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.

Borodino 200th anniversary today

Battle for the Great Redoubt at Borodino

Two centuries ago today Napoleon's fortunes changed for good when he defeated the Russians at Borodino -- but at a heavy cost. He managed to make it to Moscow, but ended up losing nearly his entire army when he was forced to retreat.

Borodino was an extraordinarily bloody battle, but not really a battle of generalship or finesse and wargames depicting it reflect that characteristic.

Game Store Tony and I got in a commemorative anniversary game of the battle using Napoleon's War II -- The Gates of Moscow.

It ended up being an interesting battle because I was able to use a little psychology to salvage a narrow victory from what was shaping up to be a pretty decisive defeat.

My initial plan was to make an early push on each flank and then hit the center hard, but this soon came afoul of bad dice and Tony's astute counter moves which negated every effort I made to advance. By Turn 7 I was facing a 7-2 deficit in victory points (The game to 8 VP)!

Well, a popular definition of insanity is  doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. I clearly needed to take a different approach. I decided to pull pout of range of most of his guns and redeploy my cavalry to the left for a long sweeping flanking move. Not so much because I expected much out of it, but to provoke Tony into making his own attack into my guns. He's a good player, but does tend to be aggressive and impatient. While I couldn't just goad him into attacking me by doing nothing at all -- he was well aware that the onus for victory was on the French -- I figured he'd be unwilling to just sit there and watch my wide sweeping move unfold unmolested over the dozen turns he would have to watch.

And indeed, he marched to the attack. His cavalry that attempted counter my cavalry was pushed aside with loss and he then tried to counter attack my center and right. Before long he lost another five units and suddenly the game was tied at 7 VP each. There were several more turns of cat-and-mouse sparring before I was able to knock off the 8th unit for the win.

Like Napoleon, though, I paid a very heavy cost in casualties, so it did feel very Borodino-like in the end.

Things wargames miss

HMS Argyll. Note the low-to-the-water midships gun and the lower gun on the aft quarter.

One of the limitations of wargames is the annoying complexity of the real world while the erstwhile wargame designer is striving to keep his game rules reasonably succinct. Actual operations are filled with examples of unforeseen complications that can have a significant effect in a given circumstance, but are very hard to take account of in a systemic way. This is one of the reasons why a certain amount of randomness doesn't bother me in wargames because the real world is fluke-filled.

What prompts this discussion is the additional handicap that the British armored cruisers at Coronel suffered due to the rough sea state during the battle -- a problem generally ignored in most wargames.

On both the HMS Good Hope and the HMS Monmouth, as well as the similar HMS Argyll shown above, some of the secondary guns are mounted one above the other in battery along the broadsides. Presumably there were some compelling engineering reasons for this arrangement -- maybe it eased ammunition handling or simplified construction somehow. But service conditions revealed that the lower gun in the set was too close to the water to be usable if the sea was too rough. This had the effect of cutting the secondary batteries of the Monmouth and Good Hope in half. The Argyl design was somewhat modified as the problem became apparent and only two of the 6-inch guns on the ship's broadsides were still subject to the problem. Eventually in the surviving ships of the Monmouth class the lower guns were actually moved up to the topside deck and the sea-level gunports plated over.

Even Larry Bond's Fear God and Dread Nought rules, which are justly considered exhaustive, only assess an accuracy penalty for gunfire in heavy seas, but don't formally include a way to account for guns rendered completely unusable by the waves. this is the sort of thing that can be handled by scenario special rules, of course, but it requires that the scnerio designer have dome the sort of in-depth research needed and is also the kind of thing that's not likely to be included in a "what-if" scenario. It's the sort of thing to keep in mind, however, when considering the "on-paper" strength of a unit.

Component durability -- boxes

Boxes are historically the weakest component for game durability -- even considering that they get the most abuse.

