Hasbro selected three games for "Anniversary" editions to mark the 50th anniversary of Avalon Hill's founding.
While all three games are worthy classics (Acquire, Axis & Allies, and Diplomacy), none of them are original Avalon Hill games. Acquire was published by 3M and brought into the AH line when it took over the 3M line. Diplomacy, of course, is just as old as AH, but was first published by Gamescience before being bought and published by AH. Axis & Allies was never in the old Baltimore-based Avalon Hill's lineup at all.
It would have been nice to see a real Avalon Hill classic republished, but there are few candidates that might match Hasbro's market. Perhaps the most likely candidate would be an updated edition of Football strategy that reflected the way the NFL is played today.
Among the wargames I think there are few games that could make the transition. Most of the better games are in the hands of MMP or being republished elsewhere. Maybe, just maybe, a heavily revised Midway with plastic Axis & Allies style ships could catch the eye of the modern bit-oriented gamer. Of the classic hex-and-counter games Afrika Korps has probably held up the best, but I don't see it appealing to Wal-Mart shoppers.
No, it's easy to see w hy Acquire, Dip and A&A made the cut.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Like Lions They Fought review
Like Lions They Fought
a review
Some wargames cover situations where one side’s chances of winning militarily were small to nonexistent. The usual design approach is to set up the victory conditions so that each player must strive to better the historical result.
Like Lions They Fought, the issue game in Command Magazine No. 28 in 1994, takes that approach to game the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 in an entertaining way while bowing to the historical reality that the Zulus, a locally powerful tribe of herder-warriors, had no chance of prevailing over the military might of the British Empire. But if the Zulu player can keep his king, Cetshwayo, out of British hands longer than the historical result, he wins.
The game scale is 5 miles per hex, one month per turn. Zulu units are regiments of varying strength, with each combat factor representing about 500 warriors. Combat factors range from 1-5. British units represent companies and battalions of regular and colonial troops, with each combat factor representing between 80 and 120 men. The counters are the user-friendly 5/8-inch pictographic style favored by Command Magazine during this era. Zulus are white background, British are light red and some neutral Zulus are gray. The map is another functional and attractive Mark Simonitch production.
The game sequence is a little unusual, in that the Zulus move, the British move and then there is a mutual combat phase where the Zulus are always the attacker, no matter who initiated the combat. The designer notes explain that the spear-armed Zulus had no choice but to attack the rifle-armed British to avoid getting shot up at long range.
The overall strategic situation has the British invading Zululand with multiple independent columns converging on the Zulu Capital of Ulundi. The Zulus have an opportunity to recreate the battle of Isandlwana and decimate one column, but for religious reasons the victorious Zulus are removed from the map for two turns while the warriors go home to their “kraals” to purify. Each Zulu regiment is associated with a kraal and if it’s home kraal is burned, the unit cannot return to play.
Naturally, therefore, a major British objective is to burn kraals, causing an inexorable decline in the number of Zulus. Meanwhile the British get stronger.
The middle period of the game sees the British, after having torched many kraals, closing in on Ulundi. The Zulu king flees and the British spend the rest of the game chasing him around the map. If they catch him, it’s game over, British victory. Historically the British captured the king in the eighth month. If he’s still on the lam at the end of that month, the Zulu player wins.
Combat is reminiscent of XTR’s pre-gunpowder games, where both sides line up their units off board and match unit for unit. The British shoot. Zulus die. More Zulus step into the gap, there is a melee. Both sides have a chance to retreat. If neither does, the battle goes on for another round. Essentially, the Zulus must ensure they have numerical superiority to have any chance of winning a battle.
The game takes about ten minutes to set up and can easily be played in one sitting.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: A unique topic covered in a playable way.
(No) For Collectors: No remarkable collectibility.
(No) For Euro gamers: A hex-and-counter wargame where the theme is a little more unpleasant than usual, as the British player has to go around burning homes in order to win.
a review
Some wargames cover situations where one side’s chances of winning militarily were small to nonexistent. The usual design approach is to set up the victory conditions so that each player must strive to better the historical result.
Like Lions They Fought, the issue game in Command Magazine No. 28 in 1994, takes that approach to game the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 in an entertaining way while bowing to the historical reality that the Zulus, a locally powerful tribe of herder-warriors, had no chance of prevailing over the military might of the British Empire. But if the Zulu player can keep his king, Cetshwayo, out of British hands longer than the historical result, he wins.
The game scale is 5 miles per hex, one month per turn. Zulu units are regiments of varying strength, with each combat factor representing about 500 warriors. Combat factors range from 1-5. British units represent companies and battalions of regular and colonial troops, with each combat factor representing between 80 and 120 men. The counters are the user-friendly 5/8-inch pictographic style favored by Command Magazine during this era. Zulus are white background, British are light red and some neutral Zulus are gray. The map is another functional and attractive Mark Simonitch production.
The game sequence is a little unusual, in that the Zulus move, the British move and then there is a mutual combat phase where the Zulus are always the attacker, no matter who initiated the combat. The designer notes explain that the spear-armed Zulus had no choice but to attack the rifle-armed British to avoid getting shot up at long range.
The overall strategic situation has the British invading Zululand with multiple independent columns converging on the Zulu Capital of Ulundi. The Zulus have an opportunity to recreate the battle of Isandlwana and decimate one column, but for religious reasons the victorious Zulus are removed from the map for two turns while the warriors go home to their “kraals” to purify. Each Zulu regiment is associated with a kraal and if it’s home kraal is burned, the unit cannot return to play.
Naturally, therefore, a major British objective is to burn kraals, causing an inexorable decline in the number of Zulus. Meanwhile the British get stronger.
The middle period of the game sees the British, after having torched many kraals, closing in on Ulundi. The Zulu king flees and the British spend the rest of the game chasing him around the map. If they catch him, it’s game over, British victory. Historically the British captured the king in the eighth month. If he’s still on the lam at the end of that month, the Zulu player wins.
Combat is reminiscent of XTR’s pre-gunpowder games, where both sides line up their units off board and match unit for unit. The British shoot. Zulus die. More Zulus step into the gap, there is a melee. Both sides have a chance to retreat. If neither does, the battle goes on for another round. Essentially, the Zulus must ensure they have numerical superiority to have any chance of winning a battle.
The game takes about ten minutes to set up and can easily be played in one sitting.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: A unique topic covered in a playable way.
(No) For Collectors: No remarkable collectibility.
(No) For Euro gamers: A hex-and-counter wargame where the theme is a little more unpleasant than usual, as the British player has to go around burning homes in order to win.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Out of the box impression of Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
I haven't even punched out the counters or taken the figures out of their bags, yet, so this is a very preliminary impression.
That said, I am impressed. It's a LOT of game. The storage boxes 
are an especially nice touch. In game storage is usually hit or miss and Hasbro's storage up to now hasn't usually been very inspired, but this game changes all that.
are an especially nice touch. In game storage is usually hit or miss and Hasbro's storage up to now hasn't usually been very inspired, but this game changes all that.Besides solving the storage of parts, this conficuration of storage bixes should help keep the very large box rigid and avoid some of the kind of damage that tends to make large flat boxes less stury than other types.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Proud Monster, a review of the Command Magazine version
Let's see. Two full-sized maps, 959 counters, 18 pages of rules, 23 player-turn "couplets." This is a big game. Especially for a magazine. Proud Monster was the issue game in Command Magazine No. 27 in 1994.
While not the largest "monster" game about the Eastern Front in World War II, Proud Monster may be the most playable. While there are 18 pages of rules, the game is only of moderate complexity by wargame standards. The game is basically your standard hex-and-counter wargame with an IGO-HUGO turn sequence.
Units are generally brigades and divisions. German mechanized divisions have four steps, infantry divisions have two and Axis allied units one. On the Soviet side nearly all the units have one step, with the reverse side of the counter showing the unit in an untried status. This rule gives the game a lot of its character and helps speed play because there's no "factor counting." The exact strength of any given hex or group of attackers is usually unknown. This creates an appropriate mind set of "I'll send six divisions to attack that city or I'll hold the line with 24 divisions" instead of looking for the exact last factor for a 3-1.
The game is sweeping in scope, covering the first six months of the invasion of Russia. The Panzers rampage where they will, send fistfuls of Soviet units into the "dead pile" while the infantry struggles to keep up. Meanwhile, zombie-like, the recently slaughtered Soviet units return to play, along scores of new units. This is actually a nice touch. The Germans woefully underestimated the size of the Soviet military establishment and within a few weeks of the start of the war had already destroyed more divisions than they thought existed before the war.
There are a lot of little things that help make the game playable despite its vast size. For example, the map's hexes are slightly larger than standard helping fingers handle the large stacks of 1/2-inch counters. All the different types of Soviet units are color-coded, making set up and running the reinforcement/replacement system easier.
The game includes several of Bomba's signature East Front interpretations, including the "GAS" line, about halfway to Moscow, where the German supply system attenuates. The Germans can avoid the penalty if they declare a "pause" and basically suspend their offensive for a turn. This is always a difficult choice. Another big decision for the Germans is whether or not to concentrate supply on 18 mobile divisions for a final push, at the cost of starving the rest of the army. (Bomba returned to this idea in The Moscow Option, which is essentially a "what-if" mini-game of Proud Monster playing out the drive on Moscow proposed by Guderian.
The Combat Results Table is the same odd-based step-loss-result system familiar to players of Command Magazine games.
