Memoir '44 Grand Campaign finished

Finished my first Grand Campaign from the Campaign book against Game Store Tony. It was a very near run thing, but Tony's Germans managed to prevail with a pretty convincing 6-3 win in the final game. This game him a 2 point Major Victory in the campaign and a 4-2 overall Grand Campaign victory.

It all did come down to the last game, though and had the medal count been reversed the Allies would have won a Minor campaign victory, worth 1 point, and therefore edged out a 3-2 Grand Campaign win. Nicely balanced.

Next we're moving on to the Russian front for a Grand Campaign of Barbarossa. Unlike the Normandy Campaign set up, where the outcomes of different battles would direct the Grand Campaign down different Campaign paths, in the Barbarossa Grand Campaign there are just some small variations among the battles played, but all three Campaigns get played -- one each for Army Group North, Center and South. The twist is that you play the first half of all three Campaigns first and then go back and play the send half of the campaigns. This seems like it will make it hard to gauge overall progress toward victory in the early going.

The battles will also be interesting. All will be played with the Red Army Commissar rule, which basically forces the Soviet player to play his command cards a turn behind the action. He plays his command card under the Commissar and then executes it the next turn (with certain exceptions such as Ambush and Counterattack). Game Store Tony has volunteered to play the Soviet side for this campaign.

A few more thoughts on Invasion From Outer Space

I think it's worth pointing out that Invasion, while a skirmish-level "wargame," doesn't get into any nitty gritty details about what your character is doing in the sens of tracking postures, facing or the like. You character is simply in a space, carrying one or two items. About the only detail that's tracked is whether it's a 2-handed item, in which case you can just carry one. This is much less detail than, for example, Munchkin.

This opens up the possibility for some house rules if you want to create a stronger narrative for the game, at the cost of slowing it down. Still, I could see importing some rules from more detailed skirmish-level games without too much trouble. This would work especially well if you have just one hero per player. If there's a drawback to the game it is that it might be too simple for the more hard-core gamer types if they're only handling one character.

I also think that inexperienced hero teams should probably be given an extra "life" or two, as the learning curve is really quite steep. In a game the other night the Heroes got off to a real strong start in am "Invasion" scenario, killing 16 Martians without a loss -- and then they lost two heroes in the same turn and were done. Perhaps a group with no experienced players should be given two extra heroes in the Invasion scenario (and they really have no business playing any of the other scenarios at all). If a set of Heroes has half or more inexperienced players they should get one extra hero life. In this case I'd define an inexperienced player as someone who has never played, has only played the Invasion scenario or hasn't played in a year or more.

As I mentioned, there are two scenarios (Blow 'em Out of the Sky and Unleashed) that are really for experienced players only and I don't think they can afford to have any inexperienced players to have a chance, but should they insist they probably should also get extra chances with dead heroes.

Another balancing mechanic would be to give players an extra hero card or two, but I think more replacement heroes is probably more helpful. Using the cards properly requires some undertsanding of the game and probably won't help a newbie much, while being able to survive a run of bad luck that leaves your hero dead is the sort of break a newbie can use.

Invasion From Outer Space: The Martian Game

Invasion From Outer Space: The Martian Game, is a very campy cinematic-style 2010 wargame from Flying Frog Productions, using the same system from its zombie game Last Night on Earth.

When I say "cinematic-style," I mean that the game doesn't try to depict "reality" as such, but rather attempts to capture the "reality" of a movie or television show -- which we know isn't quite reality at all.

The game relentlessly evokes a cinematic style, with developed "characters," scenarios that resemble movie plots, artwork that appears to be "stills" from a movie and it even includes a soundtrack.
In a touch of brilliance, the game pits Mars Attacks! style Martian invaders against Circus Performers! Now, I'm unaware of any actual movie that had that match up, but there should have been.

On one side are the Martians, controlled by one or two players, depending upon the number of players in the game (helpfully divided into blue and purple Martians) comprising a regukar force of 18 soldiers and two Martian "champions" -- a leader and a"Zard beast."

The game is asymmetric, with the Martin s acting together through the turn phases -- so all Martians move at the same time and fire their ray guns at the same time, for example. In contrast, the heroes each take their turns individually, so each hero moves, shoots and fights before the next one acts at all.

Both sides have decks of cards they can draw from, although this is also asymmetrical. The Martians get 2 cards per turn, with the possibility for more, while the Heroes get more cards by giving up their movement for a turn and "searching" while in a building. This entitles them to draw one card. Giving up a move is a pretty severe penalty for the heroes, however, as greater mobility is one of their key advantages over the Martians. Most of the time the Martians move a single square per turn, while the human heroes move 1-6 spaces depending on an die roll.
And yes, the board uses squares. The heavy card stock board is a full-color overhead view of a circus or carnival. There's a double-sided central board (one side depicts a "big-top" tent while the flip side is then open "fairgrounds." There are six L-shaped single-sided boards depicting various other portions of the circus. Four of these are randomly selcted and arranged around the central board to make a 21-inch by 21-inch playing surface.

The highlight of the components are the figures. There are 18 regular Martian soldiers in three poses and two colors. These come with clear plastic "domes" you glue on for the proper effect. There are also the two aforementioned Martian champions, a leader and a beast in a neutral steel blue beacuse they can be used by either player if there are two Martian players.

The Hero side is comprised of eight highly detailed (very suitable for painting by those so inclined and talented) grey plastic heroes.

