Charge! Polish cavalry tackles tanks in AAM

When I was in elementary school back in the 1960s I had several of the How and Why Wonder books. One in particular that I still remember vividly was the one on World War II. It had, as I recall, a dramatic illustration of Polish cavalry being attacked by German aircraft.

So when a new player of AAM suggested he’s like to try a few DYO scenarios I thought I’d make it interesting by picking one of the minor Allied powers to face his Germans. I happened to have a bunch of Polish cavalry that had never seen the table, so I designed a build that used them – and almost every other 1939 Pole I owned. Actually a few more, as I bought a few more to fill it out from 12-7 games.

Although not intentional, our mutual OBs ended up being reasonably historical, representing a good facsimile of an encounter between the German 3^rd Light Division and a Polish Cavalry brigade. About the only departure was the inclusion of a stray Polish 7TP tank.  The German build was 151 points and the Poles were 174, given the 15% bonus for being an all-Polish build.

So, the Polish force comprised the following elements:

10 x Polish Cavalry

9 x Polish Mauser

5 x TKS Tankette

4 x 37mm ATG

4 Minefields

3 x Polish officer

1 ea 7TP tank, Ammo Dump, HQ, and Pillbox

This approximated a Polish cavalry squadron, an infantry company, an anti-tank battery, a tankette platoon and supports

The German opponents were:

Two infantry platoons, each with 1 SS Leader, 3 Mausers, 1 MG34 and a Lt Mtr.

Two tank platoons, each with a Pz IVA and two Pz 38(t)

Air support with a Disciplined Spotter, one Stuka and one Bf 109E

The Poles had to set up first. We used Map Configuration 1 “Villages” Alternate Map layout from Page 7 of the Expanded Rules. The Poles selected the “Left” edge (the side with the numbers) which placed them closer to the objective and gave them some woods, hills and hedgerows for cover.

The cavalry set up in the left woods, ready to advance through the woods and hills in that sector. The HQ and pillbox were to their rear.

On the ridge and central woods were the Polish armor and two infantry platoons.

In the hedgerow field on the right was the ammo dump, the ATG battery and the remaining infantry platoon.

The minefields were set up to block the gaps between the woods on the German side of the map.

The Germans set up with one infantry platoon on the far right in some woods and the other in the central woods behind the small pond. Each platoon had a Pz. IV in support.

The Pz 38(t) all set up on the German left flank, with the Disciplined Spotter.

The Germans won the initiative, which they generally did through the battle. The Poles advanced all along the front, occupying the central village and taking firing positions. The German armor advanced, while the infantry held back for now.

During the first Air Phase the German fighter targeted a cavalry squad while the Stuka took aim at an ATG. Here the Poles caught a vital break, as excellent shooting by two Mausers attached to the ATG actually shot down the Stuka! The Stuka’s destruction of the ATG didn’t make up for this.  In fact, the Poles continued to have good luck with their rifle fire, twice managing to disrupt the fight later in the battle. As a consequence, out of a theoretical total of 14 air strikes the German player only got to implement six! It’s quite likely that this represented the winning difference in the game.

The Polish cavalry in the town was quite chewed up by the nearby German infantry, tanks and fighter aircraft, prompting the Polish commander to pull back the surviving platoon for the time being.

Near the end

On the right the German Pz. 38s tested their luck against the 37s and came out on the short end of the stick, losing three tanks. A big help in the effort was the ammo dump. Eventually the German player took out the dump with the fighter plane, but by then the damage had been done.

The Polish tank didn’t last long, dying in the first exchange of fire, but the tankettes proved surprisingly robust. While the Germans destroyed four and damaged the last, the TKS managed to swarm and destroy one Pz. IV.

Once the Germans numbers were reduced the surviving Polish horse was able to re-enter the fray and do some damage. Among their highlights was sobering one of the German leaders in the woods and shooting up the rear of the last Pz 38(t) after it was damaged.

The game ended with the Poles in secure command of the objective with most of their surviving infantry and leaders. Also surviving were two cavalry squads and two ATG. The Germans had one infantry platoon and the fighter remaining.

Some good luck against the planes was responsible for a surprising Polish victory.

A few thoughts on the Polish units based on this fight:

The Polish Cavalry’s forte was mobility, but they are very fragile. An overly aggressive opening move cost the Poles half their cavalry on Turn 1. More circumspect usage thereafter resulted in them doing good work. A key tactic was to disrupt the target hex and move in during the following turn’s movement phase when there wouldn’t be defensive fire.

The Polish Mausers are your regular AAM standard infantry platoon.  This worked to their advantage because the more colorful units such as the cavalry, tankettes and officers drew fire. At the end of the day, however,  the Mausers were the key to victory, shooting down the Stuka, disrupting the fighter and capturing the objective

The Polish Officers were a disappointment. While only 1 less initiative than the Germans, they only won initiative a couple of times, and once was on a HQ re-roll. Their Coordinated Fire Ability was only used once all game because the officer only has a range of 1.

The 37mm ATG were killers. Every bit as good as similar weapons in other Early War armies, they were devastating against the light German armor. They really had no drawbacks outside the mobility restrictions of the type.  They achieved a 5-1 kill ratio against the German tanks.

The TKS tankettes were also useful. They proved distracting to the Germans and managed to hold their own against the German armor, destroying on Pz IV and contributing to the death of the other.

The ammo dump was very useful and the Germans made  a mistake by not trying to take it out earlier. The Poles seemed to roll an awful lot of “1s”

The 7TP, in contrast, didn’t accomplish much before it died. It was taken out in the first volley and only managed to disrupt a Pz IV.  A single light tank isn’t very useful.

The HQ also didn’t accomplish a lot. One initiative loss was turned into a win, but the other rerolls failed. The pillbox wasn’t tested, largely because the HQ wasn’t deemed worth killing by the Germans. The minefields created a minor headache for the Germans, but nothing notable.