While billed as 12 "turns" long, each "turn" is really two turns as the term is used in most wargames. Here they are called "couplets." The game could just as easily have been called 23 turns long, with every odd turn starting with a reinforcement phase and every even turn ending with a victory check phase. This is a long game, and will take at least a weekend to play. Setup will also takes time , and will probably need to be done before the play date.
While it can be a long game, it may end early. Every turn the Germans check to see how many victory points (scored by capturing cities) they have achieved. If it's more than that turn's goal then the game ends in German victory. Naturally the amount need increased every turn, but this rule prevents the Soviets from merely high-tailing it to the rear at top speed. On turn I the Germans need just 4 VPs, which they can achieve by taking just Kaunus, Vilnius, Minsk and Kishinev (near Odessa). The game scale is 20 miles per hex, two weeks per turn.
Recommendations
(Yes) for wargamers: A very big, but still playable wargame on the biggest campaign in history. Really captures the vast scope of the campaign. There's a new edition available, so players will presumably prefer that one.
(Yes) for Collectors: Sought-after.
(No) for Eurogamers: Way, way too much wargame.
While not the largest "monster" game about the Eastern Front in World War II, Proud Monster may be the most playable. While there are 18 pages of rules, the game is only of moderate complexity by wargame standards. The game is basically your standard hex-and-counter wargame with an IGO-HUGO turn sequence.
Units are generally brigades and divisions. German mechanized divisions have four steps, infantry divisions have two and Axis allied units one. On the Soviet side nearly all the units have one step, with the reverse side of the counter showing the unit in an untried status. This rule gives the game a lot of its character and helps speed play because there's no "factor counting." The exact strength of any given hex or group of attackers is usually unknown. This creates an appropriate mind set of "I'll send six divisions to attack that city or I'll hold the line with 24 divisions" instead of looking for the exact last factor for a 3-1.
The game is sweeping in scope, covering the first six months of the invasion of Russia. The Panzers rampage where they will, send fistfuls of Soviet units into the "dead pile" while the infantry struggles to keep up. Meanwhile, zombie-like, the recently slaughtered Soviet units return to play, along scores of new units. This is actually a nice touch. The Germans woefully underestimated the size of the Soviet military establishment and within a few weeks of the start of the war had already destroyed more divisions than they thought existed before the war.
There are a lot of little things that help make the game playable despite its vast size. For example, the map's hexes are slightly larger than standard helping fingers handle the large stacks of 1/2-inch counters. All the different types of Soviet units are color-coded, making set up and running the reinforcement/replacement system easier.
The game includes several of Bomba's signature East Front interpretations, including the "GAS" line, about halfway to Moscow, where the German supply system attenuates. The Germans can avoid the penalty if they declare a "pause" and basically suspend their offensive for a turn. This is always a difficult choice. Another big decision for the Germans is whether or not to concentrate supply on 18 mobile divisions for a final push, at the cost of starving the rest of the army. (Bomba returned to this idea in The Moscow Option, which is essentially a "what-if" mini-game of Proud Monster playing out the drive on Moscow proposed by Guderian.
The Combat Results Table is the same odd-based step-loss-result system familiar to players of Command Magazine games.
While billed as 12 "turns" long, each "turn" is really two turns as the term is used in most wargames. Here they are called "couplets." The game could just as easily have been called 23 turns long, with every odd turn starting with a reinforcement phase and every even turn ending with a victory check phase. This is a long game, and will take at least a weekend to play. Setup will also takes time , and will probably need to be done before the play date.
While it can be a long game, it may end early. Every turn the Germans check to see how many victory points (scored by capturing cities) they have achieved. If it's more than that turn's goal then the game ends in German victory. Naturally the amount need increased every turn, but this rule prevents the Soviets from merely high-tailing it to the rear at top speed. On turn I the Germans need just 4 VPs, which they can achieve by taking just Kaunus, Vilnius, Minsk and Kishinev (near Odessa). The game scale is 20 miles per hex, two weeks per turn.
Recommendations
(Yes) for wargamers: A very big, but still playable wargame on the biggest campaign in history. Really captures the vast scope of the campaign. There's a new edition available, so players will presumably prefer that one.
(Yes) for Collectors: Sought-after.
(No) for Eurogamers: Way, way too much wargame.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
WizKids and the future of bit-based games
What the exact story is behind the surprise announcement by Topps that WizKids will fold is buried in corporate confidentiality. While the game industry is pretty small and the wargame industry even smaller, it's relatively transparent as such things go. There's a lot of gossip that passes around and many of the company's talk a lot about their plans and many of them are pretty good at interacting with their customers.
This is less true for the bigger guys, although I think even Hasbro is better than most wholesale/retail outfits in communicating with its customers. Topps and WizKids seem more in the traditional corporate mold that way.
Still, the WizKids announcement follows an industry-wide pattern of delays and product changes that may very well be affected by larger economic conditions. The global credit crisis and retail retrenchment will, of course, not leave the game industry unscathed, but I think the real impact of that still lies in the future (not the far future, though, just Christmas). I suspect that this year's production issues are related to changes in China, where the vast majority of the nice bits that graced games over the last decade or so were made.
For most of the last 10 years there was a "sweet spot" where low labor and production costs and favorable exchange rates made it very inexpensive for games to include nice bits, especially plastic pieces. It was possible to include large amounts of pieces (War of the Ring, Tide of Iron, Axis & Allies, Memoir' 44, etc.) and it was possible to have hand-painted pieces: (HeroClix, Axis & Allies miniatures, D&D miniatures, Star Wars etc.). It was even possible to have large numbers of hand-painted pieces (Heroscape).
I think that era is coming to a rapid end and will not reoccur for the foreseeable future. There will still be nice bits, but I think there will be more reliance on blocks and counters (Worthington Games, GMT) because it's considerably cheaper to use print instead. There will probably be a more judicious use of plastic as far as quamity goes and less use of expensive hand-painted models.
This is less true for the bigger guys, although I think even Hasbro is better than most wholesale/retail outfits in communicating with its customers. Topps and WizKids seem more in the traditional corporate mold that way.
Still, the WizKids announcement follows an industry-wide pattern of delays and product changes that may very well be affected by larger economic conditions. The global credit crisis and retail retrenchment will, of course, not leave the game industry unscathed, but I think the real impact of that still lies in the future (not the far future, though, just Christmas). I suspect that this year's production issues are related to changes in China, where the vast majority of the nice bits that graced games over the last decade or so were made.
For most of the last 10 years there was a "sweet spot" where low labor and production costs and favorable exchange rates made it very inexpensive for games to include nice bits, especially plastic pieces. It was possible to include large amounts of pieces (War of the Ring, Tide of Iron, Axis & Allies, Memoir' 44, etc.) and it was possible to have hand-painted pieces: (HeroClix, Axis & Allies miniatures, D&D miniatures, Star Wars etc.). It was even possible to have large numbers of hand-painted pieces (Heroscape).
I think that era is coming to a rapid end and will not reoccur for the foreseeable future. There will still be nice bits, but I think there will be more reliance on blocks and counters (Worthington Games, GMT) because it's considerably cheaper to use print instead. There will probably be a more judicious use of plastic as far as quamity goes and less use of expensive hand-painted models.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Unheralded use for the Memoir '44 Overlord counters
There's been some grousing about the counters included in the Memoir '44 Overlord expansion but I think even owners of two M'44 sets can find a use for them.
Memoir' 44 has many good qualities, but portability isn't one of them. It's a big box and with expansions it can be quite a bit to haul around.
Using the counters, though, one can create a "travel" edition that will fit in a folder with the rules and many of the marker counters. If you use one of the paper maps it will be even more compact. You'll still need a dice pouch and a box for the cards but overall it's a much smaller package.
Memoir' 44 has many good qualities, but portability isn't one of them. It's a big box and with expansions it can be quite a bit to haul around.
Using the counters, though, one can create a "travel" edition that will fit in a folder with the rules and many of the marker counters. If you use one of the paper maps it will be even more compact. You'll still need a dice pouch and a box for the cards but overall it's a much smaller package.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The issue game in Command No. 26 in 1994 was When Tigers Fight covering the 1944 campaign in the rarely-simulated China-Burma-India theater.
With one-month turns and 60 km hexes, it's clearly strategic in scope. The game is pretty much XTR-standard, with NATO-style unit symbols, attack-defense-movement factor units in most of the standard XTR color themes: Red Japanese, Brown Commonwealth and Olive American forces. The higher quality Chinese Nationalist units are blue, while the "junque" stuff is purple and uses the reverse side to show untried unit status.
The game sequence is standard IGO-HUGO with various special rules added for chrome. Units are generally divisions, except for the mob-like Chinese forces, which bear unit symbols ranging from division to army group size. Japanese and Allied units are 2-4 steps, while the untried units are one-steppers.
All-in-all a fairly unexceptional game of the sort Command successfully published for eight years. When Tigers Fight is in just about the middle of that run.
But unlike most of that run When Tigers Fight has been criticized for play balance issues. Some maintain that the Japanese can guarantee a win by concentrating on the sudden death victory conditions of capturing two of three Chinese supply cities. The player's notes published with the game note that the Japanese can go any one place they choose, but evidently the playtesters missed that if the Japanse picked the sudden-death cities as their goal they could not be denied.
I haven't played enough to verify that the Chinese cannot stop such a strategy, but this kind of complaint is rare for an XTR game and that rarity adds credibility to the charge.
There's also a problem in the Burma front, where the Japanese can almost certainly ensure getting at least one unit into India at game end, costing the Allies one of their three possible victory points.
If the Japanese don't win a sudden-death victory, the winner is determined by comparing victory point totals. Each side has three possible victory points, awarded by achieving listed goals such as capturing all the Flying Tiger airbases (for the Japanse) or controlling a Chinese city original under Japanese control (for the Allies). The side with the most VPs wins.