Until fairly recently, game manufacturers almost invariably designed boxes primarily for their marketing suitability. And you still see the effects of this focus with the kind of family games you'll see in a discount store. Large flat boxes with garish print and flimsy construction may be OK for a game of Monopoly, Sorry or Barbie Fashion Show that's fated to end up in pieces before the week is out, but it's very frustrating for serious adult gamers who expect to get years of play out of their games. I used to hate the old Avalon Hill flat boxes. They just didn't hold up to much Geek carry at all. Invariably you ended up with split ends and if you tried stacking them more than a couple high you ended up with crushed boxes. If anything the old SPI plastic flat boxes were worse. The plastic would crack, the cardboard back would come off the tray part. Just awful.

On the other hand the Avalon Hill bookcase game format and the similar Bookshelf games from 3M were great -- especially when sleeved. I have some of those games that are more than 40 years old and still intact. While AH was in business I would sometimes order replacement boxes, although I rarely ahd to do so with bookcase boxes. On the other hand my Midway box is the third one (and it's fallen apart now).

One of the salutary effects of the German game influx has been to improve the overall quality of game boxes. Even back in the 1980s when I was stationed in Germany I was struck by how much better quality the German game components were. The boxes were much sturdier as a rule.

These days, while a few wargame makers still publish boxes that won't hold up to well, the majority seem to have realized that wargames have a long life-span and the box needs to be designed accordingly. Outstanding among the publishers is GMT with its heavy duty game boxes -- I like to call them the "armored box." These seem like they'll last many a trip to cons and game buddy houses. The squarish box design used by a lot of companies now such as Hasbro, Flying Frog, Fantasy Flight, Days of Wonder and others also seems pretty durable and stackable.

Counters, miniatures and blocks -- more durability discussion

IJN cruiser Kumano from the Avalon Hill game Midway. 1969 counter on the right, a somewhat newer one (ca. 1980) on the left

Comments on mounted vs. unmounted maps below prompted me to consider the durability of other common game components. Maps, as a matter of fact, even the paper kind, are rarely the component that fails first in my experience.

Usually the first component that starts to disintegrate is the rule book, especially if it's a complex game or one with poorly drafted rules and you're in the darn thing all the time. Good quality paper and printing is really useful in rule books, but this is an area where many companies scrimp an use cheap paper. Still, there's not an awful lot that can be done about this, past using good quality paper and writing clear rules. A rule book is necessarily going to get a lot of handling by sweaty fingers.

Another component that should use high quality material (but often doesn't) is cards, if the game uses them. It's my practice to buy extra cards if the game uses them a lot and it looks like I'll get to play it a lot. I bought an extra set of cards for Up Front, for example, although I still haven't busted the seal. While my original card are still usable, they are showing some wear and given the likelihood that Up Front will never be reprinted I'm glad I have it. Some other games where I bought back up card sets included Commands & Colors Ancients, Gunslinger and Memoir '44.

Finally there are the unit pieces. The winner in the durability contest are figures hands down. While occasionally they can get damaged or destroyed if stepped on, for the most part they remain in near pristine condition if minimally cared for. I have copies of Broadside and Dogfight from the 60s that I bought on eBay that are in pretty tough shape in many ways, but the planes and ships are in good shape. I have metal painted miniatures that are decades old and I'm quite certain will be around long after I'm gone. Even the pre-painted miniatures from collectible games I expect are virtually immortal so long as they are not abused.

Nearly as good are wooden blocks. I have had some cases where stickers have come off a block or two, but with the exception of an old copy of Rommel in the Desert, in no cases has it been common and many of my block games are getting long in the tooth. And those block games that have embossed or screen printed blocks seem as permanent as the plastic figures. They could be used as grave goods.

Card board counters, on the other hand, are another story. The oils from hands and the friction from the playing surface and stacking means that counters can get some serious wear, even if the game isn't played often. Back when Avalon Hill was in business I ordered replacement counters for a number of games over the years, such as Afrika Korps and Midway. Most companies don't offer this service though, and I can see problems down the line for some games in my collection. The main reason why this isn't a bigger problem is that I have so many games that few get the kind of intense play that AH games got back in the day. And many popular games go though multiple printings, sometimes with multiple companies, so that you can get a newer (Perhaps improved) copy later. Some games I have in my collection that are NOT the original copy I owned include OGRE, The Awful Green Things From Outer Space, A House Divided, For The People, Bitter Woods, Monopoly, War of 1812, Wizard Kings and Quebec 1759.

