Some other new stuff come in

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.

Worthington Games Napoleonic title reportedly nears shipping

It's looking like a banner year for mass-market low complexity Napoleonic games, with titles planned by GMT, FFG and Worthington Games, but it looks like Worthington is determined to be first out the gate. The buzz is that copies of the game will be seen at conventions this month, so there is some hope of seeing it before mid-June, which would be nice for obvious reasons.

I pre-ordered it months ago so I hope I'll get one of the early copies. With luck perhaps the redoubtable Mark K. and I can get in a special gaming session.

Head-to-head competition

One of the interesting phenomenon seen in wargaming is the creation of directly competing designs -- games that depict the same topic, at the same scale, with similar complexity levels and pricing. This is something seen much less often in euro games. For example, the publication of Pandemic didn't inspire other companies to come out with their own plaque-fighting games. But there's no shortage of strategic level Eastern Front games, regimental Battle of the Bulge Games, World War II carrier battle games, platoon-level combat games, etc. This dates back to the early rivalry between Avalon Hill and SPI where both companies seemed to enjoy matching each other's titles. Often they would come out close enough that there could be dueling reviews, for example, SPI's Descent on Crete and AH' Air Assault on Crete were both reviewed in the same issue of F&M.

So it's interesting to see that GMT and Worthington Games will each be coming out with similar Napoleonic battle wargames this year. The GMT game will be Commands & Colors: Napoleonics based, naturally, on the Commands & Colors system that gave us Battle Cry, Memoir '44, Battlelore and C&C: Ancients. Worthington's game will be Napoleon's War: The Hundred Days, based on their popular Wars for America series, seen most recently in Hold the Line.

The game systems are similar in scale and style, while differing just enough in important details that one can't be seen as a clone of the other. Up until now the two systems have avoided covering the same topic. Borg's games have run a wide gamut, from ancient warfare, fantasy battles, the Civil War and World War II. Worthington's comparable games have been much more limited in scope, being focuses on the small wars of North America between 1758 and 1815 so far.

So the upcoming games represent the first head-to-head direct competition between the two game systems, which may present fans of both with some interesting choices. Should they buy both? Would owning both be redundant?

The Worthington title may be the first one out the gate, as it's been offered for pre-order with the promise of production with the next 3-4 months. C&C:Napoleonics has also just been offered on the GMT pre-order list but there are several games ahead of it in the pipeline, so I don't expect to see it until summer.

Worthington is going with plastic figures, which has generally been a popular choice, although the figures do not appear to be nationality authentic in uniform details, being merely color-coded for side. The first set has blue French, Red Anglo-allied and Grey Prussians.

C&C:N will likely uses wooden blocks with stickers, similar to C&C:A. This will allow the use of authentic uniform illustrations and the wooden blocks have also been well-received in the past.

It's not clear how the other components will stack up. Both companies have produced some very nice stuff lately, so it's hard top give the edge to one or the other at this point.

I plan to get the first one of each line, but I doubt I can afford to maintain a steady stream of purchases for both. My inclination is towards C&C:N, largely because I expect it to be wildly popular and therefore easy to get on the table. But I'm willing to give the Worthington games title a shot, especially because the initial game covers the Waterloo campaign. After that it will be time to choose.

Interesting imminent game release from Worthington Games

Worthington Games has a list of upcoming games available for pre-release sale prices on their Website, among them are this interesting one based on their popular Hold the Line system.

I've enjoyed that game systema lot and it makes an interesting contrast to the Commands & Colors: Napoleonics game due out soon from GMT.

The Worthington Games title will use plastic miniatures, shown above, for the battles in the Waterloo campaign. They are generic (as far as uniforms go) and will differ among the nationalities based on color (Red for Anglo-Allied, grey for Prussian and Blue for French), being similar to the approach used in Battle Cry and Memoir '44. The GMT game will presumably use wooden blocks, just as Commands & Colors: Ancients did, which will probably use stickers with the proper historical uniforms as well as block color to show the armies.