The game itself is well presented, with the usual quality Mark Simonitch map work and player-friendly 5/8-inch unit counters.
Set up will take about 20 minutes and the entire 10-turn campaign can be played in an evening.
Recommendations:
(Conditional No) for Wargamers: You may want to consider adjusting the victory criteria if you do play. Published on the 50th anniversary of the campaign, it's too bad the game doesn't work better.
(No) for Collectors
(No) for Eurogamers: Not only a detailed hex-and-counter wargame, but one with reported problems. Stay away.
With one-month turns and 60 km hexes, it's clearly strategic in scope. The game is pretty much XTR-standard, with NATO-style unit symbols, attack-defense-movement factor units in most of the standard XTR color themes: Red Japanese, Brown Commonwealth and Olive American forces. The higher quality Chinese Nationalist units are blue, while the "junque" stuff is purple and uses the reverse side to show untried unit status.
The game sequence is standard IGO-HUGO with various special rules added for chrome. Units are generally divisions, except for the mob-like Chinese forces, which bear unit symbols ranging from division to army group size. Japanese and Allied units are 2-4 steps, while the untried units are one-steppers.
All-in-all a fairly unexceptional game of the sort Command successfully published for eight years. When Tigers Fight is in just about the middle of that run.
But unlike most of that run When Tigers Fight has been criticized for play balance issues. Some maintain that the Japanese can guarantee a win by concentrating on the sudden death victory conditions of capturing two of three Chinese supply cities. The player's notes published with the game note that the Japanese can go any one place they choose, but evidently the playtesters missed that if the Japanse picked the sudden-death cities as their goal they could not be denied.
I haven't played enough to verify that the Chinese cannot stop such a strategy, but this kind of complaint is rare for an XTR game and that rarity adds credibility to the charge.
There's also a problem in the Burma front, where the Japanese can almost certainly ensure getting at least one unit into India at game end, costing the Allies one of their three possible victory points.
If the Japanese don't win a sudden-death victory, the winner is determined by comparing victory point totals. Each side has three possible victory points, awarded by achieving listed goals such as capturing all the Flying Tiger airbases (for the Japanse) or controlling a Chinese city original under Japanese control (for the Allies). The side with the most VPs wins.
The game itself is well presented, with the usual quality Mark Simonitch map work and player-friendly 5/8-inch unit counters.
Set up will take about 20 minutes and the entire 10-turn campaign can be played in an evening.
Recommendations:
(Conditional No) for Wargamers: You may want to consider adjusting the victory criteria if you do play. Published on the 50th anniversary of the campaign, it's too bad the game doesn't work better.
(No) for Collectors
(No) for Eurogamers: Not only a detailed hex-and-counter wargame, but one with reported problems. Stay away.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Does the game hobby need a non-FLGS based model?
BoardGame Geek has a couple more announcements of local game stores closing, and given that everyone is expecting a very weak holiday retail season I wouldn't expect these to be the last. Many will no doubt try to make it through Christmas somehow and end up closing shop after the holiday sales numbers are in.
No doubt this will be a retail industry-wide problem, but here we're just concerned with the impact on gaming.
For a generation the game hobby has largely organized itself around local game stores. People would purchase and play their games at the same place. These were often not exclusively game stores. Many were some combination of hobby (kits and trains), card (sports and magic) and/or comics retailers as well. The important thing is that they would provide space for gamers on a scheduled basis. Collectible game sanctioned play is based on the existence of these venues.
But they seem to be becoming quite rare. Here in Connecticut, for example, there are just a handful of places and just one pure game shop (The Citadel in Groton). Can this model survive?
I suspect not, but then the question becomes, how do gamers find each other and get together to play? Finding like-minded hobbyists is always a challenge for niche past times. The rise of the Internet and various meetup sites seems to have the most potential in my opinion. There are a couple of gaming related meetup groups that I know about locally.
The biggest challenge for meetup groups is securing a regular meeting place, especially one that isn't dependant on one particular host. It's a big demand on someone to expect someone to make their home available every week no matter what. The best venues are often local colleges and libraries, but I wonder if there's a big enough demand for a dedicated meetup site to operate, perhaps as a "Meetup Club" where different meetup groups could rent space. This kind of site would be especially useful for game groups, who often have a fair amount of stuff to lug around.
It's hard to say whether this is the solution, but it seems clear gamers can't count on their favorite local gaming store to be around much longer, especially outside of major urban areas.
No doubt this will be a retail industry-wide problem, but here we're just concerned with the impact on gaming.
For a generation the game hobby has largely organized itself around local game stores. People would purchase and play their games at the same place. These were often not exclusively game stores. Many were some combination of hobby (kits and trains), card (sports and magic) and/or comics retailers as well. The important thing is that they would provide space for gamers on a scheduled basis. Collectible game sanctioned play is based on the existence of these venues.
But they seem to be becoming quite rare. Here in Connecticut, for example, there are just a handful of places and just one pure game shop (The Citadel in Groton). Can this model survive?
I suspect not, but then the question becomes, how do gamers find each other and get together to play? Finding like-minded hobbyists is always a challenge for niche past times. The rise of the Internet and various meetup sites seems to have the most potential in my opinion. There are a couple of gaming related meetup groups that I know about locally.
The biggest challenge for meetup groups is securing a regular meeting place, especially one that isn't dependant on one particular host. It's a big demand on someone to expect someone to make their home available every week no matter what. The best venues are often local colleges and libraries, but I wonder if there's a big enough demand for a dedicated meetup site to operate, perhaps as a "Meetup Club" where different meetup groups could rent space. This kind of site would be especially useful for game groups, who often have a fair amount of stuff to lug around.
It's hard to say whether this is the solution, but it seems clear gamers can't count on their favorite local gaming store to be around much longer, especially outside of major urban areas.
So what happens to HeroClix now?
Topps announces it's closing up shop on HeroClix: http://www.wizkidsgames.com/wk_article.asp?cid=41914
So where does that leave the HeroClix community in the future?
The precedents aren't good. It seems that collectible games need the injection of fresh product in order to stay alive and played.
While there are examples of long out-of-print board games that keep getting played such as Up Front, this doesn't seem to happen often with collectibles.
I think HeroClix has a big enough universe of figures to be playable indefinitely, but without organized tournament play I wonder if players will lose interest. Or will scenario-based play now become the preferred way?
Crossposted from BoardgameGeek
So where does that leave the HeroClix community in the future?
The precedents aren't good. It seems that collectible games need the injection of fresh product in order to stay alive and played.
While there are examples of long out-of-print board games that keep getting played such as Up Front, this doesn't seem to happen often with collectibles.
I think HeroClix has a big enough universe of figures to be playable indefinitely, but without organized tournament play I wonder if players will lose interest. Or will scenario-based play now become the preferred way?
Crossposted from BoardgameGeek
Breaking news No More WizKids!!!!
Topps is discontinuing WizKids immediately!
http://www.wizkidsgames.com/wk_article.asp?cid=41914
Among the things this will likely mean is an eventual end to HeroClix and HeroClix support, although the company said it will continue to support December store events and brick redemptions for a short while. The company said it will look into partnership agreements that might keep HeroClix going, but I'd be skeptical of success given current conditions.
Given the sharply increased cost of bits from China along with the retail weakness in the economy there may well be some more news like this.
http://www.wizkidsgames.com/wk_article.asp?cid=41914
Among the things this will likely mean is an eventual end to HeroClix and HeroClix support, although the company said it will continue to support December store events and brick redemptions for a short while. The company said it will look into partnership agreements that might keep HeroClix going, but I'd be skeptical of success given current conditions.
Given the sharply increased cost of bits from China along with the retail weakness in the economy there may well be some more news like this.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
When Eagles Fight review
When Eagles Fight is a detailed hex-and-counter wargame. It covers the Eastern Front campaign of World War I, from August 1914 to early 1917, when the Russian Revolution ended active operations. It appeared Command Magazine issue No. 25 in 1993.
Like most Command Magazine issue games When Eagles Fight doesn’t try to break any new ground in design technique. Instead it hangs various special rules on a framework of tried and true standard wargame mechanics to simulate its topic. It’s a testimony to how robust those standard wargame mechanics are that this works so often.
Physically, the game is well presented, with a Mark Simonitch map and the 5/8-inch counters Command often used during this era. The Germans are the always-crowd-pleasing white print on black counter look often used by Command. Their Austro Hungarian allies are white print on grey. The Russians are yellow on green, which XTR often used for pre-Soviet era Russian troops. A single Rumanian Army counter is black on yellow.
The values on the counters are the usual combat-defense-movement layout, with NATO-style unit symbols for type and size. Most units on both sides are corps.
The game scale is one or two months per turn and 25 miles per hex.The basic sequence is IGO-HUGO, with a special strategic movement phase before the regular player turns. Combat is odds-based with numeric results that can be taken as step losses or retreats. The game designer is Ted Raicer, who has made a specialty of designing World War I games.Various special rules account for events such as the Czar taking command of the army, ammunition shortages and the like.
The Germans win by bringing on the Russian Revolution, their main lever being capturing Russian cities. The exact trigger for the revolution is unknown to both sides. During periodic victory check the German player rolls a die and adds the number of captured cities. If it equals or exceeds the number listed on the turn record then the Revolution starts and the Central Powers win. Sudden death victory is also available should either side capture an enemy capital. The Russian can also win by capturing territory in Germany or Austro-Hungary. Finally, if the Central Powers haven’t caused the Revolution by April 1917, the historical date, then the Russians win.
