One aspect of this new "golden age" for wargaming is the plethora of reprints and reissues that have been appearing.
In some cases when a newer edition comes out it's possible to just upgrade some components so it's not too hard of a decision to make. For example the new edition of Columbia's War of 1812 only needs new stickers as a minimum (the rules can be downloaded).
More often, though, the changes are extensive enough to require purchase of a whole new game. Some recent examples include War at Sea, The Russian Campaign, Napoleon, Third Reich, For the People and others.
So the dilemma is, if one already owns an earlier edition, should one lay out the money for the new edition?
On the one hand, if perfectly satisfied with the old version, and most likely to just play the game with friends, and have a limited budget (who doesn't?) there's some reason for not upgrading.
On the other hand, it's likely that, in the larger gaming world, the new edition will become the standard at game conventions, will be the only one that gets supported for rules questions, errata and new variants, and will be the one that new opponents will want to play. So there's ample reason to upgrade.
There's still that budget issue, though. Games are a luxury expense and trying to justify to the significant other that you might want to buy a brand-new copy of a game you already have makes a tough sell even tougher. And even if there's no significant other to consult, there's your little wallet angel to placate. It's easier to justify buying something new than a new copy of an old game, even to yourself. And the new editions usually aren't cheap.
So in some cases, I've decided to pass on the opportunity to upgrade. I don't plan to get the new War at Sea and I dropped out of the Third Reich cycle a while back. While tempted, I didn't get the new EastFront II and its buddy games, even though I really do like the system. But I don't have a likely opponent for that system and if I'm going to play a big block game it'll probably be Europe Engulfed.
Yet I went ahead and bought the new Deluxe edition of Bitter Woods, despite the fact I wasn't actually all that thrilled with the first, Avalon Hill edition.
That 1998 AH version was a bit of a disappointment. It seemed very undeveloped and incomplete, and shortly it became clear why when Avalon Hill was sold. But it was also clear here was a good game there, if it just got the right treatment, so I was willing to give the L2 folks a shot. I wanted to have at least one good solid hex-and-counter grognard-style wargame that was new enough to get new opponents even though my tastes were changing overall in the direction of more block- and figure-based designs.
And the new edition doesn't disappoint. While pricey, in every way it's a big improvement over the AH version. The large counters and larger hexes are a boon for older players like myself. The rules are chock full of great chrome stuff and there are a large number of player aids, too.
Still, there's more coming out than the budget can bear and it's getting more and more important to pick my fights and a lot of otherwise worthy updates and upgrades aren't going to make the cut as time goes on.
My advice to others considering upgrades is to seriously consider what a new eidtion will do for you. If you think it will breathe new life into an old game you play within your established ganing circle or enhance your chances of adding to that cirlce then an upgrade ought to be considered. If you plan to play at game conventions, tournaments or online an upgrade is close to mandatory.
But if the game's been gathering dust on the shelf anyway, then there's porbably no need to buy a new copy.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Friday, July 4, 2008
Mattel worth more than General Motors!
This Bloomberg story reports that toymaker Mattel is now worth more than Automaker GM!
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aVRw0iPJled0&refer=us
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aVRw0iPJled0&refer=us
Europe Engulfed: Does it make the most use of the blocks?
There are three main ways of depicting military units is wargames these days: Figures, blocks and counters.
Figures have the advantage of being fun the handle and attractive, but can't convey much game-related information, This means they have to either be supplemented by data cards or limited to game systems that don't get into too much detail. They're also expensive to produce. Counters are the other extreme. They're the cheapest and least attractive (although some games do an awful lot with them) but can be filled with all sorts of game information.
Blocks form a middle ground. They're attractive, can carry a lot of game information and are not as expensive as figures.
They also have a couple of additional advantages. When placed on edge they provide an elegant way to handle reductions in strength and also provide some fog of war.
Columbia's games, for example, make use of all three of the main features of blocks. The games are attractive, always use step reduction and always use fog of war. While wooden blocks have gained some popularity recently, many of the other company's games don't really use all the features.
For example, Simmons Games' titles use the Fog of War and attractiveness of blocks, but not the step reduction feature,using unit substitution instead.
Some of Worthington Games' offerings are Columbia style (like Forged in Glory) but others just use the wood to make sturdier and prettier counters (Like For Honor And Glory).
At GMT, likewise, wooden blocks aren't really used to full effect. In C&C: Ancients they're merely less expensive substitutes for figures, having no FOW or step reduction role at all. But even in Europe Engulfed, their primary role seem to be making the product appear spiffier and providing an easier way to handle step reduction (4 steps per unit) than counters (two-steps) would provide.
It appears that Fog of War is also present, but it seems to me to play a very minor role in the game system, especially compared to the typical Columbia design. Bluff and deception usually plays a vital role in Columbia Games titles, with it mattering a lot what a specific block's identity is.
In EE, in contrast, the key battles usually involve so many pieces that their specific identities and qualities are much less important. There are relatively few regions and important battles will tend to involve dozens of pieces. There are important system advantages for having units at full strength, so it seems there's less scope for deception operations. Is it a realistic tactic to bluff strength by having an area held with a large number of weak units,for example? Or is it an invitation to disaster?
Figures have the advantage of being fun the handle and attractive, but can't convey much game-related information, This means they have to either be supplemented by data cards or limited to game systems that don't get into too much detail. They're also expensive to produce. Counters are the other extreme. They're the cheapest and least attractive (although some games do an awful lot with them) but can be filled with all sorts of game information.
Blocks form a middle ground. They're attractive, can carry a lot of game information and are not as expensive as figures.
They also have a couple of additional advantages. When placed on edge they provide an elegant way to handle reductions in strength and also provide some fog of war.
Columbia's games, for example, make use of all three of the main features of blocks. The games are attractive, always use step reduction and always use fog of war. While wooden blocks have gained some popularity recently, many of the other company's games don't really use all the features.
For example, Simmons Games' titles use the Fog of War and attractiveness of blocks, but not the step reduction feature,using unit substitution instead.
Some of Worthington Games' offerings are Columbia style (like Forged in Glory) but others just use the wood to make sturdier and prettier counters (Like For Honor And Glory).
At GMT, likewise, wooden blocks aren't really used to full effect. In C&C: Ancients they're merely less expensive substitutes for figures, having no FOW or step reduction role at all. But even in Europe Engulfed, their primary role seem to be making the product appear spiffier and providing an easier way to handle step reduction (4 steps per unit) than counters (two-steps) would provide.
It appears that Fog of War is also present, but it seems to me to play a very minor role in the game system, especially compared to the typical Columbia design. Bluff and deception usually plays a vital role in Columbia Games titles, with it mattering a lot what a specific block's identity is.
In EE, in contrast, the key battles usually involve so many pieces that their specific identities and qualities are much less important. There are relatively few regions and important battles will tend to involve dozens of pieces. There are important system advantages for having units at full strength, so it seems there's less scope for deception operations. Is it a realistic tactic to bluff strength by having an area held with a large number of weak units,for example? Or is it an invitation to disaster?
Liberty: Non-optional optional rules
Columbia Website lists the following optional rules for Liberty (which are in addition to some optional rules in the actual rulebook:
LIBERTY OPTIONAL RULES
The following optional rules have been suggested by Liberty players. Gamers may choose to experiment with any or all of them in their games. Feedback is encouraged.
1) French Entry roll
At the end of:1776: Roll 11 or higher (enter in 1777)1777: Roll 8 or higher (enter in 1778)1778: Roll 5 or higher (enter in 1779)1779: Automatic (enter in 1780)
2) Prisoner Exchange Rule
A player can use a Supply card (2 or 3) to force a Prisoner Exchange (assuming both players have at least one unit captured). Both players can then choose one of their own captured pieces and return it to their force pool.
3) British West Indies Forces
British forces in the West Indies can not be moved or used until the French enter the war.
4) Extra Card Draw
Players draw one extra card each year (4 in 1775, and 6 each year thereafter). Each player then chooses one of those cards and returns it to the deck (not showing it to his opponent). Players then use the 5 cards in their hand (or the 3 in their hand in 1775) normally.
5) Indian Home Defense
Whenever a blue block ends a move in an Indian home town, the corresponding Indian block is immediately returned to its home town (if it is currently on the map and unengaged) and defends it (at B2).
6) Draw Result
If the game does not end due to the British gaining 30 or more points, or the British being reduced to less than 12 points, then the players get a draw if the British hold 25-29 points at the end of 1783.
Frankly, with the exception of No. 6, none of these are really optional in my opinion. The first two, in particular, are really necessary for regular play. If the French entry is delayed too long the game balance becomes badly skewed. And prisoner exchanges will almost never happen because one side or the other will almost always benefit from NOT exchanging.
LIBERTY OPTIONAL RULES
The following optional rules have been suggested by Liberty players. Gamers may choose to experiment with any or all of them in their games. Feedback is encouraged.
1) French Entry roll
At the end of:1776: Roll 11 or higher (enter in 1777)1777: Roll 8 or higher (enter in 1778)1778: Roll 5 or higher (enter in 1779)1779: Automatic (enter in 1780)
2) Prisoner Exchange Rule
A player can use a Supply card (2 or 3) to force a Prisoner Exchange (assuming both players have at least one unit captured). Both players can then choose one of their own captured pieces and return it to their force pool.
3) British West Indies Forces
British forces in the West Indies can not be moved or used until the French enter the war.
4) Extra Card Draw
Players draw one extra card each year (4 in 1775, and 6 each year thereafter). Each player then chooses one of those cards and returns it to the deck (not showing it to his opponent). Players then use the 5 cards in their hand (or the 3 in their hand in 1775) normally.
5) Indian Home Defense
Whenever a blue block ends a move in an Indian home town, the corresponding Indian block is immediately returned to its home town (if it is currently on the map and unengaged) and defends it (at B2).
6) Draw Result
If the game does not end due to the British gaining 30 or more points, or the British being reduced to less than 12 points, then the players get a draw if the British hold 25-29 points at the end of 1783.
Frankly, with the exception of No. 6, none of these are really optional in my opinion. The first two, in particular, are really necessary for regular play. If the French entry is delayed too long the game balance becomes badly skewed. And prisoner exchanges will almost never happen because one side or the other will almost always benefit from NOT exchanging.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Spooks and the five-suit solution
Spooks is a fun little game, but I was curious why the designer decided on five suits for the cards.
It occurred to me that Spooks, like some other fairly simple card games such as Lost Cities (which uses 5 "suits") and Battle Line (Which has 6 colors) are pretty easy to play in principle using a standard deck of cards.