Overall it was fun to finally get to use my Poles, but they aren’t really a competitive build, even with the 15% bonus. Against a more experienced German -- or one with better luck -- they could be expected to lose more often than they win. It’s a very one-dimensional force and one that is especially vulnerable against an armor/air build.

Some recent gaming

I've had a recent binge of Napoleon at Waterloo on Hexwar with my usual 60-40 split.

For face-to-face gaming I finally got he chance to get Fast Action Battle: Bulge on the table. I played it once when it first came out, but only recently found a gaming partner with similar tastes to really get into it. We played the NUTS introductory scenario three time sand just recently played the Cold Shoulder P500 bonus scenario once.

Here's a shot from the game ending situation (a draw).

Test of Fire Review

I rather like Test of Fire better than most, it seems. I rated it a “9” on BoardGame Geek while the game’s average rating doesn’t break a “seven.”

This is a fairly wide difference of opinion, which prompted some consideration of how it came about that a game that I think is a clever, elegant and enjoyable little wargame doesn’t garner more than mediocre ratings overall.

I think it’s one of those cases where one man’s feature is another man’s bug. The same elements that I think make the game of a success as a reasonably authentic introductory level wargame detract from its appeal to the more hardcore wargamer who is likely to be motivated to acquire a game about the American Civil War Battle of First Bull Run .
“Elegant” is one of those hard-to-define terms that’s become popular among gamers and prompted a lot of threads to debate what, exactly, it means. I’m not going to define an exact meaning here, but I what the term generally seems to encompass in my view are games that have a large payoff in fun, simulation or some other aspect from a small investment in rules or work. It’s a common feature of the best-regarded euro-style games and may even be their most salient characteristic.

In contrast, wargames are often criticized for being “fiddly,” another term widely sued despite some contention over what, exactly, it means. Again, I’m not going to try to define it here, but generally I think it refers to game functions or mechanics that involve a lot of rules or work for relatively small payoffs. These are often justified in the wargame community on historical or realism grounds. Wargamers often value the details, non-wargamers often scratch their heads over it.

Test of Fire definitely eschews detail. It has just eight to ten pages of actual rules – and they’re not large pages and it’s not small type. There are just three kinds of playing pieces and, a handful of terrain effects. And yet it manages to capture the essential elements of the historical action rather well while providing interesting strategies and considerable replay value .

What it doesn’t have are detailed orders of battle or explicit depictions of period tactics. The players are placed firmly in the role of army commanders McDowell and Beauregard/Johnston . You dpon’t sweat the small stuff. You’re making big strategic decisions and the dice and cards do the rest.

The essential game mechanic is that on a player’s turn three (CSA) or four (USA) dice are rolled and the player’s allowable actions are controlled by the dice. For every “1” rolled a player can draw a card, which have various game effects and are discussed below. For every “2” or “3” rolled a player can “fire” one of his two artillery units against an adjacent enemy occupied area. This isn’t a high probability event. Typically a roll of a “5” or “6” is needed to a “hit.” If there’s a hit then a subsequent die roll is made, with a “6” damaging an infantry target and a 1-5 forcing it to retreat. For every “4” or “5”rolled the player is entitled to move a group of 1-3 pieces (infantry, artillery or leaders) from one area to an adjacent area. The number of pieces allowed to cross an area boundary is usually “2,” with difficult terrain such as woods or stream reducing it to 1 or 0 while areas traversed by roads can have three units. For every “6” rolled the player can exercise a choice among the other three options.

Combat is function of movement and this brings up one of the elegant aspects of the design. While a player’s choices are constrained by the dice, the order of execution is up to him and this can create all sorts of interesting game choices.

Combat is relatively bloodless, at least at first. When infantry units enter an enemy-occupied area a combat is fought, either immediately or at the end of the turn, at the moving player’s option. Each defending infantry unit rolls two dice, with every 5-6 being a “hit” and 1-4 being misses. For every hit a subsequent die roll is made, with 1-3 meaning an enemy unit retreats, a 4-6 causing damage. After the defender fires, any surviving attacking units get to roll, also at 2 dice per unit, with the same results. In both cases the maximum number of dice allowed is six.

Damage is depicted by flipping an infantry unit counter to the other side. This doesn’t reduce it’s combat ability, but a second damage result eliminates it. As there is no way to flip a unit back in the game the general trend is for both sides to weaken and become more fragile as the battle progresses.

Each side has its own deck of cards which are slightly different in composition. Cards can be played at any appropriate time as needed. Cards common to both sides are Move cards, which basically act as additional die rolls; Hold and Retreat cards which modify combat results; Artillery, Firepower and Friendly Fire Cards which modify the number of dice rolled in the various kinds of fighting; Lost Order which cancels an enemy die roll and Rout, which is one of the ways to end the game. When a Rout card is played the player gets to roll two dice and if the result is equal to or less than the number of enemy infantry units eliminated then the player wins immediately. Most games will probably end through the play of a Rout card, which is appropriate as that was the historical outcome.

Each side also has some unique cards. The Confederates have a couple of Cavalry Cards which essentially allow a free combat against a federal –occupied area on the Rebel side of Bull Run. This is evocative of the event depicted on the game box cover, when Stuart’s cavalry charged a unit of Zoauves.

The Federals, meanwhile get a Ford card, which represents the discovery of a new ford across the river, another key event of the actual battle. For play-balance purposes an optional rule allows the Federal Player to ensure the Ford is in the top half of the deck, but one could certainly make an argument for playing it straight/. By definition this was an unknowable event and maybe player McDowell shouldn’t be able to make a battle plan relying on information the historical McDowell could never have known.