The game captures the see-saw nature of the fighting. With neither side able to achieve the troop densities of the Western Front, the front never became static. But lacking the Panzers of the next war, neither side has the maneuverability or concentrated strength for decisive victories, either.
Set up time is about 15 minutes with sorted counters and the entire 24-turn campaign is playable in an evening.
Command No. 26 contained rules and counters for a two-turn variant called Schlieffen East, which assumes the Germans decide to try to knock Russia out of the war first. This quick game gives the Germans just two turns to capture as many cities as possible. There are six Russian cities within reach. The two in Russian Poland are exposed and likely to fall, giving the Germans a 1/6 chance of winning. If they capture all six, which means driving as far as Riga and Minsk, winning is certain. This scenario should take no more than an hour to play.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: A satisfying game that allows both players to attack and defend.
(No) For Collectors
(No) For Euro gamers: As with most hard-core hex-and-counter wargames the elegance of the game play is compromised by accounting for the messiness of simulating actual events. There is a lot of detail and some of it involves extensive rules for uncommon events with little game effect such as having three A-H corps banned from moving on Turn 1.
Like most Command Magazine issue games When Eagles Fight doesn’t try to break any new ground in design technique. Instead it hangs various special rules on a framework of tried and true standard wargame mechanics to simulate its topic. It’s a testimony to how robust those standard wargame mechanics are that this works so often.
Physically, the game is well presented, with a Mark Simonitch map and the 5/8-inch counters Command often used during this era. The Germans are the always-crowd-pleasing white print on black counter look often used by Command. Their Austro Hungarian allies are white print on grey. The Russians are yellow on green, which XTR often used for pre-Soviet era Russian troops. A single Rumanian Army counter is black on yellow.
The values on the counters are the usual combat-defense-movement layout, with NATO-style unit symbols for type and size. Most units on both sides are corps.
The game scale is one or two months per turn and 25 miles per hex.The basic sequence is IGO-HUGO, with a special strategic movement phase before the regular player turns. Combat is odds-based with numeric results that can be taken as step losses or retreats. The game designer is Ted Raicer, who has made a specialty of designing World War I games.Various special rules account for events such as the Czar taking command of the army, ammunition shortages and the like.
The Germans win by bringing on the Russian Revolution, their main lever being capturing Russian cities. The exact trigger for the revolution is unknown to both sides. During periodic victory check the German player rolls a die and adds the number of captured cities. If it equals or exceeds the number listed on the turn record then the Revolution starts and the Central Powers win. Sudden death victory is also available should either side capture an enemy capital. The Russian can also win by capturing territory in Germany or Austro-Hungary. Finally, if the Central Powers haven’t caused the Revolution by April 1917, the historical date, then the Russians win.
The game captures the see-saw nature of the fighting. With neither side able to achieve the troop densities of the Western Front, the front never became static. But lacking the Panzers of the next war, neither side has the maneuverability or concentrated strength for decisive victories, either.
Set up time is about 15 minutes with sorted counters and the entire 24-turn campaign is playable in an evening.
Command No. 26 contained rules and counters for a two-turn variant called Schlieffen East, which assumes the Germans decide to try to knock Russia out of the war first. This quick game gives the Germans just two turns to capture as many cities as possible. There are six Russian cities within reach. The two in Russian Poland are exposed and likely to fall, giving the Germans a 1/6 chance of winning. If they capture all six, which means driving as far as Riga and Minsk, winning is certain. This scenario should take no more than an hour to play.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: A satisfying game that allows both players to attack and defend.
(No) For Collectors
(No) For Euro gamers: As with most hard-core hex-and-counter wargames the elegance of the game play is compromised by accounting for the messiness of simulating actual events. There is a lot of detail and some of it involves extensive rules for uncommon events with little game effect such as having three A-H corps banned from moving on Turn 1.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Solitaire play of King's Mountain in Hold the Line
The American Revolution Battle King's Mountain seems at first consideration to be an excellent topic for a wargame. You have two armies of almost identical size and quality facing off without any chance of outside interference.
Unfortunately there's the uncomfortable fact that the historical outcome was exceedingly one-sided as the losing army was completely annihilated for relatively small cost to the winner. It was, indeed, a stunning result.
By 1780 the fighting in the American Revolution had moved to the southern colonies in the face of the British defeats up north and the stalemate outside New York. As British Gen. Cornwallis campaigned through the Carolinas he dispatched a force of American Loyalists under the well-regarded Major Patrick Ferguson to cover his inland flank. Ferguson's force, while made up entirely of provincials, was well-trained and contained a core of troops trained to the standards of British regular troops. It numbered around 1,000.
Unfortunately Ferguson, while a god leader and trainer of troops, was evidently rather foolish when it came to psychology as he threatened to lay waste to rebel areas and unleash Indian raids. Rather than cowing the frontiersmen who inhabited the mountain interior his threats ended up mobilizing those folks and a force of about 900 of them moved to attack Ferguson's army. While completely irregular and not part of the formal Patriot forces (being neither Continentals nor militia) these frontiersmen was hardy campaigners with extensive experience with their weapons and no strangers to fighting.
Still, the Rebel force would normally be expected to have some problem executing a complex battle plan, having an ill-defined and informal chain of command. In the actual event, however, the Rebel leaders seem to have had no problem cooperating despite the informal nature of their army.
The Rebels caught up with Ferguson just south of the border between North and South Carolina at King's Mountain on Oct. 7, 1780. Ferguson decided to make a stand on the high ground of King's Mountain. This must have seemed like a self-evidently good idea, but as it turns out it was an enormous blunder. Ferguson died in the battle, so we don't know what he was thinking, but it may have been that he expected to tire out the attacking Rebels by having them attack up the steep hill. Further, he may have reasonably expected that his disciplined troops would be able to defeat the Rebel attackers piecemeal, as their unpracticed and irregular force would find it difficult to coordinate its attacks.
As it turns out, Ferguson fatally misjudged his opponents. The Rebel commanders were able to devise a plan to surround the entire British force and then execute a simultaneous encircling attack. The Loyalists launched bayonet charges that drove the Rebel line back, but could not close with it in the heavily wooded terrain of the mountainside. Meanwhile the Rebel marksman picked off the Loyalists, especially the leaders, including Ferguson himself. Unable to return effective fire against the woodsmen in the trees and eventually the entire army surrended.
King's Mountain hasn't been extensively simulated, although it's not fair to say it has been ignored, either. For example, it's a scenario in Rebels & Redcoats Vol. III.
Still, simulating a battle that involved a crushing defeat for one side is never easy for designers, particularly when there's so little excuse for the loss. Ferguson's army was at least as good quality as the Americans and actually a little bit larger. His defeat is completely due to picking very poor ground on which to fight, compounded by a fatal misjudgment about his opponents.
In Hold the Line this design reflects the key facts of the battle fairly well given its simple design and manages to recreate the circumstances of the battle while presenting a chance for a different outcome. The Loyalist force of eight units and a leader sets up in the middle of the map in open ground in a line alternating between militia (2 Morale Points) and British Regulars representing the trained Loyalists (3 MPs). The American force is made up entirely of 10 militia units (2MP) with two leaders, but they have the advantage of being able to setup anywhere in a ring of hill and woods hexes completely surrounding the Tory army.
Besides the advantage of surrounding the Loyalists and having terrain cover, the Americans also have a significant command action point advantage of 3 to 1. This means that the Rebels will have at least 4 CAP per turn while the Loyalists will never have more than 4. While this helps recreate the historical result, I'm not sure it doesn't amount to an "idiot rule" for the Loyalists and is hard to justify on purely historical grounds. Ferguson's force did not, in fact, suffer from any notable command control problems.
For my solitaire run through I decided to concentrate the American effort against the middle of the British line by massing two groups of three militia each directly north and south of the middle part of the Loyalist force. Each group had one American leader. The remaining four militia units completed the encirclement around the ends of the British line. My plan for the British was to try to rush one side or the other of the American line and break through.
As it turned out, however, the first few turns really went the Americans' way and the two militia units and Loyalist regular in the middle of the map were quickly gunned down. Because the Americans didn't need to move much they could maximize their Action points to fire, which meant 5 or 6 shots each turn. Meanwhile the Loyalists were forced to spend two APs per unit as they moved and fired and/or tried assaults, so most turns they had just a couple of attempts at causing casualties and lesser odds of succeeding due to the woods and hills terrain effects. Eventually the Loyalists were able to fight their way into the woods and eliminate a couple of Rebel militia units but they were never able to make up the initial deficit and the game ended with the British scoring 4 VPs for eliminated American units while losing 6 VPs and the game. Actually, the British lost 7 VPs because they also lost their leader in the last assault combat.
As a solitaire scenario it worked reasonably well and resembled the historical result, although perhaps not quite so one-sided. I'm not sure how it would work as a two-player scenario because the Loyalist player really has few options. It might make a good scenario for an experienced player to use to teach a new player, though, giving the new person the American force.
Unfortunately there's the uncomfortable fact that the historical outcome was exceedingly one-sided as the losing army was completely annihilated for relatively small cost to the winner. It was, indeed, a stunning result.
By 1780 the fighting in the American Revolution had moved to the southern colonies in the face of the British defeats up north and the stalemate outside New York. As British Gen. Cornwallis campaigned through the Carolinas he dispatched a force of American Loyalists under the well-regarded Major Patrick Ferguson to cover his inland flank. Ferguson's force, while made up entirely of provincials, was well-trained and contained a core of troops trained to the standards of British regular troops. It numbered around 1,000.