By adding a suit or two the designer creates a product that's a little harder to copy (not impossible, as various threads on BGG attest) even if it doesn't change game play in any fundamental way.
Certainly the theme is usually pretty thin in these sorts of games. There's nothing especially "spooky" about spooks and it could have used just about any theme just as well -- or even no theme at all. To a large extent the theme just provides the artist with something to work with. As it turns out, I like the artwork in Spooks, but it's not vital to play.
It occurred to me that Spooks, like some other fairly simple card games such as Lost Cities (which uses 5 "suits") and Battle Line (Which has 6 colors) are pretty easy to play in principle using a standard deck of cards.
By adding a suit or two the designer creates a product that's a little harder to copy (not impossible, as various threads on BGG attest) even if it doesn't change game play in any fundamental way.
Certainly the theme is usually pretty thin in these sorts of games. There's nothing especially "spooky" about spooks and it could have used just about any theme just as well -- or even no theme at all. To a large extent the theme just provides the artist with something to work with. As it turns out, I like the artwork in Spooks, but it's not vital to play.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Back to Iraq Historical Scenario
Back to Iraq (3rd Ed.) Historical Scenario
S&T No. 208
By Seth Owen
Back to Iraq was published in 2002 prior to the actual outbreak of fighting in 2003. Although pretty close to the mark, the actual course of events naturally diverged in details from the best Bomba/Miranda pre-war guesses.
This scenario reflects the actual events as they developed in game terms. Unless otherwise noted, all rules from Scenario One apply. This scenario is meant to use the Advanced Game rules.
3.2 Set aside all Turkish, Syrian, Al-Qaeda, Saudi, Israeli, French, Kuwaiti and NATO forces. None of these will be used. Pull out the three Iranian divisions numbered 1 through 3 and set the rest aside. They will not be used in this scenario.
3.3 Set up the following Coalition forces only.
Anywhere in Kuwait: HQ V Corps, HQ MEF-1, 3rd US Mech Div., 1st UK Armored Div., US MEF.
Anywhere in the Kurdish zone as shown on the map: The three US SOCPG and stacked with them the three like-minded “Iranian” infantry divisions. These now represent the Kurdish Peshmerga troops and are Coalition allies.
In any rough terrain hex within six hexes of the Syrian border: UK SAS
All the air units.
Reinforcements (Can’t move during turn of entry)
Place on the Turn Record Track:
Turn 2: 82nd Airborne and 101st Air Assault in Kuwait (I realize that the entire 82d didn’t deploy, but consider the counter to also represent various non-divisional units not otherwise accounted for.
Turn 4: 10th Mtn Div. Hex 2504 (Represents all the conventional force deployed with JSOTF-North including the 173rd Airborne Bde, the 26th MEU, the EUCOM Heavy Reaction Company with M1 tanks/M2 IFV, the EUCOM Medium Reaction Company with M113 APC and, yes, ONE battalion from the 10th Mountain Div.
Turn 12: 4th Mech Div. in Kuwait. (Optionally, to increase the chances the unit will arrive in time to fight, start rolling for arrival starting turn 5. On a roll of “6” the 4th Mech arrives in Kuwait and can move the following turn.
3.4 Set Up Iraqi forces as follows:
Within 3 hexes of Mosul, but NOT in any Kurdish area hex as shown by the shaded area on the map: V Corps HQ, 1st Mech Div, 7th, 16th and 38th Inf. Div., AA and AD Republican Gd. Div.
Within 3 hexes of Kirkuk, but NOT in any Kurdish area hex as shown by the shaded area on the map: I Corps HQ, 5th Mech Div., 2nd & 8th Inf. Div., NB Rep. Gd. Div.
Within 1 hex of Baqubah: II Corps HQ, 3rd Tank Div., 15th & 34th Inf. Div.
Within 3 hexes of Al-Amarah in Iraq: IV Corps HQ, 10th Tank Div., 14th & 18th Inf. Div.
Within 3 hexes of An-Nasiriyah: III Corps HQ, 6th Tank Div., 11th Inf. Div.
Hex 3329: 51st Mech Div.
Basra: 44th Marine Brigade
Al-Kut: Baghdad Rep. Gd. Div.
Hex 2811: MeK
Within 3 hexes of Baghdad but NOT in Baghdad: RGN HQ, RGS HQ, AN, AD and HM Rep. Gd. Div.
In Baghdad: SRG HQ, SRG “Corps” ADC Bde
Any hex not already containing a unit and NOT in Baghdad: 65thg, 66th and 68th SF Bde
ANY hex in Iraq: AC Tank Bde, RSV arty regt, SdFe Div., GSS Bde, RSV, SBM & MIR Bns, 999 SOF (remove the 999 SF Div.)
Strategic Targets (Rule AG 1.1) Remove the WMD and Terror Camps from the counter mix before following the Scenario 1 instructions
4.6. Iraqi units may not leave Iraq. Any unit which does so is immediately eliminated.
13.4 to 13.7 Do not use. There are no Iraqi chemical weapons
13.8 to 13.13 Do not use. There are no Iraqi nuclear weapons
AG 1.1 Remove the WMD and Terror Camps strategic targets before following the set up rules under Scenario 1.
Use rule sections AG 2.0, 3.0 except for AG 3.11 and AG 4.0
Use AG 5.5 an 5.6
Add the following special rule:
AG 7.0 Operation Iraqi Freedom
In the actual event the Iraqi regular armed forces played a minimal role in the fighting while the Iraqi special forces were much more difficult to neutralize than expected. To account for this employ the following rules:
AG 7.1 Iraqi morale collapse. All regular Iraqi units, defined as all units with black on red print, are subject to morale collapse from the beginning of the game. Any time a regular Iraqi unit moves or is engaged in a battle as either the attacker or defender then roll one die before resolving the battle or conducting the movement. On an odd number the Iraqi regular unit disbands and is permanently removed from play. Roll for each unit individually and roll for each occurrence of the eligible reason (so, for example, an Iraqi regular unit that attempts to move and then attack will roll twice – once before moving and again before attacking.
In addition, during every Coalition Recovery Phase the Iraqi player will roll one die for each regular Iraqi unit and add the current turn number, on a roll of 10 or greater than the unit is disbanded and removed from play. (Note: This means that all remaining Iraqi army units will automatically disband during the Coalition Recovery Phase of Turn 9)
All white-on-red print Iraqi units are immune from the provisions of this rule
AG 7.2 Fedayeen. All Iraqi white-on-red battalions, the GSS Bde, the SdFe “Saddam’s Fedayeen ‘division’” and 999 SOF units can “hide” during their turn by flipping over to their blank side Flipping must be the first action taken before any movement. While hidden they cannot attack or be attacked but can move normally. (Note this means they cannot move through Coalition units, they count for stacking and are subject to all supply and weather effects). Coalition unit can move through a hidden unit and if they end the turn stacked with a hidden unit then the hidden unit must immediately displace one hex within stacking limits and all other rules. If, for any reason, a hidden unit has no legal hex it can displace to then it is removed from the map and placed on the turn record track on the next turn. It can return to play in any legal hex in Iraq. Hidden units can be reconned by AG Surveillance Airstrikes just as if they were Strategic Marker. While face up these units act as ordinary units in every way.
Sources:
Cobra II, by Michael R. Gordon and Gen. Bernard E. Trainor
The Iraq War, by Williamson Murray and Maj. Gen. Robert H., Scales Jr.
Saddam’s Forces Map, Army Times, Feb. 17, 2003
Author’s personal knowledge from duty with JSOFTF-North in 2003
S&T No. 208
By Seth Owen
Back to Iraq was published in 2002 prior to the actual outbreak of fighting in 2003. Although pretty close to the mark, the actual course of events naturally diverged in details from the best Bomba/Miranda pre-war guesses.
This scenario reflects the actual events as they developed in game terms. Unless otherwise noted, all rules from Scenario One apply. This scenario is meant to use the Advanced Game rules.
3.2 Set aside all Turkish, Syrian, Al-Qaeda, Saudi, Israeli, French, Kuwaiti and NATO forces. None of these will be used. Pull out the three Iranian divisions numbered 1 through 3 and set the rest aside. They will not be used in this scenario.
3.3 Set up the following Coalition forces only.
Anywhere in Kuwait: HQ V Corps, HQ MEF-1, 3rd US Mech Div., 1st UK Armored Div., US MEF.
Anywhere in the Kurdish zone as shown on the map: The three US SOCPG and stacked with them the three like-minded “Iranian” infantry divisions. These now represent the Kurdish Peshmerga troops and are Coalition allies.
In any rough terrain hex within six hexes of the Syrian border: UK SAS
All the air units.
Reinforcements (Can’t move during turn of entry)
Place on the Turn Record Track:
Turn 2: 82nd Airborne and 101st Air Assault in Kuwait (I realize that the entire 82d didn’t deploy, but consider the counter to also represent various non-divisional units not otherwise accounted for.
Turn 4: 10th Mtn Div. Hex 2504 (Represents all the conventional force deployed with JSOTF-North including the 173rd Airborne Bde, the 26th MEU, the EUCOM Heavy Reaction Company with M1 tanks/M2 IFV, the EUCOM Medium Reaction Company with M113 APC and, yes, ONE battalion from the 10th Mountain Div.
Turn 12: 4th Mech Div. in Kuwait. (Optionally, to increase the chances the unit will arrive in time to fight, start rolling for arrival starting turn 5. On a roll of “6” the 4th Mech arrives in Kuwait and can move the following turn.
3.4 Set Up Iraqi forces as follows:
Within 3 hexes of Mosul, but NOT in any Kurdish area hex as shown by the shaded area on the map: V Corps HQ, 1st Mech Div, 7th, 16th and 38th Inf. Div., AA and AD Republican Gd. Div.
Within 3 hexes of Kirkuk, but NOT in any Kurdish area hex as shown by the shaded area on the map: I Corps HQ, 5th Mech Div., 2nd & 8th Inf. Div., NB Rep. Gd. Div.
Within 1 hex of Baqubah: II Corps HQ, 3rd Tank Div., 15th & 34th Inf. Div.
Within 3 hexes of Al-Amarah in Iraq: IV Corps HQ, 10th Tank Div., 14th & 18th Inf. Div.
Within 3 hexes of An-Nasiriyah: III Corps HQ, 6th Tank Div., 11th Inf. Div.
Hex 3329: 51st Mech Div.