There are, of course, some minor exceptions and variations for all of this – it is a wargame after all – but this brief outline captures the major points. Both sides are given an incentive to attack – they win if they occupy the enemy base. This incentive is needed to replicate the historical situation which saw both armies making plans to attack. The Federal side is given an additional way to win by occupying any two of three areas marked with stars on the south side of Bull Run. This signals that the burden of attack in on McDowell.

Leaders and artillery have some special characteristics as well, but the infantry is the star of the show and makes up the bulk of both armies. Infantry counters do not represent specific units and seem to represent about 1,000 soldiers, more or less.

It’s probable that I’ve just used more words to describe the game than appear in the rules of play. It’s really that simple. Yet it still plays out as a Bull Run game. The theme is not some paste-on. It’s the driving force behind every element of the game design. In this way, despite the very euro-style presentation, Test of Fire is clearly a wargame. While many wargame designers follow the James Dunnigan paradigm of designing a game system to depict a certain level or warfare and then modifying that system as needed to depict a specific battle, Martin Wallace’s designs always seem to be unique treatments. Even when they bear some superficial resemblances such as his Gettysburg and Waterloo games, they’re really more different than alike. Test of Fire is a stand-alone design that doesn’t seem like it could spawn a system of games at all. It’s very specific to the peculiar conditions of First Bull Run where two very green armies fought over a specific battlefield.

And you can play it in an hour or less.

It’s not the last word in simulations, but it does succeed in capturing important elements of the battle in an easy-to-play format and some elements, such as the Ford and Rout cards, arguably make it more authentic than some more detailed traditional hex-and-counter treatments of the battle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At start positions

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

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

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

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

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

Anticipating -- Napoleon 4th Edition. Some thoughts on the new box

We appear to be just days away from having the new, 4th Edition of Napoleon in our hands. An eagerly anticipated development, to be sure.

Today Columbia Games revealed the new box art -- and I have mixed feeling, to tell the truth.

New Cover

 It's not that there's anything wrong with the new box art, although it doesn't knock me out, it is more consistent with the style of more recent Columbia box art.

And it's not that the old box art was great. Indeed,

AH edition

the image used most previous editions of Napoleon is actually a pretty odd one to use for a game about the Hundred Days campaign, which was Napoleon in the twilight of his career. The painting used as the basis for the earlier Napoleon games shows the very young General Bonaparte at the very beginning of his career. Painted by Jacques-Louis David in five versions between 1800 and 1805, it shows Napoleon Crossing The Alps. It's quite the famous painting, but it rather obviously has nothing to do with the Waterloo campaign.

Still, it's a very dramatic and well-known image and has been associated with the game for more than 30 years, so the change is kind of surprising.

Jacque-Louis David: Napoleon Crossing the Alps

4th Edition

The new image is similar to the portrait style covers we have seen in many recent Columbia titles such as Crusader Rex and Richard III and not one of the the the "battle scene" covers that have also been pretty common in CG offerings of late such as Julius Caesar. Nearly all recent Columbia Games have emphasized the "Great man" at the center of the game's theme and when older games such as Napoleon and Quebec 1759 have been updated the trend has been to add leaders to the order of battle when they didn't exist before. One of the major design elements of the 3rd Edition which was retained for the 4th Edition are leader blocks for Napoleon, Blucher and Wellington.

I'm enough of a traditionalist that I think I would have preferred to see the old, iconic if anachronistic, Napoleon cover retained for the new edition, but I don't think the idea of a change is unwarranted. That said, the new cover doesn't really win me over, either and if there had to be achange I would have preferred something a little more dynamic.

GMT hit by hackers

Very odd situation. GMT reports it was the target of a denial of service attack.

Trains, snipers and defeat, oh my!

Position at the end of the game

Game Store Tony and I got in a game of Memoir '44 after a long break. This was an Eastern Front game but not part of our official grand campaign.

Instead we played the Kiev scenario from the Campaign Book Vol. 1, primarily because it includes an armored train and snipers. Armored trains are an interesting and unusual unit and the snipers gave me a chance to use the Equipment Pack Miniatures for the first time.

The battle, itself, was one of our closer run affairs, with Tony's Soviets pulling off a 5-4 victory at the end when the armored train finished off the fifth German unit for the win. My Germans had managed to kill off three Russian units and capture Kiev as well, but it wasn't enough.

Often the snipers have proven to be a marginally useful unit in past games but in this one they did a good job picking off pieces, including being the finishing blow for at least one victory medal. But the definite star for the Soviet side was the armored train, which is much more mobile and tougher than a regular artillery unit. In theory it's not as flexible as a regular gun because it's restricted to the train tracks, but in my experience you don't normally see a lot of movement by artillery units in Memoir '44, so overall I'd say an armored train is much better i tn eh game than a regular artillery unit.

The Equipment Pack  pieces are, for the most part, purely eye candy, although a few new units and rule are introduced. Still, the appeal of eye candy in Memoir '44 should not be underestimated, as that's an importamt part of the game's popularity. So the Equipment Pack sniper was an improvement over the perfectly serviceable standard game solution of an ordinary solider marked with a badge.  I went ahead and used the badge, too, but it would only be necessary in case both sides in a scenario had snipers -- a case that I don't think has occurred so far.

Cry 'HAVOC' and who let the dogs out? No, that's not right. Anyway, Havoc 28 was fun

One of the three American brigades sets up

I had to overcome a few obstacles to make it this year, but I did get to drop in for a few hours at the premier wargame convention in New England, Havoc XXVIII. Sponsored by Battlegroup Boston, the con was held, as it is every year, at Maironis Park in Shrewsbury, just across the river from Worcester, Mass.

This year I ran two games, took part in none. The morning session was a naval game that I'll detail in a future post, but the afternoon session was an American Revolution scenario called No school Like Old School which was a straight up slugfest among six similarly sized brigades -- three to a side, with Random setups.