Unfortunately Ferguson, while a god leader and trainer of troops, was evidently rather foolish when it came to psychology as he threatened to lay waste to rebel areas and unleash Indian raids. Rather than cowing the frontiersmen who inhabited the mountain interior his threats ended up mobilizing those folks and a force of about 900 of them moved to attack Ferguson's army. While completely irregular and not part of the formal Patriot forces (being neither Continentals nor militia) these frontiersmen was hardy campaigners with extensive experience with their weapons and no strangers to fighting.
Still, the Rebel force would normally be expected to have some problem executing a complex battle plan, having an ill-defined and informal chain of command. In the actual event, however, the Rebel leaders seem to have had no problem cooperating despite the informal nature of their army.
The Rebels caught up with Ferguson just south of the border between North and South Carolina at King's Mountain on Oct. 7, 1780. Ferguson decided to make a stand on the high ground of King's Mountain. This must have seemed like a self-evidently good idea, but as it turns out it was an enormous blunder. Ferguson died in the battle, so we don't know what he was thinking, but it may have been that he expected to tire out the attacking Rebels by having them attack up the steep hill. Further, he may have reasonably expected that his disciplined troops would be able to defeat the Rebel attackers piecemeal, as their unpracticed and irregular force would find it difficult to coordinate its attacks.
As it turns out, Ferguson fatally misjudged his opponents. The Rebel commanders were able to devise a plan to surround the entire British force and then execute a simultaneous encircling attack. The Loyalists launched bayonet charges that drove the Rebel line back, but could not close with it in the heavily wooded terrain of the mountainside. Meanwhile the Rebel marksman picked off the Loyalists, especially the leaders, including Ferguson himself. Unable to return effective fire against the woodsmen in the trees and eventually the entire army surrended.
King's Mountain hasn't been extensively simulated, although it's not fair to say it has been ignored, either. For example, it's a scenario in Rebels & Redcoats Vol. III.
Still, simulating a battle that involved a crushing defeat for one side is never easy for designers, particularly when there's so little excuse for the loss. Ferguson's army was at least as good quality as the Americans and actually a little bit larger. His defeat is completely due to picking very poor ground on which to fight, compounded by a fatal misjudgment about his opponents.
In Hold the Line this design reflects the key facts of the battle fairly well given its simple design and manages to recreate the circumstances of the battle while presenting a chance for a different outcome. The Loyalist force of eight units and a leader sets up in the middle of the map in open ground in a line alternating between militia (2 Morale Points) and British Regulars representing the trained Loyalists (3 MPs). The American force is made up entirely of 10 militia units (2MP) with two leaders, but they have the advantage of being able to setup anywhere in a ring of hill and woods hexes completely surrounding the Tory army.
Besides the advantage of surrounding the Loyalists and having terrain cover, the Americans also have a significant command action point advantage of 3 to 1. This means that the Rebels will have at least 4 CAP per turn while the Loyalists will never have more than 4. While this helps recreate the historical result, I'm not sure it doesn't amount to an "idiot rule" for the Loyalists and is hard to justify on purely historical grounds. Ferguson's force did not, in fact, suffer from any notable command control problems.
For my solitaire run through I decided to concentrate the American effort against the middle of the British line by massing two groups of three militia each directly north and south of the middle part of the Loyalist force. Each group had one American leader. The remaining four militia units completed the encirclement around the ends of the British line. My plan for the British was to try to rush one side or the other of the American line and break through.
As it turned out, however, the first few turns really went the Americans' way and the two militia units and Loyalist regular in the middle of the map were quickly gunned down. Because the Americans didn't need to move much they could maximize their Action points to fire, which meant 5 or 6 shots each turn. Meanwhile the Loyalists were forced to spend two APs per unit as they moved and fired and/or tried assaults, so most turns they had just a couple of attempts at causing casualties and lesser odds of succeeding due to the woods and hills terrain effects. Eventually the Loyalists were able to fight their way into the woods and eliminate a couple of Rebel militia units but they were never able to make up the initial deficit and the game ended with the British scoring 4 VPs for eliminated American units while losing 6 VPs and the game. Actually, the British lost 7 VPs because they also lost their leader in the last assault combat.
As a solitaire scenario it worked reasonably well and resembled the historical result, although perhaps not quite so one-sided. I'm not sure how it would work as a two-player scenario because the Loyalist player really has few options. It might make a good scenario for an experienced player to use to teach a new player, though, giving the new person the American force.
Czechoslovakia 38 review
Czechoslovakia '38 is an interesting treatment of a fascinating what-if from World War II from Command Magazine No. 24 in 1993. It depicts a German campaign in 1938 to conquer Czechoslovakia, assuming the Czechs had decided to fight, rather than accept the Munich appeasement.
The situation is more balanced than one might think. While the German army is stronger, the Czechs do have extensive fortified zones to help them and the Germans are on a tight timetable to secure the country before the British and French work up the courage to intervene.
The game system uses the usual Command variation on standard wargame mechanics. The 5/8-inch unit counters have attack, defense and movement factors underneath NATO-style unit symbols. Most Czech units have one step, most German units have two or four. Czech units are red on white for non-mech units and blue on white for the mechanized forces. They have some mobile "Industry" pieces which can be evacuated for victory points. The airplane counters represent the air force. The game assumes Soviet intervention on behalf of the Czechs, which comes in the form of two useful aircraft units and a 4-step mechanized unit that will likely prove less useful because of its late entry onto the map.
German mechanized forces are black with white print, most non-mechanized units are in field grey. Eight divisions of the German "Strategic Reserve" are included, but they only enter play if the Czechs enter a hex of Germany.
While the Czechs can gain victory points for capturing a German city, they have to weigh the disadvantage of adding even more to the forces arrayed against them.
The Lufwaffe is represented by light blue air landing regiment and seven aircraft counters.
Finally, as an optional unit, there is a regiment of Sudeten Germans represented with a brown counter. For both sides most units are divisions or division-sized groups, with some regiments. The Czech army comprises 45 units, the Germans also 45, not counting optional units.The campaign runs for ten two-day turns across a Mark Simonitch map at 12 km per hex.
The 15-page rule-book describes a fairly standard wargame with a IGO-HUGO turn sequence. Nothing here will surprise veteran gamers.
A "Blitzkrieg" rule section gives German mach units some powers such as an overrun attack and the ability to move through zones of control at a cost in movement points.
The German wins by driving the victory point level of Czech controlled cities below 16 before the French/British intervene. Intervention happens sometime between turns 8 to 10. The Czechs control 45 points at game start, with the big prize being Prague, worth 4 VP for each of its three hexes (12 total).
The general course of play is a Czech retreat by stages in front of the German advance.
No draw is possible. The game can be played in an evening and will take about 20 minutes to set up, with starting locations printed on all the counters.
Command Magazine No. 26 added some variant rules that added another fortification unit to the Czech OB and rules for "Blitzkrieg-capable" Czech mechanized units.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: An interesting campaign well portrayed.
(No) For Collectors: Nothing remarkable.
(No) For Euro gamers: No, standard hex-and-counter wargame.
The situation is more balanced than one might think. While the German army is stronger, the Czechs do have extensive fortified zones to help them and the Germans are on a tight timetable to secure the country before the British and French work up the courage to intervene.
The game system uses the usual Command variation on standard wargame mechanics. The 5/8-inch unit counters have attack, defense and movement factors underneath NATO-style unit symbols. Most Czech units have one step, most German units have two or four. Czech units are red on white for non-mech units and blue on white for the mechanized forces. They have some mobile "Industry" pieces which can be evacuated for victory points. The airplane counters represent the air force. The game assumes Soviet intervention on behalf of the Czechs, which comes in the form of two useful aircraft units and a 4-step mechanized unit that will likely prove less useful because of its late entry onto the map.
German mechanized forces are black with white print, most non-mechanized units are in field grey. Eight divisions of the German "Strategic Reserve" are included, but they only enter play if the Czechs enter a hex of Germany.
While the Czechs can gain victory points for capturing a German city, they have to weigh the disadvantage of adding even more to the forces arrayed against them.
The Lufwaffe is represented by light blue air landing regiment and seven aircraft counters.
Finally, as an optional unit, there is a regiment of Sudeten Germans represented with a brown counter. For both sides most units are divisions or division-sized groups, with some regiments. The Czech army comprises 45 units, the Germans also 45, not counting optional units.The campaign runs for ten two-day turns across a Mark Simonitch map at 12 km per hex.
The 15-page rule-book describes a fairly standard wargame with a IGO-HUGO turn sequence. Nothing here will surprise veteran gamers.
A "Blitzkrieg" rule section gives German mach units some powers such as an overrun attack and the ability to move through zones of control at a cost in movement points.
The German wins by driving the victory point level of Czech controlled cities below 16 before the French/British intervene. Intervention happens sometime between turns 8 to 10. The Czechs control 45 points at game start, with the big prize being Prague, worth 4 VP for each of its three hexes (12 total).
The general course of play is a Czech retreat by stages in front of the German advance.
No draw is possible. The game can be played in an evening and will take about 20 minutes to set up, with starting locations printed on all the counters.
Command Magazine No. 26 added some variant rules that added another fortification unit to the Czech OB and rules for "Blitzkrieg-capable" Czech mechanized units.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: An interesting campaign well portrayed.
(No) For Collectors: Nothing remarkable.
