A Wargamer's review of Small World

Some special tokens: Dragon, Hero, Halfling Holes-in-the-Ground.

Small World is the wildly popular fantasy conquest game designed by Philippe Keyaerts and published by Days of Wonder.

There's quite a bit of divergence of opinion on whether Small World and similar conquest games such as Risk, History of the World, Britannia or Small World's predecessor Vinci ,are properly termed "wargames." They're certainly not "simulations" in any real sense of that term, but it's hard for me to see how any game whose theme involves conquering territory and exterminating the inhabitants isn't a wargame of some sort. In any case, these sort of games definitely come out of the wargame hobby and are often played by wargamers.

In Small World's case, the potentially grim theme is lightened up considerably by a number of aspects of the game. One is the fantasy setting itself, which, like a cartoon, removes some of the emotional impact that would otherwise accrue to the theme. Many of the "races" in the game are not human and some, like the skeletons and ghouls, are arguably not even alive. Also contributing to the light-hearted nature of the game are the various special powers, which include some that are rather non-violent (Diplomat, Merchant), amusing (Alchemist, Stout) or neutral (Hill, Flying) alongside the more brutal (Beserk, Pillaging). Finally, and probably most importantly, the brilliant illustration by Miguel Coimbra creates a light tone that permeates the entire game's presentation. It's one thing to have Commando Skeletons, Forest Elves, or Seafaring Amazons in a game, but Commando Skeletons wearing Cowboy hats, Forest Elves smelling flowers or Seafaring Amazons attired in little more than makeup and some strategically-placed leaves is another thing entirely.

Like all Days of Wonder products, the physical presentation of the game is first-rate and quite opulent compared to the typical wargame. There are two full-color, double-sided and lavish;y illustrated maps, all the various counters and chits are thick, colorful and durable. The rule sand play aids are printed on slick, high-quality paper and there are plenty to go around. All are packed snugly inside a box with an insert carefully designed to hold and organize all the components . Indeed, the tray holding the race tokens is a little too precisely engineered -- it can be hard to pull out the tokens you need.

Map detail from the 2-player map

Special notice is due of the maps. There are four provided, which one is used depends on the number of players -- 2, 3, 4 or 5. This makes the game very scalable within its range of players without changing the character of the game or using large swaths of unused map space on the table.

The game play is very straightforward. At the start of a player's turn, if he or she doesn't already have a race. they select a race and special power from among a column of race/special power combos. They can pick the top one in the column for free, or pay one gold coin each for every race they skip, placing the coin atop the skipped race. This allows players to exercise some strategy in the selection of the race while providing an incentive to eventually pick one of the less-favored combos because of the bonus in gold coins they accumulate.

Victory coins: Reverse; Obverse 10, 5, 3 and 1

This brings up an important point -- how to win. While the game seems to be about conquest, it's really about accumulating gold coins. Although called "Victory Coins," experienced wargamers will recognize these are just victory points in the form of money -- as there are no economic or trade aspects in the game. There are various ways to get Victory Coins, but the basic and fundamental method is by occupying territory at a base of 1 coin per space.

An Active Special Power/Race combo - Hill Amazons and token

The player collects the number of tokens granted by the special power/race combo and then conquers territories. For example, the Hill Amazons combo gives 6 tokens for the Amazons and 4 for the Hill special power, for a total of 10. The Amazons get four extra tokens for use when attacking, only, that can't be used to occupy territories . The Hill Special Power also gives a bonus of one Victory Coin for each Hill territory occupied. The basic combat mechanic is majority rules. So long as the attacking force outnumbers the defending tokens by 2, the attacker wins. Some combos enhance the attackers or reduce the winning margin but in every case the attacker needs at least one token to capture an area. The defenders count the number of defending tokens, which can include race tokens, mountain tokens or tokens for defensive positions such as forts, bivouacs or troll lairs. Often the active race will end up without enough tokens to win automatically and for their last conquest the attackers can roll a special die which adds 0, 1, 2 or 3 to the attackers notional strength. Three faces on the die are blank, and one each bear 1, 2 or 3 pips, so success is far from guaranteed.

After conquests the player score victory coins for the regions occupied and any special conditions they have met.

A Declined Race - Skeletons and token, Note that most special powers are lost when a race declines.