Basra: 44th Marine Brigade
Al-Kut: Baghdad Rep. Gd. Div.
Hex 2811: MeK
Within 3 hexes of Baghdad but NOT in Baghdad: RGN HQ, RGS HQ, AN, AD and HM Rep. Gd. Div.
In Baghdad: SRG HQ, SRG “Corps” ADC Bde
Any hex not already containing a unit and NOT in Baghdad: 65thg, 66th and 68th SF Bde
ANY hex in Iraq: AC Tank Bde, RSV arty regt, SdFe Div., GSS Bde, RSV, SBM & MIR Bns, 999 SOF (remove the 999 SF Div.)
Strategic Targets (Rule AG 1.1) Remove the WMD and Terror Camps from the counter mix before following the Scenario 1 instructions
4.6. Iraqi units may not leave Iraq. Any unit which does so is immediately eliminated.
13.4 to 13.7 Do not use. There are no Iraqi chemical weapons
13.8 to 13.13 Do not use. There are no Iraqi nuclear weapons
AG 1.1 Remove the WMD and Terror Camps strategic targets before following the set up rules under Scenario 1.
Use rule sections AG 2.0, 3.0 except for AG 3.11 and AG 4.0
Use AG 5.5 an 5.6
Add the following special rule:
AG 7.0 Operation Iraqi Freedom
In the actual event the Iraqi regular armed forces played a minimal role in the fighting while the Iraqi special forces were much more difficult to neutralize than expected. To account for this employ the following rules:
AG 7.1 Iraqi morale collapse. All regular Iraqi units, defined as all units with black on red print, are subject to morale collapse from the beginning of the game. Any time a regular Iraqi unit moves or is engaged in a battle as either the attacker or defender then roll one die before resolving the battle or conducting the movement. On an odd number the Iraqi regular unit disbands and is permanently removed from play. Roll for each unit individually and roll for each occurrence of the eligible reason (so, for example, an Iraqi regular unit that attempts to move and then attack will roll twice – once before moving and again before attacking.
In addition, during every Coalition Recovery Phase the Iraqi player will roll one die for each regular Iraqi unit and add the current turn number, on a roll of 10 or greater than the unit is disbanded and removed from play. (Note: This means that all remaining Iraqi army units will automatically disband during the Coalition Recovery Phase of Turn 9)
All white-on-red print Iraqi units are immune from the provisions of this rule
AG 7.2 Fedayeen. All Iraqi white-on-red battalions, the GSS Bde, the SdFe “Saddam’s Fedayeen ‘division’” and 999 SOF units can “hide” during their turn by flipping over to their blank side Flipping must be the first action taken before any movement. While hidden they cannot attack or be attacked but can move normally. (Note this means they cannot move through Coalition units, they count for stacking and are subject to all supply and weather effects). Coalition unit can move through a hidden unit and if they end the turn stacked with a hidden unit then the hidden unit must immediately displace one hex within stacking limits and all other rules. If, for any reason, a hidden unit has no legal hex it can displace to then it is removed from the map and placed on the turn record track on the next turn. It can return to play in any legal hex in Iraq. Hidden units can be reconned by AG Surveillance Airstrikes just as if they were Strategic Marker. While face up these units act as ordinary units in every way.
Sources:
Cobra II, by Michael R. Gordon and Gen. Bernard E. Trainor
The Iraq War, by Williamson Murray and Maj. Gen. Robert H., Scales Jr.
Saddam’s Forces Map, Army Times, Feb. 17, 2003
Author’s personal knowledge from duty with JSOFTF-North in 2003
Kadesh, a review
Kadesh: Mobile Warfare in the Ancient Middle East is a hex-and-counter wargame depicting the first battle in history we have any kind of substantial historical record for.
Fought between the Egyptians and Hittites in modern-day Syria, it occurred sometime between 1300 and 1275 B.C., (sources differ, the game asserts it was May 10, 1285 B.C.).
Unlike nearly all other ancient battles, Kadesh was not a line up and hack away formal fight. Instead it was a dramatic battle of maneuver, attack and counterattack. In part this was because of the large numbers of chariots present, and in part it was because the Egyptian army was organized into all-arms independently marching divisions, a concept not seen again for some 30 centuries.
In this case, it caused one part of Pharoah Ramses II's army to be routed in a surprise attack, but it also allowed him to rally his troops, based on another division, and use a third division to launch a counterattack that saved a battle that had seemed lost and turn it into something he could (and would) call a victory.
The game, which was the issue game in Command Magazine No. 7, covers the whole day's battle, at 100 yards per hex, 30 minutes per turn and 1,000 men per infantry unit. Chariot units represent 250 machines.
The 12-page rule book describes a game of low complexity by wargame standards. The Mark Simonitch map is attractive and functional. It shows an open and nearly featureless plain divided by several watercourses ranging from a dry streambed to a major river. Several roads converge on the fortress city of Kadesh, while two potential Egyptian campsites are shown.
The 168 counters are mostly combat units, with a few markers. Units have values for close combat, movement, morale and, in some cases, missile fire. All the counters are cleanly laid out. This was the first wargame to use full-color icons instead of silhouettes. The Egyptian troops are generally on light blue counters, except for a few allies with light or dark green or dark blue backgrounds. The native Hitittes are tan, vassal states in dark brown and Syrian allies in red. The different divisions are identified through shield colors.
The game turn uses a straightforward IGO-HUGO sequence with leadership, movement, combat and rally phases. Chariot units can use a form of overrun combat called "pass-through" against units in certain vulnerable postures such as marching. Units pass through four levels of effectiveness from ordered through shaken and disrupted to routed. Routed units are subject to "slaughter" if attacked and may be eliminated. In order to act at full effect, units need to be in command control, which is defined as a chain of units all connected to the division headquarters.
Those headquarters can only move if they pass an "initiative" roll. This is where the two armies differ, as most of the Egyptian units have high initiative, while only the Hittite Chariot Reserve does.
The game has a lot of variety after the initial onslaught of the Hittite Chariot Reserve against the marching P'Re division. After routing that force the Hittite is faced with two choices. He can follow the historic course of action and pursue the fugitives to the Egyptian camp in hopes of overrunning it before the defenses can be organized. This is likely to result in the historical result of the Chariot Reserve fighting alone against most of the Egyptian army as it arrives on the field. Or the Hittites can try to move their whole army into action. This may be feasible if Muwatallish, the Hittite king, comes out of his tent and takes an active role in the battle. (Historically he did little).
After recovering from the initial attack, Ramses likewise has some options, including trying to capture the fortress city of Kadesh.
Victory is based on losses, the capture of Kadesh and the camps.
The game is easily playable in one sitting and only takes about a quarter hour to set up. There is just one scenario.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: An unusual ancient battle with some interesting choices.
(No) For Collectors: No remarkable collectibility.
(No) For Euro gamers: As a hex-and-counter wargames the game play is intricate and detailed.
Fought between the Egyptians and Hittites in modern-day Syria, it occurred sometime between 1300 and 1275 B.C., (sources differ, the game asserts it was May 10, 1285 B.C.).
Unlike nearly all other ancient battles, Kadesh was not a line up and hack away formal fight. Instead it was a dramatic battle of maneuver, attack and counterattack. In part this was because of the large numbers of chariots present, and in part it was because the Egyptian army was organized into all-arms independently marching divisions, a concept not seen again for some 30 centuries.
In this case, it caused one part of Pharoah Ramses II's army to be routed in a surprise attack, but it also allowed him to rally his troops, based on another division, and use a third division to launch a counterattack that saved a battle that had seemed lost and turn it into something he could (and would) call a victory.
The game, which was the issue game in Command Magazine No. 7, covers the whole day's battle, at 100 yards per hex, 30 minutes per turn and 1,000 men per infantry unit. Chariot units represent 250 machines.
The 12-page rule book describes a game of low complexity by wargame standards. The Mark Simonitch map is attractive and functional. It shows an open and nearly featureless plain divided by several watercourses ranging from a dry streambed to a major river. Several roads converge on the fortress city of Kadesh, while two potential Egyptian campsites are shown.
The 168 counters are mostly combat units, with a few markers. Units have values for close combat, movement, morale and, in some cases, missile fire. All the counters are cleanly laid out. This was the first wargame to use full-color icons instead of silhouettes. The Egyptian troops are generally on light blue counters, except for a few allies with light or dark green or dark blue backgrounds. The native Hitittes are tan, vassal states in dark brown and Syrian allies in red. The different divisions are identified through shield colors.
The game turn uses a straightforward IGO-HUGO sequence with leadership, movement, combat and rally phases. Chariot units can use a form of overrun combat called "pass-through" against units in certain vulnerable postures such as marching. Units pass through four levels of effectiveness from ordered through shaken and disrupted to routed. Routed units are subject to "slaughter" if attacked and may be eliminated. In order to act at full effect, units need to be in command control, which is defined as a chain of units all connected to the division headquarters.
Those headquarters can only move if they pass an "initiative" roll. This is where the two armies differ, as most of the Egyptian units have high initiative, while only the Hittite Chariot Reserve does.
The game has a lot of variety after the initial onslaught of the Hittite Chariot Reserve against the marching P'Re division. After routing that force the Hittite is faced with two choices. He can follow the historic course of action and pursue the fugitives to the Egyptian camp in hopes of overrunning it before the defenses can be organized. This is likely to result in the historical result of the Chariot Reserve fighting alone against most of the Egyptian army as it arrives on the field. Or the Hittites can try to move their whole army into action. This may be feasible if Muwatallish, the Hittite king, comes out of his tent and takes an active role in the battle. (Historically he did little).
After recovering from the initial attack, Ramses likewise has some options, including trying to capture the fortress city of Kadesh.
Victory is based on losses, the capture of Kadesh and the camps.
The game is easily playable in one sitting and only takes about a quarter hour to set up. There is just one scenario.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: An unusual ancient battle with some interesting choices.
(No) For Collectors: No remarkable collectibility.
(No) For Euro gamers: As a hex-and-counter wargames the game play is intricate and detailed.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Is Hellas a wargame?
A popular past time on BoardGame Geek is questioning the "wargame" credentials of games like Memoir '44, but I think there are some more questionable one out there, like Hellas.
Hellas sure looks like it might be a wargame, but it isn't marketed as one and doesn't seem generally perceived as one.
Things which make it seem like a light wargame:
Hexes
Two opposing sides
Little soldiers
"Attack" moves
There's an incentive to fight because conquering a city also reduces the opponent's score by one city, for a net swing of 2.
