Gulf Strike is one of the more remarkable simulations to come out of Victory Games. It ended up coming far more true than nearly any other "what-if" game ever published.
When first published, in 1983, the game concentrated on the potential for a Soviet invasion of Iran and the reaction of the U.S. Rapid Deployment force.
No Soviet invasion of Iran ever came, but there was an Iraqi invasion of Iran, which resulted in a long and bloody war, as well as a low-level "Tanker War" in the Persian Gulf. These ended up being the topic of a 1988 second edition of Gulf Strike with a new scenario and more counters.
No sooner had that war ended than Saddam Hussein's legions invaded Kuwait. Avalon Hill/Victory Games rushed out another updated edition of Gulf Strike that added a new scenario covering the new war, more counters and more maps.
Finally, in The Avalon Hill General, literally has the first bombs started to fall, a final updated expansion with still more counters and a map were published.
I solitaired that "scenario" in real time and the game quite accurately predicted the fact that the Iraqis would be kicked out of Kuwait decisively.
The game itself is highly involved in the style of your typical hard-core simulation wargame. It involves multiple phases, a lot of procedures and quite a few die rolls and charts.
Each game turn, which represents two days of combat, starts with a "Strategic Stage." This quick phases involves resolving any political random events and adding reinforcements.
The second part of the turn is a "Unit Assignment Stage." During this part of the turn units are assigned various "modes" which can affect their ability to perform actions later in the turn. For example, air units can be assigned either "offensive" or "interception" mode.
There's a short Initiative Determination Stage" which determines who will be the "Initiative Player" for the balance of the turn.
There are then three "Action Stages." During the first two the initiative player moves units and conducts combat while the reaction player can make limited counter moves. In the third action stage the reaction player takes the lead and the initiative player reacts.
To say that the game and procedures are involved is to engage in considerable understatement. The game insert includes 28 examples and tables and other times. Each action stage comprises three phases, each with two or three "segments." Each land combat unit can be in one of seven different formations. There are eight different air missions that aircraft can be given. There are eight or nine
different ratings and values on a naval or air unit counter.
Command control and logistics constrain all operations, there are rules for the detection of targets and countermeasures. There are rules for mines, Patriot missiles, stealth aircraft and just about every imaginable other aspect of modern warfare.
It's really a pity that more so-called military experts and pundits who blithely urged military strikes against Iran recently didn't take the time to play through a game or two of Gulf Strike in order to develop a better appreciation for what was possible.
One reason I was very wary of seeing military action against Iran is because playing Gulf Strike had given me an appreciation for how difficult such a campaign could be. While I never tried playing a U.S. invasion of Iran, I have played out the old Soviet invasion of Iran, and their much larger army was still insufficient for a "cake walk" through Iran. It's a very large and rugged country and the logistics alone so daunting that it's obvious only a major military involvement could possibly succeed. An investment in military resources far beyond anything proposed or politically possible.
Unfortunately Victory Games and the old Avalon Hill is gone, otherwise we may have seen a further updated edition for the second war with Iraq and the potential war with Iran, but interested players can probably adjust the game with the counters and information already provided. The U.S. military forces committed to the latest war were substantially smaller than the forces in the earlier war. It would be an interesting exercise.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Tactics, 25th anniversary edition 25 years later
There are few games published that are never meant to be played. Quite a few are published that end up not getting played much, for various reasons, but generally the publisher's hope is that the game will be played some.
One notable exception, however, was the 1983 edition of Tactics, which was published as a commerative by The old Avalon Hill Game Company. It was a reprent of the very first published Chareles Roberts Wargame, Tactics, although with a different board. The board in the 25th anniverasry editon was an unpublished prototype of the orginal Tactics game board. I believe that the board seen in Tactics II was the same board as used in the original Tactics.
The most notable aspect of the game was the 25th Anniversary booklet, which was a company history for Avalon Hill. Unfortunately the company never saw its 50th anniverasry, being long since swallowed up by Hasbro and now just a brand name.
Still, for those of us who started with AH, it's nice to look at how it all started.
Like looking at a stone axe, or perhaps a Model T Ford, it's hard to imagine that people even managed to use the thing, when you look at it now.
Key concepts are completely unexplained. For example, the game end when you occupy all the enemy cities, but it doesn't explain exactly what that means. The players will have to figure that out for themselves.
The game pieces are extremely plain, just numbers and abbreviations. No graphic element at all. Not even the NATO symbols we associate with AH/SPI wargames.
There are no movement factors, Instead, each army has a Basic Turn Allowance of 30 to split between all its units. One unit could move 30, or 30 units move one square or anything in-between. Oh yes, squares. It will not surprise grognards, but slightly younger wargamers may not know that the first wargames used squares rather than hexes.
There's an army organization provided, and players are urged to keep their corps organized in some fashion, but exactly how all that is supposed to work is also left to the players.
The classic AH 3-1 CRT makes its first appearance, albeit in a primitive form. The famous D-Elim appears only in the 1-1 column. Otherwise it's just "1 Elim."
All in all, the game is simply unplayable by current standards. But it is interesting as an artifact.
One notable exception, however, was the 1983 edition of Tactics, which was published as a commerative by The old Avalon Hill Game Company. It was a reprent of the very first published Chareles Roberts Wargame, Tactics, although with a different board. The board in the 25th anniverasry editon was an unpublished prototype of the orginal Tactics game board. I believe that the board seen in Tactics II was the same board as used in the original Tactics.
The most notable aspect of the game was the 25th Anniversary booklet, which was a company history for Avalon Hill. Unfortunately the company never saw its 50th anniverasry, being long since swallowed up by Hasbro and now just a brand name.
Still, for those of us who started with AH, it's nice to look at how it all started.
Like looking at a stone axe, or perhaps a Model T Ford, it's hard to imagine that people even managed to use the thing, when you look at it now.
Key concepts are completely unexplained. For example, the game end when you occupy all the enemy cities, but it doesn't explain exactly what that means. The players will have to figure that out for themselves.
The game pieces are extremely plain, just numbers and abbreviations. No graphic element at all. Not even the NATO symbols we associate with AH/SPI wargames.
There are no movement factors, Instead, each army has a Basic Turn Allowance of 30 to split between all its units. One unit could move 30, or 30 units move one square or anything in-between. Oh yes, squares. It will not surprise grognards, but slightly younger wargamers may not know that the first wargames used squares rather than hexes.
There's an army organization provided, and players are urged to keep their corps organized in some fashion, but exactly how all that is supposed to work is also left to the players.
The classic AH 3-1 CRT makes its first appearance, albeit in a primitive form. The famous D-Elim appears only in the 1-1 column. Otherwise it's just "1 Elim."
All in all, the game is simply unplayable by current standards. But it is interesting as an artifact.
Review: The Complete Brigadier
The Complete Brigadier is, in many ways, a very old-fashioned kind of miniatures wargame covering the black powder era, from 1680 to 1880. It's more reminiscent of Little Wars or Charge! than many newer sets of rules.
It has a ruthless focus on the brigadier's fight, unlike most popular rules of recent vintage which try to cover whole battles.
No, in The Complete Brigadier the objective is immediate. Take that hill, flank that line, defend along this creek, and so on.
The player represents a brigade commander, generally in charge of a four or five battalions of infantry, a battery of guns and an attached regiment of horse. Each figure represents 20 men. The game concerns itself with formations, orders and weapons in direct and explicit ways.
There are no fancy interactive phases or abstract shortcuts.
Brigadiers first write up orders for their units, using specific commands drawn from historically based options, specifying formation, direction and rate of march.
Next, melee battles initiated the turn before are resolved, using a deterministic process that considers morale, numbers, weapons, formation and terrain.
Units then move in accordance with their previously written orders, reacting automatically to unexpected encounters based on historical doctrine. For example, an infantry unit encountering enemy cavalry may form a square.
Then units engage in fire, selecting targets based on a formula that again is based on historical practices. Unlike most games, firing is not generally optional. Unless specifically ordered not to shoot, a unit will fire on targets within range. The results of fire combat are determined by formula without any dice, but taking into account weapons, morale and various other factors.
After resolving all fire units check morale, based on quality, losses and local circumstances, again with no roll of the die involved.
Finally, based on actions taken that turn, units expend some of their limited pool of "stamina." Firing, meleeing and moving at anything faster than a slow walk all cost stamina. As one might expect, it's easier to expend stamina than replenish it, and better troops have more of it than poor troops.
The game includes all sorts of special rules for special cases such as burning buildings, moving on boats, irregular troops, building fieldworks and most anything else one might expect to see affecting a brigade level fight.
Probably the hardest thing for most wargamers to get used to is the lack of any luck element. While the designer lays out his case for the historicity of his approach, the main reason for minimizing the role of luck is to maximize the extent that The Complete Brigadier can be a duel of skill between two brigadiers. The only pure luck element in the entire game is a fate roll for the chances of the brigadier himself getting hit, and if hit, how badly hit. A couple of D6 rolls will determine his fate, although only two consecutive sixes will "seriously wound" the brigadier, resulting in him being "carried from the field by his staff" and replaced by his previously identified second-in-command.