There are two decks of sturdy cards, one each for the Heroes and for the Martians. Both sets include "events" that can be played to aid your side or hinder the other. The Humans also have access to various helpful items, many of which are weapons, while the Martians have "Technology" cards that can enhance them in sundry ways.

Other components include dice, thick card stock templates, hero cards, scenario cards and other play aids and several counter sheets of glossy counters. It's all very snazzy and attractive. There 32-page full-color illustrated rule book book explains the fairly straightforward game system comprehensively and even inldes rules for combining the Last Night of Earth game with Invasion You can have the circus performers fight off zombies instead of Martians, for example, or have the Martians invade the town instead of the circus. You can even combine the two games into a massive three-sided Humans vs. Zombies vs. Martians battle that can accommodate up to 8 players.

There's a basic game that leaves out a few of the more involved rules and a third of each deck and has just one scenario -- "Invasion" -- which is basically a straightforward battle. Most groups will want to transition quickly into the "Advanced" game which adds four more scenarios.

The rule book doesn't provide much guidance, except to note that the learning curve is steeper for the hero side, but the most balanced for new players is definitely the Invasion Scenario. The Heroes are trying to kill 20 Martians before they lose two of their own. It's worth mentioning that the Hero side si always comprised of four heroes, no matter how many players there are. In a 2-player game one person controls all four heroes, while in a 5- or 6-player game each hero is controlled by one player. If a Hero is killed, then a new one comes on the board immediately to replace the fallen one. Two of the scenarios "Abduction" and "Wipe Them Out" involve the Heroes trying to protect circus allies or crowds, respectively, with the burden of attack on the Martian side. These are still very challenging for inexperienced heroes, but not hopeless. The other two scenarios, "Blow 'em Out of the Sky" and "Unleashed" are for experienced heroes players only. Both involve finding specific cards from the deck as prerequisites for the actions needed to win and the burden for victory rests with the Hero side.

That's not to say that the Heroes don't have some advantages. They are, as noted, potentially much faster than the Martians and if they find ranged weapons they will usually out-range the Martians. For some reason the Martian ray guns are very short-ranged -- just one square. (I don't know why, heavier Earth gravity, perhaps, or maybe thicker Earth air). Even a revolver has a range of three squares, in contrast. And the Martian fire isn't all that accruate, hitting on a 5 or 6 on a D6. Three Martians can share a square and if they do, they get several advantages -- including shooting better -- they now hit on a 4-6. But the humans get a saving roll against each potential hit. each has an "agility rating" but even the least agile has a 50% chance of dodging a ray gun blast.

When Heroes and Martians are in the same square they "fight." Each Martian rolls one die, while each Hero rolls two dice -- with various cards and special abilities potentially affecting the results. The higesht single die roll determines the winner. So, for example, if a Hero is fighting a single martian and rolls a 3 and 5 while the Martian rolls a 4, then the Hero wins. If, however, the Martian had rolled a 6, he would win. The loser take a "wound," which is enough to kill an ordinary Martian. All the heroes and the Martian champions can take more than one wound.

The entire system is quick and intuitive and easy to teach to new players. It';s also quite colorful, a s quick rundown of the Heroes reveals.

The two strongest Heroes are Carl, the Strongman and Jo Jo, the Dancing Bear. While nether one can use guns, they both have special abilities that help them in a fight. Every Hero has several special abilities, inlcuding one that is called a "Talent." Talents are especially powerful, but require spending a "Power Token" to use. Each Hero starts the game with a Power Token and has a 33% chance of getting an additional one every turn, to a maximum of three. For example, Carl always rolls an extra fight die as part of his "Heavyweight" special ability, but in addition he can spend a Power Token to activate his "Bash Heads" talent which allows him to do an extra wound whenever he wins a fight. Carl and Jo Jo are both tough, taking four wounds to kill, although they are somewhat vulnerable to the ray guns -- only dodging on a roll of 4+. They'll normally be used to wade into hand-to-hand combat with Martians.

At the other extreme are Lucrezia, the Contortionist, and R.J. Flannigan, the Ringmaster. They die on their second wound, but are very agile, dodging on a 2 or better. They each have some movement bonuses and have some healing ability. Lucrezia and heal herself of one wound if she give sup a move, while R.J. can heal himself or another hero by spending a Power Token and rolling a 3+. They're best used to search for stuff, although their dodging ability is useful to frustrate Martian ray gun fire.

The other three ladies among the heroes can form some deadly combos, depending on who is in the game. Hannah, the fire breather, has a devastating Fireball attack than can take out more than one Martian at once while Cassidy, the Trick Shooter is deadly with firearms. Angelica, the Bearded Woman, has the unique talent of Teamwork, which lets her copy any other hero's Talent. This can be a nasty if she teams up with Hannah, of Cassidy (assuming Angelica gets a gun)> It also combos nicely with R.J. healing ability and Carl's head bashing. These three are of average toughness, taking three wounds to kill and dodge on a 3+.

With similar stats is Archibald, the Human Cannonball, but his talents eems alkittle hard to use efefctively. He can fire himself from one of the circus cannons scattered around the board with a potentially deadly effect on any martians he lands on. That's good, but it also means he's likely to end up in the middle of some Martians when he's done.

