Exciting news for Tide of Iron

Fantasy Flight Games and a new outfit called 1A Games jointly announced that FFG has licensed the Tide of Irons game system to 1A.

Details here; http://1agamesworld.com/

This is an interesting development and may do for Tide of Irons what MMP did for ASL, in that 1A has been founded specifically for the Tide of Iron line.

Tide of Iron has been well received, but it did seem to be on hiatus as far as attention from FFG went, and I was wondering if we were ever going to see it move to the Pacific, for example. We still don't know, and it appears that the first 1A product will be based on the fighting at Stalingrad, but a Japanse expansion seems pretty obvious direction to go.
While a new company, the principals ar enot new. Bill Jaffe and Dama Lombardy have already both been involved in Tide of Iron expansions and Mr. Lombardy, in particular, is a real hobby old-timer. He was editor for the first serious competitor of Strategy & Tactics magazine, called Conflict, back in the early 70s.

China-US trade war and its impact on gaming

Of course any China-U.S. trade war would have immense impacts outside the small world of gaming, but this is a gaming blog so that's our focus here.

Over at the Desert News Jeff Thredgold makes this point: "However, there is an important and positive by-product of that undervalued yuan. Goods produced in China are more affordable to Americans, whether shopping at Walmart or Target or Forever 21 or other retailers.
The Chinese currency manipulation allows greater U.S. household purchasing power for Chinese-made goods … good news for U.S. households that are already under tremendous pressure from a very damaging recession and a weak U.S. economic recovery."

Bloomberg News reports:
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said China is headed for a “trade conflict” with the U.S. and other western countries as tensions rise about how to rebalance the global economy.

“What China is doing is functionally equivalent to having large export subsidies and large import tariffs,” Krugman, 57, said in a speech in the Free University in Berlin. “If it were doing that in the normal way, it would automatically be subject to large countervailing duties. And I think that’s going to happen at the rate we’re going.”


For quite some time I've thought that gamers were going to have to adjust their expectations on how much bling was in their games. The decade of the aughts brought us all sorts of terrific games packed to the gills with stuff such as Battlelore, War of the Ring, Tide of Iron and many more. It was also a decade that brought us highly detailed and already painted collectible miniatures in vast numbers used in everything from Dungeons & Dragons and Heroclix to Axis & Allies Miniatures and Heroscape.

As much as a 40% increase in the value of the Chinese currency to the US dollar might help the US in macro terms, let there be no mistaking its effect on game bits - there won't be many, any more. Indeed, some product line may simply become unaffordable to produce and others will ave to scale back considerably. I think collectible painted miniatures, in particular, may become obsolete.

We're already seeing some hints of the coming reality. Fantasy Flight Games is still struggling with finding a way to bring the Battlelore Core Set back to market at an economically doable price. It's latest stopgap is to "repurpose" excess inventory of French-language copies for the English-language market. A welcome development but obviously a stopgap.

We're also seeing plastic being replaced by cardboard in more games. In the latest versions of Axis & Allies, for example, the industrial sites and anti-aircraft guns have been changed to counters.

The bottom line is that players who like a box chock full of plastic are going to find the future very disappointing as China "rebalances" the value of its currency with the rest of the world.

TOI's Chain of Command session

Mark and I continued our mini-TOI marathon with a match of Chain of Command, the second "bonus" scenario from the Tide of Iron Designer's Series Vol. 1.

Like its twin, Breaking the Line, Chain of Command turned to to be a well-balanced, taut scenario that could go either way, although this time I happened to win both times.

An American infantry force with three half tracks is attempting to fight its way through a smaller German force and off the board, but faces a choke point at a bridge and limited time. Adding to the time pressure, the Germans have a reinforcement deck and can look forward to getting some help right at the end of the scenario, when it will do the most good.

I had thought we might play this game first, so I had a German set-up already in place. Perhaps unduly influenced by my set up, Mark left what may have been its most controversial aspect in place, two elite-heavy anti-tank squads ready to occupy the command-point providing building on the German left. He did adjust some other aspects of the setup, though, but to his detriment. He moved up one machine gun squad to a position that proved exposed and only covered the bridge with one squad, which meant the Germans had to choose between getting a victory point for occupying the bridge and occupying a second command point source.

