Interesting graphic on global Cvs

There's been a lot of attention recently about the strength of the Navy, most recently in the third presidential debate as the Republican candidate has made increasing the size of the Navy one of his key campaigning points. Similarly there's been a thread on BoardgameGeek about the USN vs. The Rest of the World., as well, which is where this graphic was lifted from.. I don't know the original source, but it does display rather starkly the differences in capability that we are talking about.

Especially noteworthy is the inclusion of the US navy's amphibious assault ships in the list. Often commenters compare the 11 CVNs to the 11 carriers owned by the ROTW, but this is misleading because many of those 11 other carriers are really much more like the amphibious ships than they're like US carriers. Indeed, NO ONE has a carrier that's truly comparable to an American CVN. The seven British, Thai, Spanish and Italian vessels are basically the same as the nine amphibious ships, although generally smaller.

This leaves just five ships that could possibly be called some sort of "fleet" carrier, one each for Brazil, Russia, China, India and France. Again, all of them are notably smaller than an American CVN.

Hyuga, right, with a US Nimitz-class CVN

Of the 11 foreign carriers of all flavors, seven belong to NATO allies and the US has friendly relations with most of the rest. Only the Russian and Chinese carriers might plausibly be considered in opposition to the USN.

One might give the ROTW a little more than 11 "carriers," though because I think you could fairly consider the Japanese "destroyers Hyuga and Ise as really being light aircraft carriers or amphibious assault ships at least comparable to the smaller Spanish and Italian ships shown in the graphic. They're only called "destroyers" for political reasons having to do with the Japanese constitution and relations with neighboring countries.

Still, even adding those two doesn't change the odds in any meaningful way.

Abalone at 25, new classic or just another game?

Abalone in close up

With a new variant for Abalone called Off Board apparently on its way to America, it's worth taking a look at how the original game has fared now that a quarter century has passed.

Abalone is in that family of games known as "abstracts" or "perfect information" games, so called because there are no hidden or random elements. Both players have complete information about the board situation at all times and perfect control over their own moves. The classic games of chess and go are probably the best known of this type of game, but creating new ones has been a fascination for game designers for generations.

Yet despite thousands of attempts, no new abstract has ever really threatened the preeminence of chess in the West or Go in the East. While neither of those classic games is the top dog among the denizens of Boardgame Geek's gamer hobbyists, both rate reasonably high and neither has any real context in the general culture. Both Chess and Go have their own devoted cadres of hobbyists with their own Internet sites, publications, tournaments, professional players and general infiltration into the popular culture. Some modern games have also achieved this status such as Monopoly and Magic: The Gathering, but there are themed games with random elements and/or hidden information.

Standard set up for Abalone

When it first appeared in the late 1980s and 1990 Abalone caused quite a stir and was widely available in non-game retailers. It won a bunch of awards at various game festivals and publications and the company even started a "North American Federation of Abalone." (Oddly, while abalone is a fish, the game's name is either a play off the graphic design of the word which can be read "3 2 ONE" on its side or from an odd combo of Latin and English  AB (Latin away from) + ALONE = ABALONE (Unity in strength) according to Vol. 1 No. 1 of the NAFA Newsletter in 1991. Evidently there was no issue No. 2.

There were cash prizes for tournament winners and the other trappings of new game hype. I remember seeing a very nice over sized wooden version of the game played at Origins around 1995.

And it is a very nice looking game. The large glass marbles are striking and the unique, patented game board are very eye-pleasing.

Abalone is hardly dead. BoardGame Geek reported plays show it has  steady fan base. In 2011, for example, there were 31 to110 plays reported each month by between 1 and 27 unique users, a very respectable pace for a two-decade old game. Its wide availability is attested by the fact that 3,555 BGG members report owning a copy.

Abalone's claim to fame is it's unique "pushing" mechanic, where the players battle over the board by using groups of two or three marbles to literally push a smaller group of one or two marbles as part of their move. If a marble is pushed off the board it is captured and the first player to push off six marbles wins the game.

It can be a very fast playing game, illustrated by many of ts fans who report playing a couple of dozen games in a session. it's easy to teach to children and unlike many abstracts it has a nice tactile element that's hard to replicate on  a screen, so I think it has some resistance to being replaced entirely by electronic versions.

The original game is just two-player, but more marbles in additional colors can be purchased and there are some multiplayer variants. I have a third set of marbles and have played the 3-player variant. The new Off Board edition appears to be a 4-player version of the game.

"A New Classic" Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct. 1991

Yet despite being widely available, still played and an award-winning game, Abalone is still no real contender for the "Classic" crown. I think the basic problem for the game is that there's really not all that much there there. One problem endemic to evenly matched perfect information games is the tendency to be  drawish. While it's very hard to actually stalemate a game of Abalone (I have read that it's possible) the course of the game between two evenly matched players is likely to be very much like a sumo match. Am awful lot of pushing and shoving that;s opportunistic but very little in the way of actual strategy.

And this, I think, is its problem, While there are plenty of players who aren't into having a heavy dose of strategy in their games, they don't tend to be the players of perfect information abstracts. Abalone is, really, what I like to call a "trivial" game, in that it can be fun, but there's little incentive to indulging in a lot of analysis. In other genres game like this tend to have heavy luck elements such as the card games Fluxx and Munchkin or dice games like Cosmic Wimpout or Can't Stop. Not so much with perfect information abstracts where there's too much of a risk of becoming a solvable puzzle like Tic Tac Toe.

Among all the forum postings about Abalone on BGG there's just one short one on strategy, that points out the value of holding the center space on the board. That's just not much to build a "classic" game on after 25 years.

Cemetery Hill -- Review and strategy

Cemetery Hill, the Blue & Gray quad game treatment of the Battle of Gettysburg, originally published in 1975 by SPI and republished 20 years later by Decision Games in a revised edition in 1995, had long had a reputation as one of the least successful of the series.

Units from both editions, Decision Games (1995) on top, SPI (1975) below,
Union left, Rebel right.
The Union forces are an infantry division, and cavalry and artillery brigades. The Rebel units are the two counters comprising Heth's division and F. Lee's brigade on its "ineffective" side.

Unlike all the other Blue & Gray games, which are at the brigade level, Cemetery Hill is at the division level. This was due to the particular production restrictions of the Quad game format, which allowed for no more than 100 counters. Gettysburg was simply too big a battle to fit using brigades, so the scale was bumped up to division level -- at least for the Union side. The problem with division-level Gettysburg games is that the Confederates didn't have many divisions on the field -- just 9 total -- which really doesn't give them enough maneuver units. The Rebel divisions were generally very large anyway, with 4 or five brigades except for Pickett, who had just 3 present. In contrast all the federal divisions had just 2 or 3 brigades. So in Cemetery Hill the Rebel divisions all get two counters.

Still, doubling or tripling the scale of the game units changes the character of the game considerably compared to the other quad, especially because the stacking limit was not adjusted accordingly, so some very high-factor stacks are possible. In addition there is a lot of terrain that doubles and even triples combat factors, so some hexes can have some pretty impressive totals.