Instead of conquering territory a player can decline their race, which is one of the key mechanics of the game. On the turn they decline their race the player can do no actions and just collects victory points for the areas they already occupy. In every occupied area they flip one race token over to its "decline: side and remove any extras. The area will defend with just the one token from that point. But as long as the player's declined races are on the map, the player continues to score victory coins for the areas they occupied. Deciding when to decline a race is one of the major strategic decisions of the game. And this is another wargame-like aspect of the game, because there is a lot of strategy involved in the game. Which territories to conquer, who to take them from and when to decline your races are all vitally important.

Typically a player will go through at least two and probably three races over the course of a game. Timing them properly will often mean the difference between being competitive or not.

The game scales well from 2-5 players, but like many multiplayer games it really shines when you have at least four involved. There's enough strategy involved to keep players engrossed in the action, but not so much that players are deterred from table chatter. Turns move right along and the game box promise of finishing in 40-80 minutes will be kept.

Can it be recommended for wargamers? I think so, so long as your sole reason fo playing isn't recreating history or analyzing military events. Small World is, by no stretch of the imagination, a simulation. But is it a lot of fun. There's every indication it will be played for a long time to come. The ever-changing combos, the different maps and the inherent dynamics of multiplayer interactions will mean that there's a lot of replay value.

The game also can serve as a true gateway game with your non-wargaming friends and family. The box rates the game at 8 and over and so it's a good dad's game for cuiltivating budding gamers.

Cemetery Hill -- Review and strategy

Cemetery Hill, the Blue & Gray quad game treatment of the Battle of Gettysburg, originally published in 1975 by SPI and republished 20 years later by Decision Games in a revised edition in 1995, had long had a reputation as one of the least successful of the series.

Units from both editions, Decision Games (1995) on top, SPI (1975) below,
Union left, Rebel right.
The Union forces are an infantry division, and cavalry and artillery brigades. The Rebel units are the two counters comprising Heth's division and F. Lee's brigade on its "ineffective" side.

Unlike all the other Blue & Gray games, which are at the brigade level, Cemetery Hill is at the division level. This was due to the particular production restrictions of the Quad game format, which allowed for no more than 100 counters. Gettysburg was simply too big a battle to fit using brigades, so the scale was bumped up to division level -- at least for the Union side. The problem with division-level Gettysburg games is that the Confederates didn't have many divisions on the field -- just 9 total -- which really doesn't give them enough maneuver units. The Rebel divisions were generally very large anyway, with 4 or five brigades except for Pickett, who had just 3 present. In contrast all the federal divisions had just 2 or 3 brigades. So in Cemetery Hill the Rebel divisions all get two counters.

Still, doubling or tripling the scale of the game units changes the character of the game considerably compared to the other quad, especially because the stacking limit was not adjusted accordingly, so some very high-factor stacks are possible. In addition there is a lot of terrain that doubles and even triples combat factors, so some hexes can have some pretty impressive totals.

Gettysburg is a very difficult battle to simulate, especially for a simple wargame, although that hasn't stopped many from trying, ever since first history-based wargame, Avalon Hill's Gettysburg. The basic problem with simulating Gettysburg is that the battle was characterized by periods of very intense fighting separated by long periods of inactivity. There were many reasons for this, but they mostly revolved around command and control issues that simple games usually pass over, so most simpler Gettysburg games see a lot more continuous action than the historical battle. Cemetery Hill is no exception.

While limited as a simulation, Cemetery Hill is not a bad game, providing some interesting choices for the game player -- although it is a bit harder for the Rebels.

The game begins at a later point than most Gettysburg games, in the afternoon just before Ewell's attack on the U.S. Eleventh Corps that sent the federal line reeling back to Cemetery Hill. The key for CSA success is to recognize that your side is winning the race to the battlefield -- but will eventually be outnumbered. Relentless aggression is your only hope to prevail. With some luck and skillful play the Confederates can rock the Union army back on its heels and never give it a chance to recover.

Conversely, the Union player is trying to buy time and avoid losing too many units in the early going. Patience will pay off for the federal side. There will be plenty of time to inflict losses on the Confederate side once the whole Union hosts gathers. The victory point awards favor the Union, with each eliminated US factor worth 2 VPs to the CSA and each eliminated Confederate worth 3 to the Union side, so the Union can "Exchange" its way to victory.Map detail from the The SPI edition showing Gettysburg and Seminary Ridge

There are some differences between the original SPI edition and the Decision Games version. As was depressingly common with its re-issued SPI games, Decision Games introduced some errors in the reprint as well as making some changes.