Besides their stats, each Hero has a little background bio, helping to set the proper movie-like mood. For example. Lucrezia, the Contortionist "Left at the stoop of the ringmaster's wagon as an infant, the only life Lucrezia has ever known is that of the circus. As the youngest performer, her exotic nature and fantastic abilities only further her desire to discover the truth of her mysterious past ... and her terrible nightmare."

While all game designs are collaborative efforts, Invasion has an impressively Hollywood style list of credits, including 19 listed "Cast" members. And it has a soundtrack.

I'm no music critic, and the sound track is nice enough, but I have to admit that it didn't seem very 1950s-ish. Still, it wouldn't hurt to have it playing softly in the background. Overall this is a really nice production and I've had some fun introducing it to new players. The game warns that it has a "mature" theme, but I don't think it's especially problematical for most ages. The scariness is rather cartoonish and while it's rated as being for 12 and up, in reality younger kids can easily grasp the game concepts and probably have seen worse on TV on a Saturday afternoon.

Sorry for the hiatus

Among the travails of volunteer blogging is that sometimes life crowds you out.

Wings of War: Session and casualty report

One of the pitfalls of a public gaming day is the risk of mishaps, and so it was on a fine July afternoon that my Werner Voss Albatros D.III met its end in its maiden flight. Sigh.

The day's inaugural battle at the redoubtable Arkham Asylum was a small version of my "Lafyatte, We Are Here' scenario. On the Allied side were a rocket-armed Nieuport 16 and a Nieuport 17, both from the Lafyatte Escadrille. On the German side was the above-mentioned Albatros, defending a Balloon with the help of three ground-based machine-gun nests.

As the balloon-busting mission is inherently challenging, I took the two Nieuprots while a rookie player (one of the Magic: The Gathering crowd at Arkham Asylum) took the Albatros.

It was an entertaining battle, as the rookie flew decently enough and I, too, am really a rookie, having just a few game under my belt as well. I'm pretty familiar with the rules, but like a newbie out of flight school I still need some seasoning in battle. In any case I was able to get qute a few shots on the balloon, but not enough to down it. My planes took a few hits, but neither was in danger of going down, barring an unlucky hit. I hadn't been tracking turns, but my guess is that were were close to or slightly past the 12-turn stand when the German player announced this would have to be his last turn. Ah, if only we'd just ended it there. While willing enough, the rookie was rather obviously much more comfortable rifling through cards than handling miniatures gently and there had already been a few close calls when somehow his hand brushed across the table and the Albatros went flying (I didn't see the move). Instinctively he did the wrong thing and stepped back and there was quite a loud crunch as Voss' plane became a compete wreck.

He gallantly offered twice to pay for the model, but I refused. I had invited him to play, after all, and frankly, I blamed myself because I had allowed the model to be too close to the table edge -- it was actually off of the playing mat and should have been replaced with the card, hindsight (and my future practice) tells.

There was a break in the action and when we resumed I ran through a couple of solitaire games with Frank Luke alone in his SPAD 13 against the balloon and its machine guns. The first mssision ended in the first shot as the balloon blew up! Fun, but not really very instructive. So I played through again and managed to down the balloon in just under the 12 turns on the second play through. This is an indication of how challenging the balloon busting mission is -- even unopposed it can be tough.

At left, Frank Luke lines up for a shot at the balloon.

A new rookie pilot, intrigued by the balloon busting (and thankfully much more adept with his hands) took up the challenge of defending the balloon. This time it was Luke and Rickenbacker against a Fokker D.VII. I gave Luke incendiary bullets and made him a bullet-checker, so he'd have less change to jam.

The new rookie, while new to Wings of War, was another experienced Magic player and also has played a few of the other wargames I've brought to the store on occasion. While not a wargamer, he's a smart dude and a quick learner. And, as I found out, the Fokker D.VII is areal nasty foe. Indeed, this was the very first time I'd seen it on the board nad it's shockingly maneuverable. It has several maneuvers that I haven't seen available to any other plane, as matter of fact.

Still, things got off to a decent start. While the Fokker nicked Luke on the way in, he and Captain Eddie were able to get multiple shots on the balloon and start to whittle it down. The ground fire wasn't too bad . I was able to wiggle Luke in through a gap in the anti-aircraft ring and Rickenbacker's direct challenge to a gun resulted in a couple of "0" damage draws. So far so good.

At right, the Fokker just misses a shot at Luke.

Meanwhile the Fokker was able to draw a bead on Rickenbacker for a close range shot. The first card drawn was another "0" but the second was the dreaded explosion! Captain Eddie was gone, just like that. Naturally this cahnged the tnor of the fight considerably. Luke doggedly made passes at the balloon, which stubbornly refused to go down, despite being set on fire a couple of time. Luke managed a couple of passing shots on the Fokker as well, including a few nicely lined up on the tail. (After the battle the German player revealed that all the Fokker hits were "0" or "1." ) Finally Luke scored with an "explosion" card and the balloon was down -- but Luke himself got caught up in the blast and his battered SPAD 13 went down as well. The Fokker was also within the blast zone, but survived with a total of 11 hits.

The nice thing about Wings of War is that it's easy to pick up, and I plan to host another round of battles in a couple of weeks --although with a little more care to prevent real casualties .

The balloons are tough to take out -- I think next time I'll let the Germans try their hand at it. The Fokker D.VII was a shock. It's clearly far better than a SPAD 13. I'll have to throw a Snipe into the mix next time I use those.

Losing faith

Yep, I'm beginning to lose faith that the official published "historical" scenarios got play tested at all.