The game includes many clever and entertaining illustrations, a well-organized and well-indexed set of rules, and entire booklet devoted to explaining how to get into miniature gaming with tips for making terrain, painting troops and organizing scenarios. It has references and suggestions for fielding armies throughout the era from 1680 to 1880. It includes five scenarios, all based on battles in North America: Plains of Abraham, 1759; Guilford Courthouse, 1781; Crysler's Farm, 1813; Palo Alto, 1846 and Mill Springs, 1862. Information for troops and weapons from throughout the period are included, however, and there's really no limits on what setting can be used.
While my usual and favorite era for the game is the American Revolution, I've also organized games from the American Civil War, the War of 1812 and the Zulu War of 1879.
The game can be used with any scale figures. Distances are measured in "spaces" which represent 20 yards on the ground. Based on figure scale a space can be anywhere from 3/4-inch (for 9mm figures) to 2 inches (30mm figures). A space is one inch for the most popular scale, 15mm, and also for my preferred scale 20mm.
Unlike many miniatures games, a game master or umpire is not required. The game can be played by just two, although I would highly recommend players play in the the proper spirit of traditional miniatures wargaming, as exemplified by the accounts in Little Wars and Charge! Rules lawyers, Munchkins and people who would rather win than be a proper gentleman or gentle lady are advised to play something else, or at least avail themselves of an umpire.
As a game master I generally only make minor modifications to the rules. I add a small luck element by allowing players to roll for fractional hits instead of rounding up or down as per the rules. This seems a minor concession to player expectations and historical accuracy without changing the game in any significant way. I also generally allow players more leeway with their Follow Me command (when they attach themselves directly to a unit) than a strict interpretation of the rules as written would allow.
Other than that, I play the game by the book and have done so for more than 20 years now. It's been an excellent investment, resulting in many hours of fun for me and my friends.
It's still one of my all-time favorites, despite more than two decades of competition from newer stuff.
It has a ruthless focus on the brigadier's fight, unlike most popular rules of recent vintage which try to cover whole battles.
No, in The Complete Brigadier the objective is immediate. Take that hill, flank that line, defend along this creek, and so on.
The player represents a brigade commander, generally in charge of a four or five battalions of infantry, a battery of guns and an attached regiment of horse. Each figure represents 20 men. The game concerns itself with formations, orders and weapons in direct and explicit ways.
There are no fancy interactive phases or abstract shortcuts.
Brigadiers first write up orders for their units, using specific commands drawn from historically based options, specifying formation, direction and rate of march.
Next, melee battles initiated the turn before are resolved, using a deterministic process that considers morale, numbers, weapons, formation and terrain.
Units then move in accordance with their previously written orders, reacting automatically to unexpected encounters based on historical doctrine. For example, an infantry unit encountering enemy cavalry may form a square.
Then units engage in fire, selecting targets based on a formula that again is based on historical practices. Unlike most games, firing is not generally optional. Unless specifically ordered not to shoot, a unit will fire on targets within range. The results of fire combat are determined by formula without any dice, but taking into account weapons, morale and various other factors.
After resolving all fire units check morale, based on quality, losses and local circumstances, again with no roll of the die involved.
Finally, based on actions taken that turn, units expend some of their limited pool of "stamina." Firing, meleeing and moving at anything faster than a slow walk all cost stamina. As one might expect, it's easier to expend stamina than replenish it, and better troops have more of it than poor troops.
The game includes all sorts of special rules for special cases such as burning buildings, moving on boats, irregular troops, building fieldworks and most anything else one might expect to see affecting a brigade level fight.
Probably the hardest thing for most wargamers to get used to is the lack of any luck element. While the designer lays out his case for the historicity of his approach, the main reason for minimizing the role of luck is to maximize the extent that The Complete Brigadier can be a duel of skill between two brigadiers. The only pure luck element in the entire game is a fate roll for the chances of the brigadier himself getting hit, and if hit, how badly hit. A couple of D6 rolls will determine his fate, although only two consecutive sixes will "seriously wound" the brigadier, resulting in him being "carried from the field by his staff" and replaced by his previously identified second-in-command.
The game includes many clever and entertaining illustrations, a well-organized and well-indexed set of rules, and entire booklet devoted to explaining how to get into miniature gaming with tips for making terrain, painting troops and organizing scenarios. It has references and suggestions for fielding armies throughout the era from 1680 to 1880. It includes five scenarios, all based on battles in North America: Plains of Abraham, 1759; Guilford Courthouse, 1781; Crysler's Farm, 1813; Palo Alto, 1846 and Mill Springs, 1862. Information for troops and weapons from throughout the period are included, however, and there's really no limits on what setting can be used.
While my usual and favorite era for the game is the American Revolution, I've also organized games from the American Civil War, the War of 1812 and the Zulu War of 1879.
The game can be used with any scale figures. Distances are measured in "spaces" which represent 20 yards on the ground. Based on figure scale a space can be anywhere from 3/4-inch (for 9mm figures) to 2 inches (30mm figures). A space is one inch for the most popular scale, 15mm, and also for my preferred scale 20mm.
Unlike many miniatures games, a game master or umpire is not required. The game can be played by just two, although I would highly recommend players play in the the proper spirit of traditional miniatures wargaming, as exemplified by the accounts in Little Wars and Charge! Rules lawyers, Munchkins and people who would rather win than be a proper gentleman or gentle lady are advised to play something else, or at least avail themselves of an umpire.
As a game master I generally only make minor modifications to the rules. I add a small luck element by allowing players to roll for fractional hits instead of rounding up or down as per the rules. This seems a minor concession to player expectations and historical accuracy without changing the game in any significant way. I also generally allow players more leeway with their Follow Me command (when they attach themselves directly to a unit) than a strict interpretation of the rules as written would allow.
Other than that, I play the game by the book and have done so for more than 20 years now. It's been an excellent investment, resulting in many hours of fun for me and my friends.
It's still one of my all-time favorites, despite more than two decades of competition from newer stuff.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Cry Havoc! Waiting For Odo
A session report:
“I want my pence now!”
Giles eyed his co-conspirators warily. Gobin was a rough sort, good to have in a situation like this. That huge, gnarled club alone had ended many a flight before it even started. John the Baker, fidgeting beside Gobi, on the other hand, wasn’t the sort you’d expect to sign up for something like this. He made a pretty penny in the lord’s bakery. Yet he’d eagerly insisted on being included as soon as Giles hatched his plot.
“Something might happen to you in the fight and then how would I get my money?” Gobin continued.
Giles opened his purse a bit and showed Gobin the coins within.
“I’ll tell you what. I’ll leave the purse under my hat by the pool, that way if something happens to me you’ll still get your money afterwards.”
Gobin seemed satisfied with that answer. Giles suspected that the chance to bust a few heads was more attractive to Gobin than the money, anyway.
“Here’s the plan,” Giles said. “You two will wait here by the Hillock. I’ll pretend to be fishing in the pool. When I see Odo coming I’ll call out to him to distract him while you two sneak up behind him and knock him on the head. That quick.”
Gobin and Baker nodded they understood and ambled over to the Hillock to wait. Giles took his pole and sat down on the ledge of the pool to fish.
Odo was bound to come through the crossroads today like he did every morning, but this time Giles would teach the sheep thief a lesson.
Giles was a little surprised to see the morning’s first traveler approach. It was his namesake, Giles the crossbowman, from Sir Thomas’s retinue. He hoped that Giles would hurry on through before Odo showed up. He seemed likely to take his fellow soldier’s side if there was a fight
Sure enough, there was Odo, right behind him. This would complicate the ambush a lot. Giles watched Odo. Odo seemed to sense this morning was different than most. His carried his spear at the ready. Had someone betrayed the plot?
Things looked very suspicious now. Ben the spearman appeared up the path and met up with Odo. They exchanged a word or two. Still, Giles the crossbowman didn’t seem to expect trouble. His weapon was slung and he seemed lost in his own thoughts. Giles wasn’t sure what to do, but he’d have to act soon. Odo was right in the middle of the crossroads.
Odo and Ben split up, and Odo was starting to walk away! Giles realized he was out of position and started to get up. Out of the corner of his eye he saw Odo’s boss, Sgt. Tyler come into view. Are we ambushing Odo or his he ambushing us? Giles wondered.
Gobin and Baker burst from the trees by the Hillock and were on top of Odo in an instant.
Baker took a wild swing with his sword, but Odo had no trouble sidestepping the blow and sticking Baker at the same time. This was off to a bad start.
Giles looked over his shoulder. Giles the crossbowman seemed not to notice the disturbance as he rounded the corner and passed from view, but Tyler and Ben were running to help Odo. Very bad.