The Worthington series uses Command Action Points to limit how many units can be ordered, but players have wide lattitude on which units to order. In the C&C system cards not only limit how many units can get orders, but which ones. Both are good systems.

EllisCon XXI report with a Mark Perry Memorial Caesar's Gallic war session

Gamers at Ellis Con XXI playing in Vic Gregoire's Omaha Beachhead game

Ellis Con is a small regional game convention that's been running for more than 20 years at Harvard H. Ellis Technical School in Danielson, Conn., sponsored by the H.H. Ellis Tech Simulation Club. Despite the fact that I've lived less than 30 miles away for the last five years, this Saturday was the first time I haven't had a schedule conflict, so I finally got to go.

It looked to me like around a hundred or so people took part over the course of the day, which seems like a good turnout. The games were an eclectic mix of genres, types and eras. Among the games I saw being played were Magic: The Gathering, Fire & Fury American Civil War miniatures, Drive of Metz, Crokinole, Axis & Allies, Samurai Swords, Axis & Allies: War at Sea and more.

Perhaps the most impressive game visually was Vic Gregoire's fantastic Omaha Beachhead game, shown above and in a detail below:


Among the other notable features was a pretty extensive game auction (several dozen items) and vendors The Time Machine of Manchester, Silver Eagle Wargame Supplies and Ice Imports.

I kibitzed a bit on games of Drive on Metz and A&A: War at Sea but spent a good chunk of the afternoon playing the new Worthington Games' wargame Caesar's Gallic War with Mark Kalina. Mark mentioned that he and our late mutual friend Mark Perry used to play a game every year at Ellis Con, so we agreed to call this game a Mark Perry Memorial Match.

The game is a pretty wild and woolly one, which is no surprise if you no anything at all about the Caesar''s conquest of Gaul. The game is a strategic level block game. Each Roman block represents a single legion, while the various Gallic and German tribes each have from 1 to 3 blocks. The overall game system is similar to Columbia Games' Hammer of the Scots, especially because the Gallic tribes can switch sides.

Troop quality is represented by letter grades, with the A troops fighting before B troops, who, in turn fight before C troops. Each block rolls as many attack dice as its strength in steps, with most blocks hitting on a die roll of 1 or 2, although a couple of elite units like Caesar's Tenth Legion hit on a 1-3. Similar to Hammer of the Scots and Crusader Rex, each player has a hand of cards. Some cards are random events, most have the name of a tribe and all have a number. The cards can be used to trigger the named random event, automatically recruit the named tribe, conduct a "political action," generate supply or move a number of groups according to the number on the card (which ranges from 1 to 3).

It was a very entertaining game, and although I ended up losing, I would definitely play it again -- hopefully better.

I started off well as the Roman juggernaut swept through central Gaul. Mark later said that he wasn't sure what he'd be able to do to stop me, as it seemed like the Romans were unstoppable. Of course, it only seemed that way, and eventually he won some battles, inflicted some losses (including eliminating one legion for 3 victory points) and the Roman supply ran short.

So around the fourth turn I spent a turn regrouping instead of campaigning. I was able to rebuild the strength of all my remaining legions to a full 4 steps, restock the supply larders to 15 points and had a lucky roll to get the second pair of reinforcement legions at the earliest opportunity. I lost a little ground politically as my 9 controlled tribes fell to 7 and the German-allied tribes grew to about 9, but I was confident I'd be able to repeat my earlier success.

However, when Caesar drew cards for the new year, it turned out to be a very weak hand that had all "1s," severely limiting his options. So I set out with a more limited goal of placing Caesar in the center of Gaul with the intention of wintering there with most of the army and hopefully drawing a more powerful offensive hand the next turn. Mark's Germans had other plans. He played the Massive Revolt Card, which brings in Vercingetorix, flips the allegiance of four tribes and provides the ability to activate three groups! It was a bad turn for the Romans. The Germans ended up in control of 16 tribes, while the Romans were down to 5.

