4 miles across with ZOCs accounting for the other 8 miles.

ZOC rules lead to oddities such as occupying every other hex along a hex grain, whereas in actual operations you would generally occupy a more-or-less continuous line.

Overall, I think ZOCs are best dispensed with.

Review of Axis & Allies D-Day

Axis & Allies D-Day represents the point where Axis & Allies became a brand, not just a the name of a game. While Axis & Allies: Europe and Axis & Allies: Pacific came before D-Day, they were recognizable offspring of the parent game, sharing the grand strategic scope and most game mechanics.

Axis & Allies D-Day is a clear break from the earlier A&A titles. It focuses on one particular campaign while using a largely different game system. It does use many of the same pieces as the original game, and most of them have similar combat values, but that's about it for similarities.

Axis & Allies D-Day depicts the first part of the Normandy Campaign, from D-Day to roughly the point where Operation Cobra was launched. Units represent roughly regiment and brigade-sized forces of infantry, armor and artillery, with support from coastal fortifications for the Axis and air units and naval gunfire for the Allies.

United States forces are green figures -- a U.S. Army rifleman representing infantry, a Sherman tank for armor and a 105mm howitzer for the artillery. The figures are not in scale with each other, but are all around the same size, around an inch. The U.S. Army Air Corps is represented by four P-38 fighters and a B-17 Bomber model. The British Commonwealth forces are similar, but in a light tan color. The British also use the Sherman tank (accurate) and 105mm howitzer (not) to represent their armor and artillery forces, but have a specifically British soldier for the infantry and four Spitfire fighters and a Halifax heavy bomber representing the Commonwealth air forces.

The Axis are all black or very dark grey, with a Mauser-armed German soldier representing the infantry, a Panther tank for the armor and the infamous '88' representing the artillery. There are also some small pillbox figures representing the German coastal forts. These pillboxes are unique to this game and don't appear elsewhere in the A&A line.

Units have varying combat values, depending upon their type and whether they are the attacker or defender in a specific combat. Combat is always resolved by rolling a "hit number" or less on a single die for firing figure with each success causing a casualty on the enemy. For example, a British Sherman tank attacks with a values of "3" so it hits on a roll of 1-3, but if it's firing as a defender it's value is just a "2" and it hits die rolls of 1 or 2.

The map depicts the Normandy region using irregularly-shaped areas of roughly similar size. There are no terrain effects at all, but three areas, containing the cities of Caen, St. Lo and Cherbourg, are important for victory.

The map also contains holding boxes for the five invasion beaches and three parachute divisions, a turn record, holding boxes for the air units and spots for the order cards (which I'll discuss later). The entire map has a very muted look but is very clear and functional with no questionable borders or unclear functions.

The game also includes three light card stock reinforcement charts (one each for the Americans, British and German) and a battle board.

The rule book is 24 pages, done in a World War II-era graphic style that's since become the standard for all Axis & Allies line games. Rounding out the components is a small turn marker disk, eight dice and 48 cards.

These cards are the heart of the game system and drive all the action. 16 of the cards are "Order cards, which cleverly lay out the sequence of play in a way that will be especially useful for players with no previous wargame experience. The cards are drawn in a set order. As each card is turned over the player executes the functions named on the card. Once the deck is gone through a turn is completed and the players start over. This approach save a lot of rules reading and memorization. Some cards are used just once and removed from the deck, but players can also save time by removing any cards that no longer apply. For example, once all the pillboxes are gone the Allied naval bombardment cards and German pillbox firing cards can simply be removed from the deck.

As optional rules the players can by mutual consent add two other 16-card decks which add variability to play.

The first set are called "Fortune" cards. These are drawn just before a regular Order card is drawn and may effect that card. Each works the same way. A die is rolled. On a die roll of "1" something that affects the player positively happens, on a 2-4 nothing happens and on a "6" something happens that affects the player negatively. For example, Fortune Card 13 affects the "Axis Attacks/Allies Defend Order card. On a 1 the Axis player benefits from "Coordinated Infantry -- Axis infantry hit on a 2 in this phase." (Normally it's a 1 to hit.) On a 6 the Axis player suffers from "Uncoordinated Attacks -- Axis land units can attack in only two zones in this phase." (Normally there is no limit.)

These Fortune cards are a mixed bag and I'd hesitate to actually recommend their use. They add a lot of diceyness to a game that's already pretty dicey to begin with. Unlike the regular diceyness of the game, which is mitigated somewhat by the sheer volume of rolls, which will tend to even out over time, the fortune cards can have a dramatic effect on the game from just a single roll. A couple of them, especially Fortune Card 9 which increase the effectiveness of the pillboxes and card 10 which blocks landings from all but two beachhead boxes can be devastating to the Allies chances if they take effect early in the game. In their favor they do add some flavor to the game.

There is also a deck of Tactics cards. These are drawn after the order card, and generally give the player a one-time option to do something that benefits them. These add a lot to the game because they give the players meaningful decisions to make. While very card is beneficial to use, the timing of their use can be critical. For example, Tactics Card 10 "Combined Assault" increases the attack value of Allies infantry to 2 for each matching artillery unit in the zone, so the Allies player will want to spend the effort to set up a turn that maximizes this benefit of this. These are recommended for use.