Things which make it NOT seem like a wargame:
It's not listed as a wargame
You don't have to attack the other player. It's possible to win through voyages. As a matter of fact, winning is based on achieving an absolute result (10 cities) so there is no requirement for taking any away from the other player. A 10-9 win is as much a win as a 10-5 win.
There's an incentive NOT to fight because wars are more resource intensive.
I'm generally in favor of an exapnsive and inclusive definiton of wargame, so I'm inclined to consider it one, but I do think it's a marginal case.
Hellas sure looks like it might be a wargame, but it isn't marketed as one and doesn't seem generally perceived as one.
Things which make it seem like a light wargame:
Hexes
Two opposing sides
Little soldiers
"Attack" moves
There's an incentive to fight because conquering a city also reduces the opponent's score by one city, for a net swing of 2.
Things which make it NOT seem like a wargame:
It's not listed as a wargame
You don't have to attack the other player. It's possible to win through voyages. As a matter of fact, winning is based on achieving an absolute result (10 cities) so there is no requirement for taking any away from the other player. A 10-9 win is as much a win as a 10-5 win.
There's an incentive NOT to fight because wars are more resource intensive.
I'm generally in favor of an exapnsive and inclusive definiton of wargame, so I'm inclined to consider it one, but I do think it's a marginal case.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
I almost didn't get Hammer of the Scots
Yeah, it's true. I almost didn't buy the game that turned out to be Columbia's single biggest hit.
When I first heard about Hammer of the Scots I was very dubious. Up until that point I had purchased every single Columbia Games title to that point, without disappointment. I was an early enthusiast for block games, ever since I got the Avalon Hill edition of Napoleon about 1978 or so.
But I really had my doubts about Hammer of the Scots because of the theme. Medieval border warfare between the Scots and the English? Yeah, I had seen Braveheart and enjoyed it (even though I knew most of the "history" in it was suspect, except for the parts that were wholly made up). But I had a hard time seeing how that would be a good game.
And thematically it was pretty far off my beaten paths. Of all the eras of war I don't find medieval times all that interesting. Everything else Columbia had done up to that point was much more up my line: World War II, Napoleonic wars, wars in North America.
Finally I decided to go ahead and get it, mostly out of a desire to keep my Columbia set complete. I'd bought everything else up to that point.
As it turns out, of course, Hammer of the Scots turns out to have been a great game, and is probably the most successful Columbia game ever, at least in popularity with players. (I'm not sure about sales).
I usually make the point that theme is of pre-eminent importance for a wargame. For most euros the game comes first and the theme is added to provide color, context and market entry. Wargames usually (not always) start with the theme and are grown around that theme. This often causes design problems because real life isn't tidy and war is among the least tidy of human activities. It's hard to have simple and elegant game designs that also show fidelity to history.
But Hammer of the Scots does show that theme, as important as it is, doesn't need to overwhelm a good solid game design. We don't have enough knowledge of the situation in Scotland at the turn of the Fourteenth Century to create a detailed simulation in any event, so any wargame set in that era will necessarily have to be impressionistic to some extent. Hammer of the Scots succeeds beyond the usual because of its clever game design choices. There are a number of good ones, but I think the one that stands out is the way nobles are treated, especially their ability to switch sides.
Crusader Rex is very similar to Hammer of the Scots and a good game in its own right, but I think it's just a tad less fun and interesting to play, despite being very similar to Hammer of the Scots, because it doesn't have this rule. I'm not implying it should have that rule, the historical situation in the Holy Land during the Crusades was different.
No, it's just that the duplicity of Scottish noble politics creates an opening for the game mechanic and Hammer of the Scots runs with it in a particularly successful way. I'm glad I gave it a chance.
When I first heard about Hammer of the Scots I was very dubious. Up until that point I had purchased every single Columbia Games title to that point, without disappointment. I was an early enthusiast for block games, ever since I got the Avalon Hill edition of Napoleon about 1978 or so.
But I really had my doubts about Hammer of the Scots because of the theme. Medieval border warfare between the Scots and the English? Yeah, I had seen Braveheart and enjoyed it (even though I knew most of the "history" in it was suspect, except for the parts that were wholly made up). But I had a hard time seeing how that would be a good game.
And thematically it was pretty far off my beaten paths. Of all the eras of war I don't find medieval times all that interesting. Everything else Columbia had done up to that point was much more up my line: World War II, Napoleonic wars, wars in North America.
Finally I decided to go ahead and get it, mostly out of a desire to keep my Columbia set complete. I'd bought everything else up to that point.
As it turns out, of course, Hammer of the Scots turns out to have been a great game, and is probably the most successful Columbia game ever, at least in popularity with players. (I'm not sure about sales).
I usually make the point that theme is of pre-eminent importance for a wargame. For most euros the game comes first and the theme is added to provide color, context and market entry. Wargames usually (not always) start with the theme and are grown around that theme. This often causes design problems because real life isn't tidy and war is among the least tidy of human activities. It's hard to have simple and elegant game designs that also show fidelity to history.
But Hammer of the Scots does show that theme, as important as it is, doesn't need to overwhelm a good solid game design. We don't have enough knowledge of the situation in Scotland at the turn of the Fourteenth Century to create a detailed simulation in any event, so any wargame set in that era will necessarily have to be impressionistic to some extent. Hammer of the Scots succeeds beyond the usual because of its clever game design choices. There are a number of good ones, but I think the one that stands out is the way nobles are treated, especially their ability to switch sides.
Crusader Rex is very similar to Hammer of the Scots and a good game in its own right, but I think it's just a tad less fun and interesting to play, despite being very similar to Hammer of the Scots, because it doesn't have this rule. I'm not implying it should have that rule, the historical situation in the Holy Land during the Crusades was different.
No, it's just that the duplicity of Scottish noble politics creates an opening for the game mechanic and Hammer of the Scots runs with it in a particularly successful way. I'm glad I gave it a chance.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Jambo and Obama
Whether he becomes president or not, Barack Obama has already secured a consequential place in U.S. history, but I won't be the first to suggest that Obama winning the White House may have a ripple effect far outside the usual confines of politics.
While all-American himself, Obama's African connections are immediate, deep and profound and it wouldn't surprise me to see American pop culture interest in Africa to see a big jump.
While Obama's ancestors come from the Luo tribe, the best-known language and cultural setting in East Africa is Swahili and it's already seeped into the popular culture a bit, including among games. The popular Jenga! dexterity game's name comes from the Swahili imperative for "Build!"
Jambo is a word of greeting in Swahili and the setting for this 2-player trading game is set in the pre-colonial days of East Africa, which seems a well-chosen theme to me. The coastal regions of East Africa have always been an area dominated by trade, sitting as it does at the boundary between cultures, geographical regions .
Most of the human characters shown in the game are rather obviously native Africans, but there are also several depicting the cultures they interacted with during this era. There's an Arabian Merchant, a "Portuguese," a "Traveling merchant" who appears to be from the Indian subcontinent and a "Wise man from afar" who is somewhere very far indeed (Japan? China?).
It's a pretty clever marrying of theme and has managed to be popular as a game while also exposing a little-known facet of history to a wider audience. Will there be more after November?
While all-American himself, Obama's African connections are immediate, deep and profound and it wouldn't surprise me to see American pop culture interest in Africa to see a big jump.
While Obama's ancestors come from the Luo tribe, the best-known language and cultural setting in East Africa is Swahili and it's already seeped into the popular culture a bit, including among games. The popular Jenga! dexterity game's name comes from the Swahili imperative for "Build!"
Jambo is a word of greeting in Swahili and the setting for this 2-player trading game is set in the pre-colonial days of East Africa, which seems a well-chosen theme to me. The coastal regions of East Africa have always been an area dominated by trade, sitting as it does at the boundary between cultures, geographical regions .
Most of the human characters shown in the game are rather obviously native Africans, but there are also several depicting the cultures they interacted with during this era. There's an Arabian Merchant, a "Portuguese," a "Traveling merchant" who appears to be from the Indian subcontinent and a "Wise man from afar" who is somewhere very far indeed (Japan? China?).
It's a pretty clever marrying of theme and has managed to be popular as a game while also exposing a little-known facet of history to a wider audience. Will there be more after November?
Fluxx vs. Munchkin, where's the love?
It occurred to me recently that Fluxx and Munchkin have quite a few similarities, but one notable difference.
The similarities is that both are silly-themed light card games based on a simple concept that have proved to be quite popular and served as the basis for a seemingly endless series of expansions.
The notable difference between them is that Munchkin has a vocal legion of critics as well as fans, wile few people seem to give Fluxx much thought at all, except to play it.
This strikes me as rather odd, because the similarities between the games are such that most of the standard criticisms of Munchkin seem just as valid for Fluxx, yet Fluxx gets a pass.
None of this is meant, in any way, to suggest that Fluxx deserves more criticism, but rather that Munchkin seems over-criticized.
Both games are highly luck dependent. While there's certainly room to influence your chances in both games, in neither game is skillful or clever play consistently rewarded with victory. Yet Munchkin seems the one to catch the most flak for being a game of luck.
Both games might, at first blush, seem a little pricey for what you get. Fluxx, for example, gives you 84 cards, a small rule sheet and a flimsy box for $12.95. Munchkin series base games run about $24.95 but for that price you get a box, a four-page large rules set, a die and about twice as many cards -- bigger and all with original artwork. Yet it's Munchkin that gets roundly criticized for its price.
The expansions come in for even more criticism on price. But, while a typical Munchkin expansion gives you 112 new cards for $17.95, or about 16 cents per card, a Fluxx expansion gives you just 7 cards for $2, or almost 29 cents per card.
Both games are sometimes criticized for being rather stereotyped and repetitive in play, but this seems to be a bigger sin for Munchkin than Fluxx.
One wonders if the critics of Munchkin are really sniping at the publisher, Steve Jackson Games, rather than the product. Looney Labs, the publisher of Fluxx has been around for much less time and is pretty much a one-trick pony game company, whereas Steve Jackson Games is one of the oldest continuously operating game companies in adventure gaming and has had more time to accumulate more disgruntled barnacles along the way.
The similarities is that both are silly-themed light card games based on a simple concept that have proved to be quite popular and served as the basis for a seemingly endless series of expansions.
The notable difference between them is that Munchkin has a vocal legion of critics as well as fans, wile few people seem to give Fluxx much thought at all, except to play it.
This strikes me as rather odd, because the similarities between the games are such that most of the standard criticisms of Munchkin seem just as valid for Fluxx, yet Fluxx gets a pass.
