Took the new Crusader Rex out for a spin

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

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

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

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

Sticker Shock

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

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

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

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

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.

Changes in the new version of War of 1812

The War of 1812 is a venerable senior citizen in the wargame world, having been more or less continuously in print since 1973. Unlike it's slightly older sister game, Quebec 1759, the War of 1812 has seen some significant rules changes over the years, although nothing so drastic as to change the character of the game.

That character is a game that's an excellent introductory level wargame with quite a bit of scope for bluff and strategy, although kept tense by a fairly high luck factor. Unlike most Columbia block games, which mitigate the luck factor through a high volume of rolls that tend to make things even out, War of 1812 is subject to wild swings of fortune. It's not uncommon for a critical battle that may determine the status of a large swath of territory to be battled out between a single pair of blocks. When you're just rolling a few dice there's less chances for luck to even out. While the odds still favor a strength 4 block against a strength 2 block, all it takes is one "snake eyes" to suddenly change it into a free-for-all.

The biggest change in the newest (2008) edition of the game is in the naval rules, which scrap the unique system that's been used in the game virtually unchanged for three-and-a-half decades in favor of a new system that's consistent with the combat system used in all the other Columbia games. Now fleets are built a step at a time and each step fires at "F1" (which means it hits on a roll of a 1) in a simultaneous exchange of broadsides. Gone are the two-step building process, distinction between "operational" and "nonoperational" ships and deciding the battle with one grand roll of the dice.

A smaller, although still significant change in the naval rules, provides fleets an option to escape capture if an enemy army attacks its port. Under the old rule the fleet's fate depended entirely on the outcome of the battle, but now the ships can attempt to sortie while the ground forces cover them. Of course, a proper tactic is to make sure a powerful fleet is already on the lake waiting for the escapees, but they at least have a hope of doing some damage.

Changes in the land game are more incremental. The dragoons introduced in the last major revision have now been expanded in number and now fight at F2 all the time, making them more powerful. Their strength of 2 keeps them from being too dominant.

A new branch is introduced, with each side having a couple of artillery units in their draw pool. These also fight at F2 and have a CV of up to 3, so they provide a bit of punch these small armies. Rolling hits on a 1 or a 2 is a big edge when there are so few dice being rolled.

Each of the army blocks has an individual name, now, which is also a change and should make PBeM easier. The game also distinguishes between militia and regular troops. This has no game effect for the Anglo-Canadians but a significant impact on American operations, in a Good New/Bad News way.

The Good News is that now the American player knows ahead of time which of his pieces are militiamen who may balk at crossing the border into Canada. The Bad News is that now there's a 50% chance the militia will hew closely to their military obligation to serve only in the US. Under the old rules there was a 1/6 chance for any US unit to refuse to cross.

It doesn't appear that these changes will change game strategy much and they have the virtue of being a bit more realistic at a very low cost in complexity. Indeed, I think the new naval rules are simpler than the old ones, so the net change may very will be nil.

Rommel in the Desert: Making a difference

Every so often a game comes along that is not only a worthwhile past time but has an impact on the wider Hobby. Rommel in the Desert is one of those games because it helped a whole gaming subgenre (in this case block wargames) break out of the box public opinion had placed it.
Rommel in the Desert wasn't the first block game, or course. Quebec 1759 holds that honor. But Rommel in the Desert was the first block wargame to venture out of the black power era and move into the era of mechanized warfare. As any observer of wargames can see, to really hit the big time and Be Serious, a wargame has to have Panzers.
World War II is the single most popular era for wargames and nothing is more popular in World War II wargaming than tanks, particularly German ones.
Rommel in the Desert showed that a block wargame could handle mechanized warfare, combined armes battles, supply and logistics. Rommel in the Desert prepared the way for EastFront, Europe Engulfed and FAB: The Bulge, not to mention every other block game that explored different eras and scales of fighting such as Wizard Kings, Hammer of the Scots, Pacific Victory and Victory.
The game itself still holds up very well, despite the passage of nearly 25 years since the first edition. It was brought back most recently in a 2004 version. It's an intense game and very, very unforgiving of mistakes, making it a little hard for beginners to pick up, but between experienced players it's an excellent contest that also manages good fidelity to the history. That's all one can ask for in a good historical wargame.

Counters, blocks or figures

One of the bigger trends in the last few years has been the explosion of board wargames using miniatures, often pre-painted, instead of the traditional cardboard counters. A subplot has been a noticeable increase in the number of games using wooden blocks.
For a long time wargames have been defined in the popular mind with the hex-and-counter presentations pioneered by Avalon Hill and SPI in the 60s, 70s and 80s. A lot of wargame design theory revolved around the best way to use counters, how much information to include and how to show it.
The biggest advantage of counters is their ability to hold a lot of game information in a readily accessible format for play. Depending on how you count it, for example, an ASL Vehicle counter contains as much as two dozen bits of information. This allows for fairly complex game interactions. The drawback is, however, that the information is not presented in a form that is all that visually satisfying or enjoyable in a tactile sense. As I get older I also notice that it's a bit harder on the eyes, due to the very small print needed.
Block games could theoretically hold the same amount of information, although all the extent ones I'm aware of stay away from ASL's excesses and tend to be happy with showing half a dozen to a dozen bits of information. They look better and have a nice, satisfying feel to them. Wooden blocks have enjoyed a growth in popularity recently, although they are still the signature design point in Columbia's line of games. Several recent games have passed on the "fog-of-war" potential of block designs (Worthington Games, GMT's Ancients) , basically making the wooden blocks more solid versions of the old counters.
Miniatures are much more visually appealing, especially when painted, but they're inherently limited in their potential information content, which implies less detailed rules interactions or the use of separate data cards. Despite these drawbacks, this is the area of wargaming that's seen the most growth recently. Helping fuel that growth is the availability of inexpensive labor and manufacturing overseas, especially in China. Comparing the pricing of new games it doesn't seem that cardboard counters currently have a big cost advantage over miniatures or wooden blocks, but there's a clear preference for block and miniature games among players.
One thing that's less clear is whether this represents a temporary state of affairs that could easily change with another shift in economic factors or if this signals a more durable shift in player tastes.