Both sets of cards are optional, but the rules state that all the cards from a set should be used if any are used. I do think that there's room for adjusting this somewhat, especially if you're an experienced player teaching a new player. You could strategically include or exclude certain cards to balance the chances a bit.

The game takes about 15 minutes to set up and is easily playable in 2-3 hours. It also scales well for three players, dividing the Allies side into British and American.

I think both sides have an equal chance at victory, but the game will tend to disappoint history-oriented folks because it doesn't really unfold like the actual battle did. Indeed, it has a sort of Retro feel to it. Like many 1960s-era Avalon Hill wargames it tends to degenerate into a "last man standing" situation where a handful of surviving units are scrapping over the last victory space.

This is cause partly by the victory conditions, which revolve solely around the possession of the three cities of Cherbourg, Caen and St. Lo in theory, but really St. Lo is the key zone. Cherbourg is too far from the German reinforcement zones and Caen too close to the British beaches for the Axis to have a realistic chance of holding, so the battle usually ends up being decided at St. Lo.

Contributing more to the last-man-standing character of the game is that the combat system is simply too bloody. With the minor exception of a couple of cards there's no provision for returning eliminated units to play and the battle losses will tend to outpace the arrival of reinforcements. This was a common problem back in the 1960s with games such as classic Gettysburg but most designs since then have done a better job of balancing the ability to take losses and inflict them so that armies don't evaporate during the game. This isn't a complete surprise, of course, because the original Axis & Allies often suffers from the same problem.

The historicity of the game suffers from some other peculiar design decisions. For example, even though the U.S. fielded dozens of independent tank battalions, enough to equip several armored divisions, they disappear in this game instead of beefing up the infantry units. Meanwhile, German Panzergrenadier units, which were also mostly infantry with a few assault guns, get beefed up into tank units.

On the other hand, there are a lot of nice touches, such as identifying the participating divisions on the map and in the reinforcement boxes and the figures, themselves, which can provide fodder for game table discussions about history.

There's not much here for serious historical wargamers., who probably already have several more authentic D-Day wargames in their collection, but Axis & Allies D-Day does have some usefulness as a teaching or introductory game. It's also a good game for more casual gamers who might want to try a wargame now and then or have a wargame in their general game collection. Axis & Allies is definitely not a euro-ized wargame, but it is a wargame presented in a very user-friendly way. Unlike most wargames, I think this one is one that a virgin player could teach himself, instead of having a wargamer teach him.

Recommendations

Wargamers (Conditional Yes) Good teaching game
Collectors (No) Unless you are an Axis & Allies completist.
Euro-gamers (Yes) One of your best choices for an accessible wargame

One irony of Avalon Hill's "50th" anniversary

Hasbro selected three games for "Anniversary" editions to mark the 50th anniversary of Avalon Hill's founding.

While all three games are worthy classics (Acquire, Axis & Allies, and Diplomacy), none of them are original Avalon Hill games. Acquire was published by 3M and brought into the AH line when it took over the 3M line. Diplomacy, of course, is just as old as AH, but was first published by Gamescience before being bought and published by AH. Axis & Allies was never in the old Baltimore-based Avalon Hill's lineup at all.

It would have been nice to see a real Avalon Hill classic republished, but there are few candidates that might match Hasbro's market. Perhaps the most likely candidate would be an updated edition of Football strategy that reflected the way the NFL is played today.

Among the wargames I think there are few games that could make the transition. Most of the better games are in the hands of MMP or being republished elsewhere. Maybe, just maybe, a heavily revised Midway with plastic Axis & Allies style ships could catch the eye of the modern bit-oriented gamer. Of the classic hex-and-counter games Afrika Korps has probably held up the best, but I don't see it appealing to Wal-Mart shoppers.

No, it's easy to see w hy Acquire, Dip and A&A made the cut.

Axis & Allies Naval Miniatures: Task Force

I've nearly collected the whole set. Overall, I'm pleased with the selection and quality, although a few of the sculpts are kind of rough and many of the paint jobs are too heavy.

For wargaming uses, though, everything works well and some of the models are really good. I particularly like the Saratoga.

The mix of units seems well thought out. While corporate bean counters forced a very high number of repaints, they ships selected make sense and Set III will have few repaints so it may very well work out.

If the line goes through Set IV, which seems likely, because I think Set III will sell out, then I think we will end up with a very useful collection for regular naval wargaming as well use with the A&A: WAS rules.

Customer support will, of course, dictate how long this can go on, but I think the history-based collectible games may have more staying power than many others because of the inherent collectibility of the pieces. I think they can probably go as far as a Set V before running into some hard choices about ship selection (mostly because the German Navy isn't big enough to support it.) There are, of course, various what-ifs that could be tried, such as the ships cancelled by the Washington Naval Treaty

On the other hand, the centennial of World War I is approaching, so there may be enough interest to support a Great War line of ships. I could also see a modern line being offered as well, especially if China builds up enough of a navy to provide a credible opponent.

The land game seems to be cranking along OK, too, and there's a new 50th anniversary edition of Axis & Allies coming which will help keep the brand fresh.

I think Hasbro is also being smarter with the pace of expansions in both the land and naval miniatures lines by not pushing them out so often. A new set every six months to a year seems like a good, sustainable pace. By having realistic expectations for the brand, Hasbro may avoid the mistakes that doomed DreamBlade.