None of this is meant, in any way, to suggest that Fluxx deserves more criticism, but rather that Munchkin seems over-criticized.
Both games are highly luck dependent. While there's certainly room to influence your chances in both games, in neither game is skillful or clever play consistently rewarded with victory. Yet Munchkin seems the one to catch the most flak for being a game of luck.
Both games might, at first blush, seem a little pricey for what you get. Fluxx, for example, gives you 84 cards, a small rule sheet and a flimsy box for $12.95. Munchkin series base games run about $24.95 but for that price you get a box, a four-page large rules set, a die and about twice as many cards -- bigger and all with original artwork. Yet it's Munchkin that gets roundly criticized for its price.
The expansions come in for even more criticism on price. But, while a typical Munchkin expansion gives you 112 new cards for $17.95, or about 16 cents per card, a Fluxx expansion gives you just 7 cards for $2, or almost 29 cents per card.
Both games are sometimes criticized for being rather stereotyped and repetitive in play, but this seems to be a bigger sin for Munchkin than Fluxx.
One wonders if the critics of Munchkin are really sniping at the publisher, Steve Jackson Games, rather than the product. Looney Labs, the publisher of Fluxx has been around for much less time and is pretty much a one-trick pony game company, whereas Steve Jackson Games is one of the oldest continuously operating game companies in adventure gaming and has had more time to accumulate more disgruntled barnacles along the way.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Go West, Young Munchkin
The Good, the Bad and the Munchkin proves that no genre is immune to Munchkiness. While the Old West has been popular in literature and visual media it's definitely been a secondary interest among RPGs. And there's really little precedent for the "dungeon crawl" style of gaming in any kind of Old West setting.
Maybe our posse of Munchkins are exploring a "ghost town?" Of course, ghost towns really come after the Old West era and probably suit Munchkin Cthulhu better.
It doesn't really matter of course, as the whole genre thing is just an excuse for more jokes, bad puns and cultural references by opening up fresh material.
The game play is the familiar Munchkin pattern of open a door, fight the monster and collect the treasure/loot the room.
As in the other human-centric games, there are no races in tGtBatM, just four classes: Cowboys, Dudes, Indians and Outlaws. I think it's fairly safe to predict that every Munchkin series game will always have classes because they will never pass up the chance to say that every character "starts as a human with no class."
Compared to other Munchkin series games, there aren't as many ways to hinder your opponents when they get close to victory. There are only a few "monster" enhancers in the deck and a limited number of one-use-only items that can sway the course of the fight, so unless you happen to have a wandering monster card and a monster in your hand at game end it may be hard to stop an opponent. This gives the game a somewhat different feel from most of the other Munchkin series games where the first player to bid for victory often gets smacked down hard which clears the way for the No. 2 player to succeed on his/her bid. Perhaps when the inevitable expansion comes out it will provide more options for messing with the other players.
Maybe our posse of Munchkins are exploring a "ghost town?" Of course, ghost towns really come after the Old West era and probably suit Munchkin Cthulhu better.
It doesn't really matter of course, as the whole genre thing is just an excuse for more jokes, bad puns and cultural references by opening up fresh material.
The game play is the familiar Munchkin pattern of open a door, fight the monster and collect the treasure/loot the room.
As in the other human-centric games, there are no races in tGtBatM, just four classes: Cowboys, Dudes, Indians and Outlaws. I think it's fairly safe to predict that every Munchkin series game will always have classes because they will never pass up the chance to say that every character "starts as a human with no class."
Compared to other Munchkin series games, there aren't as many ways to hinder your opponents when they get close to victory. There are only a few "monster" enhancers in the deck and a limited number of one-use-only items that can sway the course of the fight, so unless you happen to have a wandering monster card and a monster in your hand at game end it may be hard to stop an opponent. This gives the game a somewhat different feel from most of the other Munchkin series games where the first player to bid for victory often gets smacked down hard which clears the way for the No. 2 player to succeed on his/her bid. Perhaps when the inevitable expansion comes out it will provide more options for messing with the other players.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Wizard Kings rebooted
It's interesting to see a game "rebooted" and head off into new directions.
It's a risky move for a game company, because it often tends to alienate people who liked the first version and it's hard to lure back players who didn't like the first version and have them give you a second chance.
Some reboots fall kind of flat, like the AH edition of Cosmic Encounter, which few fans think was an improvement over the Mayfair edition.
So the reintroduction of Wizard Kings, styled 2.0, by Columbia Games is an interesting experiment. Wisely, Columbia kept the component changes relatively small, so anyone who invested in Wizard Kings 1.0 could still use most of their stuff.
And the changes that were made were not wholesale concept re-imaginings, so players didn't need to relearn the game. But the changes were important, nonetheless, and changed the focus of the game significantly. Among the most important changes were stacking limits, the economic/build systems and the elimination of one race (the Ferkin warboars) for another (the human Feudals).
The original edition of Wizard Kings was essentially a two-player wargame, conceptually a magicked-up version of Victory: The Blocks of War. The base game had two armies, Elves and Goblins and players had the option for adding more by purchasing additional armies of Ferkins, Dwarves, Undead, Amazons and/or Barbarians; reinforcing forces of Chaos creatures with their own spells and more maps. The biggest weakness of the base game was that there wasn't really a good scenario and many players complained it seemed kind of boring.
Online scenarios soon popped up and many of those were creative and interesting. And many took advantage of the fact that there were seven different armies to play to create viable multi-player scenarios. Feeding off the resurgence in multiplayer gaming caused by the growth of euros, I think this became the preferred way to play for many people.
The 2.0 version of Wizard Kings is, at heart, a multi-player wargame. All seven races are now in the base set with small armies and there is just one kind of expansion set Heroes & Treasures, which adds two new units for each army and stickers and blocks to give each army one additional special unit such as a chaos creature (stripped of their old spells) a treasure or other item such as portable gold and silver treasures caches.
There's a "collectible" aspect to these expansions in that the exact contents are random and vary between boxes without being known to the purchaser beforehand. This is mitigated by the fact that all units are valued on the same basis in the game system without any strange rarity or overwhelming power.
The focus of the scenarios (in the base game, four 2-player battles) is now on short, sharp actions, instead of the longer, full-scale wars encouraged in 1.0. The reduced stacking and hexside limits have the effect of increasing the power of the stronger pieces because it's harder to swarm them with lots of low value units. Because the battles are smaller, there's also a bigger luck element and more chance for extreme results.
It appears that this reboot has been a success. There seems to be renewed interest in Wizard Kings. The 2.0 version seems a better match for the theme and the game's potential.
It's a risky move for a game company, because it often tends to alienate people who liked the first version and it's hard to lure back players who didn't like the first version and have them give you a second chance.
Some reboots fall kind of flat, like the AH edition of Cosmic Encounter, which few fans think was an improvement over the Mayfair edition.
So the reintroduction of Wizard Kings, styled 2.0, by Columbia Games is an interesting experiment. Wisely, Columbia kept the component changes relatively small, so anyone who invested in Wizard Kings 1.0 could still use most of their stuff.
And the changes that were made were not wholesale concept re-imaginings, so players didn't need to relearn the game. But the changes were important, nonetheless, and changed the focus of the game significantly. Among the most important changes were stacking limits, the economic/build systems and the elimination of one race (the Ferkin warboars) for another (the human Feudals).
The original edition of Wizard Kings was essentially a two-player wargame, conceptually a magicked-up version of Victory: The Blocks of War. The base game had two armies, Elves and Goblins and players had the option for adding more by purchasing additional armies of Ferkins, Dwarves, Undead, Amazons and/or Barbarians; reinforcing forces of Chaos creatures with their own spells and more maps. The biggest weakness of the base game was that there wasn't really a good scenario and many players complained it seemed kind of boring.
Online scenarios soon popped up and many of those were creative and interesting. And many took advantage of the fact that there were seven different armies to play to create viable multi-player scenarios. Feeding off the resurgence in multiplayer gaming caused by the growth of euros, I think this became the preferred way to play for many people.
The 2.0 version of Wizard Kings is, at heart, a multi-player wargame. All seven races are now in the base set with small armies and there is just one kind of expansion set Heroes & Treasures, which adds two new units for each army and stickers and blocks to give each army one additional special unit such as a chaos creature (stripped of their old spells) a treasure or other item such as portable gold and silver treasures caches.
There's a "collectible" aspect to these expansions in that the exact contents are random and vary between boxes without being known to the purchaser beforehand. This is mitigated by the fact that all units are valued on the same basis in the game system without any strange rarity or overwhelming power.
The focus of the scenarios (in the base game, four 2-player battles) is now on short, sharp actions, instead of the longer, full-scale wars encouraged in 1.0. The reduced stacking and hexside limits have the effect of increasing the power of the stronger pieces because it's harder to swarm them with lots of low value units. Because the battles are smaller, there's also a bigger luck element and more chance for extreme results.
It appears that this reboot has been a success. There seems to be renewed interest in Wizard Kings. The 2.0 version seems a better match for the theme and the game's potential.
Monday, June 23, 2008
When Dragons Fight -- a review
When Dragons Fight has the sad distinction of being the issue game in the final issue of Command Magazine, No. 54, dated November 2000.
Command Magazine had a very good run, more than half a hundred issues over more than 10 years, which made it by far the longest-lived and most successful wargame-in-a-magazine project outside of Strategy & Tactics, which originated to concept.
Command was born out of a failed attempt by former S&T editor Ty Bomba and his associates to buy S&T. Having lined up financial backing but failed to secure the deal, Bomba went ahead anyway with his own vision of what an S&T-like magazine ought to look like. Bomba is a strong personality and such people often provoke strong reactions and Bomba and his feisty magazine were always a bit controversial.
Still, having some serious competition was good for both magazines and, ironically, Bomba is back at S&T these days. Command's demise came as somewhat of a surprise, not least, apparently to Bomba. That last issue contains, for example, the first part of a planned two-part article about Custer's Last Stand.
It wasn't a complete surprise, however, because the magazine had been limping along like a badly holed and listing battleship for the better part of three years. Cash flow problems, the bane of all small businesses, crippled operations around Issue No. 49. In addition, that issue was a disaster as the planned historical wargame wasn't ready and a chess variant presented instead. Subscriber reaction was very negative, and the problem was compounded by the ensuing erratice schedule which never really allowed a recovery.
There's also a very real question whether the wargame hobby can really support two S&T-style magazines, but Command did last long enough to suggest that it could -- at least the 1990s hobby could.