Another factor with cardboard counters is different degrees of wear. It's often the case that some counters and markers see more use than others. It's not unusual for the turn marker to wear down to a nub first. In games where you have to draw activation chits these often wear out fast as well. Sometimes a unit spends a lot more time on the board than others. The German panzer regiments in Afrika Korps often show a lot more wear than any other pieces -- while the British substitute units are sometimes in mint condition! Usually this doesn't have an impact in play, but I could see times when it might matter, such as if the game uses inverted units.

Counters do have many advantages, of course. They can hold much more game information than blocks or figures. They cost less to make and weigh less when shipping. You can stack them. So lots of times they're a good choice. But there is a trade off in durability.

One thing that game makers could do more often is offer replacement parts. I think cards should always be available for separate purchase. You shouldn't have to buy a whole new game just because the cards wore out. Rule books should be online. That way they can be updated easily and players can download a new and updated version oft he rules when their original comes apart. And I think counter sheets should be available. One thing I also hate seeing is blank counters on a counter sheet. Put something on it. Extra "Game Turn" makers never hurt. There's no excuse for blanks in any game that uses any kind of status markers, either.

For me, because I tend to dabble in a large range of games rather than play any one game intensively,. durability usually revolves around storage issues. But a lot of people like to play the heck out of their favorite games -- and for that sort of player how well the game components stand up to repeated usage is important. It's a real shame to have your game fall apart before you're tired of it.

Mounted or not?

I'll admit to a game prejudice. I prefer mounted boards.

This may be because my formative years were spent with Avalon Hill games. I came across SPI and some of the other paper map companies a little later on.

One welcome trend I've been seeing is the proliferation of mounted map boards -- often as upgrades for games that originally came out with paper or cardboard maps. Some recent examples include Commands & Colors Ancients, Paths of Glory, Twilight Struggle, The Awful Green Things From Outer Space and Shiloh (Columbia Games).

The debate between mounted map fans and the unmounted aficionados is one that can't really be settled, one way or the other. Partisans of each can point to various reasons why their favorite display is better.

Obviously the biggest advantage of paper or cardboard maps is expense, followed closely by weight and space. A paper map game costs less to make, costs less to ship and, all things being equal, will take up less space in storage. For some purposes paper maps are indispensable -- magazines with games in them, for example, would be impractical with mounted boards for reasons of postage alone. Many players like to overlay Plexiglas on their maps to preserve the surface, smooth out wrinkles and hold the map in place. All valid points, although the reason why you need to smooth out wrinkles and hold the map down is because it's NOT mounted. In some games it's convenient to be able to write on the playing surface, which is easy to to with Plexiglas. Some players also like to use magnetized counter holders which is easy to do with a papper map placed on a metal sheet. They can be mounted on a wall or stored in drawers (specially made or map drawers) between plays. Paper maps and cardboard maps also avoid problems where map cuts meet. There can be a seamless transition between two map sections separated by a cut, whereas a mounted mapborad often is forced to leave a small gap.

Despite all these factors, when given a choice I'll opt for a mounted board. The main advantages I see in mounted boards is durability and providing a steady playing surface. Durability comes in both short-term and long-term ways. For the short-term, mounted map boards are usually more resistant to accidents such as spills and tears. For the long-term, if properly stored, mounted map boards can last decades. I have a 1961 edition of Avalon Hill's Civil War wargame which appears practically new -- despite being 50 years old! In contrast, long-term storage of a paper map is brutal and I have several games that have seen little table time that have maps splitting at the folds. A mounted map is less likely to be disturbed during a game than an unsecured paper or cardboard map. Securing the paper map usually means either taping it down or that trusty bit of Plexglas. Plexiglas isn't as portable as a folded mounted mapboard, however, a factor if you're not playing at home. A mounted mapboard can allow a game to be played on a less than ideal surface such as a picnic table, rough wooden table or even a blanket or the bed. Finally, and very subjectively, there's an aura of quality about a mounted board that makes the playing experience just a little better.