Axis & Allies: War at Sea comprehensive review

Axis & Allies: War at Sea naval miniatures follows on the heels of (Hasbro) Avalon Hill's Axis & Allies: Miniatures. Like the earlier game, aside from the Axis & Allies brand name, there's no similarity between this game and the Larry Harris Axis & Allies designs.

Also, although billed as a miniatures game, this is NOT a traditional Fletcher Pratt/Seapower/Victory at Sea style naval miniatures game. Instead it's a fairly simple nautical themed board wargame that happens to use nice miniatures instead of cardboard tokens or wooden blocks.

Still, the miniatures are the main selling point for the game, and, fundamentally, the rules exist to give you a game to use to play with your miniatures.

Like the A&A land miniatures, the War at Sea miniatures are equally well-suited to being used with any set of traditional naval miniatures (play on the floor) rule set. There are no game-specific bases or other distractions to get in the way of using the miniatures with, for example, Victory at Sea. The one drawback of the miniatures is the nonstandard scale, which is 1:1800 (or 1 inch equals 150 actual feet). This means the miniatures are not compatible with existing lines of pewter wargame models, which are generally of 1:2400 or 1:1200 scale. So long as there was just one set I think this was a factor, but with the appearance of a second set, the promise of a third set and the likelihood of a fourth, this is much less of a factor. The existing line of models is getting close to the offerings of some pewter manufacturers.

The miniatures themselves are mostly pretty good. Unlike the land-based A&A miniatures, the War at Sea line has been consistent in scale and there have been no really bad sculpts. That's not to say that there aren't some models that are better than others, but none are so bad that they can't be used on the same wargame table and all are acceptable quality when eyed from typical wargame playing distances.

There's been a lot of thought put into the selection of models, and with two sets there are at least type representatives for just about every fleet and most of the most wanted models are present. It is important to note, of course, that this is a collectible-style game, which will carry very negative implications for many gamers, but the collectible aspect is quite muted here.

First, the line is not so extensive that a complete set can't be gotten. There are no chase or ultrarare models nor any convention exclusives. Prices compare favorably to unpainted pewter naval models, so expense is even less of a consideration than normal. Compared to a straightforward board game, War at Sea is still pretty expensive, but if a boardgamer were ever going to hold their nose and try a collectible game, War at Sea would probably be their best choice.

The rules for Axis & Allies: War at Sea succeed is presenting an entry-level naval board wargame that captures the essential elements of World War II-era naval combat in an authentic way. In many ways it's more successful than the land game in this regard, because the straightforward nature of naval combat (minimal terrain, limited weapon types) seems well-suited to making an entry-level combat game.

Like the land game, in War at Sea the basic combat routine is to roll a certain number of dice depending on the type of the target and the range and count the number of "successes," which are defined as rolls of 4 or higher. While the chance of a success can sometimes be modified (usually downwards) , a "natural 6" always counts as two successes, which accounts for the chance of critical damage that is so integral part of naval combat.

Another critical aspect of World War II era naval combat is accounting for the effect of armor protection. Instead of using some complicated system comparing armor penetration ability against the armor of a target, like most naval games, War at Sea uses an elegant system that indirectly achieves the same results. Every target has two "armor" ratings and a number of hull hits it can sustain. As a general rule, battleships can take five hits, fleet carriers can take four, cruisers take three hits, destroyers two hits and small combatants like PT boats just one hit. Each ship has an armor rating and if the firing ship achieves that many successes, then the target takes a hit. Under most conditions a destroyer won't roll enough dice to have a mathematical chance of getting enough successes to get a hit on a battleship and it's difficult for a cruiser to do so, while battleships often roll enough dice that they'll have about a 50/50 shot of getting a hit. Meanwhile, while firing at a like-sized target like a destroyer on a destroyer or a cruiser on a cruiser, the chances of effective fire are greater, all while using the same procedure.

On the other hand, each ship is also rated for its "vital armor." If a firing ship achieves enough successes to match THAT number then the target is instantly sunk. There's usually some chance of this instant destruction anytime a ship fires on a like-sized target, but the chances go up a lot when a larger ship fires on smaller one, so a battleship blasting away at a cruiser will probably sink it in short order. Some ships, like the HMS Hood, have lower vital armor ratings than similar-sized ships, and are therefore more vulnerable to catastrophic losses than other ships, while a few ships have higher-than-average ratings and are more likely to die a death piece by piece like the Yamato.

The game also includes rules for torpedoes, anti-aircraft fire and aerial attacks, with combat generally working the same, except for torpedoes, which only hit on a "6 and automatically cause two hits when they do. Aircraft targets are also handled slightly differently, with successes that match the armor rating "aborting" the attacking plane and "vital armor" successes needed to shoot the plane down.

There are few anomalies in the system. Very small ships are, perhaps, a little too easy to target (a common naval wargame problem) with insufficient attention being placed on the difficulty of targeting them in the first place. As written there is no effective difference between "armor" and "vital armor" for ships with just 1 hull point,as they are sunk either way. Perhaps tiny ships ought to be "aborted" like aircraft when their armor is matched.

Like most collectible games, most pieces also have some kind of "spacial ability." In some cases these are strictly historically based, such as "extended range" which lets some modern battleships fire an extra zone or two until they take damage. Others add historical "color" such as the "survivor" special ability of the USS Enterprise, which gives it a saving roll against vital armor destruction or the TBD Devastator's "Draw the CAP" ability which lets it force enemy fighters to attack it instead of some more powerful plane, such as a SBD Dauntless, in the same zone.