(No) For Euro gamers: No, standard hex-and-counter wargame.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Shogun Triumphant Review
Shogun Triumphant, a Command Magazine issue game, is an odd duck of a wargame, mostly because the battle itself is so bizarre. The game itself uses a melee-era system that emphasizes the morale differences between units. Units take "cohesian hits" from fire and melee. If the hits in one combat phase equal or exceed the morale value (here called "stalwartness") thenthe unit is eliminated.
The 158 5/8-inch counters show two armies, a "Western" army in green and an "Eastern" army in red. Each has mounted samurai units and ashigaru foot soldiers. The Eastern army also has a single cannon unit.
But the game is better understood as a contest between two coalitions comprising 19 little armies, with many of those armies of uncertain loyalty.
That loyalty is tested through a fairly involved set of procedures.
While both sides are theoretically vulnerable to treachery, the Western Army clearly has the most to fear. In the historical battle four clans from the Western army affected to the East, none went the other way.
The odds are something similar will happen in the game. There's just enough of a possibility of treachery against the Eastern army to keep that player looking over his shoulder, but the Western player has the burden of fighting a battle where some key units can't be trusted.
Victory is assessed by lost stalwartness points. Units eliminated and units that defect count against the owning side. The first to lose 160 points loses the game.
The burden of attack is on the Eastern player, so if neither side reaches 160 points by turn 8 then he loses. A draw is possible if both sides pass 160 at the same time.
Units represent groups of 200-800 fighters. Each hex is 180 yards across, every turn repesents 45 minutes.
Set up locations are shown on the Mark Simonitch map, so set up is fairly easy and takes about 20 minutes. The 8-turn game can be played in a single sitting.
Recommendations.
(Conditional Yes) for Wargamers: Unusual battle, but more random than most wargames and this may turn off some people. On the other hand, this is a rarely simulated era, so it does have some interest.
(Conditional Yes) for Collectors: Rare game on a Japanese topic.
(No) for Eurogamers: Intricate game mechanics, highly random game play, make this unlikely to appeal to Eurogamers.
The 158 5/8-inch counters show two armies, a "Western" army in green and an "Eastern" army in red. Each has mounted samurai units and ashigaru foot soldiers. The Eastern army also has a single cannon unit.
But the game is better understood as a contest between two coalitions comprising 19 little armies, with many of those armies of uncertain loyalty.
That loyalty is tested through a fairly involved set of procedures.
While both sides are theoretically vulnerable to treachery, the Western Army clearly has the most to fear. In the historical battle four clans from the Western army affected to the East, none went the other way.
The odds are something similar will happen in the game. There's just enough of a possibility of treachery against the Eastern army to keep that player looking over his shoulder, but the Western player has the burden of fighting a battle where some key units can't be trusted.
Victory is assessed by lost stalwartness points. Units eliminated and units that defect count against the owning side. The first to lose 160 points loses the game.
The burden of attack is on the Eastern player, so if neither side reaches 160 points by turn 8 then he loses. A draw is possible if both sides pass 160 at the same time.
Units represent groups of 200-800 fighters. Each hex is 180 yards across, every turn repesents 45 minutes.
Set up locations are shown on the Mark Simonitch map, so set up is fairly easy and takes about 20 minutes. The 8-turn game can be played in a single sitting.
Recommendations.
(Conditional Yes) for Wargamers: Unusual battle, but more random than most wargames and this may turn off some people. On the other hand, this is a rarely simulated era, so it does have some interest.
(Conditional Yes) for Collectors: Rare game on a Japanese topic.
(No) for Eurogamers: Intricate game mechanics, highly random game play, make this unlikely to appeal to Eurogamers.
Friday, October 31, 2008
More thoughts on Austerlitz strategy for the Allies
I've now got a few more plays under my belt and adjusted my thoughts on Allied strategy accordingly.
I still think the French side is easier to play. They have the better army, with a larger stacking limit, a finer degree of articulation in units strengths (making it easier to achieve efficient odds and exchanges) and faster units. All these things make that side easier to handle. The speedy units, especially, make it possible for the French player to react to whatever strategy the Austro-Russians pursue.
The Austro-Russian allies do start with the initiative, and if they fail to keep it the French will eat their lunch.
There are three general strategies available to the Allies. My initial preference was to give up on the idea of winning by exiting units and concentrate on winning the attrition race to demoralization and seek out a decisive battle in the center of the map. With more experience I conclude that my aim was sound, but my means was deficient. It's certainly possible for the Allies to win such a battle, but against a clever French player the odds are not good. The French stacking advantage and speed will tend to result in unfavorable matchups in a main force confrontation. It's true that whichever side gets demoralized first will promptly lose, but on average it will be the Allies who suffer that fate.
A second approach that shows some promise is to try to pull the Allied army back in good order and exit off the East edge. Against a cautious or slow French player this can work. The threat of exiting most of the army may panic the French into attacking too hastily. If they do the Allies may have a chance to destroy enough French to demoralize them. Even if they don't, the Allies may be able to get enough off to win. The best French counter is a strong attack to demoralise the Austrians quickly, cut off their escape route off map and then mop up the survivors. Because there is a good counter strategy, however, it may not be as effective as the third choice. It's also likely to result something less than a decisive win for the Allies, if they win at all.
That involves making a serious effort to follow the historical Austro-Russian plan and attack on the left. The right flank Allied units and the small reinforcement group should stand on the defense at first and try to lure the French into committing a sizable force to that sector. If the French ignore them, move up. If they send too few troops over, kill them. If they send too many to fight, exit the map. The points probably won't count, but they won't count for the French, either.
Meanwhile, the Allied main body moves at top speed against the French right and the high-value exit area. They're not fast enough to make it off before the French get there, but the threat may induce the French to approach in a piecemeal fashion. If they do, then the Allies have set the stage for a winning attrition battle against just a portion of the French army. It's no sure thing, but it provides a good chance to demoralize the French. If demoralized, the surviving French will not be able to stop the Austrians from exiting enough to win a decisive victory.
I still think the French side is easier to play. They have the better army, with a larger stacking limit, a finer degree of articulation in units strengths (making it easier to achieve efficient odds and exchanges) and faster units. All these things make that side easier to handle. The speedy units, especially, make it possible for the French player to react to whatever strategy the Austro-Russians pursue.
The Austro-Russian allies do start with the initiative, and if they fail to keep it the French will eat their lunch.
There are three general strategies available to the Allies. My initial preference was to give up on the idea of winning by exiting units and concentrate on winning the attrition race to demoralization and seek out a decisive battle in the center of the map. With more experience I conclude that my aim was sound, but my means was deficient. It's certainly possible for the Allies to win such a battle, but against a clever French player the odds are not good. The French stacking advantage and speed will tend to result in unfavorable matchups in a main force confrontation. It's true that whichever side gets demoralized first will promptly lose, but on average it will be the Allies who suffer that fate.
A second approach that shows some promise is to try to pull the Allied army back in good order and exit off the East edge. Against a cautious or slow French player this can work. The threat of exiting most of the army may panic the French into attacking too hastily. If they do the Allies may have a chance to destroy enough French to demoralize them. Even if they don't, the Allies may be able to get enough off to win. The best French counter is a strong attack to demoralise the Austrians quickly, cut off their escape route off map and then mop up the survivors. Because there is a good counter strategy, however, it may not be as effective as the third choice. It's also likely to result something less than a decisive win for the Allies, if they win at all.
That involves making a serious effort to follow the historical Austro-Russian plan and attack on the left. The right flank Allied units and the small reinforcement group should stand on the defense at first and try to lure the French into committing a sizable force to that sector. If the French ignore them, move up. If they send too few troops over, kill them. If they send too many to fight, exit the map. The points probably won't count, but they won't count for the French, either.
Meanwhile, the Allied main body moves at top speed against the French right and the high-value exit area. They're not fast enough to make it off before the French get there, but the threat may induce the French to approach in a piecemeal fashion. If they do, then the Allies have set the stage for a winning attrition battle against just a portion of the French army. It's no sure thing, but it provides a good chance to demoralize the French. If demoralized, the surviving French will not be able to stop the Austrians from exiting enough to win a decisive victory.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Antietam: Burnished Rows of Steel
George B. McClellan was possibly the most frustrating man to ever command an American Army. He was brilliant and incompetent at the same time. An incomparable organizer, beloved by his soldiers of the Union Army of the Potomac, he was a good strategist. Yet he was also a coniver, a complainer, and a backstabber. He was overcautious and an inept battle manager.
Antietam was his greatest victory, but at the same time his most disappointing performance. The famous "Lost Orders" allowed him to concentrate his entire army against a portion of Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. And yet, despite outnumbering Lee by two to one, he failed to destroy him.
The issue game in Command No. 22, Antietam: Burnished Rows of Steel is a moderate complexity wargame depicting the battle. Units are brigades, turns represent 60 minutes and each hex depicts 250 yards.
The large-sized unit counters bear a full-color icon showing a soldier, a morale value, step strength, combat value and movement allowance.Turns comprise a movement phase, artillery bombardment phase and two rounds of combat. Combat is resolved brigade by brigade, with combat strengths comapred for a differential ranging from -1 to +2, unless the attacker is at least twice as strong and qualifies for the 2-1 or more table. Differences between morale levels, being surrounded and terrain effects can modify the die roll, but in almost every case both sides will take step losses on the bloody table.
The heart of the game are the Corps Commitment rules. If McClellan had committed all his troops he would have easily overwhelmed the outnumbered Confederates. Instead he committed his units piecemeal and Lee was bale to counter each blow in turn and stand his ground. The game handles this by allowing the Federal player to commit just two of his six corps at any one time.
The game also includes solitaire rules that use a modified version of the commitment rules, where the game system handles the Union side and the player represents Lee.