I won't thumb my nose at an game just because it has an unmounted mapboard. I have no shortage of unmounted map games in my collection. Some of my favorite manufacturers almost never use mounted boards, such as Columbia Games and MMP. But finding out a game has a mounted mapboard is definitely a selling point for me and I'm willing to lay out a little extra dough for one -- or buy one separately. I'll probably get the mounted For the People map, for example, just like I picked up the mounted maps for Commands & Colors Ancients when they became available.

And so it begins -- 150th anniversary of the Civil War

And so it began 150 years ago today -- The American Civil War -- variously known as the War Between the States, the War of Secession, etc. In a sense I am looking for to this 150th. I think anything that nurtures a sense of history in the public is a good thing, and public appreciation of the Civil War in particular is needed because it's not quite dead history yet.

Compared to just about any other war that Americans fought the controversy over the meaning, events and consequences of the war still reverberate. While there's some controversy over the wars we are fighting today in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even lingering bitterness over Vietnam, I'm confident that the 150th anniversary of those wars will be as little remarked as the anniversaries of the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War or the Spanish-American War. Indeed, the recent 20th anniversary of the First Gulf War passed with hardly a mention in the media.

Today I commemorated the opening of the Civil War with a Civil War Game day at Arkham Asylum where we played games from the centennial of 1961 (Avalon Hill's Civil War) and the 150th Anniversary edition of Battle Cry. Over the next few years, God willing, I hope to reprise that with other game days marking significant battle anniversaries from the war. Next up will be First Bull Run in July.

Picked up an interesting volume

I just bought a copy of The Fred Jane Naval War Game (1906), which is interesting in its own right, but this 2008 edition edited by John Curry includes a lot more than the classic naval game by the famous man.

Also included are:

A brief bio of Fred T. Jane by Curry

The 1906 rules by Jane, which represented the game in its mature form.

Some "Fast Play" rules by Jane

The Royal Navy Wargame of 1921, which was the official RN rules for board exercises

and finally an interesting historical piece from 1914 "Your Navy As a Fighting Machine" by Fred T. Jane.

All for under $15.

Jim Dunnigan on Boardgame Geek!

Wargame legend Jim Dunnigan takes questions at Boardgame Geek. Check it out!

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.

Martin Wallace's Gettysburg Take 3 and Take 4

Mid-game, courtesy of Glen Cote. The Union line is taking shape along the Fishhook, with key positions already fortified.

Courtesy of Glen Cote I got in my third and fourth games of Martin Wallace's Gettysburg.

First off, let me say that it's an enjoyable system to play. Not too fiddly, reasonably intuitive, full of dramatic flourishes.

One fairly amusing episode reminded me of the famous (or infamous) "Guard Militia" that made frequent appearances in my old gaming group from 20 years ago. We had a running joke in our group about the "Guard Militia" because it invariably seemed like our elite units underperformed in battle (Panther tanks brewing up, critical hits sinking battleships, Imperial Guard routs, etc.) while some unpromising "low-quality" unit would be the hero of the day, hence the "Guard" Militia.

In this case it was an impromptu counterattack by a single "inferior" Union infantry unit which managed to eliminate four (admittedly damaged) confederate units including one elite over the course of two assaults. While I wouldn't call it a game changer (the CSA offensive was stalling already) it definitely closed down CSA options in that side of the field and pretty much forced Glen into the forlorn hope frontal assaults against Cemetery Hill he alluded to in his Facebook summary.