The game has been pretty stable, with just one important change so far. As originally published all torpedo fire happened after gunfire. While this might seem more realistic, the game effect was to make torpedo attacks by surface ships almost useless. While the game doesn't explicitly distinguish between daylight combat and night combat (except for a special ability) , it does try to average the overall effectiveness of air power and night surface combat. so the overall game effect was actually off. So the rule was changed and torpedo combat was moved into the gunnery phase with the former torpedo attack phase now limited just to submarine attacks.

The standard scenario is a duel between equally matched fleets on a naval battlefield that measures 8 by 10 squares, offset in a brick-like pattern that is the equivalent to hexes in most respects, with a varying number of islands providing some minor terrain to maneuver around. There is also a convoy scenario, although that one seems too tough for the convoy player in my opinion.

Altogether, I highly recommend Axis & Allies: War at Sea for anyone interested in naval wargaming. It's a good introductory level naval board wargame and also a neat collection of quality, painted naval miniatures usable with your favorite set of traditional naval miniatures rules. While not compatible with pewter ship lines, the existing and promised sets will provide a large enough collection of models for most purposes.

C&C Ancients: The hoplon box

There have been many laudable influences on wargaming from eurogames, among them shorter playing times, a move towards more elegant rules and an overall improvement in graphics.

Pulling out my copy of Command and Colors: Ancients, however, reminds me another one: better game boxes.

I've been a wargamer for almost 40 years now, and played games in general for almost 50. (I'm pretty sure I started with Milton Bradley's Go to the Head of the Class). And one consistent problem with games published by American publishers over those decades was flimsy boxes. It was also something I noticed back in the 1980s when I spent some time in Germany while in the Army. This was before the rise of the Eurogame, but Germans have always been big game fans and companies such as Ravensburger were publishing nice versions of traditional games, and these came in nice sturdy boxes.

The tradition of flimsy boxes pioneered by the lies of Milton Bradley and Parker Brothers was taken up by Avalon Hill, which wanted nothing more than to be considered a serious game company. The classic Avalon Hill box was a "flat box" similar in dimensions to its MB and Parker contemporaries. There was at least one edition of Stalingrad that came in an oversized flat box in a bid for more attention on store shelves.

This brings up the central contradiction in game box design between the interest of the publisher and the interests of the player. For the publisher, the success of the game box is measured by its success in selling the game. For this purpose the flat box is ideal, especially a lightly constructed one. It's big, has a lot of room for attention-grabbing art and for lots of informative ad copy describing all the game's features in nice big type. Being light it's easy to pick up from the shelf and spin around in the consumer's hands while the potential purchaser soaks up the add copy and the pretty pictures.

The player, however, wants a box that will hold all the game's components after the game has been assembled for play, will stand up to being carried around and won't take up an unnecessary amount of storage space in the home.

Until fairly recently, the publisher's interests tended to prevail over the players. Except for the 3M-introduced Bookcase game box (later adopted by Avalon Hill for some, but not all its games) and the corrugated box and sleeve used by Columbia Games and a few others, most wargame publishers, like most American game publishers in general, stuck to flimsy boxes. In some cases the boxes were exceptionally light and would fall apart almost immediately, but every flat box design is a problem for players. They don't hold up well to being transported, they won't fit well on most common bookshelves and sometimes they won't even hold all the game parts.

I, for one, always liked the AH bookcase boxes the best. They held up well to the wear and tear of life. I have more than a half dozen of the 3M games in their original boxes. Over the years I've rarely had to replace any bookcase boxes. On the other hand, I regularly found it necessary to replace flat boxes. I'm on my second Afrika Corps box and my third Midway box. although now, of course, they can't be replaced except by cannibalising from eBay purchases.

One of the first thing I noticed about the eurogames, in contrast is that they almost always come in a nice compact and sturdy box. The Euro-ized edition of A House Divided, for example, while in very large box, is also in a very tough box. Evidently Euro game publishers are more interested in building up goodwill among customers and a reputation for quality than short-term gains from quick sales.

The Columbia-style boxes have their advantages, although the sleeves tend to rip, so I considers it somewhat inferior to bookcase and euro-style boxes, although much better than any others.

So I was pleased to see that GMT has, at least for Commands & Colors: Ancients, gone with a very sturdy box. This was somewhat of a surprise, because GMT isn't averse to going flimsier. While some of their games are in bookcase style boxes they also have used flat box designs.

Some other American game makers are following the Euro lead. The newest games from Worthington are definitively Euro-standard and even many recent Hasbro games are in a more compact and player-friendly square box that takes up less space and is sturdier, although this isn't universal. The Axis & Allies games, in particular, still have too much air in them.

I hope that GMT goes C&C-style for more new titles, along with other gamemakers. I'm tired of split ends.

A&A: Battle of the Bulge -- another bulgeless Bulge game

Axis & Allies: Battle of the Bulge is definitely a wargame far down on the game-simplicity scale, but many more detailed and complex Battle of the Bulge wargames also have trouble replicating the historical "bulge" for which the battle is named. It's been a problem ever since the original Avalon Hill Battle of the Bulge game and it's been seen in just about every game since.

Many reasons have been offered for this state of affairs, but I think this consistency across time and designs comes from a more fundamental problem, I think, and that's the too-narrow view of the battlefield taken by designers.