From a rules standpoint, the biggest difference between the two games is the Attacker Effectiveness rule, which is optional in the original SPI version and a standard rule in the Decision Games version. Oddly, the Attacker Effectiveness rule was first introduced in Cemetery Hill, but many players believe it shouldn't be used in Cemetery Hill because it works against the Confederates too much.

My experience is that the Confederates can succeed using the AE rule at about the same rate as they do without it, so I think the pro-Union bias has more to do with the victory conditions and the general game situation. Indeed, I think the Confederate side is the more challenging side to play in all Gettysburg games. While the attacker effectiveness rule does hinder the attacker in some ways, it can also be exploited. Unlike all the other Blue & Gray games there is a high proportion of night turns (when ineffective attackers recover) to day turns. The game begins with 1 and half turns of activity, then a night turn; then four turns of daylight followed by night, then four more turns of daylight and one of night, ending with two turns of daylight. So ineffective units will have up to three opportunities to come back. In all other Blue & Gray games there's at most one chance to come back, and there are many more daylight runs on both sides of the night turn if it exists.

One critical errata to incorporate to make this true, however, is to treat Turn 3 as a Night turn in the Decision Games edition. It's a night turn in the SPI edition and there's no reason to think that it's any different in the DG edition.

There are also some map changes between the SPI version and the Decision Games version. The DG edition adds a new terrain type, "broken," to signify the terrain that triples defenders. The SPI edition rather clumsily simply printed right on the map the words "Defender TRIPLED in this hex" on the affected hexes (Cemetery Hill, Culp's Hill, Wolf Hill, Little Round Top and Round Top). This doesn't change play, but is more aesthetic. The DG edition also prints the setup locations of the starting units on the map, which is an aid to set-up.

The DG edition also opens up the map a little on Seminary Ridge and Powers Hill by changing some hexes from Forest-Rough to simply Rough. This reduces the movement cost of the hexes from 6 movement points to 3. The affected hexes are 0908, 0409, 0410, 0901, 0902 and 1516.

The DG also has some other mistakes on the map, one minor and two major. The minor error is that the Roman numerals on two XI Corps units are transposed. The first major error is that the Union 1st Division, III Corps unit is left off the map. As this is a 19-factor unit, the Union will definitely miss it, so be sure to place it in hex 0423. The other major error is that hex 2112 is not indicated as a Union reinforcement hex, which it is.

Detail of the Decision Games map showing the Gettysburg vicinity

Hexwar.com uses the DG map for its presentation of the game, although it offers the option to play without the Attacker Effectiveness rule as a "Classic" edition of Blue & Gray. This is not an exact replica of the SPI version, though, because it uses the revised DG map.

The other differences between the two editions are cosmetic. The DG map uses superior graphics and the DG edition uses troop icons instead of the anachronistic NATO-style units symbols used in the SPI edition.

The DG edition includes three optional rules -- Strategic Movement, Cavalry Movement and Cavalry Retreat -- that should not be used in Cemetery Hill as they will throw off the game balance significantly. All favor the Union player.

I have a slight preference for the DG edition, as I like the Attacker Effectiveness rule, but I play the game both ways on Hexwar.com and own both the DG version and the SPI version as afolio game.

Reviewing collectible games from a wargaming perspective: Echelons of Fire

I've reviewed Echelons of Fire in greater detail elsewhere, http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/315273, but to recap, Echelons of Fire was one of the first wave of collectible card games to appear once Magic : The Gathering made its big splash. It's theme is modern era tactical level combat. Most of the cards are either United States Army or from the Soviet-style N.D.G. (I call them the No Darn Goods). The second edition added some British and Serbian units. The only dragons in this game are a U.S. anti-tank missile.

Echelons was a closer imitator of Magic than most. If it wasn't a clone, it was at the very least a half-sibling, sharing the same sequence of play and many of the same concepts, even including ante. Like Magic the game is won by reducing the enemy player (headquarters) from its initial 20 points down to zero points.