Our latest challenge to the faith involved one of the two scenarios that came with the North Africa 1940-1943 Map Guide: Operation Battleaxe.

Now, it looked to be a promising scenario as far as entertainment went, with a grand total of 17 AFV between the two sides and three maps to fight over, but even as I collected the tanks needed for the scenario I had my doubts about the German chances.


While, from a point value perspective, the Germans had an edge, 125 points to 100, but the British had Matildas! I strongly suspected that this would be the key fact about the order of battle. As has been my practice, I adjusted the order of battle to reflect that more historically accurate pieces have become available since the scenario was published -- in this case I substituted two DAK infantry men for the listed Wehrmacht Veteran Infantryman units listed. I didn't adjust the British OBeven though the Germans were down 2 points because I didn't think the difference was enough to warrant it. As events played out the differences between the units would not have mattered.

The first game of the match I took the British. The German objective was to either capture the town or have three units on the road at the end of any turn. I judged that the town victory condition was likely to be moot, because if the Germans were strong enough to take the town against resistance then they'd undoubtedly be strong enough to have three units on the road.

So I placed two riflemen in the town to prevent the Germans from simply waltzing in, while the 2-pounder anti-tank gun and the third rifleman prepared to occupy the small knoll southwest of the town. The Matilda troop set up near the town while the Crusader troop was to the East. My basic battle plan was to rush the Crusaders forward to give the Germans pause, but avoid a decisive engagement with them until the Matildas came up. The ATG was going to backstop the defense against any leakers. The Germans set up in line abreast across the bottom south end of of the map, with the tanks on the right.

The ensuing battle went more or less according to plan. The Crusaders did rush forth. The Germans advanced cautiously in the face of a couple of Overwatch markers and soon enough the Matilda troop was up. For the next several turns there was parry and thrust, probe and dance -- with most of the shooting on both sides at long range. The Germans were getting the worse of it, however, generally losing a vehicle a turn. Finally, with the clock running out the fastest German survivors, a halftrack bearing an infantry unit and the armored car, made a dash for the road along the east edge of the map. The British were so lightly prssed that I had been able to reinforce the backstop ATG with wo Crusaders and between them they were able to shoot up the attack. Total British losses were a Crusader destroyed and one Matilda damaged. The Gemrans lost everything except for one Panzer III and a couple of Panzer IVs.

The flip side match went much the same. The British setup was similar, except that the Matlidas and Crsuades were interspersed. I palced the light Germans units on the left, intending on them skulking about in the Wadi while the tanks won their fight. The Panzer IVs and IIIs set up in a group on the right. I planned to advance using the cover of the hill complex on the right side of the map and some strategic placement of smoke from the Panzer IIIs.

Things went more or less by plan, although without success. The smoke helped a nit, but the Overwatch rule still cost the Germans a bit and in the end they still came out the worst in the tank dogfight that developed around the small brush area on the east side of the center map. British losses were somewhat heavier than the first game, with three of the four Crusaders destroyed and the fourth one damaged. With similar losses on the German side, but everything still came down to a last turn rush by German survivors (A Panzer IV, the armored car and a halftrack carrying an infantryman). The British only needed to get one of them to prevent the win and the 2-pounder was up to the task, blowing up the halftrack -- And the three Matildas still hadn't taken their shots.

The Matildas are simply too tough to handle, while the 2 pounder gun on all the British armor and the ATG is adequate against the German armor at battle ranges. The Panzer IIIs and the Crusaders are an even match. While the smoke is useful, it's no more so than the Vanguard special ability which lets the British advance far enough to put pressure on the Germans from the first game turn.

So far I haven't been very impressed with the historical scenarios offered, which is too bad, because they provide a chance to play a different style of game than the straightforward duel of a competitive point-based scenario. Given the obvious mismatches so far, I suspect that there was little play testing done.

It's better to be lucky than good

After a long dry spell, Game Store Tony and I were able to resume our Civil War series of Battle Cry (150th anniversary edition) games.

As usual, he was the Confederates while I took the Union force as we squared off at Oak Grove, Virginia. This was a skirmish just before the beginning of the Seven Days battle. The USA forces were 10 infantry units and three artillery under three generals. (A cavalry unit later appeared as a reinforcement by card play). The CSA side was identical in starting strength. The Federals under Hooker had a hand size of 4 command cards and moved first. The Rebels, under Huger, had a five card hand. d

The biggest handicap for the Federal side is it's small hand of just 4 command cards. The awkward thing about the 4-card hand is that it can feel like a curse if you get a bunch of good cards. You'd like to be able to hold onto them to play at an opportune moment, but you really have to keep cards churning through your hand or you risk being stuck with a dead hand and unable to really act at all for a few turns.

As it so happened, in our game I was blessed with a long string of very useful cards such as a Battle Cry, a Call For Reinforcements, three Leadership, a Bombardment and some others and was not forced to play them too inefficiently. Helping out as well were the dice, which seemed unusually deadly for me in the early going.

The basic outline of the engagement were moderate advances by Robinson's and Grover's brigades on the Union left and center, respectively, while Sickles made a more aggressive push on the right. This was exactly the opposite of the historical result, which saw Sickles being held up while the other Union brigades progressed. Every attempt by the Rebels to advance, in contrast, seemed to wither in the face of heavy fire.