Invariably the board starts more or less from the German starting areas (which are never threatened by the U.S.) and runs west to Liege and Namur. In the north it starts around Monschau and ends just south of Martelange.

The problem with this battlefield, especially the northern and southern limits, is that it invariably brings an "edge of the world" problem. The German player is always tempted to go that extra hex or two to the board edge to anchor his flanks. The cost in terms of diluting his main effort a little is more than balanced by not having to garrison his flanks. Even games that allow allied flank attacks rarely have provisions that are enough to discourage this tactic. In A&A:Bulge there isn't even this danger, as Allied reinforcements can only appear behind their own "front line."

In the actual event, of course, there was no edge-of-the-world. The front extended for many mile north and south and pushing in either direction would have direct consequences in weakening the German drive west, while adding no appreciable benefit, because there would always still be a "bulge."

It mystifies me why, after all this time, Battle of the Bulge game designers insist on restricting the battlefield to its historical extent. If they merely added another 10 miles of front north and south they could ensure that there would be a "bulge." Adding another 25%-33% more front would illustrate why the German attack unfolded as it did. If the German player tried to advance across that whole front he would obviously be diluting his attack beyond any hope of a breakthrough.

A&A:Bulge compounds this problem by giving the German player no real incentive to drive as far West as possible. There are 24 victory points of towns within a moderate distance of the start line and a broad front advance that reaches as far as Werbemont and Bastogne will be enough. There's no need to even get as far as Liege, let alone Huy or Namur.

This is not to suggest that the game isn't an interesting game or that the victory conditions don't result in a fair game, but they seem designed to ensure that there won't be a "Bulge" in the Battle of the Bulge on you tabletop. It would be easy to dismiss this as a flaw caused by it being just a simple, entry-level wargame, except for the fact that it's seen in just about every Bulge game ever printed.

A similar problem afflicts Gettysburg games, although on that topic at least a few designers have experimented with expanding the battlefield enough to the east and south that there's enough room to maneuver and try alternative strategies.

Axis & Allies Miniatures -- a comprehensive review

Few game announcements excited me more than when I heard Hasbro (in the guise of Avalon Hill) was actually going to produce a line of historical military miniatures.

I mean, it was a cool idea anyway, but the fact that the second-biggest toy maker in the U.S. (and probably its biggest gamemaker) would produce a line of historically accurate military miniatures seemed to me to be an auspicious sign for the health of the wargame hobby. I trace my own heightened interest in military topics and wargames in particular to the old Milton Bradley (now also part of Hasbro) to the American Heritage line of simple history-themed games such as Broadside, Battle-Cry, Hit the Beach and especially Dogfight! These definitely prepped me for the more serious wargames such as Midway and Stalingrad that I discovered a few years later. You can't start with ASL.

In an age when orcs, clone troopers and superheroes get all the shelf space it was gratifying to think that at least some folks would have the opportunity to have their interest piqued in history by coming across Shermans, Panthers and T-34s. I was under no illusions that historical military minis would really compete for attention with sci fi or fantasy, but I thought it might hold its own. And apparently it has, because A&A minis is on it's seventh set with an eighth in the wings -- as well as two sets for the similar A&A Naval Miniatures. So it outlasted DreamBlade.

Perhaps the biggest potential turn-off for many potential players is that it's a "collectible" game, in the same way as Magic:The Gathering or DreamBlade. This format irritates many players, although I think several factors mitigate the effect here.

First, the collectibility isn't extreme. The number of different models is not so high that a determined collector can't accumulate all of them fairly easy. There are no ultra-rare models, no "chase" models and no convention exclusive models so a complete collection is available to anyone willing to make the effort and spend the money.

Second, there are no overpowering combos or units. Because the game is historically based it's constrained by the laws of physics and historical realities. There are pieces that are more cost-effective than others and some small rules adjustments have been necessary (I'll discuss that more later) but even a Veteran Tiger tank or group of Rangers is not necessarily a game winner alone. On the ground tactics matter at least as much as which pieces you have in your army and there are always countermeasures available. Even the Veteran Tiger tank can be taken out any number of ways.

Thirdly, the collectible aspect of the game has the subtle advantage of preventing staleness and introducing players to possibilities they might not otherwise consider. Unconstrained, players will predictably stock up of Panthers, King Tigers and Stalin tanks. Anybody who's played traditional military miniatures games knows that the SS or Napoleon's Old Guard show up on far more table top battlefields than historical facts would support. The collectible aspect of the game means that Hungarian Turan tanks and Japanese-allied Azad Hind infantry and other obscure but fascinating aspects of World War II can get some attention.

The point of the game is having some rules to play with for your collection of miniatures, so it's appropriate to consider the miniatures first.

Overall, considering that they are mass produced by a toy company rather than a model maker, the general quality is pretty good, with a few exceptions which I'll discuss later.

The paint jobs are adequate, with a lot of wash used to bring out mold details, although most models don't have a lot of the fine detailing a modeler would probably include. They are very functional wargaming models, however, made out of sturdy plastic that holds up well under wargame table conditions.

Axis & Allies: Miniatures can be considered to have come out in two groups. The first group of sets includes the Base Set, with 48 different models, and Set II, D-Day, Contested Skies and Reserves sets. These first five sets were designed around the same time and only some limited changes could be made between the sets.