Given the concentration of officer-led, anti-tank equipped elite guys on the German left I decided it would be prudent to go the other way. I pushed through a few squads into the woods to provide interdicting fire to keep the elites in place. With some fortunate shooting that detachment also chased away the exposed machine gun squad. Meanwhile the half tracks and a couple of squads attacked along the narrow avenue of approach leading to the German right, eliminating the other machine gun squad,

The half tracks and squads continued their sweep, closing on the bridge. A heartbreakingly successful suppressive fire attack from the Germans routed an elite squad of Americans, but generally the firefights tended to favor the US side due to the concentrated fire of the half tracks.

The US troops based in the woods were able to hinder the attempts by the elites to react to the threat and eventually the US troops overwhelmed the bridge garrison and its erstwhile saviors. A couple of half tracks took light damage but two half tracks were able to exit for four VPs, which was enough to guarantee a win as the Germans had also lost the bridge.

Switching sides, I decided that my original notion of making a stand at the exposed command-point generating building was a poor idea and this time I committed just one squad of regular troops to make a stab at grabbing the site for a few quick command points, with little expectation of staying long. As it turned out they never made it, being pinned by the US mortar early and often and eventually succumbing to repeated attacks.

Instead I concentrated on the low-hanging fruit and occupied the bridge and the adjacent command site, as well as the other command site with the anti-tank elites and friends. The Germans right was covered by both machine guns.

The US attack seemed to develop a little too slowly, partly because Mark's firers missed a few times around turn 2, which meant that the bridge position didn't really come under heavy attack until around turn 4. A long-range anti-tank attack on a half-track, while missing, made the US wary of closing too quickly. By the time the US was seriously threatening the bridge three squads of Germans reinforcements had appeared and it became evident the US wouldn't have sufficient movement available to exit any of the half tracks before the end of the game, so the 4 VP already earned by the Germans ensured victory.

Overall an interesting contest. I think the US should use the half tracks primarily as fire support and only secondarily as a source of VPs. If just one manages to exit the US can win, because exiting implies gaining control of the bridge by turn 4 or 5 and getting 2 or 3 VPs for that.

Couldn't catch a break

The Tide of Iron Designer's book includes a couple of bonus scenarios that were previously unpublished "demo" scenarios used during the prepublication marketing. They were designed to be simultaneously playable using one base set of the game, which made them attractive choices when I invited the redoubtable Mark K. over for a game day because it allowed me to have two games all set up before he arrived.

We played "Breaking the Line" first, in which a large American force attempts to seize a defended point atop a fortified hill from a smaller German force. Neither side receives any reinforcements and there are no vehicles involved.

I played the Americans first. My initial plan was to use Division 2 as a base of fire to cover Division 1 moving onto the flank. Division 1 would then become the base of fire and cover the final assault by Division 2.

This neat plan broke down under fire and my advance degenerated into a series of "Indian rushes" instead. I was able to get several squads into position for the final rush onto the objective, but all were cut down before they could launch actual assaults.

In retrospect I think I overindulged in "suppressive" attacks. While useful in covering maneuvering, it left too many live enemies for the end game. Failed or moderately successful suppression leaves most of the enemy in place. In contrast, Mark's Germans generally used "normal" (or as we took to calling them, "killing" ) attacks, so the American forces were taking heavy casualties -- helped by some good die rolls. Particularly annoying was a German double-mortar squad, which did a lot of damage until I got a lucky shot at it which killed off one crew. The survivors pulled back into deep cover. They played a lesser role after that, but they'd already done a lot of damage. Even "suppressive fire" can be deadly when there's 8 dice of it.

Still, despite everything, I felt that I had a shot at winning and it went to the last turn with the issue still in doubt, although a betting man would have probably laid in odds against me by turn 4 of the 6.