Gettysburg is a very difficult battle to simulate, especially for a simple wargame, although that hasn't stopped many from trying, ever since first history-based wargame, Avalon Hill's Gettysburg. The basic problem with simulating Gettysburg is that the battle was characterized by periods of very intense fighting separated by long periods of inactivity. There were many reasons for this, but they mostly revolved around command and control issues that simple games usually pass over, so most simpler Gettysburg games see a lot more continuous action than the historical battle. Cemetery Hill is no exception.

While limited as a simulation, Cemetery Hill is not a bad game, providing some interesting choices for the game player -- although it is a bit harder for the Rebels.

The game begins at a later point than most Gettysburg games, in the afternoon just before Ewell's attack on the U.S. Eleventh Corps that sent the federal line reeling back to Cemetery Hill. The key for CSA success is to recognize that your side is winning the race to the battlefield -- but will eventually be outnumbered. Relentless aggression is your only hope to prevail. With some luck and skillful play the Confederates can rock the Union army back on its heels and never give it a chance to recover.

Conversely, the Union player is trying to buy time and avoid losing too many units in the early going. Patience will pay off for the federal side. There will be plenty of time to inflict losses on the Confederate side once the whole Union hosts gathers. The victory point awards favor the Union, with each eliminated US factor worth 2 VPs to the CSA and each eliminated Confederate worth 3 to the Union side, so the Union can "Exchange" its way to victory.Map detail from the The SPI edition showing Gettysburg and Seminary Ridge

There are some differences between the original SPI edition and the Decision Games version. As was depressingly common with its re-issued SPI games, Decision Games introduced some errors in the reprint as well as making some changes.

From a rules standpoint, the biggest difference between the two games is the Attacker Effectiveness rule, which is optional in the original SPI version and a standard rule in the Decision Games version. Oddly, the Attacker Effectiveness rule was first introduced in Cemetery Hill, but many players believe it shouldn't be used in Cemetery Hill because it works against the Confederates too much.

My experience is that the Confederates can succeed using the AE rule at about the same rate as they do without it, so I think the pro-Union bias has more to do with the victory conditions and the general game situation. Indeed, I think the Confederate side is the more challenging side to play in all Gettysburg games. While the attacker effectiveness rule does hinder the attacker in some ways, it can also be exploited. Unlike all the other Blue & Gray games there is a high proportion of night turns (when ineffective attackers recover) to day turns. The game begins with 1 and half turns of activity, then a night turn; then four turns of daylight followed by night, then four more turns of daylight and one of night, ending with two turns of daylight. So ineffective units will have up to three opportunities to come back. In all other Blue & Gray games there's at most one chance to come back, and there are many more daylight runs on both sides of the night turn if it exists.

One critical errata to incorporate to make this true, however, is to treat Turn 3 as a Night turn in the Decision Games edition. It's a night turn in the SPI edition and there's no reason to think that it's any different in the DG edition.

There are also some map changes between the SPI version and the Decision Games version. The DG edition adds a new terrain type, "broken," to signify the terrain that triples defenders. The SPI edition rather clumsily simply printed right on the map the words "Defender TRIPLED in this hex" on the affected hexes (Cemetery Hill, Culp's Hill, Wolf Hill, Little Round Top and Round Top). This doesn't change play, but is more aesthetic. The DG edition also prints the setup locations of the starting units on the map, which is an aid to set-up.

The DG edition also opens up the map a little on Seminary Ridge and Powers Hill by changing some hexes from Forest-Rough to simply Rough. This reduces the movement cost of the hexes from 6 movement points to 3. The affected hexes are 0908, 0409, 0410, 0901, 0902 and 1516.

The DG also has some other mistakes on the map, one minor and two major. The minor error is that the Roman numerals on two XI Corps units are transposed. The first major error is that the Union 1st Division, III Corps unit is left off the map. As this is a 19-factor unit, the Union will definitely miss it, so be sure to place it in hex 0423. The other major error is that hex 2112 is not indicated as a Union reinforcement hex, which it is.

Detail of the Decision Games map showing the Gettysburg vicinity

Hexwar.com uses the DG map for its presentation of the game, although it offers the option to play without the Attacker Effectiveness rule as a "Classic" edition of Blue & Gray. This is not an exact replica of the SPI version, though, because it uses the revised DG map.

The other differences between the two editions are cosmetic. The DG map uses superior graphics and the DG edition uses troop icons instead of the anachronistic NATO-style units symbols used in the SPI edition.

The DG edition includes three optional rules -- Strategic Movement, Cavalry Movement and Cavalry Retreat -- that should not be used in Cemetery Hill as they will throw off the game balance significantly. All favor the Union player.

I have a slight preference for the DG edition, as I like the Attacker Effectiveness rule, but I play the game both ways on Hexwar.com and own both the DG version and the SPI version as afolio game.

More on wargame tactics for new wargamers

There's an intersting thread over on BGG called "I Want to be a Wargamer" about how new wargamers can get over the hump of learing how to think strategically and tactically while they are starting to play.

There's alot of excellent advice, but I think one the absolutely best books I've ever read as an introduction to tactical thinking is The Defense of Duffer's Drift .

It has the virtue have having tremendous insight with the added benefit of being very entertianling presented.

As the US Army Command and General Staff College notes: A classic in small unit tactics in the British and U.S. Army, this book is recommended, without qualification, for the modern professional soldier.

What would you do? Lieutenant Backsight Forethought (BF to his friends) has been left in command of a 50-man reinforced platoon to hold Dufffer's Drift, the only ford on the Silliassvogel River available to wheeled traffic. Here is his chance for fame and glory. He has passed his officer courses and special qualifications. "Now if they had given me a job," says like fighting the Battle of Waterloo, of Gettysburg, or Bull Run, I knew all about that, as I had crammed it up...."While BF's task appears simple enough the Boer enemy causes a multitude of problems, but you, astute reader, with a sharp mind and quick intellect, will no doubt, solve the problem before the first shot is fired.

Here is an illustration from this 1905 classic.

When I was a battery commander and my new First Sergeant wanted advice on how to set up the battery defenses I recommended this book. It's not the specific advice, of course, that is important, but the way that it helps the reader develop the critical thinking skills and tactical sense to deal with his particular tactical problem.

I can't recommend this too highly.

Digesting scenario-style wargames

There are a lot of characteristics differentiating wargames from other game types, but one common one is the scenario-style wargame.

Usually tactical in scope, this kind of wargame presents a game system in its rules, while the actual contests are a series of "scenarios" that are generally presented separately. This sort of presentation is rarely seen in other kinds of games, which usually have just one basic situation.

And not all wargames are "scenario-style" games in the way I mean, even if they use the word scenarios to describe varying ways to play the game. In many games there are variations in the game presented, but these would often be better called "variants" than scenarios because they are essentially riffs off the same theme. Sometimes they are fairly minor variations that add a unit or two or subtract some based on some historical decision or event. Other times they are fairly major departures, such as starting a day earlier or with a completely different order of battle. Still, in most cases they don't change the game into something completely different, and mean that a lot of analysis and planning can be transferred as the player tries to determine what to do.

On the other hand, with scenario-style wargames every scenario is really, in effect, a different game. The order of battle, victory conditions and often even the map is unique to that scenario.

This can be a bit overwhelming, I think, especially for gamers who haven't played many wargames. The whole question of what-to-do can be hard to wrap your head around.