When Dragons Fight was an appropriate game to end the run with. Like the very first issue's game -- Blitzkrieg '41 -- WDF is a Bomba design. As such it features "brutal, manly combat" in high hex-and-counter wargame style. Units are rated for combat strength in attack and defense, have movement allowances and a basic IGO-HUGO turn sequence. Bomba disliked the complications of zones of control rules and they rarely appear in his designs, so WDF has none.
The situation is an interesting one, proposing to see what might happen if the People's Republic of China were to try to seize Taiwan by invasion. Most analysts foresee a more naval-air campaign instead, but if the Chinese decided on a direct approach it might look like this.
The Chinese, in the Command traditional white-on-red color scheme, are a fairly conventional-appearing force based around infantry divisions that have four steps of strength and tank divisions with six steps. The main limitation for the Chinese is that their limited transportation means can only bring in one division per turn (day) except for the initial invasion lift of two.
They do have a full supporting cast of special forces type troops, including two naval infantry brigades, two airborne brigades, eight airmobile regiments and one artillery division. If they can seize an airport they can also quickly bring in five two-step light infantry divisions.
Bomba has a weakness for weapon weirdness, here indulged with a counter representing fire support from a battery of "Super guns" of the type designed by the late Gerad Bull.
The white-on-dark blue Taiwan forces are very different. They have seven weak reserve infantry divisions and two somewhat stronger Marine divisions that are only leg-mobile and therefore nearly static. Their main hope rests with 28 two-step Combined Arms Brigades supported by three airmobile brigades. All these units are speedy, but the Taiwanese generally are weak in staying power.
Finally both sides have access to air support, which varies from 1-3 units per turn, but both sides never have air support on the same turn. This is, perhaps, the single biggest wild card in the game and a run of bad or good fortune with the air support can be critical. The Chinese are guaranteed the full 3-units of air power on the invasion turn and if they manage to capture the fortified Taiwanese air base Chien An No. 3 they get a permanent award of three while the Taiwanese air force is gone for good.
Like most invasion games, the outcome of the initial invasion is critical. With air support, the super gun and use of human waves the Chinese can almost guarantee a landing. If they fail they lose and you simple start over. Keeping the beachhead safe is the first order of business, so it's probably not wise to land in the thickest part of the Taiwanese defenses. Losing the beachhead means defeat. The difficulty for the Taiwanese is that the island is too big for the army to cover every possible landing zone in strength. In addition, the game opens with a Chinese cruise missile barrage that as a 33% chance of inflicting a step loss on each Taiwan unit. This barrage comes after the Chinese setup, so it can't be counted on to clear the way for a landing, but it does mean that about a third of the potential Taiwanese strength is negated.
By the way, this provides a handy balancing mechanic for the game between players of different experience. Adjusting the damage +1 or -1 depending on the relative experience of the Taiwanese will make the game more or less challenging without changing its nature. Considering the actual effectiveness of such a cruise missile strike is unknowable, there's ample justification for making the change as it suits the players anyway.
The overall course of the game will be familiar to anyone who has played Bomba designs, with a step-loss result odds-based CRT, optional move/fight or fight/move sequencing for either player turn (except the first one) and minimal supply rules.
The game can last up to 14 turns as the Chinese seek to capture 16 victory points worth of cities and "large towns." City hexes are worth three VPs each, while towns are worth one. The distribution of settlements around Taiwan mean that the capture of any substantial portion of the island will be enough for Chinese victory.
Play goes fast enough that players should be able to play a match, switching sides, in a long evening. There shouldn't be much time wasted with looking up rules or computing combat results as everything is familiar wargame standard stuff. Units will be heading to the dead pile in satisfying numbers.
How realistic the game might be is hard to gauge, of course. As a hypothetical war too much is unknown and unknowable to get too dogmatic about things and the game does assume two big, but debatable things. First, that the Chinese will try to take the island by brute force. Second, that the U.S. Navy will not intervene for those critical 14 days.
The new S&T game Red Dragon Rising may be have a better take on the likely course of a China war, but it's mostly a naval-air game. For a look at the ground fighting WDF seems like it's at least plausible.
Command Magazine had a very good run, more than half a hundred issues over more than 10 years, which made it by far the longest-lived and most successful wargame-in-a-magazine project outside of Strategy & Tactics, which originated to concept.
Command was born out of a failed attempt by former S&T editor Ty Bomba and his associates to buy S&T. Having lined up financial backing but failed to secure the deal, Bomba went ahead anyway with his own vision of what an S&T-like magazine ought to look like. Bomba is a strong personality and such people often provoke strong reactions and Bomba and his feisty magazine were always a bit controversial.
Still, having some serious competition was good for both magazines and, ironically, Bomba is back at S&T these days. Command's demise came as somewhat of a surprise, not least, apparently to Bomba. That last issue contains, for example, the first part of a planned two-part article about Custer's Last Stand.
It wasn't a complete surprise, however, because the magazine had been limping along like a badly holed and listing battleship for the better part of three years. Cash flow problems, the bane of all small businesses, crippled operations around Issue No. 49. In addition, that issue was a disaster as the planned historical wargame wasn't ready and a chess variant presented instead. Subscriber reaction was very negative, and the problem was compounded by the ensuing erratice schedule which never really allowed a recovery.
There's also a very real question whether the wargame hobby can really support two S&T-style magazines, but Command did last long enough to suggest that it could -- at least the 1990s hobby could.
When Dragons Fight was an appropriate game to end the run with. Like the very first issue's game -- Blitzkrieg '41 -- WDF is a Bomba design. As such it features "brutal, manly combat" in high hex-and-counter wargame style. Units are rated for combat strength in attack and defense, have movement allowances and a basic IGO-HUGO turn sequence. Bomba disliked the complications of zones of control rules and they rarely appear in his designs, so WDF has none.
The situation is an interesting one, proposing to see what might happen if the People's Republic of China were to try to seize Taiwan by invasion. Most analysts foresee a more naval-air campaign instead, but if the Chinese decided on a direct approach it might look like this.
The Chinese, in the Command traditional white-on-red color scheme, are a fairly conventional-appearing force based around infantry divisions that have four steps of strength and tank divisions with six steps. The main limitation for the Chinese is that their limited transportation means can only bring in one division per turn (day) except for the initial invasion lift of two.
They do have a full supporting cast of special forces type troops, including two naval infantry brigades, two airborne brigades, eight airmobile regiments and one artillery division. If they can seize an airport they can also quickly bring in five two-step light infantry divisions.
Bomba has a weakness for weapon weirdness, here indulged with a counter representing fire support from a battery of "Super guns" of the type designed by the late Gerad Bull.
The white-on-dark blue Taiwan forces are very different. They have seven weak reserve infantry divisions and two somewhat stronger Marine divisions that are only leg-mobile and therefore nearly static. Their main hope rests with 28 two-step Combined Arms Brigades supported by three airmobile brigades. All these units are speedy, but the Taiwanese generally are weak in staying power.
Finally both sides have access to air support, which varies from 1-3 units per turn, but both sides never have air support on the same turn. This is, perhaps, the single biggest wild card in the game and a run of bad or good fortune with the air support can be critical. The Chinese are guaranteed the full 3-units of air power on the invasion turn and if they manage to capture the fortified Taiwanese air base Chien An No. 3 they get a permanent award of three while the Taiwanese air force is gone for good.
Like most invasion games, the outcome of the initial invasion is critical. With air support, the super gun and use of human waves the Chinese can almost guarantee a landing. If they fail they lose and you simple start over. Keeping the beachhead safe is the first order of business, so it's probably not wise to land in the thickest part of the Taiwanese defenses. Losing the beachhead means defeat. The difficulty for the Taiwanese is that the island is too big for the army to cover every possible landing zone in strength. In addition, the game opens with a Chinese cruise missile barrage that as a 33% chance of inflicting a step loss on each Taiwan unit. This barrage comes after the Chinese setup, so it can't be counted on to clear the way for a landing, but it does mean that about a third of the potential Taiwanese strength is negated.
By the way, this provides a handy balancing mechanic for the game between players of different experience. Adjusting the damage +1 or -1 depending on the relative experience of the Taiwanese will make the game more or less challenging without changing its nature. Considering the actual effectiveness of such a cruise missile strike is unknowable, there's ample justification for making the change as it suits the players anyway.
The overall course of the game will be familiar to anyone who has played Bomba designs, with a step-loss result odds-based CRT, optional move/fight or fight/move sequencing for either player turn (except the first one) and minimal supply rules.
The game can last up to 14 turns as the Chinese seek to capture 16 victory points worth of cities and "large towns." City hexes are worth three VPs each, while towns are worth one. The distribution of settlements around Taiwan mean that the capture of any substantial portion of the island will be enough for Chinese victory.
Play goes fast enough that players should be able to play a match, switching sides, in a long evening. There shouldn't be much time wasted with looking up rules or computing combat results as everything is familiar wargame standard stuff. Units will be heading to the dead pile in satisfying numbers.
How realistic the game might be is hard to gauge, of course. As a hypothetical war too much is unknown and unknowable to get too dogmatic about things and the game does assume two big, but debatable things. First, that the Chinese will try to take the island by brute force. Second, that the U.S. Navy will not intervene for those critical 14 days.
The new S&T game Red Dragon Rising may be have a better take on the likely course of a China war, but it's mostly a naval-air game. For a look at the ground fighting WDF seems like it's at least plausible.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Proteus -- when is a chess variant, not?
Steve Jackson must have a soft spot for chess variants. Although Steve Jackson Games doesn't really have a very extensive line, and what it does have tends to be stuff that beats a game theme to death (Munchkin, OGRE, Illuminati, GURPS etc.), SJG has no less than three different chess variants for sale.
Or does it?
Tile Chess and Knightmare Chess are clearly chess variants. Both use the rules and pieces of chess and just add some new twists.
Proteus, however, while it appears to be a chess variant, could arguably be something quite different. It's a different sort of abstract game that merely borrows the moves of chess pieces.
The usual rule for judging whether a game is in the chess family is the knight move, which is unique to chess. Proteus does have the knight move, so it can be considered a chess-family game. And it does use the same board as chess. And, of course, it uses many of the same pieces of chess and their symbols, although also adding one new piece. In all these ways it looks like a chess variant.
But the game plays a lot differently than chess, not the least because the object of the game has been changed. There is no King in Proteus and therefore no check or checkmate. Victory comes from scoring the most points. One can also win by forcing a situation where the other side can't move, but the main way to win is by attrition.