By the late game, although each side was tied at 4 flags apiece, this was misleading because the Confederates had a whole slew of weakened 1- and 2-figure infantry brigades while most of the Union troops were at full strength. The final CSA losses came at the hands of Robinson's infantry on the left and a reinforcing cavalry unit under Sickles on the Union right for a final score of 6-4.

Time wise it was a longer than usual battle, taking more than an hour to play

The Whites of Their Eyes

The redoubtable Mark K. and I had a great game day -- as is so often the case we pretty much traded wins all day long -- split matches of Commands & Colors: Ancients and Hold The Line, he notched a convincing win of Washington's Warm while I eked out an unconvincing win in Richard III. He managed to break the tie with a win in Martian Fluxx though ... .

The Hold the Line game was actually a scenario from Clash for a Continent, the Battle of Bunker Hill. Now, even by the loose standards of HTL this Bunker Hill wasn't very Bunker Hill-like. There's not much resemblance between the order of battle and the layout of the ground between the scenario and the actual event, except in the very broadest sense of some British troops making a frontal assault on a hill held by Americans.

The scenario features some "regular" Americans, some "Light Infantry" and a few cannons!! backed up by some militia along a line of hills and a rail fence. This is quite kind to the American quality level and yet basically ignores the field fortifications the Americans erected. The famous reboudt is nowhere to be seen, for example. The British force seems reasonable, with some elites, some regulars and some light infantry. It appears to me that the scenario isn't meant to represent the entire battle, but is meant to depict the final British assault alone.

For the first game I took the Americans while Mark commanded the British. He endeavored to make his main effort on his left against the right corner of the American ridge, which he managed to take, albeit at some considerable loss. My survivors fell back towards the left. I had meanwhile redeployed the artillery from the American fence to the ridge -- a move that Mark considered ill-advised. While the cannons definitely beefed up the firepower of the main line, it opened up the possibility for a dash for the victory point hexes by the British left flank Light Infantry. Decent shooting at the last moment by a couple of American militia units (taking advantage of flanking fire) cut down the British lights as they crossed the fence -- but it was a very near-run thing indeed and one bad roll would have given the Mark the win. As it turned out, though, the failure of the Lights left the British facing a tough situation and the Americans were able to get the kill they needed for a 6-6 win. (The Briitsh needed 7 VPs to win, the Americans just 6)

When it was my turn with the British I decided to hit the other corner of the American hill line and was able to break into the American line at relatively less cost. At that point I had a choice between turning toward the Victory Point area behind the fence OR trying to roll up the Americans in the other direction. In retrospect, I made the wrong choice. I tried a push for the lucrative VP areas, but Mark had retained the artillery and the high quality infantry on that flank and my British troops did not have the necessary edge to prevail. Had I gone the other way I would have had a numerical and quality edge and that flank was within supporting distance by the British reserves. Instead I "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory" and the game ended with another 6-6 American win.

Overall it seems like a good balanced scenario -- it's just not very authentic, even considering the abstractness of the game.

A little better today

Played a game f Battle Cry at the local store today against one of the game store denizens I've played before. He's generally a Magic: The Gathering player but has played BC before. We played the Oak Grove scenario and overall the game went very well for my side (the CSA) as he was never able to coordinate a sustained drive while I happened to pull a whole bunch of Right Flank cards and was therefore able to launch a multi-turn, multi-unit drive that mostly cleared that side. the final flag score was 6-2 for me.
Hooray.

Not a good showing by me

Played a double of Axis & Allies Miniatures today at the local game shop and got schooled a bit.

We were playing the "Ridge Too Far" scenario from the Axis & Allies Extended rules.

As has been my custom, I modified the printed scenario slightly in order to account for units that have become available since the scenario was printed. In this case the changes were quite minor. I substituted the now-available MG 34 for the scenario's MG-42 because the scenario is set in July 1941, before the service date for the MG-42. In order to balance off the 2-point reduction in the German force's point total I substituted two Soviet Conscript infantry for two of the Moison-Nagants in the printed scenario.

The only other change was purely cosmetic, I proxied a regular Panzer IVD model for the Elite Pz IVD in the scenario while using the older version's stat card.

The map was No. 7 of the larger 3-inch sized series. The main features were five hexes of hills running from north to south just West of the middle of the map. A village was just east of that and a 4-hex patch of woods was northeast of the village. A small pond and some other trees rounded out the terrain. The five hill hexes were the objectives to be held by Turn 6. The Soviet force could set up on the hills, but any units that did so were disrupted. The rest of the Soviets set up within five hexes of the east edge, which meant they could just reach the village. The Germans could start with two infiltrators in the 4-hex patch of wood to the northeast of the town, while the rest of the German task force entered from the west ion Turn 1.

The Soviet force comprised one T-34/76 (real nasty in 1941!) a BT-7, a Commissar, a sniper, an ATR, an SMG squad, a grenadier squad, three Moison-Nagant squads and two conscript squads.

The attacking German force was one SS leader, an SS stormtrooper squad, three Kar 98 squads, one light mortar, one MG-43 team, one elite Pz IV tank and two Pz IIID tanks.

I took the Germans first. I put the MG-34 and the light mortar in the woods where they didn't accomplish much. The MG team was able to disprupt the BT-7 a couple of times but the light mortar died right off. I tired a frontal attack on the 3-hex ridge, whcih the Soviets had kinldy filed with troops (to be disrupted) with a supporting effort through some woods on the north side with the rest of the German foot troops. The Soviets took heavy losses, but the darn ATR got a lucky shot and damaged the elite Pz IV! I compounded the error by pushing one of the Pz III too aggressively onto the ridge where it was close assaulted to death by Soviet infantry.