Each brigade was similar in size, with a battalion of regular line infantry, a section of guns and in 5 of the 6 cases, a troop of dragoons. The sixth brigade (the Hessian) substituted a small battalion of grenadiers for the horse for the very good reason that I don't have any Hessian horse troops.

Each of the six players was given the option to draft one additional unit from among those available. For the British side the additional units amounted to a British grenadier battalion, a light infantry battalion and some Indians. For the Colonials the additional units were a battalion of light infantry, a battalion of roundball riflemen and a regiment of militia.

These 4-unit brigades seemed to work very well with players not otherwise familiar with the rules. They had enough to do, and had a chance to handle all arms (line, horse, artillery and special troops) and the game went briskly.

The American side edged out a win, holding 3 of the five buildings set as victory conditions -- with victory conceded on Turn 8. Losses were reasonably even, although the small cavalry troops took very heavy losses. By game end there were just two shot-up, broken troops remaining from the five starters. One gun section was overrun. Among the six line units, the Hessains were routed form the field and one of the two British was shaken, while two American line units were broken/shaken as well. On the other hand, all the special units were still active and in good order at game end, including the militia. Despite all being in the thick of things, only one of the six brigadiers had a horse shot out from under him.

I think I'll plan on sticking with the smaller brigades in future convention games. As tempting as it is to give the brigadiers a hefty army to play with (a standard brigade under the rules tends to have 5-6 units and an artillery battery) the smaller brigades seem to work better in practice with players unfamiliar with the rules.

As usual, there was a lot of good stuff going on at Havoc, with a lot of great scenario and awesome scenery. And it wasn't all wargames, either, as this photo of a car race game shows.

Talk at the con was that attendance seemed a bit off this year, but nearly all the games were well-stocked with players and overall there seemed to be an adequate crowd on Saturday. I can't speak to the Friday and Sunday events, however.

Some thoughts on war with Iran illuminated by Persian Incursion

War talk is in the air again, in the wake of a New York Times article this weekend suggesting that Israel may have already decided on making a strike by April.

There's a lot of speculation in the article and on the Internet about whether Israel could pull it off, and the headline of the article even suggests it might be difficult to do.

"Iran Raid Seen as a Huge Task for Israeli Jets"

It says.

Right.

As it turns out, of course, this question has been exhaustively examined in the Clash of Arms wargame Persian Incursion. I had hoped to write up a detailed review and session report based on an online game I had been playing, but real-life interruptions broke up the pace and its unclear whether it will get finished soon or ever. But I did play enough of it to get a good appreciation of the game's ability to address the question: Can Israel do it?

Let me address right off the protest: "But it's only a game!" True, but many experts familiar with both classified military wargames and civilian wargames have said that the military games have little or no advantages in accuracy over thoroughly researched open-source commercial games.

First off, it's important to note that Persian Incursion is really two games in one. The first is a political-diplomatic card game that can be played concurrently or prior to the military game and examines the complex interplay of politics, diplomacy, media, public opinion and other "soft" factors tat are critically important but hard to quantify. This portion of the game is highly subjective and not coincidentally provides the Iranian player with his best chance for successes. This is defensible from areal-world standpoint and, just as importantly, allows the game designer to create a competitive game experience for the Iranian side.

And the hard-data driven military game, which is basically a streamlined version of Larry Bond's super-detailed Harpoon4 game system, shows how necessary this card game option is because the Iranians, plainly have absolutely no chance militarily. Oh, sure, a lucky shot here or there may shoot down an Israeli jet or two or land an occasional missile in a Tel Aviv city block, with the consequent propaganda 'victory' for Iran, but the Iranians have no ability to impede the Israeli raiders in any significant military sense. Whatever the Israelis decide to destroy will be destroyed. The Israeli challenge is almost purely a technical and logistic one caused by the extreme distance and some limited resources. As such, however, it's also one that thorough planning by a highly professional military such as Israel's can be expected to overcome.

What the Israelis won't have to deal with is much of the way of unpredictably effective defensive action by the Iranian military. Their available aircraft and anti-aircraft missiles are several generations behind the Israeli attackers and, for the most part, will likely be completely neutralized. As I said, one can't completely discount a lucky shot, so there's some small risk for an unpleasant (for the Israeli side) incident or two, but losses will be minimal and damage extensive.

For the purposes of making the game competitive and challenging for the players, the game demands that the Israelis completely destroy their targets in order to get full credit towards winning the war. But in reality, all the Israelis have to do is destroy certain critical components of the targeted facilities -- whether nuclear or oil -- to accomplish their aim of delaying Iran's supposed nuclear ambitions. It's clear that they should have little trouble doing that.

In the final analysis, Bond's game suggests strongly that the military success of an Israeli strike is about as sure thing as you're likely to see in the annals of warfare. What the game does not -- and cannot -- answer is whether such a strike would be a political and diplomatic success or a disaster. The card game, however, does imply that's where the biggest danger for the Israelis and, by extension, the US lies.

Mussolini as Schrödinger's cat

The Storch lands next to the hotel in preparation for evacuating Mussolini (represented by the German Victory Medal) under the protection of Otto Skorzeny (represented by the Green Battle Star counter). The landing site is well-guarded by German paratroopers, but note that each unit has lost a figure. At upper left is a unit of Italians (here depicted using Russian figures) trying to stop the evacuation.

Was he alive, or was he dead? It all depended upon when you looked, Thursday as Game Store Tony and I took a short break from our Russian Campaign to play a scenario from the new Memoir '44 Campaign Book 2, specifically the Rescue of Mussolini scenario from the Air Aces campaign.

I really wanted to try this one out because it's quite different from the typical Memoir '44 scenario. For one thing, victory is not based on medals -- but simply on Mussolini's fate. If he's rescued the Germans win, if not, they lose.

There are quite a few special rules and a chance to use pieces that don't see much use otherwise, such as the Storch liaison plane and paradrops.