The biggest problem with the first group was the inconsistent scaling of the vehicles. While billed as "15mm" miniatures, in fact most of the vehicle and heavy weapons were somewhat undersized. While not a problem for game play, it did disappoint many purchasers who had expected the models to be compatible with other 15mm models. Instead, most of the A&A vehicles seemed to be about 10-15% too small.

The troops, on the other hand, did seem to be properly scaled for the most part. As plastic models they tended to be "lighter" framed than metal miniatures, but this is pretty much universal and speaks more to the limitations of metal molds than it does to any problems with A&A, which is actually more anatomically accurate.

Another irritant in the first sets was that there were some quality control problems. It seemed like each set had at least one really awful model. In the Base Set, for example, there was the mis-scaled M18 Hellcat tank Destroyer, which was the one model that actually was close to true 15mm scale, but was too wide. Set II had the worst sculpted model of the entire line, the 3-inch M3 antitank gun, which was a mishapen lump of plastic closer in size to a machinegun than an artillery piece and too embarrassingly bad to actually place on a table. And who can forget the infamous "MesserSpit" of the D-Day set, where a factory error resulted in the Spitfire being represented by a Me-109 sculpt painted in Spitfire colors.

Despite these missteps, however, the overall line succeeded. Many of the models were really nice, such as the IS-2, the King Tiger and most of the planes. There were a lot of really interesting units as well, such as the Higgins Boat, the DD Sherman and the AVRE.

Hasbro corrected many of the biggest issues with the second group of sets, which started with the "1939-1945" set and continued with "North Africa". An Eastern Front-themed set is coming out shortly and at least one more set is committed for. The newer sets are coming out at a slower pace than the first sets, but each now had 60 different models instead of the 45 of earlier sets, so coming out more slowly would help collectors keep up.

Most of the infantry and heavy weapons sculpts are re-issues of pieces seen in the earlier sets. While the heavy weapons have at least as many scaling issues as thew vehicles did, there's been few complaints on that score and it doesn't seem to bother players as much. The planes, which are not 15mm scale, are also unchanged except for paint schemes.

The most noticeable change is with the vehicles, which have all been redone in a truer 15mm scale and are now about as compatible with other 15mm scales as any other. (There are always slight difference between manufacturers anyway, and rarely perfect compatibility) Hasbro took advantage of the larger sculpts to improve the paint schemes as well, and the new models are really quite nice for the most part with more detailing touches. Some models have been corrected as well, notably the M4 Sherman, which has had the turret moved forward a bit into its proper spot.


So what about the rules?

First, it's important to note that you don't have to use the Axis & Allies: Miniatures rules to get full use of the figures and models. Unlike games such as HeroClix or DreamBlade, there's no game-specific information cluttering up the bases. Vehicles have no bases and the troop and weapon unit bases are plain. so the pieces can easily be used with any suitable rules. Plenty of people use the minis to play Flames of War, for example, at a considerable savings in time and money over FOW minis.

But if you do use the A&A rules, you have a nice, simple tactical wargame that captures a lot of the flavor of World War II tactical combat without a lot of fuss.

The game includes the usual sorts of terrain effects and turn sequencing seen in tactical wargames over the last 30+ years.

Combat is handled somewhat unusually, however, compared to most tactical wargames. There are no combat results tables or the like. Instead each unit is rated for its ability to fire on vehicle or "soldier" (all non-vehicular) targets at close (0-1 hex) medium ( 2-4 hex) or long (5-8 hex) range. For example, an M4A1 Sherman has a rating of "14" against tanks at close range or a "6" against soldiers. That rating entitles the firing unit to roll that many dice, so the Sherman can roll 14 dice when firing at a Panzer IV at closer range. Every roll of 4 or higher is a "success" and the number of successes is compared to the target's defense. In the case of the Panzer IV, if it's fired at from the front it's defense is a 5, lower from the flank. If the number of successes is less than the defense, nothing happens. If it exactly matches the defense then it scores one "hit." If it exceeds the defense it scores two hits and if it doubles the defense it scores three hits.

Hits in the same phase accumulate. The first hit disrupts a unit, reducing it's defense against subsequent attacks and stopping it from moving. It also reduces the effectiveness of the disrupted unit's attacks by one, so only 5s and 6s count as successes when it fires. A second hit damages a vehicle, which basically means it suffers the effect of disruption for attack and defense permanently and cuts its movement in half. A second hit on a soldier unit destroy it, as does the third hit on a vehicle unit.

Most units have some sort of special ability. Some of these are historical, such as the Tiger's "Extended Range 10" which lest it fire out to a range of 10 hexes with its large and powerful gun. Some are not strictly historical, but do add some color to the game, such as the Italian soldier's "Bravado 2" ability, which lets him roll two extra attack dice so long as his side hasn't lost any units.

The Expanded Rules that came out simultaneously with the second group of sets made a few minor changes to the game, but did make some changes to the standard battle scenarios and the point system used to draft armies. The game also switched from the 2-inch hexes used on early maps to 3-inch hexes in order to fit the larger vehicle models.

Axis & Allies: Miniatures can be played in two formats, according to the interests of its fan base.