Echelons does have some differences from Magic that extend beyond mere names. Unlike Magic, for example, there is a limited form of maneuver in Echelons of Fire, as attacking units must use a maneuver card (left, center or right) to pass through a terrain card (woods, town, hills, open, city, bridge, river) on their way to the target headquarters.

Also somewhat different from Magic is the role of the supporting supply (mana) cards. In Echelons you not only have to pay the unit's cost in ammunition and fuel points to deploy it initially, you must keep paying it very turn. This is similar to the concept of "upkeep" in Magic, but it's a standard feature, not a special ability.

More so than Magic ,the fighting in Echelons revolves around the units (creatures in MTG terms) as there are relatively few ways to directly attack an enemy headquarters.

For a wargamer the theme in Echelons of Fire is obviously much more attractive than MTG. As Echelons is a "dead" game, there is no convention or tournament scene so casual play is the only available venue. Because the game is no longer in print there is a finite size to the collection and cards are inexpensive to obtain on eBay and still generally available.

There are some rules holes and "degeneracy" problems in the game that may have to be house ruled if you play a lot, but they probably won't come up among casual players with limited collections very often.

The quality of the cards is a notch below Magic and the breakdown between common, uncommon and rare cards is poorly done. Players will have vast numbers of common fire teams and infantry weapons in excess of any need. If you build up any sized collection at all you will even have plenty of the rare cards, which are much less overpowered than similar cards are in Magic.

My overall recommendation is that Echelons of Fire may be of mild interest to a wargamer. It allows you to explore some of the deck construction metagame of Magic without the expense and the frustration of facing players who have much more resources. Indeed, as you're not likely to find an opponent with his own cards, you'll probably be drafting both decks from your own collection.

It is still, fundamentally, a card game in mechanics and card-game skills will play a bigger role than the usual principles-of-war based maneuvering typical in board wargames. That said, it does adhere to the theme strongly, and wargamers will probably find it a more comfortable theme than Magic: The Gathering.

Reviewing collectible games from a wargaming perspective: Magic: The Gathering

Magic: The Gathering is one of the seminal games of the gaming hobby, right up there with Tactics, Diplomacy, Panzerblitz, Dungeons & Dragons and Settlers of Catan. It created an entirely new category of gaming, collectible games, when it came out in 1993, as as such, it's worth at least having a passing acquaintance with for any gamer.

And it has been very successful, being one of the few game designs to make it's designer a fortune. Although it's now more than 15 years old and and spawned several imitators and inspiring many other collectible games, it's never really been surpassed.

I think this is a testament to a very sound basic game structure that has proven to be very robust.

For those who don't know, the basic sequence of play is straightforward.

After starting with an administrative "upkeep" phase, a player draws a card and then plays cards during the "main phase." There are literally thousands of different cards, but two of the most common are "lands" and "creatures." A player can place one land into play per turn and then "tap" (use) that land and any previously played lands to generate points of "mana," which is the currency of the game. Mana comes in five colors and playing non-land "spell" cards costs varying amounts of mana in color specified on the card. One of the most common kinds of spells is one that summons various creatures. If a creature summoning spell makes it into play (there are cards that can head it off) then it becomes a creature with an attack and defense value. During the main phase a player can dispatch any creatures that have not just appeared to attack the opposing player. The defender can send his previously played creatures to block the attackers. Each fight is resolved by comparing the each attacking value to each defending value. No dice are involved. Unblocked creatures attack the opposing player costing him or her one point of "life" for every attacking point. Players start with 20 life points and are defeated when reduced to zero. After combat concludes, the main phase resumes, allowing the phasing player to play more spells, if desired.

All of these activities can be affected, modified, cancelled, enhanced, disrupted, etc., etc. and etc. by various cards and the timely playing of the cards is a big part of the game. Perhaps an even bigger part of the game is the pre-game deck-building activity, as a player selects from his available cards to create the most effective fighting force.

Because the game explicitly features combat between dueling foes, it bears a resemblance to wargames and might be expected to appeal to wargamers, or at least those open to non-historical themes.

There are, however, significant obstacles for wargamers who might think about dipping into the pool of Magic: The Gathering players.

Magic: The Gathering is more than just a game. It's a deeply absorbing hobby in itself. Indeed, in order to be a serious Magic player there's really little time, money or energy left for anything else. A wargamer who made a serious effort to get into Magic: The Gathering would, by definition, cease being a wargamer and would become a Magic player.