The Italian force is comprised of eight regular infantry units deployed in four pairs across the hill and mountain hex adorned map. Mussolinui, himself, is represented by a German Objective marker in the Prison Camp Hex.

The German force is comprised of six elite infantry units which enter via the Paradrop procedure, which in Memoir '44 involves actually dropping the pieces from about a foot above the map! After they land the Germans can give a marker to one of the units representing the legendary German commando leader Otto Skorzeny. The fnal element of the German force is the Storch Liaison plane, which must be used to evacuate Mussolini.

On our first go around, the raid was pretty much a disaster. Two of the six German units were destroyed while landing and the others were scattered. While Skorzeny was able to lead two units in an assault on the prison that liberated Mussolini, the Italians seemed to have no shortage of useful cards, and were able to react energetically. A mad dash for some safe spot was unsuccessful and the Italians ended up mopping up the whole German force and recapturing Mussolini. The Storch was never brought on.

We set up and played again and this time it was the Germans who seemed to get most of the luck. Only one German unit was lost in landing and the three units in the eastern batch landed in a tight group near the hotel, as did one scattering unit from the western group. Skorzeny again led a charge on the hotel that liberated the deposed dictator but this time there were a bunch of supporting units along for the show. Meanwhile the Ilatlians had areal drought of usable cards, being stuck with several for a sector where they had no units.

The Storch was brought in, landed and took off with Mussolini for the win -- although possibly just in the nick of time, because the Italians had just drawn the Bombardment card, which Game Store Tony was clearly going to use on the grounded Storch if there had been another turn.

We agreed that we needed one more game to resolve the split, so we made plans to play a tie-breaker at the first opportunity!

King Philip's War review

King Philip's War, an offering of Multi-man Publishing's International Games Series line is at once both a fairly ordinary cardboard chit wargame and an unusual, even extraordinary, game.

The ordinary aspect of the game is that it's a relatively low complexity, point-to-point, CRT-based wargame that uses cardboard counters and markers (154 of them), has one standard-sized map, two double-sided player aid cards, one 20-page rule book, two standard D^ and one special Event die. The MSRP is $44, so it's not exactly a bargain, although it's still in the mainstream of current wargame pricing. System-wise it doesn't really break any new ground, although there are some neat twists here and there.

The extraordinary part is the amount of attention the game received before publication and its potential to popularize a truly little-know, but important, part of American History.

King Philips' War was fought in 1675 to 1676 in southern New England in the area now occupied by the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island. Those three states were then colonies, with that part of modern Massachusetts that comprises Plymouth and Bristol counties and Cape Cod and the islands being the separate Plymouth Colony. I think it's safe to say that for most Americans the era between the Pilgrims stepping ashore at Plymouth and Paul Revere's ride are a blur, often covered in an afternoon in high school history courses. Growing up in Massachusetts I was exposed to more about the colonial period, but for us it was local history.

King Philip was the sachem (overall chief) of the Wampanoag Indian tribe, which lived in Southeastern New England and had had the longest and most intimate contact with the English. By 1675 the English had already been in the region for more than half a century. Despite that long contact relations between the native population and the newcomers were not smooth. While a substantial number of Indians had adopted Christianity and English ways (the so-called "Praying Indians") the majority still lived in the traditional style and considered themselves very separate people from the English. The colonists, on the other hand, seemed to regard the Indians as part of their community in some way, and not wholly separate.

Peace was mainained between the English and Indians so long as Massasoit, who was the grand sachem when the Pilgrims arrived, lived. And fortunately for the English, Massasoit lived to a ripe old age, dying in his 80s. His eldest son, Wamsutta, took over, but he died within a year, which elevated his brother Metacom, known to the English as Philip, to be sachem. The circumstances of Wamsutta's death were murky, and it appears that Philip believed that Wamsutta had been murdered. War didn't break out immediately, however, but over the next dozen years tensions rose. The final straw was the English arrest and punishment of two Indians for the murder of another Indian, which Philip regarded as a purely Indian affair. War broke out soon after.

King Philip's War was proportionately the bloodiest war in American history. While exact numbers are not available, it appears that about 1.5% of the 52.000 English colonists lost their lives and property destruction was immense. The Indians suffered even more heavily, with at least 15% of the 20,000 Indians in the involved tribes being killed and the tribal social structure being largely destroyed. Many of the surviving Indians were sold off into slavery.

It was the one chance, however, that the native people ever had to inflict a strategic defeat on the Europeans. The odds would never again be as close.

Fighting the war required the colonies to cooperate, laying the groundwork for colonial cooperation in later generations and also starting to forge an identity as Americans. The English colonist were completely on their own, getting no help from England during the war. It was fought entirely with local resources.

That there are still raw feelings about this conflict, despite the passage of more than three centuries, was revealed when an article in a Rhode Island newspaper stirred up a minor firestorm when it reported that a game about the war was being designed.

As a journalist myself, I have to say that I didn't find this story an example of good journalism. The reporter apparently contacted some tribal leaders (yes, the descendants of the tribes still live in the region) and asked them for comments. It's hard to know exactly what was said to the tribal leaders about the game. It's highly likely that they were completely unfamiliar with the concept of hobby wargames or that many other conflicts past, present and future have been depicted by them, so it's natural that they had a negative reaction upon being told that someone was making a game about the biggest tragedy in their history. They protested, they criticized and they demanded that the game be dropped. Attempts by the designer, John Poniske, to reach out to tribal officials were rebuffed. To his credit, and he credit of MMP, the project went ahead. In his designer's notes he says "The purpose for this game simulation has never changed: it has always been my hope to increase knowledge and interest in this little-know, but highly influential, chapter of our country's history."

And to do that, the game will have to be played. Fortunately Mr. Poniske has designed a very playable and enjoyable little game that provides and interesting game experience and should see better-than-average table time for a wargame.