So you're sitting down for a scenario-based tactical wargame you've never seen before, you're still digesting the rules and you have to figure out what to do -- knowing that early missteps can be fatal. You have five minutes to scope out the game before your opponent starts shifting about in his seat.

Professionally trained military staff officers and commanders have years and training and experience to help them, but a casual wargamer needs some easy-to-remember and use framework for organizing his thoughts.

Here I think borrowing, in simplified form, the US Army technique of METT-T is helpful. It's basically five bullet points or checklist items that can help size up the situation in five minutes and help the player start executing a plan instead of just pushing troops forward and hoping for the best.

METT-T stands for Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops and Time Available.

Mission, of course, is the most important and yet still often forgotten. In game terms, Mission is usually expressed in the victory conditions. It does little good to slaughter enemy troops left and right if your mission is to escort a supply truck off the map and you let it get blown up. So the very first task is to determine what the mission is and what has to be done to accomplish it.

Enemy. Study the enemy's order of battle. A wargamer has much better information about his opponent than a real-life commander. Use it. Consider whether there are any gaps in capability you can exploit. Is the enemy relatively slow? Is the enemy poorly equipped in some way? Does he have a shortage of anti-tank weapons in a World War II setting or lack cavalry on a Napoleonic battlefield.

Terrain. Examine the terrain. Are there places where the enemy will find slow going or good defensive positions? Does the terrain create choke points where a small force can delay a larger one or is it wide open and put a premium of mobile forces?

Troops. Study your own forces. What capabilities does it have? Does it have special abilities that can be exploited or weaknesses to be avoided. In all cases the interrelationship between enemy forces and friendly forces is relative. Having a light tank available might be insignificant in a big armor battle, or the key to victory in a small firefight against a pure infantry force that has no supporting armor of its own.

Time Available. Time is never neutral. One side always benefits from things slowing down, one side always wants to speed things up. It's vital to understand whether time is on your side or not. Related to that is the question of initiative. Generally the tactical situation will dictate which side starts with the initiative, but losing the initiative when you had it or gaining it when you didn't will have a huge impact on who wins. Make sure you understand exactly how much time you have. A well-designed scenario will be set up to leave one move short of victory with average play.

All five aspects of METT-T are intertwined, which is why it's not a simple checklist. You can't simply think about the Mission and then forget about it while you consider the Terrain or the Time. Your mind needs to roll through all five over and over again as you analyze the scenario. Just because you have a large number of hoplites means that hoplites are your main strength, if the enemy has even more hoplites. It may turn out that your real advantage is that small number of slingers -- or the swamp covering half the battlefield -- or the fact that the enemy's objective is a long march away.

Most military planning tools are too specific, detailed or technically demanding to be of much use on the wargame battlefield. But I've found METT-T to be a useful way to frame my thoughts when I'm sitting down for an unfamiliar battle.

Strategy in First Bull Run

The First Battle of Bull Run is a fascinating little affair. It was the first major battle of the Civil War, yet it was almost like a prologue to the Real Thing, with little direct continuity. Oh, sure, there were some familiar names like Jackson, Sherman, Ewell and Burnside there. And there were some troops in Blue and in Gray on the field, although not necessarily on the expected side.

But in many ways it was an anomaly and not a representative Civil War fight. It was small, both armies not much larger than a later-war corps. While it's toll surprised contemporary observers, it was a particularly bloody fight -- Shiloh the following spring was a much better harbinger of what was in store for the country.

It's small scale and colorfully garbed troops have made it a favorite topic for wargamers and there are a large number of games on the topic. Indeed, I think it's fair to say that every systemic approach to depicting Civil War combat includes a Bull Run game sooner or later.

So it's a little surprising that the famous SPI Blue & Gray series never got around to showing the battle and it didn't appear in the system until Decision Games re-issued the quad. That B&G quad game is a fairly popular title among Hexwar.com players since it appeared.

According to statistics on Hexwar, out of every 10 games played, the Union wins 5, the Confederates win 3 and 2 games are draws. While Hexwar's stats don't differentiate between games played with their special Fog of War rules (only practical for online play) and games played with all units visible as a face-to-face game would be, the circumstances of the battle probably mean the differences between the two styles of play are negligible. The general lines of play are obvious and visibility is good enough that there's little scope for tricky play. The Confederate forces are frozen in place until Turn 3, making FOW inapplicable to them and most of the Union army will be visible on Turn 3 as they launch their assault. Neither army is big enough to withhold substantial forces from the fight.

The Federal army has just 11 brigades of usable troops, totaling 74 combat factors. Ten of those brigades are strength 6, 7 or 8, with one (Franklin) of just 4 strength points. There's a 10-factor division as well, but it's stuck in Centerville unless the Rebels cross Bull Run. As they have little reason to do so, this division should never enter play.

The opposing Rebel force is almost exactly the same size at 77 fcombat actors but it has a few more units so the average strength is a little lower. It's somewhat more diverse than the Union's purely infantry order of battle, including a couple of weak cavalry squadrons and small artillery battalions. There are also a couple of small infantry detachments. All of these small units have strengths of 1 or 2. The core of the Rebel army are their 10 infantry brigades of 6, 7 or 8 strength points.

The dominating terrain features of the battlefield are Bull Run, an uncrossable (in the game) creek lying between the armies with some fords and bridges scattered along its length. On the western side of the battlefield are some extensive woods, which form a significant terrain obstacle in this battle. Because both armies are very inexperienced, the game assigns most of the infantry units on both sides movement allowances of 5, instead of the usual B&G value of 6. While it appears to be just a 1/6 reduction in speed, it's really a 50% cut as soon as woods get involved, because each woods hex costs 3 movement points. In effect, most infantry units can only enter one woods hex per turn. This comes close to making woods "no-go" instead of "slow-go" terrain.

This game only appears in the Decision Games package which use the revised B&G rules, with "Attacker Effectiveness," and not the original "classic"rules. The victory conditions take advantage of this to make attacker effectiveness an integral part of winning or losing, which fits the historical situation rather well. Both armies had fragile morale and it was mostly a matter of the fortunes of war that the Federal Army broke before the Rebels did. It could have easily gone the other way. At the end of every turn each side adds up points for ineffective units (1 each) and eliminated units (2 each) and adds the result of a D6 roll. If the total is 17 or more than that army routs and the other side wins. If neither army routs then victory is determined by who holds two of the small towns on the map, Groveton and New Market. The rub comes from the fact that Groveton is practically indefensible for the Confederates and New Market hard to seize for the Federals, so the usual state of affairs is for each side to hold one town and therefore it's a draw.

The fact that more games don't end up as draws is a testimony to the aggressiveness of the players.

The burden of attack in on the Federals. the Union commander, Brig. Gen. McDowell, actually developed a pretty good plan, albeit one that would be challenging for a green army to execute. Unwilling to try fighting his way across Bull Run in the teeth of the Rebel army, he conceived the idea of executing a flank march around the Rebel left flank. It might have worked. too, except that the Union troops in the Shenandoah Valley failed to pin down the Rebel army in that area and that force of four brigades had just arrived to reinforce the army facing McDowell. Even with those reinforcements it was a near-run thing, because the Rebel command was caught by surprise.