From bad to worse, as Odo’s other buddy Bowyer appeared next to the Hillock. He apparently wasn’t expecting trouble, though, because his bow wasn’t strung.
It might not matter, though, because Ben was within striking distance now. Ben seemed surprised when Giles parried the blow and he stepped back. Giles was surprised himself, truthfully.
He glanced over to see that John the Baker was already crumpled in the dust. This was very bad.
They needed to take Odo out now. Giles saw his opening. Gobin was occupying Odo’s attention, so Giles would have one chance to strike a blow from behind.
Odo was too quick. He parried Giles’ blow and spun around planting his spear in Gobin’s shoulder.
Giles could see Ivor, his neighbor, approach, but Ivor didn’t seem interested in joining any fights. There’s be no help there.
Odo worked to finish off Gobin while Tyler and Ben started swinging at Giles.
Gobin was tougher than he looked, though, and managed to knock Odo upside the head solidly with his club. Profuse amounts of blood showed it was a hurtful strike. Giles was able to fend off Ben and Tyler’s blows for a moment.
That gave Giles the opening he needed to bring his staff down on Odo’s head. Down the sheep thief went.
Tyler and Ben stopped fighting.
“What’s this about?” Tyler demanded.
“Odo attacked my friend Baker, here and slew him!” Giles exclaimed.
Tyler looked over to Ben.
“Did you see who started it?”
“No, I didn’t,” Ben said. “I had just talked to Odo, and he did seem like he was expecting trouble. He was carrying his spear at the ready and seemed like he was looking for someone.”
“Well, the baker is dead,” Tyler observed.
Giles and Gobin started to edge away.
“I’ll have to tell Sir Thomas about this. You two go on your way,” Tyler said.
Tyler, Ben and Bowyer headed off, carrying Odo’s body.
Gobin looked rather worse for wear, but seemed excited by how things panned out.”I’ll take the whole purse,” he said as he walked toward the pool. “John won’t need his share.”
Giles looked at poor John.
Now what was he going to do with him.
“I want my pence now!”
Giles eyed his co-conspirators warily. Gobin was a rough sort, good to have in a situation like this. That huge, gnarled club alone had ended many a flight before it even started. John the Baker, fidgeting beside Gobi, on the other hand, wasn’t the sort you’d expect to sign up for something like this. He made a pretty penny in the lord’s bakery. Yet he’d eagerly insisted on being included as soon as Giles hatched his plot.
“Something might happen to you in the fight and then how would I get my money?” Gobin continued.
Giles opened his purse a bit and showed Gobin the coins within.
“I’ll tell you what. I’ll leave the purse under my hat by the pool, that way if something happens to me you’ll still get your money afterwards.”
Gobin seemed satisfied with that answer. Giles suspected that the chance to bust a few heads was more attractive to Gobin than the money, anyway.
“Here’s the plan,” Giles said. “You two will wait here by the Hillock. I’ll pretend to be fishing in the pool. When I see Odo coming I’ll call out to him to distract him while you two sneak up behind him and knock him on the head. That quick.”
Gobin and Baker nodded they understood and ambled over to the Hillock to wait. Giles took his pole and sat down on the ledge of the pool to fish.
Odo was bound to come through the crossroads today like he did every morning, but this time Giles would teach the sheep thief a lesson.
Giles was a little surprised to see the morning’s first traveler approach. It was his namesake, Giles the crossbowman, from Sir Thomas’s retinue. He hoped that Giles would hurry on through before Odo showed up. He seemed likely to take his fellow soldier’s side if there was a fight
Sure enough, there was Odo, right behind him. This would complicate the ambush a lot. Giles watched Odo. Odo seemed to sense this morning was different than most. His carried his spear at the ready. Had someone betrayed the plot?
Things looked very suspicious now. Ben the spearman appeared up the path and met up with Odo. They exchanged a word or two. Still, Giles the crossbowman didn’t seem to expect trouble. His weapon was slung and he seemed lost in his own thoughts. Giles wasn’t sure what to do, but he’d have to act soon. Odo was right in the middle of the crossroads.
Odo and Ben split up, and Odo was starting to walk away! Giles realized he was out of position and started to get up. Out of the corner of his eye he saw Odo’s boss, Sgt. Tyler come into view. Are we ambushing Odo or his he ambushing us? Giles wondered.
Gobin and Baker burst from the trees by the Hillock and were on top of Odo in an instant.
Baker took a wild swing with his sword, but Odo had no trouble sidestepping the blow and sticking Baker at the same time. This was off to a bad start.
Giles looked over his shoulder. Giles the crossbowman seemed not to notice the disturbance as he rounded the corner and passed from view, but Tyler and Ben were running to help Odo. Very bad.
From bad to worse, as Odo’s other buddy Bowyer appeared next to the Hillock. He apparently wasn’t expecting trouble, though, because his bow wasn’t strung.
It might not matter, though, because Ben was within striking distance now. Ben seemed surprised when Giles parried the blow and he stepped back. Giles was surprised himself, truthfully.
He glanced over to see that John the Baker was already crumpled in the dust. This was very bad.
They needed to take Odo out now. Giles saw his opening. Gobin was occupying Odo’s attention, so Giles would have one chance to strike a blow from behind.
Odo was too quick. He parried Giles’ blow and spun around planting his spear in Gobin’s shoulder.
Giles could see Ivor, his neighbor, approach, but Ivor didn’t seem interested in joining any fights. There’s be no help there.
Odo worked to finish off Gobin while Tyler and Ben started swinging at Giles.
Gobin was tougher than he looked, though, and managed to knock Odo upside the head solidly with his club. Profuse amounts of blood showed it was a hurtful strike. Giles was able to fend off Ben and Tyler’s blows for a moment.
That gave Giles the opening he needed to bring his staff down on Odo’s head. Down the sheep thief went.
Tyler and Ben stopped fighting.
“What’s this about?” Tyler demanded.
“Odo attacked my friend Baker, here and slew him!” Giles exclaimed.
Tyler looked over to Ben.
“Did you see who started it?”
“No, I didn’t,” Ben said. “I had just talked to Odo, and he did seem like he was expecting trouble. He was carrying his spear at the ready and seemed like he was looking for someone.”
“Well, the baker is dead,” Tyler observed.
Giles and Gobin started to edge away.
“I’ll have to tell Sir Thomas about this. You two go on your way,” Tyler said.
Tyler, Ben and Bowyer headed off, carrying Odo’s body.
Gobin looked rather worse for wear, but seemed excited by how things panned out.”I’ll take the whole purse,” he said as he walked toward the pool. “John won’t need his share.”
Giles looked at poor John.
Now what was he going to do with him.
Fire When Ready review
Fire When Ready was a Metagaming "Microhistory" game published in 1982 covering naval combat in the pre-dreadnought era.
First, a little bit about the components. Fire When Ready was published before the availability of inexpensive but good quality desktop publishing tools, so it can't be held to the same standards of more recent designs. Still, even by the standards of its time the game components are below average and not even equal to most other Metagaming games.
The map is the usual Metagaming standard of a heavy-stock paper. As it depicts a patch of open sea there's naturally no terrain, but rather ac countably the map is pink instead of blue.
The ship counters come in a light, perforated counter sheet. The larger fleet is red
counters with blue printing, which is a difficult to read clashing color scheme. The smaller fleet is blue counters with white print. The counters themselves are simple, with an overhead view of the ship type, a large letter identifying the ship type (B:battleship; C: cruiser; D: destroyer; T: torpedo boat) and an ID number.
The final component is a 30-page rule book. It's not type-set, but appears to have been printed using some kind of computer printer, so it's not particularly attractive to look at, but it is legible.
It all comes in a small cardboard box.
Overall, even considering that the game is meant to be an inexpensive one, the presentation is substandard.
Fortunately there's a fairly good game underneath that poor presentation that succeeds in providing a surprisingly authentic depiction of pre-dreadought naval tactics.
Players have to create their own data sheets to track the ships in their fleets, but most of the battles are very small, so this isn't a problem.
Ships have five major characteristics: Primary battery, secondary battery, armor rating, speed and training level. In addition some ships have additional characteristics such as a ram bow or torpedoes.
Ship movement is plotted in advance and then executed simultaneously on a scratch paper. This is fairly typical for tactical naval games produced in the 70s and 80s. Again, the small size of the scenarios generally keeps this manageable.
After moving, ships fire. The gunnery strength of the ship's battery is cross-referenced on a range table to give a final strength. The target's armor differential is subtracted from this strength to determine a "gun to armor differential." That differential determines a column on a gunnery results table. The firing player rolls two dice and determines a "hit type" letter. That letter is then cross-referenced on a gunnery damage table for the final results, which are generally reductions in the gunnery, armor or speed values.
Various special rules account for things such as collisions, torpedoes, ramming, arcs of fire, critical hits and special ship characteristics.