It can be played as a regular scenario-based tactical World War II miniatures game, similar to ASL or Tide of Iron. There are dozens of scenarios on the Hasbro Web site and the Expanded Rules includes 8 scenarios. These provide many fascinating historically inspired battles to fight. The drawback to this format is that many players, especially beginning ones, will not have all the units they need, unlike a game such as Tide of Iron which has everything you need in the box. Many of the early scenarios were criticized for having too many of the Rare units (one required 10 copies of the same rare tank!) but the more recent ones seem to be more careful not to require more than one or two of a particular model.

The other common way to play is tournament style, with each player having so many points available to construct an army using the point values printed on the card. The difficulty with this format is that the battles tend toward straightforward slug fests and revolve more around the metagame of army construction than good tactics. This problem is endemic to collectible games, and A&A is not immune. Some pretty odd or impossible historical armies can be seen on battlefield in this format.

The game rules provide some ways to mitigate this. Players can agree on historical army limits so you don't have German and Japanese troops in the same Axis army or date limits so you have to use the less-powerful early war weapons. If all the units in the army are from the same nationality you can use more points, which provides some incentive to use some of the less effective armies like the French, Romanians or Nationalist Chinese. The Expanded rules also added "formations" which are pre-set "platoons" that allow a player to field set units at a lower cost and provide other advantages.

As an expandable, collectible and scenario-based wargame, there's really no limit on the playability. The collectibility means the game is more expensive to get into than typical boardgames, but if compared to otter miniatures-absed game the game is not very expensive at all, especially considering that the models are pre-painted and ready to play from the box. For the cost of one unpainted traditional tank model you can get a booster with one or two vehicles and three or four soldier units.

Overall, I think it's a good value. I've built up an extensive inventory of models that I expect will be useful for years of play, while also being a nice collection.

Monsters Menace America -- a wargamer's view

I have a bit of a split personality when it comes to wargames. While my main interest is and has always been historical wargames, I have an undeniable weakness for parody and humor games as well.

So, as a long-time owner of Nuclear War and The Awful Green Things From Outer Space, it's probably no surprise that I have a copy of Monsters Menace America. I probably would have picked up the AH version (Monsters Ravage America) except that its publication occurred during a lull in my game-buying. Still, I think I like the newer version anyway as its production values seem more attractive to non-wargamers and it looks like it stripped out some of the "fiddly" elements.

The game uses an idea occasionally seen before in wargaming to handle the problem of asymmetric situations by having each player play both sides, In this case, each player controls one monster but also controls one branch of the Armed services trying to stop the rampage (Army, Navy, Marine Corps of Air Force). This cleverly gives everyone plenty to do and especially lets everyone have fun stomping around the country as a monster.

The game is very Hollywood cinematic in its theme, and as a matter of fact, Hollywood is one of the places monster can end up. Monsters gather strength by chomping cities and accumulating powers through mutation, while the armed forces try to chip away at the monsters strength. Once enough place have been stomped the game moves into a final showdown phase where the monsters duel until one remains standing.

There's been a fair amount of criticism about this final showdown, with many players suggesting the first part of the game hardly matters and everything comes down to the how the dice fall at the end. To the extent that winning through skill is important to a player, I think they will tend to dislike this mechanism. On the other hand, I can't help that feel that sort of serious player really isn't the target audience here. All parody games seem to have a high random element to them and have rules that are simply unfair. Just the other day I was eliminated from a game of Nuclear War during the opening play of Secrets/Top Secrets before I even ha d chance to play a card. Players of Munchkin know that player skill is no match for lucky cards and the fate of the stalwart crew of the Znutar in Awful Green Things depends an awful lot on the draw of weapon chits.

No, for a parody game the point is to have fun during play, have many entertaining twists and turns, hopefully with plenty of opportunity for mocking, jokes and sound effects. Final victory is just an excuse to end the game at some point and start a new one. One aspect that's common in these sort of games is a short playing time. At 90 minutes, Monsters Menace America is at the longish end of the scale for this sort of thing, but still short enough that a group can plan to play at least twice in an evening.

There's no player elimination, so everybody gets a chance to play the whole game and the final showdown will only take a few minutes, so even the losers don't have too much down time.

There are different strategies available, so players are not merely pawns at the mercy of the dice, and players can affect their final chances, so it's not just Snakes and Ladders. But it's also not chess or Bonaparte at Marengo, either. Luck will play a major role in the outcome. Personally, though, I think just playing with Zorb of Toxicor is cool enough that it really doesn't matter if they get thwacked in the final showdown.

It's a good game for what it is. You don't go to watch Godzilla expecting high concept, so you shouldn't expect it in MMA, either.

Bitter Woods and the upgrading dilemma

One aspect of this new "golden age" for wargaming is the plethora of reprints and reissues that have been appearing.

In some cases when a newer edition comes out it's possible to just upgrade some components so it's not too hard of a decision to make. For example the new edition of Columbia's War of 1812 only needs new stickers as a minimum (the rules can be downloaded).

More often, though, the changes are extensive enough to require purchase of a whole new game. Some recent examples include War at Sea, The Russian Campaign, Napoleon, Third Reich, For the People and others.

So the dilemma is, if one already owns an earlier edition, should one lay out the money for the new edition?

On the one hand, if perfectly satisfied with the old version, and most likely to just play the game with friends, and have a limited budget (who doesn't?) there's some reason for not upgrading.

On the other hand, it's likely that, in the larger gaming world, the new edition will become the standard at game conventions, will be the only one that gets supported for rules questions, errata and new variants, and will be the one that new opponents will want to play. So there's ample reason to upgrade.