The switch game wasn't as close. Mark again concentrated on normal attacks. I made a stab on the right flank at threatening to deny him the 3 command points he'd normally get for occupying the "3" marker but a suppressive fire that could have pinned his unit tasked with capturing that key point missed. The two German squads on that side slowed his advance a bit, but ultimately vainly, as his barrage of fire gunned down all the hill's defenders despite their entrenchments. With the hill empty of defenders and none of the surviving Germans able to prevent it, Mark scooted a squad up onto the hill using the "Critical Objective" card (and its 2 movement point bonus) on Turn 5, for a clear and decisive win.

As we were both still getting used to the game (he'd only played it solitaire, and I had played it a couple of times) it took a long time to play, especially the first game, but as the evening wore on we sped up a lot. Mark was definitely the TOI Master after two games, but I was about to have my revenge in our next set "Chain of Command," which I'll report on tomorrow.

Are hex-and-counter wargames played out?

For decades when someone said the word "wargames" the images that came to mind were dominated by cardboard counters moving across a hexagon grid. Most purpose-built introductory wargames, from Napoleon at Waterloo, through Drive on Metz to Target: Arnhem feature a hex map, cardboard counters and usually feature "standard" wargame mechanics such as zones of control and CRTs.

But isn't that paradigm pretty much played out at this point?

The appearance and excitement over the new Waterloo game from Warfrog Games prompted me to wonder if the old hex-and-counter wargame is creatively played out. It seems like most of the innovation and excitement in the hobby over the last decade or so has been outside the hex-and-counter format.

While the sometimes feature hexes and counters, the card-driven games that are so popular now more often feature area or point-to-point maps and the very first one, We the People, did not use hexes.

While block wargames have been around nearly as long as hex-and-counter games, there's no doubt they have never been more popular, with genre-originator Columbia Games finding success with titles such as Hammer of the Scots and being joined by GMT with games such as Europe Engulfed.

Even when they use hexes, most of today's most exciting wargames such as Memoir '44 or Tide of Iron don't use counters and they certainly don't use standard wargame conventions such as zones of control or attack=defense-movement factor counters.

And some of the most innovative wargames of recent times such as Bonaparte at Marengo don't use any recognizably classic wargame mechanics at all.

There are still some hex-and-counter games coming out, but once senses that they're not really breaking any new ground and are not forming the leading edge of game design.

Memoir '44 and Tide of Iron scenario books, a comparative component review

A comparative review of the new scenario books for Memoir '44 and Tide of Iron.

Back in the good old days of wargaming companies such as Avalon Hill and SPI directly competed for the money of wargamers with similar offerings, much to the benefit of gamers.

So it's nice to see a similar dynamic taking shape now as wargame companies go head-to-head with each other in manly competition. Memoir '44 from Days of Wonder and Tide of Iron from Fantasy Flight Games have considerable overlap in their appeal, both being depictions of tactical World War II combat using neat plastic pieces, stunning euro-style graphics and approachable game mechanics. They are wargame-enough to capture a significant number of grognards while gamey-enough to appeal to a wider gaming market as well. Tide of Iron is the more complex of the two, but not by a lot.

Within the past few months both companies have published remarkably similar products as expansions to their respective game systems, lavishly-illustrated hardcover scenario books, styled as "Volume 1" of what is evidently hoped to be a continuing series of such offerings.

First out of the gate was FFG with it's "Designer Edition" for Tide of Iron. This handsome 96-page full-color book is basically a collection of standalone scenarios for the tactical game system, which has included relatively few scenarios for that sort of game so far. In an interesting twist the scenarios have mostly been designed by famous wargame designers such as Richard Berg, Frank Chadwick, Don Greenwood, John Hill, Dana Lombardy, John Prados, Ted Raicer and Vance Van Borries, as well as a dozen others.

The scenarios follow the same format as all previously published scenarios, with two pages of designer's notes, a background brief, objectives and player hints each, a page with the scenario order of battle and a page with the map and scenario details. They have a good mix, running from a couple of short, 4-map mini-scenarios to one massive 24-map, 20-round epic that will take two copies of TOI to play. Most of the scenarios just use the base game and all can be played if you have a base game and the Days of the Fox expansion, except for the aforementioned giant battle. One pair of scenarios can be played as a mini-campaign.