And I never really recovered from that setback. I made some minor progress over the remaining few turns, but the hole was too deep to crawl out of and the final score was 17 VPs for Mark's Germans (dead legion 3 VPs, 14 Vps for tribes under control) and 7 VPs for my Romans, (all for controlled tribes). Definitely a setback for my Caesar complex.

Out of the Box: Caesar's Gallic War

Julius Caesar famously started his history of the Gallic War by observing that Gaul was divided into three parts, so it was gratifying to see this new Worthington Games product dutifully divide Gaul into three regions with slightly different characteristics.

Worthington Games has vacillitated in its presentaion over the years, without settlinga s of yet into a specific style. It's first few games resembled Columbia Games products, with card stock maps, stickered blocks, glossy but sparsely illustrated rulebooks and sleeved bookcase boxes.

Then a couple of years ago Worthington went euro, with German-made game boxes, mounted maps, lavishly illustrated rules and sometimes thick cardboard counters.

Gallic Wars represents a retreat from pure euro, but still nicer quality than Worthington's earlier efforts.

The map is onec again cardstock, functional and attractive, if a bit plain. The blocks and stickers are similar to what Worthington has done before and comparable to Columbia or GMT products. The game includes a set of order cards, functional if not beautiful, and a straightforward rule book. The box is nice, but not deluxe. Overall, the presentation is no advance over last year's Worthington products, although still within the mainstream of block wargames.

I haven't played yet, but the game appears to resemble Hammer of the Scots, with the number of moves controlled by card activations, with the loyalty of many blocks changeable and the usual block-style combat system. Some influence from card-driven games is also evident, as the cards can play several different roles, activating movement, triggering special events or political actions.

Hold the Line session report

Continuing my series of prospective strategy discussions followed by post-game session reporting, is a look at the Hold The Line scenario Louisbourg.

This situation is kind of like an Eighteenth Century Omaha Beach. A British force lands on the beach in the teeth of a fortified defensive line and has to fight its way inland.




As always, any discussion of strategy starts with a look at the Objective, what the victory conditions require. As is usual in the Wars for America system, victory is achieved by accumulating victory points, with the most common source being eliminated enemy units, at one VP each.

For the French, victory is achieved by getting 7 victory points or avoiding the British victory conditions.

For the British the goal is also 7 VPs, but they only have 18 turns to do it, which makes this one of the shorter scenarios in the game system. It also clearly puts the burden of attack on the British. In addition to VPs for eliminating enemy units, the British have four victory points of objective hexes deep behind the French lines.

Terrain.

The left two-hex deep edge of the map is the ocean, from which the British invaders will come.

There's one hex of hill on the beach, but otherwise the French have a clear line of fire at the disembarking British. The main French position is made up of a five-hex long line of entrenchments, which provide protection from fire and morale benefits. Behind the French line the rest of the battlefield is made up of clear terrain with scattered woods hexes providing some cover but far enough apart to provide plenty of movement paths.

Order of battle:

The French are heavily outnumbered. They have a single leader, five regular infantry, an artillery unit and one band of Indians. The VP value of the entire force is 8, so the British victory condition is, essentially, to wipe out the French force. The VP hexes mean the French cannot simply run away, they will have to fight.

The British host comprises 22 pieces. There are two leaders, two Elite infantry, two light infanty, a unit of American rangers and 10 regular infantry. They also have five boats to carry them ashore. The first wave of British comprises the rangers, both elites and both light infantry, along with one leader.

Plans:

My objective as the French is to take advantage of the fortified line to achieve a positive kill ratio against the British. I expect British numbers to tell, eventually, and be forced to fall back either because of British flankers or because the British have penetrated the line.

Three of the French regulars will man the line, along with the cannon and fire at will against British troops within range. A fourth regular will pull back slightly and be used to guard the line against any short flanking moves. The Indians will be used to guard against any infiltrating rangers or light infantry. The last regular and leader Saint Julien will form the general reserve, either assisting the Indians if the British try an infiltration strategy or helping guard the flanks of the entrenched line.