There's still that budget issue, though. Games are a luxury expense and trying to justify to the significant other that you might want to buy a brand-new copy of a game you already have makes a tough sell even tougher. And even if there's no significant other to consult, there's your little wallet angel to placate. It's easier to justify buying something new than a new copy of an old game, even to yourself. And the new editions usually aren't cheap.

So in some cases, I've decided to pass on the opportunity to upgrade. I don't plan to get the new War at Sea and I dropped out of the Third Reich cycle a while back. While tempted, I didn't get the new EastFront II and its buddy games, even though I really do like the system. But I don't have a likely opponent for that system and if I'm going to play a big block game it'll probably be Europe Engulfed.

Yet I went ahead and bought the new Deluxe edition of Bitter Woods, despite the fact I wasn't actually all that thrilled with the first, Avalon Hill edition.

That 1998 AH version was a bit of a disappointment. It seemed very undeveloped and incomplete, and shortly it became clear why when Avalon Hill was sold. But it was also clear here was a good game there, if it just got the right treatment, so I was willing to give the L2 folks a shot. I wanted to have at least one good solid hex-and-counter grognard-style wargame that was new enough to get new opponents even though my tastes were changing overall in the direction of more block- and figure-based designs.

And the new edition doesn't disappoint. While pricey, in every way it's a big improvement over the AH version. The large counters and larger hexes are a boon for older players like myself. The rules are chock full of great chrome stuff and there are a large number of player aids, too.

Still, there's more coming out than the budget can bear and it's getting more and more important to pick my fights and a lot of otherwise worthy updates and upgrades aren't going to make the cut as time goes on.

My advice to others considering upgrades is to seriously consider what a new eidtion will do for you. If you think it will breathe new life into an old game you play within your established ganing circle or enhance your chances of adding to that cirlce then an upgrade ought to be considered. If you plan to play at game conventions, tournaments or online an upgrade is close to mandatory.

But if the game's been gathering dust on the shelf anyway, then there's porbably no need to buy a new copy.

The first rush of the New Avalon Hill

For more than 40 years the premier adult gaming company was Avalon Hill. While most famous for its wargames, the Baltimore-based AH was always more than that. Perhaps ahead of its time, it always realized that games were not just for kids. Right from its start under Charles Roberts, AH always had a balanced line, with at least as many family and adult games as wargames. This continued throughout the Dott ownership.

When the Dotts finally tired of the game business and sold the Avalon Hill name and line to Hasbro, gamers everywhere lost quite a bit. But change is inevitable, after all, and we all have to just get on with it. Gamers wondered what Hasbro had in mind for AH, and it doesn't appear that Hasbro had any deeply thought-out strategy. Hasbro has been making it a policy to buy up adventure game outfits of late, most notably the Wizards of the Coast, and some, at least, thought it was merely a ploy to win more shelf space.

So it was with considerable interest that gamers watched the relaunch of the Avalon Hill brand by Hasbro in 2000. The first seven games of the new line ran the gamut of genres, titles, and age, but they all had one notable thing in common - not a single one was a "real" Avalon Hill game, in the sense of a game designed and marketed by the Baltimore crowd.

The First Seven were:

Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit -- An original design taking advantage of Hasbro's Star Wars licensing. A light wargame featuring 160 plastic pieces, it's a title that would never have appeared in the old AH line.

Cosmic Encounter -- Previously published by several different companies -- but not AH -- this was a reissue returning the game to its simpler roots with nicer components.

Battle Cry -- An original wargame, although a very stripped down and simple one. I've seen accounts that suggested the old AH was planning to publish the game before it went out of business. I'm not sure what that would have looked like, but I doubt it would have involved plastic figures or wooden blocks.

Stratego Legends -- A fantasy-themed version of the long-time Milton Bradley (also now owned by Hasbro) game Stratego. Obviously this would never have been in the old AH line.

Axis & Allies: Europe -- A refocused version of the Axis & Allies wargame published by Milton Bradley. Obviously not a candidate for the old AH line, it would have been too "light" for their customers.

Diplomacy -- A new, very nice edition of the classic diplomatic game that has been published by many companies, and was a prominent part of the old Avalon Hill line, although designed elsewhere. As a matter of fact, Allan Calhamer and Charles Roberts were working on their games around the same time.

Acquire -- Also a new edition of a timeless classic game, in this case designed by Sid Sackson. Originally a part of the 3M game line, it was bought by AH and a favorite part of their lineup until the end.

So, while the initial offering of the new AH resembled its predecessor with a balance of wargames and non-wargames and even included a few familiar titles, overall it was a much lighter group than the old Avalon Hill line. It did provide a good indication of where Hasbro was going with the Avalon Hill line, however. The rights for real hard-core wargames were mostly transferred to Multi-Man Publishing if AH-owned. Many of the other games, whose designers had retained rights, have reappeared with different publishers.

The more recent AH/Hasbro offerings have resembled the first batch, with most of the wargames also bearing the Axis & Allies brand in addition to AH. Except for Diplomacy and Acquire, which are being reissued again in new versions, the only New AH game that is a re-issue of a prior AH title is Monsters Menace America.

It seems evident that there will be no resurrecting of the hard-core historical Avalon Hill wargame under Hasbro. Only games light enough to merit the Axis & Allies label will show up, although some of those such as the A&A miniatures line and A&A:Bulge are definitely real wargames.