First off, it must be said that this is not a definitive, highly detailed simulation of all aspects of the war. I'm not sure there's information available to go into great detail and it's probably too risky to try it on such an obscure topic.

Instead KPW concentrates on the big picture of overall war strategy and maneuver, with questions of diplomacy, logistics and internal politics sketchily covered and the most tragic elements inferred.

The map depicts the colonies of Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth Colony, Rhode Island and Connecticut. Strewn throughout the colonies are spacces representing English settlements (red circle with a colored band for each colony) Indian villages (white circles with color bands for each tribe) and neutral spaces. linking the spaces are paths with 1, 2 or 3 "pips" that indicate the movement point cost for using that path. Normally Indian units have 6 movement points available, while the English normally have 5. Some spacesa re also linked by rivers which the Indians can always use and the English can use under special circumstances. River movement is speedy, costing just half a movement point per space.

The sequence of play is straightforward, beginning with several phases that may add new troops, followed by Indian movement and combat and then English movement and combat.

The mainstay for each side are counters depicting small groups of warriors (Indians) and soldiers (English) worth 2 Strength Points (SP) each at full strength and 1 SP when reduced. Each side's villages (Indian) and settlements (English) have an inherent defense of 1 SP, while the two forts on each side have a strength of 2. There are two "key leaders" on each side who also have a strength of 1, and the Indians have some musket counters that give a 1 SP bonus to the warrior carrying it.

Combat is conducted by rolling three dice, 1 green D6 for the Indians and one red D6 for the English and a special Event die, which I'll discuss in a moment. Generally the D^ roll for each side is cross referenced on the CRT with the number of SP in the respective force to determine a result expressed in SPs lost. For example, a full strength Indian warband with a musket (3SP) attacking an undefended English settlement will miss entirely on a 1 or 2, will cause 1 hit on a 3-5 and 2 hits on a 6. In return, the English settlement, with it's inherent 1SP, will miss on a 1-4 and inflict 1 SP loss on a 5 or 6. The first SP loss on the settlement permanently eliminates the garrison and it's marked with a "raided" counter. If another hit is inflicted then the settlement is "razed" and considered completely destroyed for all game purposes and awards a victory point tot he Indians. The English can do the same to Indian villages. Victory points are also scored for eliminating units and leaders.

The twist in the combat system is that third die, which is an "Event" die. To determine which player is affected by the die, you total the red adn green dice. If the total is odd, then the Indians are affected, even it's the British. If there's a tie then there's no battle at all (due to bad weather, getting lost, etc.).

Three of the results Panic, Ambush and Emergency Reinforcements aid one side or the other in the current battle, while the other three (spy, guide, massacre) potentially add counters for later use to one side.

Leaders are vital for both sides. Without a leader only two combat units can occupy the same space. A leader can stack up to three combat units, aids in evading combat and intercepting enemy units. Leaders can have guides attached to them to speed their movement and can have spys attached that hinder their movement. Each of the English colonies has one "captain" to lead their "companies" (stacks) Each Indian tribe has a sachem to lead their "warband." The Indians have more leaders overall, as there are nine tribes and just four colonies.

Each side also has two "Key Leaders," one at start and one that comes as a reinforcement. Key Leaders have all the powers of other leaders, plus they add one SP to a stack, allow units from different tribes to stack and they often have other special abilities.

For the Indian side the most important leader is King Philip, who starts on the map. Besides leading troops, King Philip can conduct "diplomacy" at the beginning of the turn. Depending upon how many English settlements have been razed, other tribes may join the three Wampanoag tribes in the war. For example, after 2 settlements ahve been razed, the powerful Narragansetts on the Connecticut-Rhode Island border will join if Philip conducts the necessary "diplomacy" to do so, which in game terms is simply picking Philip up from wherever he is and placing him on a village belonging to that tribe. Basically Philip can bring in one new tribe a turn so long as the Indians are burning settlements. On the other hand, if the English burn enough Indian villages then some tribes start surrendering and dropping out of the war.

The Narragansetts bring in the other Key Leader for the Indians, Canonchet, who doesn't have any special powers. The English start with one Key Leader on the map, John Winslow, who like Cononchet doesn't have any special powers other than the general leader/key leader ones.

The other key leader is a literal game changer, Benjamin Church. Historically Church was largely responsible for turning the tide after the initial Indian successes as he employed allied Inidans and used Indian-style tactics to fight the Indians instead of the less-effective European tactics.

In the game Church has a tremendous impact. Before he arrives the English can't use paths that cost more than 1 pip, they can only move three stacks and fight three battles, and they can't use river movement. After he arrives the English can use any path, they can move and fight with five stacks and stacks with Church and Indian Allies can use river moves. Once Church arrives the English can roll to receive Indian allies, which are 2 SP units that can arrive almost anywhere. The Indian movement/combat limit is five stacks all game.

Both sides have the dilemma of more things needing doing than stacks able to do it, so managing resources as well as strategy is vital. The Indian side starts with the initiative and Philip needs to do as much damage as he can to bring in allied tribes before Church arrives and evens things up between the two sides. The standard rule is for Church to enter on a die roll, but this does add a big luck element to the game and there's an optional rule that has Church arrive automatically on Turn 3. I'd recommend this for competitive play.

Both sides are to choose between trying to burn villages and eliminating combat units. Razing settlements/villages is important for tribal recruitment/surrender, a direct source of victory points and they're easier targets than stacks of troops. On the other hand, eliminating the enemy's troops can really crimp their ability to raze YOUR villages and can also generate victory point awards.

Overall victory is determined by accumulated victory points. If either side reaches 30 VP then they win immediately, otherwise whoever has the most VP at the end of Turn 9 is the winner. There are also sudden death victory conditions. If both Philip and Canonchet are eliminated then the Indians lose instantly. If both English forts (Boston and Plymouth) are razed then the Indians win instantly.