This difference in objective, as well as the rotation of pieces between identities, makes for a very unchess-like game. I think it's different enough, in fact, that I'd hesitate to call it a chess variant at all. It seems to be an abstract strategy game that borrowed some moves and nomenclature from chess, instead.
Or does it?
Tile Chess and Knightmare Chess are clearly chess variants. Both use the rules and pieces of chess and just add some new twists.
Proteus, however, while it appears to be a chess variant, could arguably be something quite different. It's a different sort of abstract game that merely borrows the moves of chess pieces.
The usual rule for judging whether a game is in the chess family is the knight move, which is unique to chess. Proteus does have the knight move, so it can be considered a chess-family game. And it does use the same board as chess. And, of course, it uses many of the same pieces of chess and their symbols, although also adding one new piece. In all these ways it looks like a chess variant.
But the game plays a lot differently than chess, not the least because the object of the game has been changed. There is no King in Proteus and therefore no check or checkmate. Victory comes from scoring the most points. One can also win by forcing a situation where the other side can't move, but the main way to win is by attrition.
This difference in objective, as well as the rotation of pieces between identities, makes for a very unchess-like game. I think it's different enough, in fact, that I'd hesitate to call it a chess variant at all. It seems to be an abstract strategy game that borrowed some moves and nomenclature from chess, instead.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Hive and the importance of quality components
Nice bits are always desirable in agame, of course, but I think they have an extra dimension of importance for designers of abstract strategy games who want to glean some profit from their inventiveness.
By their nature, abstract strategy games are easy to fabricate on your own, so long as you're interested primarily in functionality. The board, when there is one, is simple and symmetric. The number of pieces is limited and they are usually defined by one or two characteristics, The rules, which would usually be the only copyrightable portion, can generally be boiled down to a single sheet of paper.
This is less of an option for most other kinds of commercial games, which have longer and more involved rules not easily memorized. They often have components such as charts, data-filled pieces and game-relevant artwork that can all be copyrighted, discouraging copies.
As attested by the many create-your-own threads on BoardGame Geek a lot of people like to make their own copies of games. This can be a problem for the designer. Even someone without such a hobby and minimal talent can still create their own functional copy of an abstract strategy game.
The solution, long known to publishers of public domain games such as chess, backgammon and go, is to have really nice components that the typical player doesn't have the time, talent or funds to replicate.
Hive is a good example of that, especially with the latest edition, with bakelite pieces. They are attractive, substantial and pleasing to handle and more than enough of an inducement to actually purchase a game that would be easy enough to make.
Abstract strategy games are a popular endeavor for would-be game designers, but many don't make the extra effort needed to make their games worth buying by paying attention to presentation as well as gameplay.
By their nature, abstract strategy games are easy to fabricate on your own, so long as you're interested primarily in functionality. The board, when there is one, is simple and symmetric. The number of pieces is limited and they are usually defined by one or two characteristics, The rules, which would usually be the only copyrightable portion, can generally be boiled down to a single sheet of paper.
This is less of an option for most other kinds of commercial games, which have longer and more involved rules not easily memorized. They often have components such as charts, data-filled pieces and game-relevant artwork that can all be copyrighted, discouraging copies.
As attested by the many create-your-own threads on BoardGame Geek a lot of people like to make their own copies of games. This can be a problem for the designer. Even someone without such a hobby and minimal talent can still create their own functional copy of an abstract strategy game.
The solution, long known to publishers of public domain games such as chess, backgammon and go, is to have really nice components that the typical player doesn't have the time, talent or funds to replicate.
Hive is a good example of that, especially with the latest edition, with bakelite pieces. They are attractive, substantial and pleasing to handle and more than enough of an inducement to actually purchase a game that would be easy enough to make.
Abstract strategy games are a popular endeavor for would-be game designers, but many don't make the extra effort needed to make their games worth buying by paying attention to presentation as well as gameplay.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Leyte Gulf
Beyond a doubt, one of the coolest games in my collection is the Leyte Gulf edition of the Second World War at Sea series.
It contains two of the most massive naval battles of history, the Philippine Sea and Leyte Gulf.
An interesting aspect of the Pacific War was the continuing faith of the Japanese that it would be decided by a Decisive Battle which would bring them victory. Indeed, their naval strategy was geared around bringing about such a Decisive Battle.
Ironically, they succeeded! As a matter of fact, they brought about Three Decisive Battles: Midway, Philippine Sea and Leyte. They simply refused to accept the verdict!
The flaw in their reasoning was an apparent belief that only the (weak) Americans would be affected by losing a Decisive Battle and would sue for peace. In the actual event, I rather doubt the U.S. could have been defeated by a Decisive Battle. We'll never know, because the Americans in fact WON all three Decisive Battles. This despite the fact that in all three battles the Japanese did actually arrange the battle largely as they had planned beforehand.
I can understand how the Japanese fought on after Midway, even though it was truly decisive in hindsight. At the time it must have seemed like a fluke. But the Philippine Sea clearly showed that victory was not possible for Japan and the rational course of action would have been to sue for peace. Leyte merely ratified that outcome.
It contains two of the most massive naval battles of history, the Philippine Sea and Leyte Gulf.
An interesting aspect of the Pacific War was the continuing faith of the Japanese that it would be decided by a Decisive Battle which would bring them victory. Indeed, their naval strategy was geared around bringing about such a Decisive Battle.
Ironically, they succeeded! As a matter of fact, they brought about Three Decisive Battles: Midway, Philippine Sea and Leyte. They simply refused to accept the verdict!
The flaw in their reasoning was an apparent belief that only the (weak) Americans would be affected by losing a Decisive Battle and would sue for peace. In the actual event, I rather doubt the U.S. could have been defeated by a Decisive Battle. We'll never know, because the Americans in fact WON all three Decisive Battles. This despite the fact that in all three battles the Japanese did actually arrange the battle largely as they had planned beforehand.
I can understand how the Japanese fought on after Midway, even though it was truly decisive in hindsight. At the time it must have seemed like a fluke. But the Philippine Sea clearly showed that victory was not possible for Japan and the rational course of action would have been to sue for peace. Leyte merely ratified that outcome.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Solving the balance problem in Pacific Victory
Pacific Victory is Columbia Games' block game about the Pacific War in World War II.
It's a development of the system used in Victory: The Blocks of War, with changes due to the time and distance scales. Every turn, for example, represents three months of time.
It's an entertaining and interesting game, but it suffers from a perception of imbalance. Specifically, it appears it's very hard for the Japanese to win the campaign game if the Allies take a patient approach. The economic imbalance is simply too great. While it may be argued this is realistic, it's a problem from a player's standpoint.
It also encourages an unhistorical line of play by the Allies. In the actual event, the Allies did not behave as if they had all the time in the world. Domestic politics ensured that the war would end as soon as possible and victory, even if certain, would not be delayed. The allies, for example, could have simply blockaded Japan into starvation instead of dropping the atom bomb, but that would have taken much longer, been less certain and caused even more suffering.
One suggestion has been to change the victory awards and give the Japanese a victory if they get 16 VPs instead of needing 20. While adding some drama to the game, it raises as many problems as it solves. Now the Japanese can win an early knockout victory too easily by taking India. While damaging to the Allied cause, this would hardly have represented a real win. It also doesn't solve the long-game problem. If the Allies manage to hold the Japanese off from 16 then their eventual economic dominance will still come into play.
There may be another option that's in keeping with Columbia Games precedent. In Bobby Lee and Sam Grant the confederates get a bonus VP every so often, which provides an incentive for the U.S. to keep pushing every year instead of just sitting back and accumulating a huge edge in resources. A similar mechanism could also be used in Pacific Victory, giving the Japanese bonus VPs for holding out (although these would count for victory only and not bring additional resources.) Playtesting would be needed to figure out the best pace, but I think a good place to start would be 1 VP for every Monsoon season.
It's a development of the system used in Victory: The Blocks of War, with changes due to the time and distance scales. Every turn, for example, represents three months of time.
It's an entertaining and interesting game, but it suffers from a perception of imbalance. Specifically, it appears it's very hard for the Japanese to win the campaign game if the Allies take a patient approach. The economic imbalance is simply too great. While it may be argued this is realistic, it's a problem from a player's standpoint.
It also encourages an unhistorical line of play by the Allies. In the actual event, the Allies did not behave as if they had all the time in the world. Domestic politics ensured that the war would end as soon as possible and victory, even if certain, would not be delayed. The allies, for example, could have simply blockaded Japan into starvation instead of dropping the atom bomb, but that would have taken much longer, been less certain and caused even more suffering.
One suggestion has been to change the victory awards and give the Japanese a victory if they get 16 VPs instead of needing 20. While adding some drama to the game, it raises as many problems as it solves. Now the Japanese can win an early knockout victory too easily by taking India. While damaging to the Allied cause, this would hardly have represented a real win. It also doesn't solve the long-game problem. If the Allies manage to hold the Japanese off from 16 then their eventual economic dominance will still come into play.
There may be another option that's in keeping with Columbia Games precedent. In Bobby Lee and Sam Grant the confederates get a bonus VP every so often, which provides an incentive for the U.S. to keep pushing every year instead of just sitting back and accumulating a huge edge in resources. A similar mechanism could also be used in Pacific Victory, giving the Japanese bonus VPs for holding out (although these would count for victory only and not bring additional resources.) Playtesting would be needed to figure out the best pace, but I think a good place to start would be 1 VP for every Monsoon season.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
The first rush of the New Avalon Hill
For more than 40 years the premier adult gaming company was Avalon Hill. While most famous for its wargames, the Baltimore-based AH was always more than that. Perhaps ahead of its time, it always realized that games were not just for kids. Right from its start under Charles Roberts, AH always had a balanced line, with at least as many family and adult games as wargames. This continued throughout the Dott ownership.
When the Dotts finally tired of the game business and sold the Avalon Hill name and line to Hasbro, gamers everywhere lost quite a bit. But change is inevitable, after all, and we all have to just get on with it. Gamers wondered what Hasbro had in mind for AH, and it doesn't appear that Hasbro had any deeply thought-out strategy. Hasbro has been making it a policy to buy up adventure game outfits of late, most notably the Wizards of the Coast, and some, at least, thought it was merely a ploy to win more shelf space.
So it was with considerable interest that gamers watched the relaunch of the Avalon Hill brand by Hasbro in 2000. The first seven games of the new line ran the gamut of genres, titles, and age, but they all had one notable thing in common - not a single one was a "real" Avalon Hill game, in the sense of a game designed and marketed by the Baltimore crowd.