There are six scenarios.
The first is Revenge of Fashoda, a hypothetical clash between two closely matched British and French battle squadrons, each with four battleships, two cruisers and four destroyers.
The second is the historical battle of Manila Bay, with Dewey's fleet of four cruisers and two destroyers (gunboats) massacring a Spanish fleet of seven "cruisers" (actually gunboats) and three "torpedo boats" (also gunboats). This is meant to be a solitaire scenario. Most of the Spanish fleet can't move and there is a huge difference in training levels between the two fleets.
The third scenario is another hypothetical one, Dewey Fights Again, which assumes that the tense relations between Dewey and a German fleet that moved into Manila Bay boiled up into actual fighting. The German force comprises two battleships, five cruisers and two destroyers. Dewey's reinforced fleet has one battleship (the Oregon, sent to Dewey instead of Cuba), five cruisers and six "destroyers" (actually gunboats).
The fourth scenario is the rarely-depicted historical Battle of the Yalu in 1894 between China and Japan which basically destroyed Chinese naval power for a century. It would be a hundred years before China owned even a non-functioning capital ship. The Chinese fleet comprises two battleships, eight cruisers, two destroyers and two torpedo boats. The Japanese fleet has one (very weak) "battleship" (really an ironclad) nine cruisers, a destroyer and a torpedo boat. The Japanese fleet has much better training, however, which provides a decisive edge.
The fifth scenario is the Battle of Santiago from the Spanish-American War, also meant to be played solitaire. The Spanish fleet of four cruisers and two destroyers attempts to escape from the American force of four battleships, two cruisers and a "destroyer" (actually an armed yacht)
The sixth scenario is by far the biggest, depicting the greatest pre-dreadnought era engagement, the Battle of Tsushima. The basic scenario covers the main fleet action between the poorly-trained Russian force of 11 battleships and a cruiser against the crack Japanese fleet of four battleships and eight cruisers. There's also a "Grand Tsushima" scenario which adds another eight cruisers and nine destroyers to the Russian force while the Japanese get five cruisers and 10 destroyers. With a total of 56 ships this is best played by teams and will require a total of four maps. (The rules suggest photocopies of the original)
For a long time there wasn't much in the way of competition for this game, but with the arrival of Avalanche Press' Great War at Sea 1898 and Russo-Japanese War this is mostly left as a curiosity, although it does have great portability. It's one of the few full-fledged wargames that can fit in a coat pocket.
First, a little bit about the components. Fire When Ready was published before the availability of inexpensive but good quality desktop publishing tools, so it can't be held to the same standards of more recent designs. Still, even by the standards of its time the game components are below average and not even equal to most other Metagaming games.
The map is the usual Metagaming standard of a heavy-stock paper. As it depicts a patch of open sea there's naturally no terrain, but rather ac countably the map is pink instead of blue.
The ship counters come in a light, perforated counter sheet. The larger fleet is red
counters with blue printing, which is a difficult to read clashing color scheme. The smaller fleet is blue counters with white print. The counters themselves are simple, with an overhead view of the ship type, a large letter identifying the ship type (B:battleship; C: cruiser; D: destroyer; T: torpedo boat) and an ID number.The final component is a 30-page rule book. It's not type-set, but appears to have been printed using some kind of computer printer, so it's not particularly attractive to look at, but it is legible.
It all comes in a small cardboard box.
Overall, even considering that the game is meant to be an inexpensive one, the presentation is substandard.
Fortunately there's a fairly good game underneath that poor presentation that succeeds in providing a surprisingly authentic depiction of pre-dreadought naval tactics.
Players have to create their own data sheets to track the ships in their fleets, but most of the battles are very small, so this isn't a problem.
Ships have five major characteristics: Primary battery, secondary battery, armor rating, speed and training level. In addition some ships have additional characteristics such as a ram bow or torpedoes.
Ship movement is plotted in advance and then executed simultaneously on a scratch paper. This is fairly typical for tactical naval games produced in the 70s and 80s. Again, the small size of the scenarios generally keeps this manageable.
After moving, ships fire. The gunnery strength of the ship's battery is cross-referenced on a range table to give a final strength. The target's armor differential is subtracted from this strength to determine a "gun to armor differential." That differential determines a column on a gunnery results table. The firing player rolls two dice and determines a "hit type" letter. That letter is then cross-referenced on a gunnery damage table for the final results, which are generally reductions in the gunnery, armor or speed values.
Various special rules account for things such as collisions, torpedoes, ramming, arcs of fire, critical hits and special ship characteristics.
There are six scenarios.
The first is Revenge of Fashoda, a hypothetical clash between two closely matched British and French battle squadrons, each with four battleships, two cruisers and four destroyers.
The second is the historical battle of Manila Bay, with Dewey's fleet of four cruisers and two destroyers (gunboats) massacring a Spanish fleet of seven "cruisers" (actually gunboats) and three "torpedo boats" (also gunboats). This is meant to be a solitaire scenario. Most of the Spanish fleet can't move and there is a huge difference in training levels between the two fleets.
The third scenario is another hypothetical one, Dewey Fights Again, which assumes that the tense relations between Dewey and a German fleet that moved into Manila Bay boiled up into actual fighting. The German force comprises two battleships, five cruisers and two destroyers. Dewey's reinforced fleet has one battleship (the Oregon, sent to Dewey instead of Cuba), five cruisers and six "destroyers" (actually gunboats).
The fourth scenario is the rarely-depicted historical Battle of the Yalu in 1894 between China and Japan which basically destroyed Chinese naval power for a century. It would be a hundred years before China owned even a non-functioning capital ship. The Chinese fleet comprises two battleships, eight cruisers, two destroyers and two torpedo boats. The Japanese fleet has one (very weak) "battleship" (really an ironclad) nine cruisers, a destroyer and a torpedo boat. The Japanese fleet has much better training, however, which provides a decisive edge.
The fifth scenario is the Battle of Santiago from the Spanish-American War, also meant to be played solitaire. The Spanish fleet of four cruisers and two destroyers attempts to escape from the American force of four battleships, two cruisers and a "destroyer" (actually an armed yacht)
The sixth scenario is by far the biggest, depicting the greatest pre-dreadnought era engagement, the Battle of Tsushima. The basic scenario covers the main fleet action between the poorly-trained Russian force of 11 battleships and a cruiser against the crack Japanese fleet of four battleships and eight cruisers. There's also a "Grand Tsushima" scenario which adds another eight cruisers and nine destroyers to the Russian force while the Japanese get five cruisers and 10 destroyers. With a total of 56 ships this is best played by teams and will require a total of four maps. (The rules suggest photocopies of the original)
For a long time there wasn't much in the way of competition for this game, but with the arrival of Avalanche Press' Great War at Sea 1898 and Russo-Japanese War this is mostly left as a curiosity, although it does have great portability. It's one of the few full-fledged wargames that can fit in a coat pocket.
Gunslinger as a "nanotactical" game
The passing of Gary Gygax this week prompted me to think about how profound an impact D&D and RPGs generally had on wargaming, especially in the 70s and 80s.
For example, Avalon Hill's Gunslinger has RPG elements permeating the whole game. It was designed and published by a wargame company, designed by wargame designers and mostly played by wargamers. It's definitely a combat-oriented game, but of a sort rarely seen.
Not just a man-to-man skirmish game of microtactical combat, Gunslinger dips down into a "nanotactical" level of detail.
While in most skirmish-level wargames the player commands a small group of combatants, say a squad or platoon, in Gunslinger the player concerns himself with the placement and actions of particular body parts. Want to see around a corner? You stick your head out. Want to pick up a money bag? You have to decide which hand to pick it up with. Hit by a bullet? You have to see exactly where you got hit.
Each bullet is tracked. It matters whether your cartridges were loaded yourself or store-bought. If you get hit by a .32 caliber pistol and it doesn't kill you outright, you'll probably still be able to fight. Get hit by a .50 caliber buffalo gun slug and even if you're nicked in the leg you'll probably be mortally wounded and doomed to flop around a bit before slowly expiring.
Gunslinger is an intensely personal level of combat that was really pioneered by role-playing games. In RPGs a player normally controlled one character, which is also the best way to play Gunslinger, although it was possible in both RPGs and Gunslinger to handle two or three characters. Still, this is a far cry from the 8-man squad in Ambush! or the dozen or so in Cry Havoc!.
Gunslinger is pretty intense for a board game, which probably explains why it tends to have devoted fans, although it was never a breakaway hit. Like RPGs, Gunslinger pays the biggest dividend when you devote a lot of time to it. Our game group in the 1980s had a regular campaign going and Gunslinger hit the table regularly, at least once a month.
Gunslinger was still, in the end, a board game, however. Unlike the open-ended play of RPGs, Gunslinger was bounded by scenarios and victory conditions. While each character was well-defined in game terms, that definition came from the game designers, not just the players. Floozy, Ling Ho and Sodbuster were colorful characters, but they belonged to the game, not the players.