With both sides intermixed and evenly matched overall, King Philip's War is a game of opportunism and nerve. There's a pretty high chaos factor between the Event roll, Church entry, CRT results and the 1-in-6 chance a planned battle won't happen at all, so this is definitely not a game for those who hate too much luck. On the other hand it's a wild and woolly ride for players who have the nerve to try it and it should be an entertaining -- and educational -- time, win or lose.

KPW take about 2-3 hours to play, so a two-game match is doable in an evening's gaming. Set up time is minimal.

Ellis Con Axis & Allies Global 1940 session report

Well, I spent all of Ellis Con playing one game, but what a game!

I think the Global 1940 Axis & Allies is a terrific game experience. The scale of the game mitigates some of the things about A&A I didn''t care for in the past -- especially some strange geography and an unfortunate luck factor. These seem much less of a problem with Global.

This was the first game I took part in where everybody had some level of experience with at least the Axis & Allies system and several players had played Global before.

On the Axis side the German player was a fellow who had definitely played A&A before and I think he said he'd played the Global game once. He was joined by a gentleman who played Italy and Japan and had played Global before. While I hadn't met him before, he was well-known to some other participants, who liked to tease him for his "deliberate" (slow) playing style. I worried a bit about this given how big a game Global is, but in the end everyone else seemed to make u for it with speedy play and time-saving steps like figuring out their build ahead of time and some powers moving at the same time as others when they were not affecting each other. We were able to play seven turns, which was enough to reach a decision.

The Italo-Japanese player had brought his teen nephew to the game and he wanted to have fun beating up on uncle so he took the US. While young, he handled his nation very well, as we'll see.
I took the British because I wanted to have a hand in both ends of the board. Our Russian player had played A&A before, but never Global, but he had an excellent appreciation of the fundamentals of Soviet strategy in A&A. Our final player was also experienced in Global and he took the trio of "minor" powers, France, China and the ANZACs, Having an experienced good player for those minor countries ended up playing a big role int the outcome as well.

The game started with in a familiar way, as the German player made the same mistake I made as the German player in my last game -- failing to ensure that France fell on Turn 1. In my case I misjudged the forces I needed, but in this game the German was intent on taking out the British navy and he launched a huge air and sea campaign over the next few turns that saw a lot of drama, including an invasion of Scotland! He did succeed in gutting British naval power, but at the cost of his own and a huge chunk of his air force as well. Scotland was recaptured so no permanent damage was done to the British.

Naturally the Germans had to let someplace else suffer and that place was France. While Normandy fell easily enough, the German attack on France proper -- already a marginal affair -- suffered a huge setback when he failed to roll a single hit in his attack. The French were much luckier and nearly wiped out the German infantry in the attacking force. Unwilling to start taking hits on tanks and Stukas the German called off the attack.

There was some discussion over whether or not to simply reset the game at that point, given the poor German opening, but the Axis players declined. The German player was satisfied with the damage he did to the British fleet and the Italo-Japanese had yet to move so the Axis pressed on. The Italians, when their turn came, joined in the attack on France, taking southern France amphibiously while using their navy to crush the French Navy. The Japanese launched a ground offensive against China, beginning a multi-turn campaign that was well handled by the China player. At this point I should mention that we were using the "Alpha" variant setup for the Pacific board which reduces the air power of all the Pacific countries (which were disproportionate) and makes some other changes, including a beefier Chinese army.

When the French turn came around we started to see some of the effects of a surviving France. The French had money and a chance to build, so they bought a chunk more infantry to make the second German attempt as costly as possible. And the French sent their one fighter to attack the Italy's unguarded merchant fleet of two transports! The Italy player had forgotten that France had a fighter (naturally, since normally France doesn't have one by the time its move comes around). After sinking Italy's merchant fleet the fighter landed in Malta. From there it was destined to be a thorn in Italy's side for the rest of the game when it joined the British forces iN Egypt. The hero French fighter survived the game, as matter of fact!

The failure to capture France put the Germans a turn behind schedule, and the destruction of Italy's merchant fleet likewise put Italy a turn behind schedule in the Med.

To make a long story short, the Italian effort in North Africa was stalemated. By the time they rebuilt their transports and tried to take Egypt it was strongly held. The Italian Turn 3 invasion was crushed (with notable help from the sharpshooting French fighter which killed 2 of the four invaders) and after that the British won the buildup race, shipping aircraft via Gibraltar and from South Africa and eventually joined by troops from Iran and east Africa after Italian East Africa and Iraq were dispatched. When the Americans joined the war they sent some troops into unconquered French Algeria.

Stymied in the Med, the Italians sent substantial ground forces to aid their German ally, who had run into a solid wall of Soviets. As seen in the last game, the 1-turn delay in the German timetable meant that the Russians actually declared war on the Germans first. The delayed German Barbarossa was also critically short on air support, most of the Luftwaffe having been expended against the Royal Navy. The Soviets were able to blunt the German attack and were slowly gaining an edge, thanks in no small part to the large Soviet air force!

Meanwhile in the Pacific, after a few turns of expensive fighting against China the Japanese decided they had better grab the resource-rich Dutch territories while there was still time, so on Turn 3 they moved.

The lack of Japanese pressure, however, meant that the US, Pacific British and ANZACs were able to build up their naval forces and before long the Japanese found themselves in a five-front war! Besides the undefeated Chinese they faced newly aggressive Russians and three navies. When a Japanese naval task force ventured within range the British gladly expended their Pacific navy to take it out. Both fleets were destroyed, leaving a lonely Japanese merchant to be dispatched by a French destroyer! Meanwhile the US eventually brought an overwhelming force to bear against Japan itself -- despite a game attempt by uncle to sucker nephew into a premature attack. Vast navies and air forces (At least five loaded US carriers, three US battleships and other surface ships and a heavy bomber against two Japanese carriers, tow BBs and air units and other ships) clashed over Japan. When it was over there were still three damaged US battleships and two cruisers holding the sea zone and Japan was down to one task force off the coast of China -- and that task force was being stalked by an equal-sized ANZAC task force of a loaded CV, a BB, a CA, a DD and a Heavy bomber within range! The ANZAC player was quite willing to follow the example of his allies and lose his fleet to destroy the last Japanese fleet.