This surprise is reflected in the game by allowing the Union forces to move three times before the Confederates can move. Naturally the Union layer needs to make the most of this advantage and hit the Rebel flank hard on Turn 3.

It can be worthwhile to leave Franklin along the river to deprive several Confederate brigades of strategic movement, which will basically mean they will enter the fight a turn later than they would otherwise, a significant factor in an 8-turn game. It's probably NOT worthwhile to send a second unit (usually Richardson's 7-factor brigade) to the river front to deprive the rest of the Rebels their strategic movement. The Union will miss those 7 factors and the affected Rebels are close enough to the action that it hurts them less to be slowed down.

I like to use Richardson to cover Ball's Ford (1216) instead, ready to cross over once the rest of the Federal army comes up.

Two brigades (Sherman and Porter as good choices) should drive Radford's cavalry away from Lewis Ford. Radford will probably (and should) use the cavalry retreat ability to avoid the risk of a DE result.

Two more brigades (Burnside and Davies) should attack across the Stone Bridge at 3-1. It's possible to use Franklin here so that an exchange (1/6 chance) only costs 4 combat factors instead of 6 but this means you've either given the Rebels an unmolested run to the flank or wasted a stronger unit on that economy of force mission. Unlike most Blue & Gray games, there are no strength-based victory points, so losing Davies 1/6 of the time isn't much worse than losing Franklin would be. In any case Burnside will advance, setting up Evans and the Potomac artillery for a poor-odds counterattack. The rest of the Union host can either cross farther upriver around Sudley Ford or stack up behind Burnside. So long as somebody swings through Groveton it doesn't matter much what the exact paths are.

The objective is to wipe out Evans and the artillery quickly for 4 morale points and set up for an attack on New Market as soon as possible. The Rebels can probably stack enough units in that town so that all the Federals will get is a 2-1 attack or even just a 1-1 attempt. If that try fails, the Federals may get a second try, although almost certainly THAT one will have to be a 1-1. About half the time the Union will take New market and not lose it to the immediate Confederate counterattack. The other half the time the Union will end up with about half their army rendered ineffective. The trick then for the Federal player is knowing when to quit. The Union player can almost guarantee a draw by pulling back if he fails to grab New Market after having half his brigades knocked out of action. If the Confederates press too hard in an effort to take Groveton they may very well lose on morale.

The Rebel player has a harder path to victory. It's just a 6-turn game for that side, and they have to spend a big portion of that time rushing to redeploy from the right flank. Evans and the Potomac artillery can be written off. If they survive it will be through a combination of great luck and a gift from the Union player. The two cavalry units should always retreat if attacked and be careful to never take positions where they can be surrounded. Don't forget that a dead 1-8 costs just as much morale as a full-strength infantry brigade.

The first priority is to defend New Market and force the Union army to batter itself senseless trying to gain entry. An incautious Union player can easily lose on morale, perhaps helped along at the end by a judicious CSA counterattack. The difficult part for the Confederates is if the Union backs off upon failure to accept a draw. The Rebels at that point usually have too little time and insufficient forces left to have a good chance of taking Groveton for the win. Often an energetic drive for Groveton ends up handing a victory to the Federal side after all as the CSA losses put them in range of a morale loss. The Rebel player should pay particular attention to careful placement of the 1-factor artillery battery and Stonewall Jackson's 8-6 brigade. The artilelry can be useful for jacking up the attack factor of a CSA brigade to match a Union 7 or 8 in a pinch (much better to do a 1-1 than a 1-2) and Jackson's brigade is the only infantry unit able to traverse two woods hexes in a turn, making him useful in the trees. Unfortunately all the speedy CSA units put together (Jackson, guns and horse) can't muster any better than a 1-1 on even a weak Union brigade, so their offensive punch is best saved for desperate times.

Given that the Union wins half the time, taking a draw as the Confederates is at least a morale victory and sets up a good chance to win a match set.

I think that draws should actually be more common than they seem to be. Both sides have it in their power to drive things in that direction and I think close to half of all games played properly should be draws, with nearly all the remaining ones being Union wins. I'd expect the breakdown to be 5 draws, 4 USA wins and 1 CSA win out of every 10 plays. Out of 15 recent Hexwar plays I was involved in there were 5 Union victories (3 mine) 2 CSA wins (one mine) and 8 draws (4 each US and CS).

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.

Battle Cry Chancellorsville

Chancellorsville is unique among the published scenarios in Battle Cry in that neither army has a presence in all three sections of the battlefield. Indeed, the Federals, except for one unit, are all concentrated in the center section.

Hooker's boys also labor under the handicap of having Hooker as the boss, so they have only a three-card hand, compared to the Rebel 5-card hand. As a matter of fact, the only real advantage the Union forces have is numbers, with 12 units compared to the Rebel eight. But even here, the federals have a disadvantage because their army is not well-balanced, having no cavalry unit.

The bottom line of all this is that, at the start of the game, fully 32 of the 60 cards in the deck are completely useless or will result in a single unit being able to move. On the plus side, there are five cards that can be really devastating for the Federals to play if they get them, the All-Out Offensive and, almost as good, the two Force March cards. The Fore and Hold Position is also pretty powerful. All five of these cards will allow all, or nearly all, of the Federal units to battle in a single turn.

The problem for the Union player is, with a mere 3-card-hand, chances aren't all that good you'll get one of those five cards (1/12th of the deck) while it's almost certain you'll have one or more cards that you can't use. Even the Counter-attack card may not help, because the Confederate player can be careful to only activate units in a section where the Federals don't have a presence.

While the Rebels start with 14 cards they can't use (12 Center Section Probe, Attack or Skirmish orders and the two Hit and Run cards) they can afford, with a 5-card-hand, to hold onto any center cards for a few turns until they have the need to move into the center section. So there's really just two unusable cards for them in the whole deck.

Given all this, what approach gives the Union player the best chance for a victory?

Battle Cry, like all the Commands & Colors games, doesn't lend itself to "perfect plans." The luck of the card draw means that no plan can be sure of execution, and sometimes the other side may get lucky. A Rebel player at Chancellorsville who confidently starts enveloping the Union force may get a very rude awakening if the Federal player happens to have two of this five killer cards.

But on average the Rebel player is going to be able to be very active, able to dance around with his 8 units, picking at a federal force that may not even have a single usable card in his hand.

From a card management perspective, there's little the federal player can do except play 'em as he draws 'em. If not pressed too hard, the union can "play" a worthless card just to get it out of the hand, but most of the time the critical need will be to act as often as possible. I think the Union player does have an opportunity, if he's single-minded enough to act on it, and that is to concentrate on Stuart's portion of the Confederate army.

There are exactly six flags available on that side of the field (general, artillery and four infantry) and there is one federal unit that starts on the sector boundary and therefore has 10 more cards available than the rest of the Union force. There's a chance, if the cards cooperate, to concentrate all 12 federal units against the five Rebels.

It still looks like a challenging scenario for the Union troops, but I think this approach gives the best shot. Critiques welcome.

Top Go player beaten by computer

This BoardgameGeek thread discusses: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/2230504#2230504

I think that it's likely that all nonrandom pure abstracts can be eventually "solved" once computing power and program sophistication improve enough.