One complaint about the base game was scenario balance and we've been assured that these scenarios were all extensively playtested for competitiveness.

Time will tell about that, but many of them do provide some interesting tactical situations such as night fighting, rescuing beleagured troops, all-vehicle and no-vehicle fights and more.

A handful of the scenarios do have some vital errata and can't be played without visiting FFG's Web site for the information.

The book also includes thumbnail bios of all the designers.

Days of Wonder's Memoir '44 game already has an extensive line of expansions so a lack of scenarios isn't a problem for them. Instead the 112-page full-color Campaign Book offers a new kind of game experience for jaded Memoir '44 players with a dozen sets of campaigns, each of which will require 3-5 games to resolve. The campaigns, in turn, can be played in a linked series as part of a Grand Campaign. The Normandy Campaign group only requires the basic game, while the Blitzkrieg in the West and Operation Barbarossa campaigns will require some components from the Terrain Pack and Eastern Front expansions. One campaign requires the Air Pack and it's recommended for use in all of them. It's nice that the book doesn't require any more than the basic game to start, but I doubt too many players who will buy this product haven't already got most of the other stuff already.

While it's possible to play the scenarios as just some more stand-alones, the book is best used with a regular partner for campaign play.

Besides pages of scenarios in standard Memoir '44 format, a number of the pages outline the campaign flow with places to record the scores ad well as Grand Campaign score pages, but there's no need to actually write in the book because all the score sheets are available as downloads from the Days of Wonder Web site.

I haven't had a chance to try the campaigns yet, but they look very interesting.

Both books look like great additions to their respective game systems and are definitely worthwhile for anyone who has already bought most of the expansions.

Tide of Iron session

Carl and I also played a game of Tide of Iron, the first for both of us.

I decided we'd try the Crusader scenario from Days of the Fox. This is a pure armor battle so we could skip more than half the rules as not applicable, in order to make learning the game a bit easier.

We succeeded in that goal, although I wish I'd made the fighting a little harder for Carl. His British really just chewed my guys up. I ended up being wiped out, losing all seven of my tanks (4 x Pz III and 3 x Pz IV) while only destroying one Crusader and heavily damaging a Matilda. Ouch. Final VP score was 17 to 2.

Oh well, at least I learned a little bit about the game play.

Tide of Iron -- just one thing bothers me

Tide of Iron is Fantasy Flight Games' World War II tactical wargame.

It's a stunning production, of excellent overall quality and a good play as well. It's a little more abstract than most tactical combat games, but for the most part I'm comfortable with the level of abstraction.

There is, however, one aspect of the game that feels a little off to me and that is the whole "concentrated" fire vs. "suppressive" fire thing. I'm not sure what the designer is attempting to model here, given the way it's executed.

Suppression effects are, of course, quite common in 20th century combat games. Nearly universal, in fact, as getting the other guys to "put their heads down." is a key tactic under modern conditions.

But generally the suppressive effect is a byproduct of the destructive effect or, if it's an explicit goal of the firer, the firer gets usually gets some added benefit to represent the increased volume of fire. Meanwhile the destructive effect is normally diluted somewhat because the firing units are working to increase the number of bullets headed downrange and not their accuracy.

But in Tide of Iron the difference between destructive, casualty-producing fire and suppressive, morale-reducing fire is based on the intent of the firer, not on any difference at the target end. The same number of successes that would kill a figure will pin a squad instead. The same number that would rout a squad under suppressive would also eliminate it if fired at under concentrated rules. It would seem to me that suffering casualties would tend to pin a squad down, but in Tide of Iron it's an either/or situation. That just doesn't seem accurate to me.

I'm not sure why the designer felt the need to make the distinction this way. It would seem to me more valid to have the morale effects in addition to the casualty effects and if he wanted to model keep-their-head-down effects then units engaged in THAT kind of suppressive fire should get some benefit for giving up their casualty-producing effects.

I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who thinks this system makes more sense than the typical approach seen in designs as diverse as ASL and Axis & Allies: Miniatures that integrates both effects.