The First Seven were:
Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit -- An original design taking advantage of Hasbro's Star Wars licensing. A light wargame featuring 160 plastic pieces, it's a title that would never have appeared in the old AH line.
Cosmic Encounter -- Previously published by several different companies -- but not AH -- this was a reissue returning the game to its simpler roots with nicer components.
Battle Cry -- An original wargame, although a very stripped down and simple one. I've seen accounts that suggested the old AH was planning to publish the game before it went out of business. I'm not sure what that would have looked like, but I doubt it would have involved plastic figures or wooden blocks.
Stratego Legends -- A fantasy-themed version of the long-time Milton Bradley (also now owned by Hasbro) game Stratego. Obviously this would never have been in the old AH line.
Axis & Allies: Europe -- A refocused version of the Axis & Allies wargame published by Milton Bradley. Obviously not a candidate for the old AH line, it would have been too "light" for their customers.
Diplomacy -- A new, very nice edition of the classic diplomatic game that has been published by many companies, and was a prominent part of the old Avalon Hill line, although designed elsewhere. As a matter of fact, Allan Calhamer and Charles Roberts were working on their games around the same time.
Acquire -- Also a new edition of a timeless classic game, in this case designed by Sid Sackson. Originally a part of the 3M game line, it was bought by AH and a favorite part of their lineup until the end.
So, while the initial offering of the new AH resembled its predecessor with a balance of wargames and non-wargames and even included a few familiar titles, overall it was a much lighter group than the old Avalon Hill line. It did provide a good indication of where Hasbro was going with the Avalon Hill line, however. The rights for real hard-core wargames were mostly transferred to Multi-Man Publishing if AH-owned. Many of the other games, whose designers had retained rights, have reappeared with different publishers.
The more recent AH/Hasbro offerings have resembled the first batch, with most of the wargames also bearing the Axis & Allies brand in addition to AH. Except for Diplomacy and Acquire, which are being reissued again in new versions, the only New AH game that is a re-issue of a prior AH title is Monsters Menace America.
It seems evident that there will be no resurrecting of the hard-core historical Avalon Hill wargame under Hasbro. Only games light enough to merit the Axis & Allies label will show up, although some of those such as the A&A miniatures line and A&A:Bulge are definitely real wargames.
When the Dotts finally tired of the game business and sold the Avalon Hill name and line to Hasbro, gamers everywhere lost quite a bit. But change is inevitable, after all, and we all have to just get on with it. Gamers wondered what Hasbro had in mind for AH, and it doesn't appear that Hasbro had any deeply thought-out strategy. Hasbro has been making it a policy to buy up adventure game outfits of late, most notably the Wizards of the Coast, and some, at least, thought it was merely a ploy to win more shelf space.
So it was with considerable interest that gamers watched the relaunch of the Avalon Hill brand by Hasbro in 2000. The first seven games of the new line ran the gamut of genres, titles, and age, but they all had one notable thing in common - not a single one was a "real" Avalon Hill game, in the sense of a game designed and marketed by the Baltimore crowd.
The First Seven were:
Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit -- An original design taking advantage of Hasbro's Star Wars licensing. A light wargame featuring 160 plastic pieces, it's a title that would never have appeared in the old AH line.
Cosmic Encounter -- Previously published by several different companies -- but not AH -- this was a reissue returning the game to its simpler roots with nicer components.
Battle Cry -- An original wargame, although a very stripped down and simple one. I've seen accounts that suggested the old AH was planning to publish the game before it went out of business. I'm not sure what that would have looked like, but I doubt it would have involved plastic figures or wooden blocks.
Stratego Legends -- A fantasy-themed version of the long-time Milton Bradley (also now owned by Hasbro) game Stratego. Obviously this would never have been in the old AH line.
Axis & Allies: Europe -- A refocused version of the Axis & Allies wargame published by Milton Bradley. Obviously not a candidate for the old AH line, it would have been too "light" for their customers.
Diplomacy -- A new, very nice edition of the classic diplomatic game that has been published by many companies, and was a prominent part of the old Avalon Hill line, although designed elsewhere. As a matter of fact, Allan Calhamer and Charles Roberts were working on their games around the same time.
Acquire -- Also a new edition of a timeless classic game, in this case designed by Sid Sackson. Originally a part of the 3M game line, it was bought by AH and a favorite part of their lineup until the end.
So, while the initial offering of the new AH resembled its predecessor with a balance of wargames and non-wargames and even included a few familiar titles, overall it was a much lighter group than the old Avalon Hill line. It did provide a good indication of where Hasbro was going with the Avalon Hill line, however. The rights for real hard-core wargames were mostly transferred to Multi-Man Publishing if AH-owned. Many of the other games, whose designers had retained rights, have reappeared with different publishers.
The more recent AH/Hasbro offerings have resembled the first batch, with most of the wargames also bearing the Axis & Allies brand in addition to AH. Except for Diplomacy and Acquire, which are being reissued again in new versions, the only New AH game that is a re-issue of a prior AH title is Monsters Menace America.
It seems evident that there will be no resurrecting of the hard-core historical Avalon Hill wargame under Hasbro. Only games light enough to merit the Axis & Allies label will show up, although some of those such as the A&A miniatures line and A&A:Bulge are definitely real wargames.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Battle Cry Chancellorsville
Chancellorsville is unique among the published scenarios in Battle Cry in that neither army has a presence in all three sections of the battlefield. Indeed, the Federals, except for one unit, are all concentrated in the center section.
Hooker's boys also labor under the handicap of having Hooker as the boss, so they have only a three-card hand, compared to the Rebel 5-card hand. As a matter of fact, the only real advantage the Union forces have is numbers, with 12 units compared to the Rebel eight. But even here, the federals have a disadvantage because their army is not well-balanced, having no cavalry unit.
The bottom line of all this is that, at the start of the game, fully 32 of the 60 cards in the deck are completely useless or will result in a single unit being able to move. On the plus side, there are five cards that can be really devastating for the Federals to play if they get them, the All-Out Offensive and, almost as good, the two Force March cards. The Fore and Hold Position is also pretty powerful. All five of these cards will allow all, or nearly all, of the Federal units to battle in a single turn.
The problem for the Union player is, with a mere 3-card-hand, chances aren't all that good you'll get one of those five cards (1/12th of the deck) while it's almost certain you'll have one or more cards that you can't use. Even the Counter-attack card may not help, because the Confederate player can be careful to only activate units in a section where the Federals don't have a presence.
While the Rebels start with 14 cards they can't use (12 Center Section Probe, Attack or Skirmish orders and the two Hit and Run cards) they can afford, with a 5-card-hand, to hold onto any center cards for a few turns until they have the need to move into the center section. So there's really just two unusable cards for them in the whole deck.
Given all this, what approach gives the Union player the best chance for a victory?
Battle Cry, like all the Commands & Colors games, doesn't lend itself to "perfect plans." The luck of the card draw means that no plan can be sure of execution, and sometimes the other side may get lucky. A Rebel player at Chancellorsville who confidently starts enveloping the Union force may get a very rude awakening if the Federal player happens to have two of this five killer cards.
But on average the Rebel player is going to be able to be very active, able to dance around with his 8 units, picking at a federal force that may not even have a single usable card in his hand.
From a card management perspective, there's little the federal player can do except play 'em as he draws 'em. If not pressed too hard, the union can "play" a worthless card just to get it out of the hand, but most of the time the critical need will be to act as often as possible. I think the Union player does have an opportunity, if he's single-minded enough to act on it, and that is to concentrate on Stuart's portion of the Confederate army.
There are exactly six flags available on that side of the field (general, artillery and four infantry) and there is one federal unit that starts on the sector boundary and therefore has 10 more cards available than the rest of the Union force. There's a chance, if the cards cooperate, to concentrate all 12 federal units against the five Rebels.
It still looks like a challenging scenario for the Union troops, but I think this approach gives the best shot. Critiques welcome.
Hooker's boys also labor under the handicap of having Hooker as the boss, so they have only a three-card hand, compared to the Rebel 5-card hand. As a matter of fact, the only real advantage the Union forces have is numbers, with 12 units compared to the Rebel eight. But even here, the federals have a disadvantage because their army is not well-balanced, having no cavalry unit.
The bottom line of all this is that, at the start of the game, fully 32 of the 60 cards in the deck are completely useless or will result in a single unit being able to move. On the plus side, there are five cards that can be really devastating for the Federals to play if they get them, the All-Out Offensive and, almost as good, the two Force March cards. The Fore and Hold Position is also pretty powerful. All five of these cards will allow all, or nearly all, of the Federal units to battle in a single turn.
The problem for the Union player is, with a mere 3-card-hand, chances aren't all that good you'll get one of those five cards (1/12th of the deck) while it's almost certain you'll have one or more cards that you can't use. Even the Counter-attack card may not help, because the Confederate player can be careful to only activate units in a section where the Federals don't have a presence.
While the Rebels start with 14 cards they can't use (12 Center Section Probe, Attack or Skirmish orders and the two Hit and Run cards) they can afford, with a 5-card-hand, to hold onto any center cards for a few turns until they have the need to move into the center section. So there's really just two unusable cards for them in the whole deck.
Given all this, what approach gives the Union player the best chance for a victory?
Battle Cry, like all the Commands & Colors games, doesn't lend itself to "perfect plans." The luck of the card draw means that no plan can be sure of execution, and sometimes the other side may get lucky. A Rebel player at Chancellorsville who confidently starts enveloping the Union force may get a very rude awakening if the Federal player happens to have two of this five killer cards.
But on average the Rebel player is going to be able to be very active, able to dance around with his 8 units, picking at a federal force that may not even have a single usable card in his hand.
From a card management perspective, there's little the federal player can do except play 'em as he draws 'em. If not pressed too hard, the union can "play" a worthless card just to get it out of the hand, but most of the time the critical need will be to act as often as possible. I think the Union player does have an opportunity, if he's single-minded enough to act on it, and that is to concentrate on Stuart's portion of the Confederate army.
There are exactly six flags available on that side of the field (general, artillery and four infantry) and there is one federal unit that starts on the sector boundary and therefore has 10 more cards available than the rest of the Union force. There's a chance, if the cards cooperate, to concentrate all 12 federal units against the five Rebels.
It still looks like a challenging scenario for the Union troops, but I think this approach gives the best shot. Critiques welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)