Checkers apparently is there already and chess is nearly so. Go has had a reputation for being deeper than chess and the difficulty programmers have had creating skilled AI for it supports that view.

But without random elements any game is subject to having its decision tree mapped out completely in theory, although in practice it may involved too many variables to be doable. Consider, for example, a super chess that has double the number of pieces or adds new pieces such as Warmaster. The possible games might approach the number of atoms in the galaxy.

This is why the 9x9 game of Go will be solved long before the 19x19 game, unless, of course, programmers can discover the organizing principles that human minds use to narrow the number of choices to a manageable number. It may turn out that intuition may be quantifiable. For example, chess masters can more easily remember the locations of pieces when they are in legal positions than illegal setups because of the pattern recognition involved.

Pattern recognition is the secret to human intelligence and computers are likely to have trouble competing in tasks involving this skill until it's secret is discovered.

The Other BEF (long post)

First published in Strategy & Tactics No. 122, Nov. 1988.
Minor edits


The Other BEF
by Seth Owen


IT’S UNLIKELY that General Otto Fretter Pico realized that he was making a mark on South American history in the closing days of April 1945. His sur­render of the German and Italian troops under his command, and himself, to Brazilian troops climaxed the first ever overseas campaign by South American combat soldiers.
The presence of South Americans gave the Italian campaign the distinction of being the first in history that included sol­diers from every inhabited continent on the globe.
In January of 1942 the Brazilian Govern­ment broke off diplomatic relations with Germany, Japan and Italy. Soon German U-boats started sinking Brazilian mer­chant ships, including five in s -two days. In response. Brazil declared war on Germany and Italy on he 22nd of August 1942
Initially its military efforts were limited to convoy protection and aerial patrolling. Brazilian President Getulio Vargas wanted to take a more active role in the war and met with President Roosevelt in January of 1943. The U.S. President promised to help Brazil train and equip troops for service in Europe.
The original goal was to form an expedi­tionary corps of three divisions, but only the 1st Division, Brazilian Expeditionary Force (BEF), ever made it to Europe.
Various existing units formed the divi­sion during the closing months of 1943. The division included the 1st, 6th and 11th In­fantry Regiments, four artillery battalions from three different regiments, and the 9th Engineer Battalion. New support units were organized from many different exist­ing units around the country.
The division was organized and equipped as an American Infantry Division. Nine battalions of infantry organized into three regiments provided the major combat elements. Three battalions of 105mm howitzers and a battalion of 155mm howitzers, each with 12 guns, provided most of the division's firepower. Supporting the division were an Engineer and Medical Battalion, and company-sized reconnaissance, maintenance, administrative and quartermaster units. Rounding out the order of battle was a platoon of Military Police and a band.
American field manuals and regulations had to be translated to Portuguese, training had to be conducted on equipment ranging from M-1 Garand rifles to 155mm Howitzers, and American staff procedures had to be learned. Officers trained by U.S. Army schools conducted the initial training while the translators worked on getting the publications ready.
The fledgling BEF spent the first half of 1944 training in Brazil. During the summer the troops were organized into embarka­tion “squadrons”. The first squadron left Brazil on the 2nd of July and arrived in Naples on the 16th of July. The first element consisted of the 6th Infantry Regiment, one artillery battalion, and about a third of the supporting troops.
Upon arriving in Italy, the arriving ele­ments of the BEF conducted additional training. General Marcarenhas de Moraes, commander of the BEF, met with Major General Willis Crittenberger, commander of IV Corps, on 9 September to arrange for the commitment of the Brazilians to com­bat. The 6th Regiment staged a large war-game exercise on 10-11 September. The American umpires certified the unit as ready.
Operation ANVIL, the invasion of Southern France, drained seven veteran divisions from the Italian front. Two addi­tional divisions deployed to Greece. The resulting severe shortage of manpower pushed up the commitment dates for the U.S. 92nd Infantry Division, the BEF and the 10th Mountain Division. The U.S. 45th Anti-Aircraft Artillery brigade was con­verted to infantry and renamed Task Force 45 to hold part of the front.
Even though the rest of the division was not ready, General Mark Clark decided that the BEF’s 6th Infantry Regiment should form a Regimental Combat Team (RCT) and be committed to combat.
This RCT, known as the “BEF Detach­ment,” took over a portion of the front lo­cated just north of Pisa along the Serchio River on the 15th of September, 1944. It was a large front, over six miles wide, facing the 16th SS Division.
The initial experience for the Brazilians was positive. Patrols could not make con­tact with the Germans. The BEF advanced to follow the German retreat. After a few days a new German front was established along a chain of heights.
One called Monte Prano made an excel­lent observation post, surveying the entire Brazilian position. Brigadier General Eu­clydes Zenobio da Costa, commanding the BEF Detachment, determined to seize it.
For six days Brazilian Artillery and American tanks bombarded the German positions. A platoon of the 2nd Company, 6thIn~ntryRegiment fought its way to the top of the mountain over two days, losing five dead and 17 wounded. With the loss of this key location, the Germans pulled back to still another defensive line further north.
North of Pisa, the Serchio River flows down a steep-sided valley from some of the highest peaks in the Apennines. The BEF detachment spent October pushing up this valley in pursuit of the slowly retreating Germans.
On the 31st of October the Brazilians suffered their first reverse. At dawn, under cover of a heavy rainstorm, the German troops attacked the 3rd company, 1st Bat­talion, 6th Infantry from front and flank The unit didn’t establish proper security measures and was completely surprised and forced to retreat. More attacks caused the rest of the BEF to pull back from its ad­vanced positions.
In November the BEF Division de­ployed to a new sector, the Reno River Valley. Reunited, they were destined to spend all but the final weeks of the cam­paign there.
The Reno River flows to the northeast, passing by Bologna on the way to the Adriatic.
Dominating the roads through the val­ley was a strong German position on the Monte Castello. IV Corps decided to elimi­nate this position and ordered Task Force 45 to do it. Attached to TF 45 was the Brazilian IIIrd Bn, 6th Infantry Regiment and the divisional recon company. Provid­ing support was the IInd battalion, 1st Self-Propelled Mortar Regiment armed with towed 105mm Howitzers.
The Germans repulsed the initial as­sault on 24 November. On the 25th,. after some adjustments, TF 45 repeated the at­tack and succeeded in gaining the heights, only to be pushed back off by the German counterattack
In the last few days of November the rest of the 1st Division, BEF was brought on line. Corps ordered the division to “cap­ture the ridge which runs from Monte Bel­vedere to the northeast, including Monte Castello, for the purpose of preventing the enemy from viewing Highway 64.”
Occupying Monte Castello was a battal­ion of infantry from the 232nd Infantry division. To assault the German position, an assault group of three Infantry battal­ions (I/1, III/11, III/6) supported by three platoons of U.S. tanks and two battalions of Brazilian Artillery (105mm) attacked the dawn on 29 November. The attack make steady progress until noon. Counterattacks forced back one battalion, causing the entire attack to falter, By nightfall the Brazilians were back at the line of departure.After this reverse, the Brazilian commander decided to prepare more thor­oughly. Artillery and air strikes bom­barded the German positions for six days.
The new assault force consisted of two battalions of infantry (II/1 and Ill/I). Their support was much more extensive than that of the earlier attack. Two mortar com­panies, a U.S. Tank company, and the en­tire Brazilian Division Artillery, reinforced by an American Artillery Battalion, added needed firepower.
Surprise was planned for the attack on 12 December. The attack would have no ar­tillery preparation. The morning opened with a heavy rain and fog, cutting visibility down to 50 meters.
American Artillery compromised the chance for surprise by firing some harass­ment missions on the enemy positions, alerting the defenders. The enemy de­tected the Brazilian attackers as soon as they crossed the line of departure and they met stiff resistance immediately. The at­tack quickly bogged down. The reserve tried to outflank the German positions, but heavy fire drove them back. The fourth attack on Monte Castello was a failure.
The rest of the winter was spent on the defensive. Patrols maintained contact, but neither side made any offensive moves.
In February, IV Corps made a renewed effort to clear the Germans from the heights overlooking the Reno Valley. To lead it off, the newly arrived 10th Moun­tain Division attacked first to seize several strongpoints supporting the Monte Cas­tello position. The 1st Squadron Brazilian Air Force and the BEF’s artillery supported the mountain troops' attack.
General Moraes organized the BEF at­tack to seize Monte Castello as follows: The 1st Infantry Regiment was to make the main attack, while the 11/11th made a cov­ering attack on the right (east) flank.
Using the positions just captured by the 10th Mountain, he planned a converging attack on Monte Castello, with the I/1st hitting the left flank while the III/1st hit the front. In local reserve was the II/lst. The rest of the 11th Regiment (less the II/11th) was ready to exploit the breakthrough.
Supporting the attack were the divi­sional engineers, the division artillery, and one battalion of American guns.
On the 21st of February, the Brazilians stepped off. Directing their artillery with forward observers, they blasted the Ger­man positions as they advanced. The Bra­zilian Infantry penetrated the defense with a hard close-quarter fight
Over the following three days a slow pursuit down the valley ensued, finally checked by a strong German counterattack on the 25th.
The BEF spent March readjusting the~. lines and preparing for the final Spring Offensive. General Mark Clark, commander of the Allied forces, planned to finish off the Axis with a massive offensive into the Po valley.
The Brazilian division was assigned to cover the Corps’ left flank for this offen­sive. The first objective of the division, along with the 10th Mountain Division and the 371st Regiment (from the 92nd Infantry Division) was the Montese line.
The offensive kicked off on the 14th of April, 1945. Supported by American ar­mor, the Brazilians doggedly pressed their way through the German positions. By mid-afternoon one battalion had pene­trated the center of the enemy line. By nightfall they captured most of the first day’s objectives.
Continuing the attack the following day, further progress through the German defensive belts continued. On the 16th and 17th, the advance paused, while the 10th Mountain Division caught up on the right flank.
The Brazilians redeployed into the Panaro River valley on the 18th and 19th of April, and began a push down that valley against weakening German resistance.
By the 22nd, they fought their way down the Panaro to the wide expanses of the Po valley. Elsewhere, other allied units also reached the valley floor and the Ger­man forces were in disarray, confusion and retreat.
Once in the Po valley, the Allied forces pushed the pursuit vigorously. German attempts to stand, or even blow bridges, were overtaken by events.
IV Corps ordered the Brazilian division to pursue towards the northwest, in the direction of France. Moving on parallel routes they harried the retreating Axis troops, capturing hundreds each day.
To speed the advance it was necessary to find motor transport for the infantry. Taking a calculated risk, the Brazilian commander stripped his artillery of its transport to motorize his infantry battalions.
The Brazilians formed several flying columns of infantry mounted on trucks and American tanks. The major enemy force being pursued by the BEF was the 148th Infantry Division along with remnants of the 90th Panzergrenadier and Italia divisions.
The 148th made its last stand at the town of Fornovo. Bringing it to bay was the veteran 6th Regiment. On 28 April the 6th Regiment, supported by a platoon of American tanks, launched converging attacks to isolate the German forces in Fornovo. Despite several counterattacks, the Germans were pressed into a smaller pe­rimeter.
For several days surrender negotiations had been going on. On the morning of the 29th, General Fretter Pico agreed to surren­der his forces. Starting at noon with the wounded, the Axis columns passed into captivity. It took two days to accept the surrender of the entire force.
Last to surrender was General Fretter Pico and his staff, on the 30th of April, 1945. Captured were 14,779 men, with 80 guns and 1500 vehicles. On the 2nd of May, the Italian campaign ended with the general surrender of all Axis forces in Italy, the first theatre-wide capitulation of the war.