My British plan aims to stretch the French by posing multiple threats and then exploit the weakest point in the line that develops. This could mean infiltrating rangers or light infantry past the flanks, taking the entrenchments in the flank or pushing directly into the French main line of resistance.

The British only have enough boats to carry one third of their force at a time, so the invaders are naturally broken down into three waves. The first wave is set by the scenario setup and comprises the rangers, both elite infantry and the two lights, along with 2/1 leader Wolfe. As this wave comes ashore it will pressure the French left flank by threatening to outflank the line with the light infantry. Wolfe and the elites with him will shelter on the hill while waiting for the second wave to arrive. The other Elite will endeavor to occupy the attention of the cannon in order to spare the rangers, who will lie low in the early going.

The priority for commands will be to empty the boats as soon as possible and bring on the second wave at the earliest opportunity. This wave will comprise leader Amherst and five of the regulars, who will join Wolf for the main assault on the French line. Once the French are fully committed the rangers will make a break for the VP hexes. I don't necessarily expect them to make it, but the threat may be enough to provide a critical edge in the main fight by drawing off French units and commands.

The third wave will be loaded and brought on if extra commands allow, but I don't think they can arrive in time to have a real impact.


The Battles:


I started with the French side in my game with Mark K. Frankly things went precisely according to plan for the first half of the game and I was feeling pretty good about the overall situation. Mark was trying to win pretty much with the initial wave, spending nearly all his action points moving and fighting those troops, with just a few spared to bring on a trickle of second wave forces.


And this plan wasn't working all that well. His elite troops and the few regulars on the beach were making no headway against the main French line, and I was even able to wipe out the rangers on the beach with cannon and musket fire.


About the only worrisome aspect of the situation was on the French left flank, where the British light infantry was able to slide past the French flank and threaten the rear VP hexes, although one of those light infantry was reduced to just 1 morale point. As per the plan I had the Indian band and a leader-led regular unit detailed to deal with that threat.


While this should have been sufficient force, it wasn't. The first sign of trouble appeared when I got a little too feisty with the Indians and let them stray within long-range of the lights, who promptly eliminated them with a single volley! Now it was up to St. Julien and his regulars to hold off the lights, a task they failed at miserably. Because the British lights could just sweep up the VP markers without stopping it seemed necessary to park the regulars on one of the markers to force the lights into range if they wanted to claim the points. They accepted the challenge and moved up on both sides of the regulars to set up a flanking attack.


Here I blundered. There was still a lot going on elsewhere and I was loathe to spend my limited stock of command points on just this one threat, so I spent the one AP to fire at the weaker light infantry (in order to break up the flanking bonus) and promptly missed. In retrospect I think I should have spent the 3AP needed to make a leader-led close combat against that weak light infantry because it was critical that it be taken out.


On the following turn the two British lights fired with flanking bonus and wiped out the French regulars, although St. Julien escaped. The way was clear for them to sweep up the four VP markers and they did, suddenly putting the British way ahead in VPs with several turns left to get the last one they needed. The British had 4 VPs for objective markers, 1 for the Indian and 1 for the French regular, so the two British light infantry were responsible for all of the British success! The French tried falling back but the British were able to pick off the last VP they needed for a 7-1 win.


On the flip side, I tried executing my British plan, spending the majority of my action points to bring on the first two waves of British. The created a scenario that really did resemble Omaha Beach, and not in a good way. Mark insisted the dice were about average and they probably were, but it sure seemed like the French fire was exceptionally effective and British casualties mounted. Even though I tried rotating damaged units out of the line to rally them it did no good as the casualties came too fast to keep up.


I was able to spring the rangers into the French rear by covering their advance with regular troops. The Indians weren't able to stop the rangers from picking up all four VP markers, but as it turned out that was a Pyrrhic victory. On the beach the French were closing in on their 7 VP and bringing in parts of the third wave just seemed to add more targets.


The final score was 7-4 for the French.


Mark's approach was probably better, I think the first British wave needs to be active enough that it creates space for the second wave to come ashore. I ended up just giving the French more folks to shoot at.