An interesting experiment, Gunslinger was never really followed up. The new game Cowboys, The Way Of The Gun, for example, is much more of a board wargame in approach. The individual fighters act and react in broad strokes. They move and they shoot. That's about it.
In Gunslinger you can crawl through the dust, poke your head around the corner of the saloon, draw your cap-and-ball revolver and calmly draw a bead on your dastardly foe behind the water trough while praying that the darn gun doesn't misfire when you pull the trigger.
Now that's a game.
For example, Avalon Hill's Gunslinger has RPG elements permeating the whole game. It was designed and published by a wargame company, designed by wargame designers and mostly played by wargamers. It's definitely a combat-oriented game, but of a sort rarely seen.
Not just a man-to-man skirmish game of microtactical combat, Gunslinger dips down into a "nanotactical" level of detail.
While in most skirmish-level wargames the player commands a small group of combatants, say a squad or platoon, in Gunslinger the player concerns himself with the placement and actions of particular body parts. Want to see around a corner? You stick your head out. Want to pick up a money bag? You have to decide which hand to pick it up with. Hit by a bullet? You have to see exactly where you got hit.
Each bullet is tracked. It matters whether your cartridges were loaded yourself or store-bought. If you get hit by a .32 caliber pistol and it doesn't kill you outright, you'll probably still be able to fight. Get hit by a .50 caliber buffalo gun slug and even if you're nicked in the leg you'll probably be mortally wounded and doomed to flop around a bit before slowly expiring.
Gunslinger is an intensely personal level of combat that was really pioneered by role-playing games. In RPGs a player normally controlled one character, which is also the best way to play Gunslinger, although it was possible in both RPGs and Gunslinger to handle two or three characters. Still, this is a far cry from the 8-man squad in Ambush! or the dozen or so in Cry Havoc!.
Gunslinger is pretty intense for a board game, which probably explains why it tends to have devoted fans, although it was never a breakaway hit. Like RPGs, Gunslinger pays the biggest dividend when you devote a lot of time to it. Our game group in the 1980s had a regular campaign going and Gunslinger hit the table regularly, at least once a month.
Gunslinger was still, in the end, a board game, however. Unlike the open-ended play of RPGs, Gunslinger was bounded by scenarios and victory conditions. While each character was well-defined in game terms, that definition came from the game designers, not just the players. Floozy, Ling Ho and Sodbuster were colorful characters, but they belonged to the game, not the players.
An interesting experiment, Gunslinger was never really followed up. The new game Cowboys, The Way Of The Gun, for example, is much more of a board wargame in approach. The individual fighters act and react in broad strokes. They move and they shoot. That's about it.
In Gunslinger you can crawl through the dust, poke your head around the corner of the saloon, draw your cap-and-ball revolver and calmly draw a bead on your dastardly foe behind the water trough while praying that the darn gun doesn't misfire when you pull the trigger.
Now that's a game.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Gary Gygax has died
I'm primarily a wargamer and boardgamer, with a bit of historical miniatures thrown in, but I still played D&D back in the day. I had a set of the original rules, for example.
I'll always remember my introduction to D&D: I was at the MIT Strategic Games Society c. 1980 playing armor miniatures. During a command conference for the opposing side we had to leave the hall so we wandered upstairs where there was a loud bunch of guys playing something.
Out of the din we heard the words "OK, I'm going to shoot the dragon with my DRAGON!"
Huh?
Well, a little investigation revealed that they were playing some game called Dungeons & Dragons and this group was playing some kind of time- or dimension-travelling adventure that had plunked a bunch of Vietnam-era U.S. soldiers in a sword & sorcery fantasy world. They were literally firing a DRAGON (a man-portable U.S. antitank missile) at a dragon (red, fire-breathing magical animal).
We had to go back to our more prosaic NATO vs. Warsaw Pact tank battle, but needless to say we checked out D&D at our first opportunity.
Gygax is one of the most influential people in gaming, having created an entirely new sort of game, putting him up there with a select few like H.G. Wells, Charles Roberts and Richard Garfield.
It's hard to believe he's gone.
I'll always remember my introduction to D&D: I was at the MIT Strategic Games Society c. 1980 playing armor miniatures. During a command conference for the opposing side we had to leave the hall so we wandered upstairs where there was a loud bunch of guys playing something.
Out of the din we heard the words "OK, I'm going to shoot the dragon with my DRAGON!"
Huh?
Well, a little investigation revealed that they were playing some game called Dungeons & Dragons and this group was playing some kind of time- or dimension-travelling adventure that had plunked a bunch of Vietnam-era U.S. soldiers in a sword & sorcery fantasy world. They were literally firing a DRAGON (a man-portable U.S. antitank missile) at a dragon (red, fire-breathing magical animal).
We had to go back to our more prosaic NATO vs. Warsaw Pact tank battle, but needless to say we checked out D&D at our first opportunity.
Gygax is one of the most influential people in gaming, having created an entirely new sort of game, putting him up there with a select few like H.G. Wells, Charles Roberts and Richard Garfield.
It's hard to believe he's gone.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
New Munchkin
Well, it appears the next Munchkin will have a Pirate theme, Munchkin Booty.
I really wonder how long Steve Jackson can push the game system. Now, I'm not SJG basher. First off, I like the Munchkin games. I like the game system. I like it's silliness. And I don't think there's anything worng with SJG milking it for as much as they can. You get a cash cow, milk it. Lord knows there's plenty of flops and follies in the gaming industry.
Still, at some point I would think that the games will run out of steam
So far we have:
Munchkin (+5 expansions) Dungeon crawling
Star Munchkin (+expansion) Sci Fi movies and RPG
Munchkin Bites (+expansion) Vampires movies and RPGs
Munchkin Fu (+expansion) Martial Arts movies
Super Munchkin (+expansion) Super hero comics and movies
Munchkin Cthulhu (+expansion) Lovecraft mythos
Munchkin Impossible James Bond-style spy movies
The Good, the Bad and the Munchkin Wild West mobes and TV
So, how far can they go?
Some available themes include Indiana Jones-style adventuring, World War II movies/wargaming and Detective/police procedurals off the top of my head, which would be enough to get to an even dozen.
I really wonder how long Steve Jackson can push the game system. Now, I'm not SJG basher. First off, I like the Munchkin games. I like the game system. I like it's silliness. And I don't think there's anything worng with SJG milking it for as much as they can. You get a cash cow, milk it. Lord knows there's plenty of flops and follies in the gaming industry.
Still, at some point I would think that the games will run out of steam
So far we have:
Munchkin (+5 expansions) Dungeon crawling
Star Munchkin (+expansion) Sci Fi movies and RPG
Munchkin Bites (+expansion) Vampires movies and RPGs
Munchkin Fu (+expansion) Martial Arts movies
Super Munchkin (+expansion) Super hero comics and movies
Munchkin Cthulhu (+expansion) Lovecraft mythos
Munchkin Impossible James Bond-style spy movies
The Good, the Bad and the Munchkin Wild West mobes and TV
So, how far can they go?
Some available themes include Indiana Jones-style adventuring, World War II movies/wargaming and Detective/police procedurals off the top of my head, which would be enough to get to an even dozen.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
A House Divided's odd look
The Phalanx Edition of A House Divided is a truly handsome game. It has a large mounted board, extra-large thick game counters and full-color rules. It's a thoroughly euro-ized American wargame. Which is to say it has the really high quality look of the best German games but plays exactly the same as it's early Made-in-USA editions.
Still, as much as I liked my new copy, I have to admit it left me a little unsettled. Somehow the look seemed a little "off."
Looking at it in more detail, I could see where the discomfort came from. The game's art choices are a little on the strange side for the topic, especially the depictions of the fighting men.
I assume that, from a European perspective, it makes perfect sense for the more elite troops to be better equipped and more snap and polish. But from an American perspective it's completely wrong.
Tidiness has rarely been the watchword for the American fighting man in any era, but among the many rumpled armies the United States has fielded, both of the combatant forces in the Civil War were especially so. For the American fighting man war is all business and every day is casual Friday.
In the 1880s, about a generation after the fighting ended, two Chicago lithographers, Louis Kurz and Alexander Allison produced a series of lithographs depicting the major battles of the Civil War, among other topics. These were quite popular, but clearly depict a romanticized view of the war and the fighting. The main customers for these works would have been the middle-aged Civil War veterans and their children, so perhaps a sanitized version of the fighting was in order. But in Kurz and Allison's Civil War both armies almost always appeared well-clad, well-drilled and generally well-fed.
This is particularly noticeable on the Confederate side. According to the Official Atlas of the war a CSA private looked like this:
But photographic evidence reveals something quite different, as this famous image of prisoners taken after Pickett's charge show:
So the depiction of the troopers in Phalanx's edition of AHD has things quite backward.