Bibliography
The Brazilian Expeditionary Force by its Com­mander, Marshal J.B. Mascarenhas de Mo­raes, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.

Cassino to the Alps, U.S. Army in World War II, Mediterranean Theatre of Operations. By Ernest F. Fisher, Jr. Center of Military History, United States Army, Washington, D.C. 1977.

Report of Operations of the IV Corps in the Italian Campaign. Monthly reports from 1 January to3l May, 1945 onfile at the Morris Sweet Technical Library, Fort Sill, Okla­homa.

The Final Campaign Across Northwest Italy. August, 1945. Headquart&s, N Corps, U.S. Army.


Table 1
Distribution of Casualties by Branch
Sept. 16,1944 to Dec. 31, 1944 Jan. 1, 1945 to May 2, 1945
Infantry 97.0% 92.5%
Artillery 1.0% 1.0%
Engineer 1.0% 1.0%
Cavalry 0.5% 0.5%
Other 0.5% 5.0%

Table 2
Losses by rank
Infantry Reg’ts Div. Total
1st 6th 11th
Privates 117 82 99 339
NCO 25 23 29 105
Officer 6 2 2 13

Remarks: The officer casualty rate is very low. The highest ranking officer killed was a captain.

One-Page Bulge analysis

Players sitting down for a game of One-Page Bulge know what to expect in a Battle of the Bulge game. The Germans will be starting off with overwhelming force, but face a very tight time schedule and difficult terrain.
Compared to many Bulge games, OPB is pretty friendly to the Germans in its allocation of combat strength. Not counting the Allied air points, which are highly variable, the Americans never actually catch up to the Germans in strength points, even after taking into account all the reinforcements.

The Germans start on turn 1 with 202 strength points on map plus 31 more in turn 1 reinforcements for a total of 233. The Americans have just 108.

By fifth turn the Germans get another 94 SPs, while the Americans only get 80 more. Given probable combat losses it's quite possible for the Germans to have a bigger strength differential on Dec. 20 than at the start.
The last five turns see the ratio change in the American favor, as the Germans get just one more pulse of 27 SPs on turn 8, while the U.S. player sees another 132 points become available during turns 6-10.While the Germans have a strength advantage, the Americans have a significant mobility edge. All the U.S. units are faster than all the German units. In addition, the U.S. units have better access to the road net, while the Germans will often be forced into cross-country moves. Zones of control are not locking in this game, so American units can easily and quickly disengage. About the only factor keeping the Americans from freely trading space for time are the presence of 11 supply dumps behind their lines which are worth victory points for the Germans. Fortunately for the Americans, they have the ability to evacuate and/or destroy those dumps, so they can prevent the Germans from scoping those points, or reduce the amount gained.