Interestingly, in neither game was it possible to stop the British from infiltrating someone through to pick up the 4 VPs in the rear. Mark was better able to absorb this loss because he didn't pull any regulars away from the main fight on the beach. My French lost no units on the beach, but also were not able to inflict any permanent losses on the British. Mark's French concentrated on pummeling the beach landing and let the Indians try to protect the rear area unsupported. This proved to be the better solution.


Despite the fact my French lost, I do think my approach could also have worked, but for some mistakes on my part, so I would consider the French side slightly favored in this scenario.

Comparison of advanced optional rules between Clash for a Continent and Hold the Line

A comparison between the advanced and optional rules in Worthington Games' Hold the Line and Clash for Continent games.

Hold The Line advanced/optional rules 11.1-11.3 are the same in Clash for a Continent. They deal with attacker morale checks, rally and elite units, respectively.

Clash 11.4 refers to Indians and gives them a -2 vs forts and towns. Not mentioned in HTL.

HTL 11.4 & 11.5 are the same as Clash 11.5 & 11.6, dealing with increased artillery range on hills and reduced effect firing into forest, respectively.

Clash option 11.7 giving an attacker a +1 firing on units in waterways is a standard rule in HTL

Clash 11.8 and HTL 11.6 both deal with leaders. Clash simply has leaders add one extra die when attacking. HTL rule makes a few leaders better by adding more dice, taking more hits to eliminate or both. In HTL terms all Clash leaders are 1/1.

Clash 11.9 (flank/rear attacks) is the same as HTL 11.14.

Clash 11.10 (attacker advance) is the same as HTL 11.7

Clash 11.11 (force march) is the same as HTL 11.8 & 11.9 together.

Clash 11.12 (easier hill movement) is the same as HTL 11.10

Clash 11.13 (dragoon retreat before combat) is the same as HTL 11.13.

Clash 11.14 and 11.15 are the same as HTL 11.12 and 11.13 and have to do with changing the Command Action Points for play balance.

Finally, HTL includes two optional rules not mentioned in Clash.

The first is HTL 11.15 which only applies to Long Island and Brandywine scenarios. reducing the range of units.

The second is an optional rule in the French & Indian expansion that makes Indians and Rangers deadlier in close assaults in the woods (4 dice).

Other differences in the rules:

In Clash for a Continent victory is only checked at the end of a turn, in HTL it's checked at the end of each player turn.

In HTL leaders are a little less vulnerable to FIRE COMBAT. No matter how many 1's are rolled, only 1 confirmation die is rolled to see if the leader is actually hit. In Clash one confirmation die roll is made for EVERY 1 rolled in the fire attack. In both games a confirmation roll is made for every original 1 during Close Combat.

In HTL nothing is said about what happens when a leader is caught alone in a hex by an enemy unit. In Clash a leader caught alone is eliminated. I think this is just an oversight in HTL and players should use the same rule as in Clash for a Continent.

Cowboys: The Way of the Gun brief comparison to AH Gunslinger

Cowboys: the Way of the Gun inaugurated Worthington Games' new euro-style production standards last year. It has a nice, sturdy box, thick cardboard counters and boards and a slick rulebook.

The game itself is a very euro-ized conflict game that's somewhat reminiscent of the old Avalon Hill Gunslinger game on the same topic.

Like Gunslinger the game features full color double sides mapboards depicting typical western town and countryside terrain. Both game used cards, although in different ways and both games are focused on the actions of individual characters in a historical Old American West setting flavored with some strong Hollywood elements. Both games even include some of the same historical incidents as scenarios.

Gunslinger, however, was a game published by a wargame company during the height of the most grognard phase of the hobby. The game documents every possible physical action in painstaking detail, tracking events in .4 second increments. The game characters have extensive special abilities and differentiation and, in many ways, Gunslinger is a pseudo-RPG. Because of its detail Gunslinger is a really absorbing game that has many devoted fans to this day, although it's been out of print for decades. But it takes a long time to play. A street gunfight that will be over in half a minute in game time will take a whole evening to play.