The quick set up will take about 20 minutes, while the fixed set up will take about 30 minutes to execute. The 11-turn game is playable in a long evening.
Recommendations
(Yes) for Wargamers. A rare workable hex-and-counter solitaire game. The two-player version is also of interest.
(no) for Collectors. No special collectibility
(no) for Eurogamers. Units are represented by multiple counters for the different step strengths, there are sixteen pages of rules and the combat rules are involved.
Antietam was his greatest victory, but at the same time his most disappointing performance. The famous "Lost Orders" allowed him to concentrate his entire army against a portion of Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. And yet, despite outnumbering Lee by two to one, he failed to destroy him.
The issue game in Command No. 22, Antietam: Burnished Rows of Steel is a moderate complexity wargame depicting the battle. Units are brigades, turns represent 60 minutes and each hex depicts 250 yards.
The large-sized unit counters bear a full-color icon showing a soldier, a morale value, step strength, combat value and movement allowance.Turns comprise a movement phase, artillery bombardment phase and two rounds of combat. Combat is resolved brigade by brigade, with combat strengths comapred for a differential ranging from -1 to +2, unless the attacker is at least twice as strong and qualifies for the 2-1 or more table. Differences between morale levels, being surrounded and terrain effects can modify the die roll, but in almost every case both sides will take step losses on the bloody table.
The heart of the game are the Corps Commitment rules. If McClellan had committed all his troops he would have easily overwhelmed the outnumbered Confederates. Instead he committed his units piecemeal and Lee was bale to counter each blow in turn and stand his ground. The game handles this by allowing the Federal player to commit just two of his six corps at any one time.
The game also includes solitaire rules that use a modified version of the commitment rules, where the game system handles the Union side and the player represents Lee.
The quick set up will take about 20 minutes, while the fixed set up will take about 30 minutes to execute. The 11-turn game is playable in a long evening.
Recommendations
(Yes) for Wargamers. A rare workable hex-and-counter solitaire game. The two-player version is also of interest.
(no) for Collectors. No special collectibility
(no) for Eurogamers. Units are represented by multiple counters for the different step strengths, there are sixteen pages of rules and the combat rules are involved.
Monday, October 27, 2008
A wargamey approach to D&D Miniatures
Most wargamers, even those with pretty eclectic tastes, will have certain types of games that appeal to them more than others. I've always had a weakness for man-to-man level skirmish games, for example. I own more than a dozen right now and have owned or played dozens more since playing Sniper! back in the 1970s.
Every wargame has to strike a balance between realism and playability, but higher-level wargames can mask some of their abstractions more easily than skirmish games. Few people who have never served at a higher-level military headquarters have a strong idea of exactly how an army works. But just about everybody can imagine very easily the potential moves of an individual soldier, so there's a strong incentive for a skirmish level wargame to become very detailed. The player knows that in real life the soldier could peek around a corner, so he wants his soldier to be able to do it.
Yet action at the skirmish level is fast and furious and a game that bogs down in too much detail runs the risk of failing to captures the chaos and quick reaction of a melee.
There's no right answer, and I've found games at both ends of the spectrum that do an acceptable job. Gunslinger, for example, may be one of the most detailed non-computer man-to-man shooter games ever published and is well-regarded and popular, But so is Cowboys, Worthington Games' newer game on the same topic that eschews much of the detail in favor of speed and ease of play. A 30-second gunfight in Gunslinger will often take a couple of hours to play. A similar gunfight in Cowboys will still take more than 30 seconds, but it's unlikely to take more than an hour.
My association with Dungeons and Dragons also goes back to the 70s. I first played with the original three books, although I never became a hard-core RPGer, preferring historical wargames instead. When I did role play, I soon moved over to the more tactically oriented Fantasy Trip which further evolved into GURPS. Interestingly enough, in its later editions D&D has also become more like a tactical skirmish wargame.
The D&D miniatures game is a simplified version of the D&D tactical system and indeed, it appears that there's not an awful lot of difference between them at this point. WOTC has recently (October) announced that it's going to discontinue new releases of the D&D Miniatures game in favor of making miniatures that are just geared toward the roleplaying game.
As a late comer to the D&D miniatures this is mildly disappointing, as I think it's actually a pretty decent light skirmish wargame, but there's a silver lining to the news, nonetheless.
Like most miniatures games these days, D&D Minis are collectible, with all the money sink potential that implies. It also means a business model heavily reliant on sanctioned tournament play that encourages constant purchases to stay competitive. While a successful approach for collectible card games, this has worked out rather less well for miniatures. The only long-running collectible miniatures game that seems to have held its own is HeroClix.
For non-competitive play, however, the end of competitive play means that after-market prices and availability of miniatures will improve and the freezing of the game's further development makes it much more favorable for casual players.
For those casual players, what does D&D miniatures offer.
It's a very straightforward man-to-monster level game. A 200-point game gives each player about a half-dozen to up to 10 figures that can battle on a square-gridded map. The usual battlefield has starting areas for each player and "victory point ares" for each that tend to lie on the opponent's side of the field. Occupying a victory area (presumably looting some treasure) provides victory points, as does eliminating enemy figures. This simple expedient encourages players to close and fight and provides a context for the battlefield maneuvers.
Combat is very simple, and is handled the same way whether it is a melee attack, a ranged attack or a magic blow. The attacking player rolls a 20-sided die (a D&D tradition) adds any modifiers and compares that result to the target's armor class (or its separate "defense" values for some kinds of attacks). If the result equals or exceed that armor value then it's a hit and it does the number of"hit points" (another traditional D&D term) indicated on the attacker's stat card. Once a target accumulates more than half it's Hit Point value in damage it is considered "bloodied" which often provides benefits for subsequent attackers. When damage equals a target's hit point value it's eliminated.
Various special powers apply various elaborations to this combat routine or affect movement or the timing of actions, but that's the essence of the game.
It compares in complexity to Heroscape or Cowboys and is a skirmish game you can definitely play with younger gamers, while the interaction of powers and the metagame of warband construction provides scope for more experienced gamers.
The miniatures are also fully usable with the role-playing game and include stats on the reverse side of the card for the role-playing rules. Having no game-specific data on the bases, the miniatures are also suitable for use with any other set of RPG rules or even other skirmish level games that use similar sized figures. (The D&D minis are billed as "28mm" scale.)
Every wargame has to strike a balance between realism and playability, but higher-level wargames can mask some of their abstractions more easily than skirmish games. Few people who have never served at a higher-level military headquarters have a strong idea of exactly how an army works. But just about everybody can imagine very easily the potential moves of an individual soldier, so there's a strong incentive for a skirmish level wargame to become very detailed. The player knows that in real life the soldier could peek around a corner, so he wants his soldier to be able to do it.
Yet action at the skirmish level is fast and furious and a game that bogs down in too much detail runs the risk of failing to captures the chaos and quick reaction of a melee.
There's no right answer, and I've found games at both ends of the spectrum that do an acceptable job. Gunslinger, for example, may be one of the most detailed non-computer man-to-man shooter games ever published and is well-regarded and popular, But so is Cowboys, Worthington Games' newer game on the same topic that eschews much of the detail in favor of speed and ease of play. A 30-second gunfight in Gunslinger will often take a couple of hours to play. A similar gunfight in Cowboys will still take more than 30 seconds, but it's unlikely to take more than an hour.
My association with Dungeons and Dragons also goes back to the 70s. I first played with the original three books, although I never became a hard-core RPGer, preferring historical wargames instead. When I did role play, I soon moved over to the more tactically oriented Fantasy Trip which further evolved into GURPS. Interestingly enough, in its later editions D&D has also become more like a tactical skirmish wargame.
The D&D miniatures game is a simplified version of the D&D tactical system and indeed, it appears that there's not an awful lot of difference between them at this point. WOTC has recently (October) announced that it's going to discontinue new releases of the D&D Miniatures game in favor of making miniatures that are just geared toward the roleplaying game.
As a late comer to the D&D miniatures this is mildly disappointing, as I think it's actually a pretty decent light skirmish wargame, but there's a silver lining to the news, nonetheless.
Like most miniatures games these days, D&D Minis are collectible, with all the money sink potential that implies. It also means a business model heavily reliant on sanctioned tournament play that encourages constant purchases to stay competitive. While a successful approach for collectible card games, this has worked out rather less well for miniatures. The only long-running collectible miniatures game that seems to have held its own is HeroClix.
For non-competitive play, however, the end of competitive play means that after-market prices and availability of miniatures will improve and the freezing of the game's further development makes it much more favorable for casual players.
For those casual players, what does D&D miniatures offer.
It's a very straightforward man-to-monster level game. A 200-point game gives each player about a half-dozen to up to 10 figures that can battle on a square-gridded map. The usual battlefield has starting areas for each player and "victory point ares" for each that tend to lie on the opponent's side of the field. Occupying a victory area (presumably looting some treasure) provides victory points, as does eliminating enemy figures. This simple expedient encourages players to close and fight and provides a context for the battlefield maneuvers.
Combat is very simple, and is handled the same way whether it is a melee attack, a ranged attack or a magic blow. The attacking player rolls a 20-sided die (a D&D tradition) adds any modifiers and compares that result to the target's armor class (or its separate "defense" values for some kinds of attacks). If the result equals or exceed that armor value then it's a hit and it does the number of"hit points" (another traditional D&D term) indicated on the attacker's stat card. Once a target accumulates more than half it's Hit Point value in damage it is considered "bloodied" which often provides benefits for subsequent attackers. When damage equals a target's hit point value it's eliminated.