The militia troops should be the ones decked out in crisp new uniforms, full back packs and kit. The Crack troops, especially on the Rebel side, should be well-worn, even threadbare, with their equipment cut down to the minimal kit that long experience in campaigning revealed sufficient.
So, while a very attractive product, Phalanx's edition presents a rather misleading visual account of the war.
Fighting Sail and Horatio Hornblower
One of the scenarios in Fighting Sail, a 1981 S&T magazine game, involves the famous epic duel between HMS Lydia and the central American two-decker Natividad 200 years ago this July.
Except, of course, that there was no such fight. But there ought to have been, because Horatio Hornblower, the captain of the Lydia, is at least as vivid a historical figure as any other swashbuckling naval hero from the Age of Sail, even if he's fictional.
I discovered the Hornblower novels in my teens and thoroughly enjoyed all of them. Despite the fact that Forester's creation inspired quite a few imitators, none achieved the status of Hornblower in my book. In large part that's because Hornblower, far more than most heroes of fiction, has the attributes of a real human being. He had colossal flaws, particularly in his personal life, that humbled his heroism in the way that real-life heroes are humbled. So often our fictional heroes never do the wrong thing, are always noble and even saint-like.
Hornblower made mistakes, was sometimes less than noble and was always crushingly self-critical. But he was always dutiful in an age that truly understood what duty meant, as well as being talented as a naval officer.
Because he's a fictional character, however, his exploits do not fall into the public domain like the other famous naval heroes of the era like Pellew, Hull, Jones or Decatur.
While S&T under SPI's guidance was willing to push the envelope a little, and a number of their games included battles taken from literature, that all came to an end when the famously litigious TSR took over. It's just as well, I suppose, as in today's legal environment it's unlikely an unauthorized usage would get by for long without being noticed via the Internet.
So, while we can enjoy the Lydia vs. the Natividad, we're not likely to see the Sutherland, Hotspur or Atropos in wargame form.
Pity that.
Except, of course, that there was no such fight. But there ought to have been, because Horatio Hornblower, the captain of the Lydia, is at least as vivid a historical figure as any other swashbuckling naval hero from the Age of Sail, even if he's fictional.
I discovered the Hornblower novels in my teens and thoroughly enjoyed all of them. Despite the fact that Forester's creation inspired quite a few imitators, none achieved the status of Hornblower in my book. In large part that's because Hornblower, far more than most heroes of fiction, has the attributes of a real human being. He had colossal flaws, particularly in his personal life, that humbled his heroism in the way that real-life heroes are humbled. So often our fictional heroes never do the wrong thing, are always noble and even saint-like.
Hornblower made mistakes, was sometimes less than noble and was always crushingly self-critical. But he was always dutiful in an age that truly understood what duty meant, as well as being talented as a naval officer.
Because he's a fictional character, however, his exploits do not fall into the public domain like the other famous naval heroes of the era like Pellew, Hull, Jones or Decatur.
While S&T under SPI's guidance was willing to push the envelope a little, and a number of their games included battles taken from literature, that all came to an end when the famously litigious TSR took over. It's just as well, I suppose, as in today's legal environment it's unlikely an unauthorized usage would get by for long without being noticed via the Internet.
So, while we can enjoy the Lydia vs. the Natividad, we're not likely to see the Sutherland, Hotspur or Atropos in wargame form.
Pity that.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Bali in Iraq
I've never hit the lottery, but my deployment to Iraq in 2003 may be close to the wartime equivalent.
I spent 35 days in northern Iraq attached to the Joint Task Force North headquarters, which was the highest command level in that area.
While the threat of injury from enemy action was minimal, I did have a little concern over the number of folks walking around with loaded weapons! As it turns out, nothing untoward happened while I was there.
It's been said that war is long stretches of boredom punctuated by moments of terror. As I said, I missed out on any of the terrifying parts, but I did get my full share of the boring parts.
I was on the overnight shift in the main tactical operations center, so my 12-hour duty shifts were interesting, but the 12-hour off time was hard to fill. After eating and sleeping during
the part of the day that wasn't too hot to sleep, there wasn't an awful lot to do and a lot of time to not do it in.
I had brought some playing cards, including a copy of the card game Bali. While I spent quite a bit of time playing solitaire games using may "Most Wanted Iraqi" 52-card deck, it was nice to take a break and do something along a different line.
The solitaire game of Bali revolves around using its 54-card deck to build words in columns. Some simple rules explain when cards can be moved around and how. Similar to Scrabble, some letters are worth more than others. For example, a "J" is worth 4, while a "D" is worth 1 point. The value of the letters is added up and then multiplied by the number of letters for a final score.
My goal became to beat my previous record, which meant a lot of pretty good games didn't make the cut. I got as high as 362 before I left. I haven't had a long stretch of boring time lately to devote to revisiting my Iraq record since then, but someday I'd like to see how high I can get.
I had the small Avalon Hill edition which was easy to travel with.
I spent 35 days in northern Iraq attached to the Joint Task Force North headquarters, which was the highest command level in that area.
While the threat of injury from enemy action was minimal, I did have a little concern over the number of folks walking around with loaded weapons! As it turns out, nothing untoward happened while I was there.
It's been said that war is long stretches of boredom punctuated by moments of terror. As I said, I missed out on any of the terrifying parts, but I did get my full share of the boring parts.
I was on the overnight shift in the main tactical operations center, so my 12-hour duty shifts were interesting, but the 12-hour off time was hard to fill. After eating and sleeping during
the part of the day that wasn't too hot to sleep, there wasn't an awful lot to do and a lot of time to not do it in.I had brought some playing cards, including a copy of the card game Bali. While I spent quite a bit of time playing solitaire games using may "Most Wanted Iraqi" 52-card deck, it was nice to take a break and do something along a different line.
The solitaire game of Bali revolves around using its 54-card deck to build words in columns. Some simple rules explain when cards can be moved around and how. Similar to Scrabble, some letters are worth more than others. For example, a "J" is worth 4, while a "D" is worth 1 point. The value of the letters is added up and then multiplied by the number of letters for a final score.
My goal became to beat my previous record, which meant a lot of pretty good games didn't make the cut. I got as high as 362 before I left. I haven't had a long stretch of boring time lately to devote to revisiting my Iraq record since then, but someday I'd like to see how high I can get.
I had the small Avalon Hill edition which was easy to travel with.
Monday, February 25, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Is The Longest Day Play-AARP-able?
I recently hauled out my copy of The Longest Day, as I do from time-to-time. As a classic "monster game" from the 1970s/80s there's a pretty high entry bar for getting a game in due to the time and number of players involved.
But perusing it I realized that the entry bar may be even higher now, because I could no longer make out some of the tiny print bearing historical information on the counters with my bifocal-aided eyes. My first thought was "gee, if I get to play this again I'm going to need to have a magnifying glass on hand."
But reflecting on it further, I realized that a number of aspects of the game may soon render it ever realistically playable again for me.
It was, after all, designed by a young (at the time) man to be played by a group of other young men with a considerable amount of time on their hands, as well as the dexterity to handle masses of closely stacked cardboard counters, limber enough to reach across a large table and with sharp enough vision to read tiny print and symbols. Much of the fine print is purely historical information, but some of it does have game effect.
I wonder how much of this aging of the grognards may be affecting the presentation and design choices of recent games. Many newer hex-and-counter wargames have moved to bigger counters for example, Figure-based and block games also are generally easier to handle than stacks of half-inch counters.
Long ago I had clipped the counters of my copy of The Longest Day, something I rarely do, because even back then there were too many finger fumbles. While always a risk in a hex-and-counter wargame, a finger fumble that would be a minor annoyance in a regular sized game can turn into a disaster in a monster game where it's just not possible to remember where everything was.
So now I have to consider whether or not I'll ever get a chance to play out that Normandy invasion one more time. And if not, what does this imply for other, similar games in my collection?
Or yours, perhaps?
But perusing it I realized that the entry bar may be even higher now, because I could no longer make out some of the tiny print bearing historical information on the counters with my bifocal-aided eyes. My first thought was "gee, if I get to play this again I'm going to need to have a magnifying glass on hand."
But reflecting on it further, I realized that a number of aspects of the game may soon render it ever realistically playable again for me.
It was, after all, designed by a young (at the time) man to be played by a group of other young men with a considerable amount of time on their hands, as well as the dexterity to handle masses of closely stacked cardboard counters, limber enough to reach across a large table and with sharp enough vision to read tiny print and symbols. Much of the fine print is purely historical information, but some of it does have game effect.
I wonder how much of this aging of the grognards may be affecting the presentation and design choices of recent games. Many newer hex-and-counter wargames have moved to bigger counters for example, Figure-based and block games also are generally easier to handle than stacks of half-inch counters.