By Turn 5 the Gernan attack was wrecked, with all three tanks and the majority of the foot troops gone. While the Soviets had taken some serious losses among their infantry, they still had both tanks undamaged and we called the game on account of hopelessness.

On the flip side I did better. I used the "Overwatch" rule for the first time extensively and the threat from the T-34, in particular, really constricted German movement over the first half of the game. The Germans were, however, able to pincer the two Soviet units holding the northern two hillocks (grenadier and SMG) between the MG 34 team and the SS stormtrooper from the woods and the German main body from the west.

My dice were cold in both games, but in the first game I made enough mistakes that I couldn't fairly blame the dice. In the second game, however, the Soviet shooting was abysmal, with multiple fusillades of fire unable to gun down exposed German infantry in the open and missing a Pz III in the open as well. Only the overwhelming firepower of the T-34 was able to score a kill on one Pz III. Gemran return fire was able to disrupt and damage both Soviet tanks eventually, despite being in cover and the Germans edged to a win, with control of two hills compared to control of one for the Soviets.

Overall a disappointing outing because I didn't feel like I put forth my best efforts, especially in the first game. It does appear to be a well-balanced and fair scenario.

Happy July 4th!!

Today was game day, but not board games. I spent the day on a trip to Fenway Park.

Our Red Sox fell short against the Toronto Blue Jays, but they gave it a good shot at 9-7 after a real shaky start down 7-0 after 3 innings!

It's my first trip to Femway in years and actually my first trip back to Boston in quite a while. The changes never cease to amaze me. I really loved Bosto while I was in college, but the Boston of the mid-1970s was definitely a much dingier place than the city of 2011!

We arrived early enough to take a sightseeing stroll down to Copley Square. Interestingly there was a new statue monument on Commonwealth Avenue. Dedicated in 2003, the Boston Women's Memorial features life-sized bronze statues of Abigail Adams, Phyllis Wheatley and Lucy Stone.

Boston's full of history, and it's not done adding to it!

Conquest of Nerath -- Yep, it's D&D meets A&A

When I saw the promotional materials for the new Wizards of the Coast game Conquest of Nerath my first thought was "looks like Dungeons & Dragons meets Axis & Allies."

Well, first impressions aren't always wrong, after all, and saying Nerath is D&D meets A&A turns out to be a quite fair shorthand description.

It is not fair to say that the Dungeons and Dragons theme has just been slapped on to Axis & Allies, however. It's more accurate to say that the underlying game engine driving A&A has been repurposed to explore new strategic situations ans tactical combinations. A lot will seem familiar to veeram A&A players, but a dragon, for example, is not just a relabeled heavy bomber, but has its own unique tactical interactions.

The stargeic situtaion is completely different, of course, Unconstrained by historical facts or actual geography, the world of Nerath features much more evenly matched combatants. While each "nation" has the same force pool to draw from, each also has a unique deck of cards that provide a different "flavor" for each.

Combat is also unique and provides a D&D flavor by using different polyhedral dice for each kind of troop. The "hit" number is always 6+, but a lowly foot soldier rolls a D6 and therefore has just a 1 in 6 chance of a hit while a fighter rolls a D10 and therefore have a 5 in 10 chance of a hit.

The four nations each have a home area in a corner of the board, but they also have forward outposts in enemy territory. The central island has territory from all four nations on it, so conflict will be immediate.

One part of Conquest of Nerath that has no analog in Axis in Allies is the dungeons. Scattered across the board are dungeon spaces. Each is guarded by one or two hidden monsters that can only be attacked by two types of player units termed heroes: wizards and fighters. Players attack the space with a party of wizards and fighters and fight a battle against the guards. If the guards are defeated then the player can draw a treasure cards. These generally have powerful game effects and provide victory points as well.

Victory in the game is determined by victory points. Conquering an enemy home territory is worth one VP< capturing the enemy capital is worth 5 VP and most treasure cards provide VP as well, usually one or two each. The game can be played as a four-way free-for-all or as two alliances. Game lengths can be varied by setting different levels of victory pints needed.

There's a lot going on in this game, but based on my first play I noticed that the interrelationships between the units ny not be what an A&A player might expect. For example, the "foot soldiers" each side has are not as useful as their A&A analog of infantry. While A&A infantry is more powerful on defense, Nerath foot soldiers are equally worthless on attack and defense. While a fighter only costs twice as much as a foot soldier he is five times more likely to hit, moves twice as fast, can explore dungeons and can fight at sea aboard a ship. While a dragon costs five times as much as a foot soldier, it flies 3 areas each time it moves and it moves twice per turn,it rolls a D20 in its attack, and it takes 2 hits to destroy. The end result is that infantry will be much less common in this game than is typical in A&A, I expect.

A final word on component quality. Everything is the typical high-quality presentation we've seen with WOTC products. Nice cards, well-sculpted miniatures, thick counters, etc. Players may want to beef up the number of dice -- the plethora of dice sizes (D6,D8,D10,D12, D20) means that there aren't that many of each type and as an A&A-0style game you know you'll be throwing fistfuls. And there's just one player aid card summarizing the build costs and combat capabilities of the units. You'll want to make copies. This was not a good decision and is really inexplicbale, as Axis & Allies games have always included such cards for every player's reference during play or put the information on the boards.