It's similar to the problem casual chess players face whenever they ponder getting "into" the serious chess world. The fact of the matter is that becoming a mediocre rated player, let alone a master-level chess player, takes dedicated effort and e=intense study. Magic is the same, but with an added dimension of cost. One simple illustration is looking at the top-rated tournament decks listed on the wizards.com Web site. Looking at several dozen of them one sees that there's hardly a basic land card in the bunch. Nearly all of them feature 20 or so specialty land cards which are more efficient in play, but also are in limited supply as rare cards. Acquiring the cards alone means buying many boosters or purchasing the cards as singles at a premium from dealers.

Fortunately there is an option for those who might want to try the game out without going crazy. Wizards of the Coast generally offers pre-constructed decks. For example, currently there is a duel set that pits two set pre-constructed decks against each other in one $20 package. This provides a way to have a fair game between two players and is roughly comparable in price and value to standalone non-collectible card games. While not usable for tournament play,. these decks can serve as a useful primer. Similarly, a more casual player can take part in the tournament scene by playing in "sealed draft" tournaments, where all the players have access to the same boosters and they draft cards to build their decks. Experienced players still have a significant edge in this format, of course, because of their better understanding of the game, but it's less pronounced than in constructed deck play.

One major advantage of Magic: The Gathering is that it is very popular and well-supported, so finding opponents is easy. There's hardly a burg big enough to have a post office that doesn't have a store offering Magic: The Gathering organized play within an easy drive.

Still, while I can see value in a wargamer picking up a couple of decks to try the game out, I can't recommend going much further than that. Playing Magic: The Gathering to a satisfying level of success will require such a big commitment that a player will probably have little time for anything else.

While featuring play that resembles combat, any prior wargame experience won't be all that useful because Magic is, at root, a card game, not a combat game. Knowing the Principles of War and being skilled at maneuvers or planning will be of little use. The hand-management skills of a good Poker player are much more relevant.

My overall recommendation is to dabble in Magic: The Gathering if you can restrain yourself from getting sucked into the maelstrom of organized play. It is a good game, basically, and worth having a couple of decks on hand for casual play when the mood strikes. If you're a competitive player , however, be forewarned that success requires going whole hog. You may have fun, but you'll be an ex-wargamer.

Game of the Week: Senet

It's impossible to know when the first boardgame came to be, but the most ancient one we have evidence for is the game known now as Senet. According to R.C. Bell in the Boardgame Book, the earliest record of Senet is from a wall painting dated about 2613 BC. Ancient writers rarely seemed to bother with the mundane aspects of life, so it's hardly surprising that we don't have any written references that might describe how to play. What has survived are some paintings (always in profile, by Egyptian artistic conventions) and about 40 or so copies of the game in various tombs (in various degrees of completeness).
This means we can't be sure about how to play, but some educated guesses can and have been made and you can buy commercially made copies of the game. I have a 1998 version by Fundex Games and a nearly identical 1976 edition by Northwest Corner Inc.

Suggested rules also appear in the Boardgame Book and in The Word of Games among other places.

Everyone seems to agree that play moved back and forth down the 30 spaces rather like a game of Snakes & Ladders. Most believe play started in the upper left corner and moved to the lower right. All also seem to agree that it's in the backgammon family of games, and indeed, it may be the original founding game of the type. Each player had an equal number of identical pieces (either 5 or 7) and the "dice" were four throwing sticks that were flat on one side and rounded on the other.
The board comprised 30 spaces in three rows of 10 each. 24 of the spaces were plain or decorated with art that had no game effect. If we start the numbering system at the upper left, the first special space is No. 15. This seems to be a "starting" space of some kind, according to most authorities, although probably not the game start. Instead it seems to be a restarting space for pieces that are sent back from the "water trap" in space 27, which I'll discuss later on.