As always in Bulge games, the German player has to push ahead ruthlessly in order to have any chance of victory. Compared to most Battle of the Bulge games the Germans seem to have a somewhat better chance of getting something across the Meuse River. This is reflected in the victory conditions, which require them to get 50 strength points over the river for a marginal victory -- the equivalent of two Panzer divisions.

The usual solution is to make the big push is the Fifth Panzer Army sector, basically along the axis of Clerf-Bastogne-Marche-Namur. This was the sector that saw the largest territorial gains in the historical battle. Most German players will ensure they capture Bastogne, rather than bypass it, so supply will be available. The drawback to this approach is that it's the longest way, with an exposed southern flank. It misses all but one small supply dump which is easily evacuated or burned. It relies on getting troops across the Meuse.

An alternative approach is to make the main effort in the Sixth SS Panzer Army sector, which was the historical plan. This requires taking on the strong part of the U.S. line from the get-go and is much more of a do-or-die plan. The drawback is that the terrain is very unfavorable and the American line pretty strong.
On the other hand, there are 42 VPs of supply dumps in the area. Getting one supplied Panzer Division into Liege can be enough to tip into the win column. If the Allied player attempts to burn the dumps and they get captured anyway, they're worth even more points to the Germans, making it worthwhile to even threaten captures. In order for this plan to work, however, the German player has to keep up the pressure elsewhere along the front in order to disguise his aim.

Draws are very possible in One-Page Bulge. In order to win, not just prevent a German victory, the U.S. player has to keep the German total to 19 or less victory points, which means that they cannot afford to let any major supply dump fall into German hands, especially the 1st Army POL dump near Malmedy. The worst case is to start burning the dump and then have it captured anyway, giving the Germans 15 Vps. If the Germans also capture the adjacent ASP then they are almost guaranteed the draw.

It's a very close game, with no "perfect plans" available, but the Germans do have options in OPB they rarely have in Bulge games to try a somewhat different approach than typical.

Fad or Classic? Is nearly 3 decades enough to know?

Before the era of the Masses Media of the Internet, YouTube and Boardgame Geek there was an era of Mass Media such as mass-circulation magazines, daily newspapers and three TV networks.
Every so often in that earlier, simpler time, a board game might bubble up into the general consciousness and get attention in the form of articles, television segments and book sales and become a fad. Games such as Mastermind and Backgammon would be hot for a while.
In the early 1980s a couple of rather similar games first published in 1979 popped into prominence. Each was a variation on an ancient classic, the invention of smart young guys and picked up by major game publishers. Each had regular and travel editions that were widely available in non-game outlets and even had a thin strategy book or two published.
Nearly thirty years later, though, their paths have diverged somewhat. While neither is wildly popular any more, Pente seems to have held up considerably better than its contemporary Kensington.
Kensington is essentially a more elaborate version of the very ancient game Nine Men's Morris, which is at least 4,000 or more years old. It's played on a considerably larger and more intricately shaped board than the older game and eliminates the older game's capturing rules, repositioning pieces instead. The winner is the first player to occupy all six points of one hexagon.
Pente is a slight variation of an almost equally ancient game, ninuki-renju, played on the same board as Go, another game that dates back many centuries. In this case the designer added a capture rule to the five-in-a-row configuration game.
Even though Kensington was a German "Game of the Year" nominee in 1982 and seems like it should have fared at least as well as Pente as a simple and quick-playing abstract strategy game, in fact it's lustre has faded considerably since.
Even though 404 members of BoardGame Geek list owning a copy of Kensington (as of Feb. 23, 2008), between them they only report a total of 54 plays, an average of .133 plays per copy. In comparison, 1,210 BGG members have a copy of Pente and they've reportedly played them 1,638 times, an average of 1.35 times each.
My own take on the two games is that Pente is more attractive-looking in play, is more tense almost from the start and feels like a more elegant design. Kensington shares with it's older ancestor a two-phase style of game play with an initial placement phase and then, one all pieces arrive, a phase of moving units. Both phases are rather slow-moving and, frankly, often boring. While they can be very strategic can reward long-term planning, they can be pretty frustrating between evenly matched opponents. Removing Morris's capture rule does not seem like an improvement for Kensington, making the struggle even more drawn-out.
Pente games, in contrast, have a built-in time limit and the best end games see both players teetering on the edge of disaster. But the game will soon end when it reaches that point.
So I do think that the verdict is in on both games, Kensington, it turns out, was indeed just a fad. Pente, while not a blockbuster, will remain a niche classic for years to come.

Napoleon's Last Battles: Whole is not the sum of the parts

Napoleon's Last Battles is one of the true classics of the SPI era, going through numerous printings and being resurrected in a Decision Games version that's still in print. It's also a popular game set offered by the online game-playing service Hexwar.com, which maintains statistics on the games, including totaled results for each scenario.
NLB is an unusual quadrigame because it includes four battles that were all part of the same campaign, as well as a campaign game. But the campaign game is not simply a linked-together version of the four component battles but a much-expanded standalone game that includes some significant differences. Foremost among those differences in a whole command-control subsystem based on leader counters, which play no role at all in the individual battles.
Because of this playing the campaign game feels much differently than playing the battle games, despite the fact that they use the same map and many of the same counters.
The individual battle games are fairly straightforward Napoleon at War-style quad games, the major difference from most of the other NAW series being that NLB is on the brigade level instead of divisions and therefor allows stacking.
While entertaining, Hexwar stats indicate that most of the individual battles are not especially well-balanced. Worse, the imbalance often runs against the historical winner.
The most popular scenario on Hexwar is La Belle Alliance, which depicts Waterloo. It's a tough challenge for the French, with just 590 wins as of Jan. 30, 2008, compared to 1,023 Anglo-Allied victories. Waterloo is a challenging battle for the French in most game depictions, but the special terrain status of Hougomont and La Haye Sainte create very formidable forts that break up the French attacks thoroughly to an extent rarely shown in other Waterloo titles. Adding a fatal blow to French hopes are the special rules dealing with the Guard, that inflict a severe morale penalty if they suffer an adverse combat result. This wouldn't be so bad except that an "Exchange" is deemed an adverse result for this rule. This means that there is no safe odds for a Guard attack. Even at maximum 6-1 odds there's a 1/3 chance for an exchange and a big morale hit. Indeed, the best odds for a Guards attack is exactly 4-1, but even then there is a 1/6 chance of an adverse result. This means that the French really can't use the Guard as part of their battle plan and must save them for use only if they are about to lose anyway.
This Guard problem is also largely to blame for the unhistorical and lopsided results seen in the Ligny scenario, which has resulted in a Prussian victory 676 times compared to just 365 French victories. In the actual case, the Prussians were defeated. In the game, however, the French can't really use their Guard troops for fear of a sudden loss.
The best balanced of the individual battles is Quatre Bras, which has 683 French wins and 548 Anglo-Allied. This is a low density and fast-playing scenario which can go either way and often can turn on a single die roll.
The least popular of the four games is Wavre. It also ends up being biased against the historical victor, with just 244 Prussian victories on Hexwar compared to 369 French.
None of the games ends up with many draws, only Quatre Bras has more than 1 and it has just 6, so the games are, at least, admirably decisive.
The character of the game changes immensely with the campaign game, including it's component parts. The Quatre Bras portion of the fight becomes considerably hard for the French as Ney is badly outgeneraled by Wellington, while action on the Ligny front is more promising for the French because the Guard rule has milder effects in the campaign rules and only applies to part of the Guard. This allows the Guard corps to play a much bigger role against Blucher.
The overall course of the campaign does not have to follow the historical sequence, although it will surprising often. There's still usually a showdown near La Belle Alliance near the end of the game unless the Allies have had greater-than-historical success at Ligny and/or Quatre Bras. There's much less chance of a Wavre-equivalent in the games I've seen. Most French players prefer to maximize their strength for the main effort rather than send a sizable force chasing the Prussians. A smaller pursuing force is usually enough to harry the Prussians and complicate their attempts to reorganize.
This is a much longer game to play, lasting as much as 36 turns, so it's not surprising that there's not as many completed playings yet, but it is popular. It's also a fairly even fight, with 339 French wins and 403 Prussian-Anglo-Allied victories, which seems well in line with the historical possibilities.
The campaign game is very engrossing and is highly recommended. The other battles are entertaining, but players should be aware of the scenario imbalances and plan accordingly.