Long ago I had clipped the counters of my copy of The Longest Day, something I rarely do, because even back then there were too many finger fumbles. While always a risk in a hex-and-counter wargame, a finger fumble that would be a minor annoyance in a regular sized game can turn into a disaster in a monster game where it's just not possible to remember where everything was.
So now I have to consider whether or not I'll ever get a chance to play out that Normandy invasion one more time. And if not, what does this imply for other, similar games in my collection?
Or yours, perhaps?
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Featured Game: Ironclads
In a wargame hobby where no one thinks twice about doing the 33rd game on the Battle of the Bulge or the 50th Eastern Front wargame it's unusual when a reasonably popular topic seems to have a seminal game that doesn't see a redo. One of those topics, however, seems to be American Civil War tactical naval combat, which hasn't seen a serious simulation since Yaquinto's Ironclads, nearly 30 years ago.
Ironclads is a classic 1980s style full-bore board wargame in all its chart-heavy and procedure-dense glory. It depicts Civil War naval combat in excruciating detail, lovingly tracking every single shell from loading through exact hit location. There's drama aplenty with explosions, busted steam lines, toppled stacks and just about every other possible calamity accounted for.
By today's standards the game is rather slow moving, heavy on die rolls and charts and relies a lot on written orders. For the most part it works because Civil War Naval battles tended to involve just a few ships, bearing just a few guns each, and moving rather slowly.
The basic turn structure is the familiar one used in many tactical naval wargames. Players write a coded plot for how they will execute their available movement points. For example, a player with a ship that has five movement points could write down 2 L 1 R, which would order the ship to move two hexes forward, turn left, move 1 hex and then turn right. Firing is done after movement, based on a two D6 roll on a specific chart for each gun type with various modifiers for crew quality, battlefield conditions, target size and the like. If a hit is scored, additional rolls are made to determine exactly where the shot lands. The power of the shell is compared to the strength of the armor involved in that section and another roll determines how much damage is done to the armor. The general pattern is that repeated hits on the same section of the ship will gradually weaken it until penetrating hits become common, resulting is escalating damage.
There are rules covering just about every imaginable facet of Ironclad-era fighting, from boarding actions (rare) to floating mines (called "torpedoes" back then), forts, river obstructions, currents, shoals and more.
A year after Ironclads was first published Yaquinto came out with an expansion that added more ships and scenarios, including a more fleet actions and several battles from outside the Civil War. This was not entirely successful because the new battles tended to involve larger fleets with bigger, faster ships that were much more heavily armed, which stretched the limits of the game system.
Seven years later, 3W came out with Shot & Shell, which was billed as "completely compatible" with Ironclads, although also playable as a standalone game. Although no one from the original design team is listed in the game credits and it's unclear what permissions were granted, Shot & Shell is really a third expansion for Ironclads. There's no overlap in the scenarios and a conversion chart is provided for adapting the scenarios in the basic game and its expansion.
Shot & Shell cleans up the rules in many respects and adds a couple of important new rules concepts to deal with some of the problems in the original game.
One of those is an entirely new and detailed system for ground combat, which is much more detailed and realistic than the very sketchy rules in the original Ironclads. Several of the Shot & Shell scenarios involve. considerably more Army fighting than naval.
The second is a new way of handing situations where there are large numbers of guns being fired, as is common in the fleet actions. It essentially organizes the guns into groups and averages their effects on the targets. This streamlines a lot of the firing, while still allowing for cases of individual fire when needed.
Shot & Shell is a necessary adjunct to the base game.
There was also a reprint of the original Ironclads and the expansion set which changed the graphics (in a way that wasn't very popular) but otherwise made no significant rules changes, from what I've heard. Other than that, this topic hasn't really seen anything like Ironclads, a remarkable state of affairs.
Ironclads is a classic 1980s style full-bore board wargame in all its chart-heavy and procedure-dense glory. It depicts Civil War naval combat in excruciating detail, lovingly tracking every single shell from loading through exact hit location. There's drama aplenty with explosions, busted steam lines, toppled stacks and just about every other possible calamity accounted for.
By today's standards the game is rather slow moving, heavy on die rolls and charts and relies a lot on written orders. For the most part it works because Civil War Naval battles tended to involve just a few ships, bearing just a few guns each, and moving rather slowly.
The basic turn structure is the familiar one used in many tactical naval wargames. Players write a coded plot for how they will execute their available movement points. For example, a player with a ship that has five movement points could write down 2 L 1 R, which would order the ship to move two hexes forward, turn left, move 1 hex and then turn right. Firing is done after movement, based on a two D6 roll on a specific chart for each gun type with various modifiers for crew quality, battlefield conditions, target size and the like. If a hit is scored, additional rolls are made to determine exactly where the shot lands. The power of the shell is compared to the strength of the armor involved in that section and another roll determines how much damage is done to the armor. The general pattern is that repeated hits on the same section of the ship will gradually weaken it until penetrating hits become common, resulting is escalating damage.
There are rules covering just about every imaginable facet of Ironclad-era fighting, from boarding actions (rare) to floating mines (called "torpedoes" back then), forts, river obstructions, currents, shoals and more.
A year after Ironclads was first published Yaquinto came out with an expansion that added more ships and scenarios, including a more fleet actions and several battles from outside the Civil War. This was not entirely successful because the new battles tended to involve larger fleets with bigger, faster ships that were much more heavily armed, which stretched the limits of the game system.
Seven years later, 3W came out with Shot & Shell, which was billed as "completely compatible" with Ironclads, although also playable as a standalone game. Although no one from the original design team is listed in the game credits and it's unclear what permissions were granted, Shot & Shell is really a third expansion for Ironclads. There's no overlap in the scenarios and a conversion chart is provided for adapting the scenarios in the basic game and its expansion.
Shot & Shell cleans up the rules in many respects and adds a couple of important new rules concepts to deal with some of the problems in the original game.
One of those is an entirely new and detailed system for ground combat, which is much more detailed and realistic than the very sketchy rules in the original Ironclads. Several of the Shot & Shell scenarios involve. considerably more Army fighting than naval.
The second is a new way of handing situations where there are large numbers of guns being fired, as is common in the fleet actions. It essentially organizes the guns into groups and averages their effects on the targets. This streamlines a lot of the firing, while still allowing for cases of individual fire when needed.
Shot & Shell is a necessary adjunct to the base game.
There was also a reprint of the original Ironclads and the expansion set which changed the graphics (in a way that wasn't very popular) but otherwise made no significant rules changes, from what I've heard. Other than that, this topic hasn't really seen anything like Ironclads, a remarkable state of affairs.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Can Dune be rethemed and still be Dune?
There's some excitement in Geekdom over word that Fantasy Flight Games is going to publish a new edition of Dune, widely considered one of the true classic of gaming. FFG is known for its excellent quality product, so rejoicing was widespread.
Ah, but wait! It turns out that FFG didn't get the licensing right from the Herbert estate, so their Dune will have to be rethemed, reportedly into FFG's Twilight Imperium universe. If so, will this still be Dune?
I don't see how it can be anything other than a brand new game that resembles Dune in its playing style.
Rethemed Euros are fairly common, because theme is definitely secondary to the game design for them. But even there, a rethemed edition will generally be considered a new game.
But with wargames theme is central, Indeed, the design achievemnt in Dune is how well the game captures the thematic elements of the Dune novel, which is no mean achievement considering the complexity of that book. From the Bene Gessert prediction, to the Atreides foresight to the spice blows the game's key elements make sense only in the Dune context. Will a Twilight Imperium edition merely copy those mecahnics and paste on some new justification? Or will the game strive to capture the spirit of the T.I. universe and come up with entirely different rules that reflect that setting? The first choice seem likely to leave fans of both dissatisfied, while the second choice will remove the game even more from being a new "Dune."
Many classic games have second and even third lives with different publishers. Games such as Diplomacy, Acquire, A House Divided, Napoleon, War at Sea and Russian Campaign have been reprinted successfully.
But some games can never be replicated, especially wargames that rely on licensing because they are set in a proprietery setting. Dune is one of those. The Avalon Hill edition will never be seen again. If you want one, ebay is your option.
Ah, but wait! It turns out that FFG didn't get the licensing right from the Herbert estate, so their Dune will have to be rethemed, reportedly into FFG's Twilight Imperium universe. If so, will this still be Dune?
I don't see how it can be anything other than a brand new game that resembles Dune in its playing style.
Rethemed Euros are fairly common, because theme is definitely secondary to the game design for them. But even there, a rethemed edition will generally be considered a new game.
But with wargames theme is central, Indeed, the design achievemnt in Dune is how well the game captures the thematic elements of the Dune novel, which is no mean achievement considering the complexity of that book. From the Bene Gessert prediction, to the Atreides foresight to the spice blows the game's key elements make sense only in the Dune context. Will a Twilight Imperium edition merely copy those mecahnics and paste on some new justification? Or will the game strive to capture the spirit of the T.I. universe and come up with entirely different rules that reflect that setting? The first choice seem likely to leave fans of both dissatisfied, while the second choice will remove the game even more from being a new "Dune."