Cowboys, in its basic game, strips away all that detail and operates at a very crude level with minimal details. Whereas in Gunslinger a player character could be prone behind a water trough and literally just stick his head out to see, in Cowboys the characters are basically just standing there. In Gunslinger dozens of different firearms are depicted in loving detail with different ammunition types, different impact effects, different reliability and many other distinctions. In Cowboys there are just three kinds of firearms: pistols, rifles and shotguns.

On the other hand, a game of Cowboys will pass by in less than an hour, capturing the quickness of a skirmish better.

While cards were central to Gunslinger, providing both movement control and random events, Cowboys uses dice to resolve firring and the cards basically provide some special abilities.

Gunslinger is strictly focused on the individual gunfighter, and is really best played with each player controlling a single character or maybe two. Cowboys is actually more of a tactical step higher, being primarily concerned with the actions of a whole party. In military terms the Gunslinger player represents the soldier while the Cowboys player represents the fire team or squad leader.

For what it does, Cowboys is successful, providing a very quick-playing man-to-man western gunfight game, but many players will be tempted to add more detail. There are some optional rules in the book and a set of advanced rules that add more detail and options to the game.

I don't think any Gunslinger fans will think that Cowboys replaces the older game, but it provides a good supplement and one that's probably easier to bring to the table in this day and age.

Forged in Fire -- quick review

The first block wargame was Quebec 1759 way back in 1972, so the type isn't much younger than the hex-and-counter style of wargame. But for a long time block wargames were pretty much the exclusive domain of its originator, eventually known as Columbia Games. In fact. it's really only since the rise of the Eurogames in 1995 that other game makers seemed to take a fresh look at the potential of block wargames and in the last decade or so Columbia has finally gotten some company.

Most of the other publishers who have experimented with the block games have tried to put their own stamp on the genre, so their games, while bearing some resemblance to Columbia's line have also developed some distinctive elements. Examples include GMT's Europe Engulfed and Simmons Games' Bonaparte at Marengo.

One company that has done both is Worthington Games, which has some wooden block designs that owe little to the typical Columbia game such as Clash of a Continent, but has also been willing to publish some titles that are classic Columbia. One of these is Forged in Fire, a strategic-level game that depicts the Peninsular Campaign of the American Civil War.

The game even resembles the usual Columbia physical presentation, with stickers on wooden blocks, heavy card-stock maps and a plain, but sturdy corrugated box with a sleeve.

The game play also strongly resembles the traditional Columbia approach for black powder era subjects, with point-to-point movement and a tactical battle board for resolving battles, which are fought over multiple rounds. The game system makes functional distinctions between infantry, cavalry and artillery. Instead of dividing the tactical battlefield into a left, center and right Forged in Fire's battle is divided into four sectors, a right center and left center with flanks on either side. Infantry units and leaders can use the flanking sectors in an attempt to game a favorable position against the center positions.

Like most block games, the number of units that can be moved in a turn is limited by the rules. In this case, activating a corps or independent unit costs a command point or two, depending on the kind of move. Each side is guaranteed three commands and can roll for a fourth, with success depending on the quality of the overall commander. Generally the CSA has the edge here, with Johnston better than McClellan and Lee better than both.

The game includes some atypical and special rules to reflect the particular situation. Supply plays an important role, especially for the federal army. Cavalry units have some special screening and scouting powers, but can't take part in ordinary battles. The CSS Virginia is represented and complicates Union amphibious movement until it's sunk or Norfolk is captured. The Union forces have a powerful tool with amphibious movement, which makes it impossible for the Rebels to make a permanent stand anyplace short of the fortified lines of Richmond.

The key to the game is the McClellan Confidence track, which represents Little Mac's own confidence and the confidence that Lincoln had in the American Napoleon. Success, represented by winning battles and closing on Richmond increases Mac' confidence and makes it easier for him to roll to increase the number of commands he has available. If successful enough he can be better than Lee. On the other hand, reverses tend to depress Mac's confidence, and, being Mac, it's easier to depress him than cheer him up.