Featured game: Blue & Gray Second Bull Run

Most of Decision Games' Blue & Gray series games are reprints of SPI classics, but there are two original scenarios in the box, dealing with the First and Second Battles of Bull Run.
Of the two, Second Bull Run is the meatier games. The First Bull Run scenario, while entertaining, is rather small and a bit dicey.
Second Bull Run is a full-fledged full-bodied scenario that's one of the most wide open of the series.
Statistics from Hexwar.com, the online wargame-playing service, which offers Second Bull Run as one of its games, show a bias against the Confederates, but not an overwhelming one. As of Jan. 25, 2008 the site reported 854 US wins and 626 CS wins. The Confederate side is more challenging to play, and I'll explain why later. But clearly the result is not foreordained and the game is a competitive contest for both sides.
The two sides are fairly even in strength. The Confederate army comprises 118 combat factors of infantry, 5 factors of cavalry, 1 factor of horse artillery and 21 factors of artillery for a total of 155. Their Union opponents comprise 152 factors of infantry, 6 factors of cavalry and 15 factors of artillery -- a total of 173.
But wait, 21 factors of those Federal troops are conditional reinforcements that enter on a die roll late in the game and may not appear at all. Even if they do appear, it's generally too late to change the outcome and more often than not they'll never see action. This cuts the ratio down to 155-152.
Both sides get a large pulse of reinforcements. Aside from a couple of units that appear earlier or later (6 factors worth) the Union Army sees 67 factors come in on turn 3, while the Rebel army has 76 factors the next turn. The end result is that both pulses arrive at the front at the same time.
What they find when they get there can vary tremendously and provides much of the game's charm. The first four turn set the stage for what follows and those first four turns require some adept maneuvering by both sides. The game's initial stages are not unlike a judo match, as both armies strive to "throw" the other off its game plan. If one succeeds, then it has probably ensured eventual victory.
The Federal army has a slight edge in strength at the start, with 77 factors while the Confederate army has 71 factors. The Confederates also start with a terrain advantage because they hold a double-strength line along the railroad cut.
The Federal army does start with one important advantage, though, the initiative. That army moves first and it's vital that they use that to control the pace of the battle. Typically the two armies struggle for control of the key ground at the western end of their initial lines. This small area, about 6 by 6 hexes, bounded on the east by Groveton, the West by the map edge, the north by the edge of south mountain and the south by another small hill.
The importance of controlling this patch of ground derives from the fate of the Turn 4 CSA reinforcements. If the Union can control this ground (and takes the ordinary precaution of covering the potential map edge entry hexes south of that) then the Confederate reinforcements are confined to coming in in the northwest corner of the battlefield and will most likely be bottled up. The Confederates do not have enough of an edge in numbers or quality that they can bull their way through a compact Union line.
On the other hand, if the Rebels control that ground then their Turn 4 reinforcements have the breathing room they need to sweep down on the flank of the Groveton-Sudley Ford line and potentially outmaneuver the arriving Federal troops as well.
Bottling the Confederates up is more damaging to their cause than breaking out is beneficial to them, which explains the Union edge in game results. Even if the Union army ends up losing the Groveton flank fight they have a chance to recover later. There's no recovering from being stuck in a corner.
It's an interesting game situation, Both sides are closely matched and each must attack and defend, all of which usually lead to an entertaining contest and Second Bull Run is one of the better games in the Blue & Gray series.

Blue and Gray: First Bull Run

One of the smallest games in the Blue & Gray series, First Bull Run appears in the Decision Games edition. It shares the same map as the Second Bull Run game in the same box, although it doesn't bear much resemblance to the later fight.
The game follows all the usual rules for B&G.
There are just a couple of special rules. The most important being that the Confederate units can't move during the first two turns unless Union units cross Bull Run. There's a similar rule preventing Runyon's Division, a 10-factor Federal unit, from moving unless released by the Confederates crossing Bull Run.
Both armies are very small.
The Federal force comprises 11 infantry brigades with a total of 74 combat factors. There's also a 10-factor "division" garrisoning Centerville but it only enters play if the CSA crosses Bull Run. Considering the Rebels have no reason to cross said waterway that unit almost never plays a role in the game.
The Confederate forces are considerably more diverse. There are a dozen infantry brigades ranging in strength from 2 to 8, a pair of one-factor cavalry units and a pair of artillery units with combat strengths of 1 and 2. The total CSA force adds up to 77 factors, so the two sides are very evenly matched.
Victory comes from routing the enemy army. At the end of every game turn each player rolls a die. If the die roll is 17 or higher then his army routs. There's a +1 die roll modifier for every ineffective unit and a +2 for each eliminated unit.
If neither side routs by the end of turn 8 then geographical objectives come into play. There are two, Groveton and New Market. Control of both is needed to win.
There are two ways for the battle to end in a draw. If neither army routs and each controls one objective, it's a draw. If both armies rout in the same turn, it is also a draw.
The general edge in the game goes to the Union side, according to results on the Hexwar.com wargaming site, which show 770 U.S. wins, 439 C.S. wins and 308 draws as of Jan. 22, 2008.
While the Federal side doesn't have a strength advantage, it does have the initiative from the start of the game and a more compact striking force. Typically the initial Federal attack will destroy the 2-factor infantry and artillery units guarding Stone Bridge, putting them up +4 in the contest to force a rout.
Still, the Union player as to be careful because one set of bad rolls can easily render a large part of his army ineffective. Besides adding to the rout probability, this will often gut any further offensive potential for the Federals.
The Confederates have some trouble forcing a win, however, unless they can entice the Federals into pushing their offensive too far. It's fairly easy for the Federal player to settle for a draw if they end up with a large number of ineffective units. Groveton is not too hard to defend in the limited time available for a CSA counteroffensive and there's a real possibility such a counterattack could end up handing the Union player a victory after all through adverse combat results against the Rebels.
Still, it's a quick-playing contest so the scenario can be played several times in a single session.