Overall, though, a nice product and the table consensus was that this will see a lot of table time.

Slapshot arrives

Well, a quick first impression is that Slapshot isn't really a silly card game at all -- at least not in the same way as Munchkin or or Fluxx. The only thing silly are the names of the "players" (admittedly, those are truly silly: Moby Stick, Friar Puck and Snow Balls for example).

But the game, itself, is a Knizia-like hand-management card game and there's clearly some room for skill. It reminds me a little of Battle Line -- one could call it a sort of chaotic, multi-player Battle Line. The basic idea is the same, where players compare the opposing values of their cards with the higher total generally winning, but with some exceptions.

I'll have to try it a few times but it seems to have potential.

I should mention what's in the game.

First off, it comes in a smaller version of the standard Columbia slipcase style box, which means it comprises a black card-board inner box and a light card-board outer sleeve. So far as I know, this is new packaging for Columbia, but it could obviously be used for other smaller products. It's similar in size to the plastic VHS style box previously used for Wizard Kings and Victory expansions and it's possible this replaces those.

Inside the box are the rules, just four 5- by 8-inch pages, one of which is taken up the player roster. There's an 8.5 by 11-inch folded playing board and a plastic card tray with three bays. Six ordinary Columbia wooden blocks serve as player scoring tokens.

Finally there are the 54 player cards. I don't know how these compare to the Avalon Hill version, because I never owned it, but the cards are playing-card quality (although not expensive playing card quality).

Playing card games generally seem a bit over-packaged to me, because generally the heart of the game is just a deck of cards and rules and the other components are really ancillary. The larger box really seems just to primarily designed to win shelf space and justify a higher purchase price. That said, the presentation is nice and the overall price is still pretty much on the low side for what's available these days.

The perils of pre-order

So I was checking my bank statement this week and I spotted a pre-authorized withdrawal from Columbia Games for about $18 and I was, like, huh?

I couldn't remember what I had pre-ordered from them that could possibly cost that little, but then I vaguely recalled an announcement that Slapshot was charging. Slapshot? I didn't order Slapshot, did I? I was incredulous.

Now, admittedly, I do have a weakness for silly theme card games. I have most of the Fluxx line and nearly every part of the Munchkin and Nuclear War lines as well. I even have We Didn't Playtest This At All. But I couldn't recall pre-ordering Slapshot.

Slapshot's been around a very long time -- originally published by Avalon Hill, it's enjoyed a kind of cult following at the World Boardgaming Championships. This has been my main exposure to it, and I have to admit that they always look like they're having a raucous good time at the annual Slapshot tournament. But the game have never grabbed me, despite all that. While I grew up in New England, I never warmed to hockey as a sport. Even though the Bruins recently took the Stanley Cup, I wasn't very excited about it. Hockey's behind Football, baseball, the NBA, the WNBA and even soccer among professional team sports I follow.

And yet, here it was, irrefutable documentary proof that, at some point, I was bitten by the game-buying bug and pre-ordered Slapshot! There's no question it's a legit order. I checked my pre-order page and there it was. I just can't imagine why?

One bad side effect of the pre-order system is that there's often such a lengthy delay between the opening of the pre-order status and the actual appearance of the game that this sort of thing can happen. I've ended up with tow copies of a game because I forgot I pre-ordered it. I've been hit with an unexpected charge because a pre-order hits the credit card without notice (fortunately some companies have taken to sending out reminders beforehand). and sometimes a pre-order doesn't go through because the card has expired.

The pre-order system has its good points, but I try to use it sparingly, mostly just for games I am absolutely certain I plan to get -- which still leaves Slapshot an inexplicable anomaly.

Well, it's on its way, I guess, so I see no harm in checking (pun intended) it out.

So, Adolf, why, exactly, the rush?

Europe in 1941 with initial Barbarossa gains
Note also that significant neutral powers such as Sweden and Spain were economically within the Axis sphere

Observers generally agree that Hitler's biggest error in World War II was attacking the Soviet Union and exposing Germany to a 2-front war. It didn't work out so well, after all.

But it's often pointed out that a war between the two great European dictators was inevitable, after all, and Hitler had little choice but to settle things one way or the other. True, I think, but also missing the point. It wasn't the question of IF, but of WHEN. Part of the reason why Stalin was caught by surprise was that he judged that the Germans weren't likely to start the war so soon. And Stalin was probably right.

While Hitler was evidently trying to capitalize on a known German advantage in quality while it lasted, I see little reason to think that advantage was in any immediate danger of narrowing. Indeed, more attention to war preparedness on the German side and an earlier start to the campaign season (undistracted by Balkan adventures) in 1942 would probably have seen very similar results to the 1941 campaign -- but with another 6-8 weeks of campaigning. Sure, the T-34s and KV-1s would have been a nasty surprise, but German successes had never depended on superior tanks anyway and there's every reason to think that the Russian tank crews would have been unable to translate their better tanks into tactical success.

A delay in the start of Barbarossa until 1942 would have had some other interesting implications. For one, it would have meant Britain fighting on alone for yet another year. Undoubtedly, without the need to immediately divert resources for the upcoming Russian campaign, events in the Middle East and the Med (Greece, Crete, Iraq, Western Desert) could have easily taken a very grim turn for the Allies without requiring all that much in extra German effort. Another Panzer division or two, a Luftwaffe air group and it's easy to see the Germans overwhelming the overstretched British.