Victory conditions depend on capturing Richmond and/or pushing Mac's confidence level up or down to specific levels.

Besides a grand campaign game, there are three shorter scenarios covering the initial Union advance, Johnston's attack at Fair Oaks and the start of Lee's Seven Days Battles campaign that finally drove the Union army away from Richmond.

Overall, if you like Columbia's block games you're going to like Forged in Fire. It's very similar in style and approach, but deals with a topic at a scale that Columbia hasn't tried yet, so it still breaks some new ground.

It's worth nothing that the last couple of games from Worthington have taken a more Euro style of presentation, so the company may be leaving its Columbia-inspired style behind.

For Honor and Glory -- a review

For Honor and Glory is the War of 1812 edition of Worthington Games' Wars for America series.

These games have more than a passing resemblance to Borg';s Commands & Colors system.

Some of the differences are really just in style. For example, In FHAG firing units roll the same number of dice no matter what the range is, but with a reduced chance of hitting per die, in C&C the chance of hitting remains the same, but longer range fire uses fewer dice. The end results are similar.

Other differences are more substantive. While both game systems limit the number of units a player can order. C&C does it using cards that are usually keyed to a portion of the battlefield, while FHAG uses a die roll that determines how many "Action Points" the player has to activate units, but those action points can be spent anywhere on the map.

In both games the physical presentation of the units serves to disguise their real nature, which is as entities which firing and move characteristics varying by type and possessing the ability to take 1-4 hits.

The game is fairly straightforward and of low complexity. During his turn a player uses action points to activate units to perform movement and combat activities. Most activities cost one AP, although there are a few special actions such as close combat that cost 2 AP. All combat is handled the same way. The attacking unit rolls dice (generally three) with hits occurring depending on the range and the type of firing unit. For example, an artillery unit firing at an adjacent unit hits on a 4,5 or 6. An infantry unit firing at a range of 2 hexes hits only on a 6. Terrain effects can reduce the hit numbers and some have movement effects.

Like the C&C games, FHAG is a scenario based system with battlefields constructed using terrain tiles added to the plain map. Victory is usually measured in VPs, with one VP earned per eliminated unit (similar to the "flags" of C&C-series games) or for holding terrain (also similar to many C&C games)

Physically the game is roughly similar in presentation to the Columbia Games standard, which is usually considered pretty good by wargame standards, although it's worth noting that Worthington Games has raised the bar significantly with its latest War of America series game (Hold the Line) which is made in Germany to euro standards.

For Honor and Glory includes four card-stock maps (two land and two ocean) that create a 9 by 13 (land) or 11 by 13 (sea) playing surface, although some battles modify this further. Terrain tiles are a thin card stock.

The rules and scenarios are contained in three booklets, all printed in two colors.

The playing pieces are wooden block with stickers affixed. Unlike Columbia-style block games, the wooden blocks are not used to create any fog-of-war, instead they basically create thick, sturdy counters. Pieces are used laying flat on the map and are turned around and/or flipped to represent step losses.

Units are mostly regular and elite infantry, with militia, light infantry, marines, Indian warbands, artillery and dragoons making an appearance.


There are 10 well-chosen scenarios depicting most of the war's major battles and providing a good mix of different game experiences.

The game also includes a naval system and 11 scenarios for that, but this portion of the system is definitely very simplistic. Ships are rated for firepower and ability to take hits. Boarding actions are fought between marine contingents, also with a hit-based combat system. Movement is ordered using order markers (specially marked regular infantry units doing double-duty) with wind direction having a minor effect. The naval scenarios comprise a mix of single-ship duels, some 2- and 3-1 gang ups and two squadron actions based on two of the big Lake battles (Erie and Champlain).

Overall I rate For Honor and Glory as a success as land warfare game, prov ding an entertaining game while being reasonably historically accurate . The naval game is too simplistic, however.