After four games I'm beginning to feel like I'm wrapping my head around the game system. Like Bowen Simmons' games, Martin Wallace's games are really different from traditional hex-and-counter wargames. After some 40 years of playing hex-and-counter games I have to I'd pretty comfortable picking up almost any of them, new or old, without feeling completely at sea over what to do.

The Simmons and Wallace approaches are nice change of pace. It's a real break from the same-old, same-old. Can't wait to play again.

King Philip's War first session report

Finally had the chance to get KPW on the table with the help of long-time friend and all-around excellent player Carl N. That Carl is, indeed an excellent player is demonstrated b how close this game was, being decided by a single point on the last turn. While neither of us had played before, I owned the game so I had the opportunity to study the rules and fool around with it solitaire. Carl came in stone cold.

I took the Indians for the first go around because I figured it would give him a turn or two to get into the game system. I think the Indians can't survive a bad start.

My general plan was to spend the first few turns causing as much havoc as I could in Plymouth and Rhode Island and then ship Philip out west to rampage in the Connecticut River valley while using the powerful Narragansetts to form a buffer. And this was pretty nuch how the game played out, although with some twists and turns along the way.

The first twist was a really miserable initial turn by Philip. Between canceled battles and other bad die rolls only one English settlement was razed. This meant Philp wouldn't eb able to recruit any more tribes to his cause on Turn 2. Among the disappointing attacks was completely unsuccessful raid on Edgartown oN Marth's Vineyard. The English reacted by summoning help from Connecticut by sea to make Edgartown too tough to take. Meanwhile Massachusetts Bay sent substantial forces south into Plymouth as well.

Over the balance of the Summer and Fall it became clear that the English strategy was going to be classic force on force fighting to eliminate as many Indian units as possible. Aside from devastating the Pocassets the English generally battled Indian stacks rather than targeting villages. In contrast the Indians generally avoided troops when they could, concentrating on razing settlements. Rhode Island came under severe early pressure, lsoing 3 of its five settlements before winter and one of the remaining was raided. Only Pawtuxet was untouched, largely because that was where the Rhode Island Captain and his company were stacked. While the gentleman was good at defending his home town, his 1675 attempts at offesnsive action all came to naught for one reason or another.

The English also caught a break when Church entered the game on Turn 2, so they barely had to deal with all the pre-Church restrictions. About the only thing Church didn't do is bring many Allied Indians with him.The English policy of generally leaving villages alone meant the potential allies were unimpressed.

Just before Winter Philip moved out West to recruit the Nipmucks and open a new front. Western Massachusetts and Connecticut were vulnerable with most of both Connecticut and Massachusetts troops campaigning in Plymouth. The surviving Indians in the Plymoutha nd Rhode Island areas were finding themselves hemmed in by large numbers of colonists. The surviving Pocassets took refuge in Montaup Fort and Wampanoags and Sakonnets generally stood on the defensive. Taunton and Swansea were the only razed settlements in Plymouth at this point. The Indians were ahead on victory points but not by much. Winter attrition sent home 5 Colonial units and one Indian.

The year 1676 saw Philip pretty much running wild out West, recruiting the Niantics, the Pocumtucks, the Abenakis and finally the Narragansetts into the war. Trying to bring in the Mohawks didn't seem worthwhile as the Indians already had more than five active powerful warbands available. The Abenaki effort north of Boston wasn't all that successful, on;y managing to raze Gloucester while losing an Abenaki village and a warrior to the Connecticut Company and some Massachusetts troops.

With no captains out West the colonists were pretty much stuck on the defensive, but the Colonial companies in Rhode Island and Plymouth were closing in on substantial Inidan parties and racked up significant victory points when Montaup fell and during the Sakonnet's last stand at Edgartown (which was at least razed the second time the Sakonnets went for it.

By the end of Indian combat on Turn 9 there was hardly a structure lefts standing in New England west of Lancaster/Marlborough aside from Hartford and Middletown. The last few turns Philip and Cononchet concentrated on Connecticut hoping to make th New York-Connecticut border war a sure thing. They fell a tad short, but the 5/6 chance was enough with a die roll of 3 and the Indians had 3 very important victory points. A last stab at victory on the English final turn netted 4 victory points but it wasn't enough and the final score was 28 to 27.