At this point the Axis players admitted defeat. Germany was stalemated on the Russian border, the Italians were about to lose their navy on the next British turn to a strike by 5 heavy bombers, 3 Tacs and four fighters (the British had meanwhile been conducting a strategic bombing campaign against Germany, which has 19 damage on its main industry site. Japan was being pushed back in China and southeast Asia and had lost 3/4 of its fleet. With no good news anywhere it was time to call it.

We started at about 10:30 a.m. and finished at 8:30 p.m. with a half hour lunch break and another half hour or so pause during the auction so total playing time was between 8 and 9 hours.

The drawbacks of victory points

I picked up the new Decision Games Folio Games series title Arnhem: The Farthest Bridge, which is basically a re-implementation of the classic SPI Arnhem quad game.


There are several interesting changes in the rules, but one that caught my eye is the simplified victory conditions. While the old game was decided by victory points, which could be earned by destroying enemy units and, for the Allies, maintaining units north of the Rhine, the new game's victory condition are much more straightforward. "The Allied player wins the game if he can at any time, (even if only momentarily) occupy at least two of the Arnhem hexes (3423, 3523 or 3524) with any Allied non-airborne/non-glider units." It goes on to say that occupying just one is a draw while if they never occupy any then the Germans win.


This is likely to be an improvement because I've long felt that victory-point based victory conditions have been the bane of wargaming. Now, I'd never argue that they should NEVER be used, but I think they've definitely been overused. They tend to muddy the clarity of a game and don't bear much resemblance to how victory is actually measured by historians, historical commanders, the politicians they worked for nor the public's opinion.


Often they're used when the designer can't think of a more elegant way to reflect the historical reason why commander's made the choices they made.


Playtesting in some Gettysburg game shows that USA players don't defend Cemetery Hill often enough? Well, let's make it worth some victory points! That may work, after a fashion, but I'm unaware of any accounts that suggest Major Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock decided to hold Cemetery Hill on the afternoon of July 1, 1863 because he was worried about Lee getting a "victory point" for it.


Most of the time a military operation is directed towards some aim and either that aim is achieved or it isn't and everyone, from civilian to private to general to president judges victory on whether that aim was achieved or not. Occasionally an aim can be achieved at such a heavy cost as to not seem worth it (often called a Pyrrhic Victory) but even here I'd say that some absolute measure is probably better than some victory point system.


Using victory points can distort play down some very strange lines unless the victory point awards are very carefully calibrated, sometimes to the point of rewarding an actual failure. In the old SPI Arnhem game it's possible for the Germans to win the game even if Arnhem Bridge is captured so long as they manage to cut the supply road a couple of turns. While I understand the rationale behind the rule, the fact of the matter is that no temporary blockage of the road (inevitably soon to be cleared) would have mitigated am Allied breakthrough over the bridge.


And likewise. an Allied advance that manages to kill most of the Germans in the area with low Allied losses might eke out some level of "victory" in the SPI edition of the game but if the Germans still hold Arnhem Bridge then the operation was a failure. Losing a few more battalions would have been of small import for a German army that had just lost entire divisions in the breakout from Normandy and subsequent pursuit The Allies lose a lot of points in the SPI version of the game, but really, if they had taken the bridge the destruction of the 1st Airborne would have been considered regrettable, but would not have turned the victory into a defeat.


Like I said, there are situations where VPs are useful, for example, in situations where attrition was the goal , but I prefer to have victory defined more simply. Almost invariably one side or the other is trying to do something and the other side is trying to stop them. If there are secondary factors at play I think it's better to provide some in-game benefit for doing something than simply handing out VPs for it.

Wings of War 3-sided air battle session report

I think Wings of War miniatures is just about the perfect Game Store Game.

1) It's visually appealing, especially if you use the game mats.

2) It's extraordinarily easy to teach, with very intuitive game mechanics -- no charts, phases, rule lookups.

3) It plays fast

4) It's dramatic

5) World War I air combat is a favorite topic for wargamers and the wider culture.


I decided to try a 3-way scenario.

First I gave myself Richthofen's Roland CII -- the one without a forward -firing machine gun. The game objective was very straightforward. If I landed at the far airfield I won. If someone shot me down, they won. I gave myself a Pfalz DIII as cavalry coming to the rescue from the far side of the map.



To my left were a trio of British planes flown by the redoutable Game Store Tony -- two Sopwith Camels and an Se-5a. To the right of me were three French planes controleed by another Game Store regular named Cory, who's one of the stalwarts of the Magic: The Gathering crowd. He had two Nieuport 17s and a SPAD XIII.


The twist in the scenario design was that each Allied player also controlled a German Albatorss DVa flying escort for the Roland. The victory condition was that whoever shot the Roland down won, so the two All;ied teams were in competition. The allies were prohibited fron shooting at each other -- French on British violence -- but they each had a German plane they could use to hinder their "ally."


The battle itself was a messy affair, as none of the pilots had much experience. The Roland had to endure a few passes in the first rush but the inexperienced Allies found it hard to set up for a second shot. Game Store Tony's British did the most damage, but he twice jammed his guns! There was a scary episode for the Roland as one burst staretd a fire that did some serious damage but eventually it went out. The Alies conceded when it was apparent the Roland would succeed in landing before they'd get back into firing position. In the end no planes were shot down. but everyone enjoyed themselves.