What about the Americans? Well, the trajectory of events driving the USA and Japan to war was largely independent of the Russo-German question. It's probable that Japan and the US would have gone to war more or less on the historical schedule and it's an open question whether Hitler would have repeated his historical mistake of gratuitously declaring war on the US (he wasn't required to by treaty because Japan had attacked the US) . If he didn't, it's hard to see how FDR could have even brought up declaring war on the Germans when it was Japan that had attacked, let alone following any kind of "Germany First" strategy. The natural course of events would have focused American attention on the Pacific first -- bad for Japan but a boon for Hitler. Undoubtedly the Russians and Japanese would have followed their historical course and avoided hostilities for now.

So instead of merging into one grand Second World War in 1941, we may have seen two large regional wars instead. A sputtering European/ expanded Middle Eastern theater and something similar to the historical Pacific War. There would have been a slight overlap in combatants, as the British had their Far East interests, but they may have been unable to make even a token defense given the crisis elsewhere.

A more patient Hitler, striking Russia in the spring of 1942, would have had a much more favorable strategic situation to deal with than he had in 1942. Britain, still isolated, would have beset by even more foes and without as strong help from the USA as it historically received. America would have been emotionally and logistically well and truly committed to the Pacific War and unlikely to change course in mid-stream and Russia, with the training, doctrine and leadership deficiencies from the year before still endemic, would have still been vulnrable to being blitzed into defeat.

Of course, Hitler was not known for his patience, but he could muster it on occasion. And it's hard to see what urgent requirement was driving the need to start the Russo-German War in 1941, rather than waiting less than a year more.

Last few days before the storm

David Low, Someone is taking someone for a walk (1939)

On June 22, 1941 the entire nature of World War II changed with the Gemran invasion of the Soviet Union, inaugerating the most massive land campaign seen in history -- and one unlikely to ever be matched, given the changing nature of warfare in the decades since. We won't ever see multiple army groups with millions of men locked in combat over a thousand mile front for more than four years again.

The Eastern Front has held a fascination for wargamers since the hobby's beginning. The classic Avalon Hill Stalingrad was just the first in a long series of games covering every conceivable aspect of the war, at every level. Proof that there seems to be a wargame on everything is one of the four games included in the 2010 Against the Odds Annual called Codeword: Barbarossa - Preparing for the German-Soviet War. It may be a stretch to call this a wargame at all, because it ends when the war starts, but it's an interesting exercise as the two players try to create the conditions for a successful campaign when (and if, war breaks out).

It's rated at having a "low" solitaire suitability, which is too bad because it seems to be the kind of game that will be hard to get on the table against an opponent (obscure topic magazine wargame -- in this case competing against three other wargames in the same issue). I did fiddle with it a bit solitaire and it's an unusual enough game that I think players will need to play it a few times to get the hang of it -- so I can't write a proper review.

I am intrigued though, so I do hope to get a chance to play it sometime. Essentially the players have to balance aggressive actions such as redeploying to the front and raising new troops with a need to to be so provocative that the war starts before they are ready. Each side has to select from a menu of strategies and the final victory point total depends on the interaction between the chosen strategies and how well your deployment matches the strategy.

Map detail

The choices for the Germans are "Historical," "Northern Emphasis," "Moscow Central" and "Ukraine Emphasis." Interestingly this seems to imply that the Historical German strategy lacked a clear focus. The Soviet choices don't include a "historical" option but are "Border Defense," "Defense in Depth" and "Offensive." I think the first of those is the closest to the historical strategy, although in the end the Soviets were forced into a defense in depth. An "Offensive" strategy was explicitly rejected by Stalin and it's hard to see how a real-life adoption of that strategy would have been anything other than disastrous. Still, it's an option in the game and the Soviets can try it.

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.

Invasion From Outer Space

Played this campy Martian invasion game with the kids over the last two nights. I can't give it a full session report, as I discovered halfway through that we had been playing a few key points wrong, but it was still a lot of fun. We were playing the basic Invasion scenario, except I beefed up the number of dead Heroes needed for the Martians to win by one (to Three) given the differential in experience.

I took all the Martians, while the Fifth Grader, Third Grader and First Grader shared control of four heroes. Fifth Grader had ringmaster R.J. Flanagan and human cannonball Archibald. R.J.'s healing ability was heavily used, although he had a little troouble making the necessary die roll while healing himself. Still, despite both heroes being on the verge of death several times, they managed to survive and took out around seven or eight Martians including the 20th one for the win on the last turn.

Poor Third Grader had bad luck with her characters. Both Jo Jo the Dancing Bear and trick shooter Cassidy were taken down by swarms of Martians while only losing a few in return. Third Grader's third Hero, the Strongman, was near death at game end as well.

Little Miss First Grader was literally hot with Hannah, the Firebreather. Her first Fireball wiped out an entire 3-Martian pack and this was a harbinger of things to come. Hannah also found a sword during her searches, which wiped out another pair of Martians, Another few fireballs took out three more Martians AND the Zard Beast (with a little help from an event card). Altogether Hannah accounted for about half of the 20 dead Martians, including nearly all of the first dozen.

Everyone had a chance to get familiar with the basic mechanics, although some rules errros make me wary of deriving too many lessons from the affair. Everyone did enjoy the game, however, and was ready to play again.

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.