The different approaches taken by the two sides were reflected in the breakdown of how the points were scored. Philip's side scored three points for the New York war and one point for an eliminated English unit. The other 24 points all cane from razed settlements! The English only scored 10 points for razed villages and the other 17 points came from eliminated warriors and Sachems. No Key Leaders on either side were lost. The only fort even attacked was Montaup and it took three turns of effort by large English forces to finally fall.

Overall it was a very enjoyable game and both of us were interested in another go sometime. It too a little under three hours to play, including reading the rules.

China-US trade war and its impact on gaming

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Blundering on a Global Scale

So our second game of Global Axis & Allies 1940 at Arkham Asylum was another success, although certainly marked by some inexpert play -- especially on my part.

I took Germany because I felt that too much of the game rides on a sufficiently aggressive German player to give it to a complete newbie. The other two Axis powers were controlled by a new player, while another young Arkham denizen controlled all the Allies at first -- although he was eventually joined by a player experienced in other versions of the game who took overt he US -- which had a big impact on the outcome of the game, as will be seen.

The Axis got off to a bad start because I misjudged how much force I would need to ensure that France fell -- and then proceeded to roll pretty badly as well and so France DID NOT FALL on Turn 1! This through off my timing enough that I wasn't quite ready to invade Russia by Turn 4 and the Russians actually declared war on Germany. Meanwhile the war with the British was more or less inconclusive, although the Italians made some decent progress in the Med area. Nothing spectacular, but probably sufficient in a normal game.

Where things went worse for the Axis was in the Pacific. The Japanese player's initial intention was to concentrate on China but on Turn 2 he changed his mind and rashly attacked everything in sight. He was tempted by a chance to pull a Pearl Harbor on the US fleet in Hawaii and did so, but it was rather costly> He also attacked Russia and the British, though, which had the effect of dispersing his efforts too much. China, meanwhile, was unsubdued.

The worst effect was to give the US a couple extra turns of Bonus production which they used to good effect building another huge fleet. And on Turn 5 the US made their move, sending a huge naval force to meet the Japanese main fleet in Japanese waters. Unfortunately for the Axis, the Japanese had neglected to leave a garrison on the home islands and the US sent a small invasion force. Victory in the Sea battle would mean the Fall of Japan!

The battle was pretty even, but the US had just enough extra firepower to prevail in the end and Japan fell.

We called the game at that point. While Japan would probably be able to retake the homeland, it would do so only by essentially abandoning China. Meanwhile the US had 137 IPC to spend on building a new invasion fleet while Japan would have trouble beefing up its defenses. (A key rule in 1940 is that a captured Major Industrial Site is reduced to a minor site, which would limit Japan to building just 3 units in Japan until it was upgraded. It's doubtful Japan would have either the time or the money to do that before the US was back.

If the European Axis had been doing better it might have been worth playing on, but as noted the Germans were just starting to get into it with Russia and overall the European Axis situation was, at best, mediocre.

Everyone involved enjoyed themselves and there were calls for a rematch, so I will try to schedule a Round 3 for the Global A&A 1940 before year's end. I think I may try to schedule a warmup 1942 game the week before the global 1940 game to build up player expertise in the system a little bit. Ideally the German, Japanese, Russian, American and British players should be experienced, I think. I think ANZAC, China, France and Italy provide good entry-level commands for new players.

More action on the lighter wargame front

It appears that 2010 is going to be a banner year for lighter wargames. Besides the newly released Napoleon's War: The 100 Days, it looks like there will be two other Napoleonic era wargames with figures and user-friendly procedures published by Fantasy Flight Games and GMT (the long-awaited Commands & Colors: Ancients.

There's also a new C&C: Ancients expansion on the way, as well as a new updated edition of the orginal Borg game, Battle Cry.