The next space of note is No. 26, which apparently usually had a symbol implying it was a "good" space. Space No. 27 is the "water trap" which is a "bad" space. Most authorities believe that pieces that landed there were sent back to Space 15. Finally, spaces 28, 29 and 30 are marked III, II and I, respectively. Most believe these were "bearing off" spaces.
Apparently these markings were remarkably stable for the several thousand years that the game was played.
Here's the general board layout, taken from a leaflet by Damian Walker:

We can't know what the "right" rules were, of course. And it's likely that over the course of several thousand years the rules changed a bit over time and from place to place. The rules were transmitted orally, so local variations and customs no doubt occurred. One only has to consider how many different ways there are to play checkers (draughts) and dominoes to see that the same set of game equipment can result in a lot of variation, even if the basic idea stays the same.

All that said, I think experienced game players can make some reasonable judgments about what's likely to have been the rules. I'm not sure that many of the Egyptologists have also been game players and some of their suggested rules don't seem to make sense to me.

For example, R.C. Bell's suggested rules have the players starting off the board and trying to marshal all their pieces into position on the board. I think this is highly doubtful. Other games in the class such as Backgammon, Ludos Duodecim Scriptorum and Snakes & Ladders bear off, not on. I think this is a fundamental aspect of play and probably has always been so. It's also much simpler in execution than the alternative. Finally, the pictorial evidence seems to show that pieces started on the board, as this illustration from the World Of Games suggests:

Some sources, such as the Fundex rules, suggest that the marked spaces are simply "safe" spaces" without any further game effect. Authorities seem pretty sure that pieces that landed on an opposing piece sent the target back to where the aggressor came from. There also seems broad agreement that a pair of adjacent friendly pieces protected each other from being bumped and a row of three friendly pieces created a block that could not be passed by the opponent.

But it seems to me that game board markings, especially those that remain stable over many centuries, certainly must have some effect on play. The III, II and I markings (and their variants, which always show three, then two and finally one thing) most likely mean that the pieces needed that exact throw to bear off. I think they were also "safe" spaces, but not just safe spaces)
The water trap's effect of sending pieces back to space 15 works well, adding a bit of fate and drama to the game , especially near the end. I'm not sure about the "good" space at No. 26. Walker's rules that it's a mandatory "stop" space that all pieces have to pause in before going further. This doesn't seem much like a "good" effect to me and just slows down a game that's not exactly torrid in its pace anyway. The Fundex rules merely treat it as another "safe" space, which doesn't seem like all that much, but it's still at least somewhat positive.

Everyone agrees that a toss of the sticks that shows 1 flat face up allows one piece to move one space and another throw. Throws that show 2 or 3 flats allow one piece to move that number of spaces and pass the sticks to the opponent. Four flats up allows a move of four spaces and another throw.

There's some difference of opinion about no flats (or four round sides up). Walker and Bell suggest it's a "five" while the Fundex rules and the Jequier rules in World of Games say it's a "six." Either way it also allows another throw. I think "six" is preferable because it adds a little more speed to the game. In cases when there is no legal forward move, then the value from the casting sticks has to be used for a retrograde move instead.

The starting setup is thus with 14 pieces (from Walker):

If using only10 pieces, such as in the Fundex set, just set up the pieces in the first row.

Game play is more interesting than it might first appear from a game with such simple rules. There's considerable scope for tactical play as the two armies claw past each other trying to exit. Forming and maintaining blocks is a big part of the game, although the water trap and the difficulty of bearing off quickly mean that it's hard for one side to run off with the game. The Fundex 1998 rules do have an option for scoring extra points in a series of games if the opponent still has pieces in the first or second rows at game end (similar to gammoning in backgammon).
The element of fate in the game appealed to Egyptian cultural sensitivities and the game eventually became associated with religious themes, although it always was played as a secular past time as well.
Modern players may find the game a little too slowly paced and repetitive and some people may not like the casting sticks. They are a little louder and more harsh in the hands than what we moderns are used to. The Fundex edition includes a modern 6-sided die for players who don't mind the anachronism.
The game can be played online in a demo version suitable for teaching at http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/life/activity/act_main.html

Sources:
R.C. Bell, The Boardgame Book1979 Knapp Press
Fundex Senet Rules, 1998
Northwest Corner Senet Rules 1976
Peter A. Piccione, In Search of the Meaning of Senet, University of Waterloo, 1980
http://www.gamesmuseum.uwaterloo.ca/Archives/Piccione/index.html
Damian Walker, Senet, Traditional Board Games Series Leaflet #4
Jack Botermans et al, The World of Games, Facts On File, 1989