Various special powers apply various elaborations to this combat routine or affect movement or the timing of actions, but that's the essence of the game.
It compares in complexity to Heroscape or Cowboys and is a skirmish game you can definitely play with younger gamers, while the interaction of powers and the metagame of warband construction provides scope for more experienced gamers.
The miniatures are also fully usable with the role-playing game and include stats on the reverse side of the card for the role-playing rules. Having no game-specific data on the bases, the miniatures are also suitable for use with any other set of RPG rules or even other skirmish level games that use similar sized figures. (The D&D minis are billed as "28mm" scale.)
Nuclear War tournament session
We didn't have a very big turnout, I'm afraid, but the three of us who did make it had an enjoyable time of it. I decided to try the Weapons of Mass Destruction edition of Nuclear War as it seems well suited for a smaller group.
There was the usual tossing around of propaganda to start. There was an abortive start to the war as our youngest player misplayed his card order, but eventually the missiles started to fly. The youngest player attempted to minimize the chances of annoying either of his foes too much by randomizing every attack with a die roll -- which might have worked out except that every single roll came up against the middle player!
Myself, as the oldest player, managed to benefit from this turn of events, but not enough to bring victory as I had my all-too-common very poor population draw and skimped by with what events would prove to be far less than a fair share.
My missiles were able to wipe out our young friend, who maintained his policy of "random" attacks during his final retaliation, which all (four shots) happened to hit our middle player.
Despite this barrage the middle player still had the most population cards and in the brief interlude of peace that followed he was winning the propaganda war quite handily. With just 4 million people left I launched my last attack and got through. A Secret Card on Middle Player's draw wiped out the last of my folks and I launched my final retaliation in hopes of immolating the whole world. Middle player happened to have an anti-missile which shot down my best missile (a Coyote). My other two shots got through and did a lot of damage, but he ended up surviving with just 8 million left -- which happened to be the base loss the Coyote's warhead would have inflicted!
So despite being the target for almost every nuclear attack in the game, the Middle Player won.
There was the usual tossing around of propaganda to start. There was an abortive start to the war as our youngest player misplayed his card order, but eventually the missiles started to fly. The youngest player attempted to minimize the chances of annoying either of his foes too much by randomizing every attack with a die roll -- which might have worked out except that every single roll came up against the middle player!
Myself, as the oldest player, managed to benefit from this turn of events, but not enough to bring victory as I had my all-too-common very poor population draw and skimped by with what events would prove to be far less than a fair share.
My missiles were able to wipe out our young friend, who maintained his policy of "random" attacks during his final retaliation, which all (four shots) happened to hit our middle player.
Despite this barrage the middle player still had the most population cards and in the brief interlude of peace that followed he was winning the propaganda war quite handily. With just 4 million people left I launched my last attack and got through. A Secret Card on Middle Player's draw wiped out the last of my folks and I launched my final retaliation in hopes of immolating the whole world. Middle player happened to have an anti-missile which shot down my best missile (a Coyote). My other two shots got through and did a lot of damage, but he ended up surviving with just 8 million left -- which happened to be the base loss the Coyote's warhead would have inflicted!
So despite being the target for almost every nuclear attack in the game, the Middle Player won.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Nuclear War tournament Sunday
Mark the weekend that the world didn't end 46 years ago by taking part in a tournament of the Nuclear War card game at The Citadel Game store, 537 Long Hill Road, Groton CT from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
$5 entry fee, prizes.
$5 entry fee, prizes.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Hold the Line expansion session report
I tried a solitaire run-through of the first scenario in the French and Indian War expansion set for Hold the Line.
Depicting the Battle on Snowshoes on March 13, 1758, this scenario prominently features the two new unit types introduced by the expansion, Indians and Colonial Rangers.
I was curious about the scenario because the rangers are grossly outnumbered, with just five combat units and a leader facing 13 combat units and a leader.
Setting up the scenario the first thing I noticed is that I'd have to proxy some of the terrain, as there's nowhere near enough woods tiles. This was an annoying discovery and should have been pointed out in the rules.
The essential nature of the scenario is that the rangers are trying to hold out for 18 turns without losing too many units or letting the French cut them off from a retreat at nightfall. The latter condition is represented by having a couple of VP hexes behind the Ranger lines. The French win by getting 5 VPs. Between units, leader and VP hexes there are 8 possible VPs available, so winning will require doing a lot of damage to the Ranger force. The Rangers can win by avoiding those losses or, alternatively, by inflicting 7 Victory points of losses on the French, which amounts the half of the 14 possible.
The rangers set up on the edge of a big clump of 27 woods and hills hexes. Events would show that, while outnumbered, the rangers are truly an elite and dangerous force in this kind of terrain. Led by a 2 value leader (the famous Rogers), blessed with a base of 3 command action points and able to move through two woods hexes per turn the rangers are an agile force that will usually be able to move nearly every unit every turn.
The French start out with some Indians posted as an advance guard in some scattered trees in a semicircle matching the ranger front, a line of militia units and then a line of regulars. They have just one average leader for their large force and just 2 command action points so they will only be able to act with about a third or less of their army every turn.
I decided the rangers would play an active defense, using their mobility advantage to the full.
The French force started out trying to send the Indians on wide flanking maneuvers to get around the rangers with the aim of thinning the ranger front lines and threatening the VP hexes in the rear.
At first this looked promising bu the rangers were able to parry the move fairly easily and counter attack the unsupported Indians while the French were trying to sort out their infantry lines (the militia was in the way of the regulars and it seemed unwise to let the militia lead the way into the forest.
While the Indians were able to kill one ranger unit, they lost four in return (although one Indian did manage to make it to a VP hex before being killed. This put the French unider a severe VP deficit and time was also starting to become an issue.
The slow-moving French main body was forced to leave about half of its units behind as it tried to close with the rangers, who now fell back deep into the woods.
The final showdown near the VP hexes found one French regular with leader Langy, a milita unit and the surviving Indian facing off against Rogers and the surviving rangers, two of which were reduced. Another French regular unit was close by, but not quite able to get into the fight.
Langy and his regular were able to push the rangers back inexorably, killing one and capturing a victory hex for the second time, but it was in vain because the other three rangers were able to eliminate the last Indian and the militia unit, although losing one more ranger in the process. The final score was 4 to 7.
This result was close enough to suggest that the French can win, although next time I think I'll spend more time bringing up the main body before sending the Indians on their flanking task. Committing the Indians too early allowed the rangers to defeat them in detail.
Overall it appears to be an interesting scenario. Just remember to borrow some extra woods hexes from Clash for a Continent or Memoir '44.
Depicting the Battle on Snowshoes on March 13, 1758, this scenario prominently features the two new unit types introduced by the expansion, Indians and Colonial Rangers.
I was curious about the scenario because the rangers are grossly outnumbered, with just five combat units and a leader facing 13 combat units and a leader.
Setting up the scenario the first thing I noticed is that I'd have to proxy some of the terrain, as there's nowhere near enough woods tiles. This was an annoying discovery and should have been pointed out in the rules.
The essential nature of the scenario is that the rangers are trying to hold out for 18 turns without losing too many units or letting the French cut them off from a retreat at nightfall. The latter condition is represented by having a couple of VP hexes behind the Ranger lines. The French win by getting 5 VPs. Between units, leader and VP hexes there are 8 possible VPs available, so winning will require doing a lot of damage to the Ranger force. The Rangers can win by avoiding those losses or, alternatively, by inflicting 7 Victory points of losses on the French, which amounts the half of the 14 possible.
The rangers set up on the edge of a big clump of 27 woods and hills hexes. Events would show that, while outnumbered, the rangers are truly an elite and dangerous force in this kind of terrain. Led by a 2 value leader (the famous Rogers), blessed with a base of 3 command action points and able to move through two woods hexes per turn the rangers are an agile force that will usually be able to move nearly every unit every turn.
The French start out with some Indians posted as an advance guard in some scattered trees in a semicircle matching the ranger front, a line of militia units and then a line of regulars. They have just one average leader for their large force and just 2 command action points so they will only be able to act with about a third or less of their army every turn.
I decided the rangers would play an active defense, using their mobility advantage to the full.
The French force started out trying to send the Indians on wide flanking maneuvers to get around the rangers with the aim of thinning the ranger front lines and threatening the VP hexes in the rear.
At first this looked promising bu the rangers were able to parry the move fairly easily and counter attack the unsupported Indians while the French were trying to sort out their infantry lines (the militia was in the way of the regulars and it seemed unwise to let the militia lead the way into the forest.
While the Indians were able to kill one ranger unit, they lost four in return (although one Indian did manage to make it to a VP hex before being killed. This put the French unider a severe VP deficit and time was also starting to become an issue.
The slow-moving French main body was forced to leave about half of its units behind as it tried to close with the rangers, who now fell back deep into the woods.
The final showdown near the VP hexes found one French regular with leader Langy, a milita unit and the surviving Indian facing off against Rogers and the surviving rangers, two of which were reduced. Another French regular unit was close by, but not quite able to get into the fight.
Langy and his regular were able to push the rangers back inexorably, killing one and capturing a victory hex for the second time, but it was in vain because the other three rangers were able to eliminate the last Indian and the militia unit, although losing one more ranger in the process. The final score was 4 to 7.
This result was close enough to suggest that the French can win, although next time I think I'll spend more time bringing up the main body before sending the Indians on their flanking task. Committing the Indians too early allowed the rangers to defeat them in detail.
Overall it appears to be an interesting scenario. Just remember to borrow some extra woods hexes from Clash for a Continent or Memoir '44.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)