The Axis & Allies series will continue with the other half (Europe) of the huge 1940 edition of A&A. The naval miniatures line recently had an expansion set and the next set for the land miniatures is due by the end of the year.

We're also still getting expansions for Memoir '44 and Battlelore.

Fantasy Flight is also promising a new expansion for Tide of Iron, which is, in truth, a little more involved than some of these other titles.

Columbia Games continues to put out its block games, most of which seem to have settled into the same sweet spot represented by Hammer of the Scots. Both Richard III and Julius Caesar are essentially variations on the system pioneered by HOTS and seen since in Crusader Rex and Athens & Sparta.

This is an interesting trend. The popularity of these games is hard to pin down. On the one hand I do think that they're attracting some new blood into the hobby, especially among the euro-gaming crowd. But I'm also seeing a lot of long-time, hard-core wargamers graviating to these games. While a bit dodgy as simulations, many of these games provide a good helping of the strategy and drama of a good wargame while generally being much more kind to our limited game time and opportunities. Most of them are pretty quick to play and, perhaps more importantly, pretty quick to learn.

While the more traditional, detailed hex-and-counter and card-driven designs also seem to be going strong these days, I wonder if they are hitting the table with as much frequency as the lighter fare.

Lee has his way with Hooker, again!

Commemorating the anniversary of the Battle of Chancellorsville, fought on this date in 1863, I hauled a copy of Battle Cry down to the local game store where one of the behind the counter guys can usually be counted on to try out some new (to them) game.

This scenario does a pretty good job of replicating the historical situation despite the limited detail of the game's tools. In this case the numerical edge of the Union force is illustrated with 12 units to the Rebels 8.

But the Confederate superiority in Command gets a three-fold expression, resulting in a significant advantage for that army. First off, they have 2 generals, to just 1 for the USA. Secondly, and more importantly, the CSA player has a 5-card hand of Command cards while the USA player has a mere 3! Thirdly, and perhaps most important of all, except for one unit, the entire Federal force is set up in the center zone, resulting in the majority of sector cards being useless to them. The CSA is set up on both flanks and has every incentive and opportunity to move into the center zone, so nearly all sector cards are usable to them.

I took the USA side because I felt that the Command problems would probably overwhelm a new player.

The course of the battle was not unexpected. As it turned out the CSA drew a well-balanced set of initial cards and their subsequent draws were useful as well, resulting in a strong and sustained pincer attack on the Federal position. The USA cards, on the other hand, were not great. About the only bright spot was that the US drew the All Out Assault card at the start, which came in useful once the CSA forces closed into contact and helped keep the game closer than it might have been.

Nevertheless it wasn't really a close affair, as attested to by the 6-2 ratio in victory flags. It only took about 45 minutes to play the game, so the battle took brely more time than the set up!

Kicking Some Goblin Ass

Young General made an atypical choice in this latest episode of BattleLore, choosing to take the Goblin side in the Goblin Riders scenario from the Goblin Marauders expansion.

There was no mystery in this selection, because as much as Young General doesn't care for Goblins, he absolutely loves playing Mounted Charge cards and there was a lot more potential for that sort of thing with the cavalry heavy Goblin army than the mount-starved Dwarven-Human force.

As is his practice, Young General selected a balanced war council with Level 1 lore masters all around and a Level 2 Commander. Old Warrior followed his standard strategy of picking a Level 3 lore master, in this case the Warrior and a Level 3 Commander. The Stronghold and the Training Camp were set up om the right edge of the center and the right flank respectively. Old Warrior planned to use the Training camp to upgrade his blue banner dwarf unit on the right to a red banner and use the Stronghold as a sniper post for some archers.

Young General's been successful enough that Old Warrior felt comfortable inflicting some strategy on the youngster. Old Warrior noted that capturing the bridge was worth 2 victory banners but suspected that if he didn't seize the bridge right away he might be able to spring a sudden victory on the Goblins.

Old Warrior opened the action with some attacks that cleared a path to the bridge but held back from actually capturing it. Meanwhile Young General not only started the game with a Mounted Charge in hand but soon draw a second one, as well as some other useful cards and pressed hard against the center of the Standard Army, even managing to capture the Stronghold!

As usual, however, the Dwarves were deadly in the close combat and kept the game close, with the Victory Banners being 4 for the Goblin-Human Pennant Army of Young General and 3 for the Old Warrior's Human-Dwarf Standard. At this moment Old Warrior unleashed his trap, with an Assault Lore card that allowed a general advance and the seizure of the bridge., bringing the Standard Army within one banner of victory The odds were that the Standard army's attacks would succeed somewhere, and so it proved with the promoted Red banner Dwarf unit finishing off a Goblinoid rider for the win.

A hard-fought victory, and a glance at Young general's face revealed that he wouldn't be caught by a trick like that again!

Audacity Part II -- Second Battle of Narvik

British Audacity was on display again for the Second Battle of Narvik 70 years ago today when they sent a battleship deep inside of a Norwegian fjord to lead a task force to attack the German destroyers that survived the First Battle of Narvik on April 10.

Unlike the first battle, which saw an outnumbered British destroyer squadron attacking the more numerous and larger Germans, in this battle the weight of effort was clearly on the British side.

Leading the task force was the HMS Warspite, a modernized veteran of the World War I Battle of Jutland with eight 15-inch guns. Accompanying it were 9 destroyers. The German destroyers, most of which had been damaged in the earlier fight.

The outcome was unsurprising, as the entire German force was annihilated, including a sub sunk by Warspite's floatplane. Three of the British destroyers were damaged, including the HMS Eskimo, which had its bow blown off by a German torpedo. The Eskimo survived to return to England despite the heavy damage. She was rebuilt and fought throughout the war, surviving it.

All-in-all, the naval battles of Narvik were a good illustration of the boldness that made the Royal Navy such a formidable opponent.

Hindsight bias

Some recent discussions on Boardgame Geek got me to thinking again about the problem of Hindsight Bias in historical wargames. Simply stated, a wargamer playing a Gettysburg game of any sort, no matter how realistic, enjoys a major advantage over the historical Lee -- he knows how it turned out. Or perhaps even more importantly, the gamer knows the potential range of possible outcomes.

I don't think there's a way out of this dilemma directly. You can only introduce so many changes into a game about Gettysburg before you're not playing a Gettysburg game any more.

But this is why I think there's some value in playing alternative history or what-if scenarios or wargames on occasion, because it can give the player a little taste of the situation facing the real commanders. For them the battle was the first 'playtest' and they had only a vague idea of the rules, let alone victory conditions or OB.

Mixing in a few alt history games can help keep in check our tendency to judge the actual participants a bit too harshly, much of the time. I know I wouldn't want to be judged on my first play most of the time.

Eye candy? Yes, I'll have some

A post over on Boardgame Geek asks if wargamers these days NEED "eye candy" to play a wargame, comparing these unfavorably to the classic games of yore such as Afrika Korps or Panzerblitz. The unspoken assumption is that real wargamers don't need fancy graphics and certainly don't need plastic soldiers.

Well, I have to admit that I am easily seduced by "eye candy," and that nearly all of my recent wargame purchases involve toy soldiers, blocks or full color counters. Visual impact has always been big part of the allure of miniatures games and I don't see any reason why board games shouldn't tap into it as well.

But in a larger sense, the writer misses the point because when they came out games like Afrika Korps and Panzerblitz WERE eye candy. It's easy to forget now, but that large yellow desert in AK was a step up from the bland white boards used in previous AH games such as D-Day, Gettysburg or Chancellorsville. And Panzerblitz, with its vehicle silhouettes and Redmond Simonsen-style graphics was a big leap up from the hobby state of the art. It wasn't just the rules that made Panzerblitz a runaway success.

So I think eye candy is not only necessary for wargamers but it has always been necessary.