Many classic games have second and even third lives with different publishers. Games such as Diplomacy, Acquire, A House Divided, Napoleon, War at Sea and Russian Campaign have been reprinted successfully.
But some games can never be replicated, especially wargames that rely on licensing because they are set in a proprietery setting. Dune is one of those. The Avalon Hill edition will never be seen again. If you want one, ebay is your option.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
First impressions of Napoleon's Triumph
Well, Marty and I got the chance to play Napoleon's Triumph for the first time.
It was a very good and enjoyable. It took rather longer than billed (about four hours) to play because we were both new and we had to pick our way through the novel procedures, but it was enjyable trhoughout.
While different ind etails from Bonaparte at Marengo, it's much the same in how its a real thinking game.
I played the Austrians, while Marty was the French.
My strategy was to make a big push on the left that looked dangerous in order to prompt Marty into committing his reinforcements early, but then fall back beforer I became decisively engaged. While probably very risky against experienced players, I hoped the fact that Marty was also a newbie would mean he'd have a hard time following me too aggressively.
On the right flank I gave Bagratian a strong corps and put all the Guard and some other strong units with Constantine. I planned to make a decisive counterattack against the French flank once he was well committed.
In general the strategy generally worked as hoped, although I did lose in the end because of some tcatical errors.
Marty actaully got first blood when he launched a successful spoiling attack on one of my corps as it approached his main line. There was some see-saw fighting in the center and left. Overall the Austrian losses were a bit higher than the French. I was, however, able to pull back most of my units without getting too many caught and even start redeploying units from the left to the center.
My right flank attack wasn't quite as decisive as I had hoped, Even though I won my big Guard attack, I didn't do the damage I had hoped to inflict and I ended up being too close to demoraliziation at the end. The French were able to get a couple of free hits with guns and then get their last morale point with an attack on an area that couldn't be stopped due to an error on my part.
It was a very good session and both of us are eager to try again.
It was a very good and enjoyable. It took rather longer than billed (about four hours) to play because we were both new and we had to pick our way through the novel procedures, but it was enjyable trhoughout.
While different ind etails from Bonaparte at Marengo, it's much the same in how its a real thinking game.
I played the Austrians, while Marty was the French.
My strategy was to make a big push on the left that looked dangerous in order to prompt Marty into committing his reinforcements early, but then fall back beforer I became decisively engaged. While probably very risky against experienced players, I hoped the fact that Marty was also a newbie would mean he'd have a hard time following me too aggressively.
On the right flank I gave Bagratian a strong corps and put all the Guard and some other strong units with Constantine. I planned to make a decisive counterattack against the French flank once he was well committed.
In general the strategy generally worked as hoped, although I did lose in the end because of some tcatical errors.
Marty actaully got first blood when he launched a successful spoiling attack on one of my corps as it approached his main line. There was some see-saw fighting in the center and left. Overall the Austrian losses were a bit higher than the French. I was, however, able to pull back most of my units without getting too many caught and even start redeploying units from the left to the center.
My right flank attack wasn't quite as decisive as I had hoped, Even though I won my big Guard attack, I didn't do the damage I had hoped to inflict and I ended up being too close to demoraliziation at the end. The French were able to get a couple of free hits with guns and then get their last morale point with an attack on an area that couldn't be stopped due to an error on my part.
It was a very good session and both of us are eager to try again.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Featured game: System 7 Napoleonics
System 7 Napoleonics is essentially a variant for GDW's Fire & Steel miniatures rules with some modifications to account for the use of die-cut counters instead of miniature toy soldiers.
It provides interesting gist for debates over what constitutes a "miniatures" wargame. While not using miniature figures, it's clearly within the genre of historical miniatures wargames. Distances are measured using rulers and units do not occupy distinct cells such as hexagons, squares or areas as seen in board wargames.
One inch represents 40 yards on the ground, each strength point represents 20 men and a turn represents about an hour of fighting.
Each cardboard counter represents a company of infantry, a squadron of horse or a two-gun artillery section and takes up the appropriate frontage depending on the strength of the unit. The color scheme on the counters is based on the color of the uniform and facings for that unit, providing a good period "feel."
The game system is vintage chart-heavy mid-1970s GDW, with written orders and a very heavy emphasis on morale. In fact, while a unit's combat power varies based on its strength and weaponry, its most important characteristic is morale level. An elite unit has much more staying power than a line unit and troops from the French, Russian or British guards are very tough.
Special rules cover various aspects of Napoleonic warfare such as lancers, weather, spiking guns, prisoners, generals and formations.
GDW published 15 sets of counters before discontinuing the line. Each set contains about a corps-worth of troops based on nationality with a mix of infantry, cavalry and artillery.
By later standards gameplay is a little on the slow side, largely because of the written orders and chart-based combat system with multiple phases. While experienced players can handle more, the game works best if each player controls about a division-sized force.
If sufficient attention is devoted to terrain, the game can be attractive. The counters do allow a more realistic depiction of actual unit depths, which are greatly exagerated by using miniatures. Cavalry units, in particular, are always far deeper on the game table than they should be when using miniatures. Using System 7 one can see that even a column of horse was actually wider than it is deep, with similar insights for other formations.
While nearly forgotten today, System 7 was an interesting experiment in wargaming and still of interest for collectors.
It provides interesting gist for debates over what constitutes a "miniatures" wargame. While not using miniature figures, it's clearly within the genre of historical miniatures wargames. Distances are measured using rulers and units do not occupy distinct cells such as hexagons, squares or areas as seen in board wargames.
One inch represents 40 yards on the ground, each strength point represents 20 men and a turn represents about an hour of fighting.
Each cardboard counter represents a company of infantry, a squadron of horse or a two-gun artillery section and takes up the appropriate frontage depending on the strength of the unit. The color scheme on the counters is based on the color of the uniform and facings for that unit, providing a good period "feel."
The game system is vintage chart-heavy mid-1970s GDW, with written orders and a very heavy emphasis on morale. In fact, while a unit's combat power varies based on its strength and weaponry, its most important characteristic is morale level. An elite unit has much more staying power than a line unit and troops from the French, Russian or British guards are very tough.
Special rules cover various aspects of Napoleonic warfare such as lancers, weather, spiking guns, prisoners, generals and formations.
GDW published 15 sets of counters before discontinuing the line. Each set contains about a corps-worth of troops based on nationality with a mix of infantry, cavalry and artillery.
By later standards gameplay is a little on the slow side, largely because of the written orders and chart-based combat system with multiple phases. While experienced players can handle more, the game works best if each player controls about a division-sized force.
If sufficient attention is devoted to terrain, the game can be attractive. The counters do allow a more realistic depiction of actual unit depths, which are greatly exagerated by using miniatures. Cavalry units, in particular, are always far deeper on the game table than they should be when using miniatures. Using System 7 one can see that even a column of horse was actually wider than it is deep, with similar insights for other formations.
While nearly forgotten today, System 7 was an interesting experiment in wargaming and still of interest for collectors.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Featured game: Sticks and Stones, 30th anniversary
There are dozens or scores of wargames on some topics: Battle of the Bulge, Gettysburg, The Eastern Front. But despite the passage of 30 years since Sticks & Stones, Microgame No. 11, was published, it's apparently the only wargame to explicitly depict warfare in Neolithic times.
While the popular imagination sometimes imagines that humans once lived in more peaceful times before civilization, archeological evidence suggests that humans have died violently at the hands of their own species for a very long time. A graveyard in Egypt dating back some 12,000 years contains the remains of dozens who died from multiple wounds by stone-tipped weapons.
Whether humans are naturally violent may be unanswerable, but once humans developed weapons -- such as bows -- that enabled them to kill other men with relative safety, they got to it. There's ample evidence for fortified settlements dating back thousands of years and by the time the first battles were recorded in history after the development of writing it was clear that the military arts were already far advanced.
Sticks & Stones depicts the very early age of organized fighting using the typical techniques of a 1970s-era wargame. Units, which appear to represent small groups of warriors (a dozen or so) maneuver on a hex-gridded battlefield. Their military abilities are quantified with attack, defense and movement factors and battles are resolved via a D6 roll on an odds-based Combat Results Table. Units move and then fight in alternating player-turns. Aside from the uncommon, but not unique, rule allowing in-hex melee combat, it's a fairly standard wargame.
Various special rules give the game period flavor. There are dependents (women), goats and goods to be fought over. Newly domesticated dogs to help the warriors. And a straightforward scenario-development system that allows playrs to customize their tribal armies with reasonable historical accuracy.
Warriors come in two basic defense-styles, armored with a defense value of 3 and unarmored with a value of 2. Armor, at this early date, should be understood to be merely thicker clothes, extra animal skins or perhaps leather.
Weapons come in four varieties. There are "hands" with an attack value of 2. As it's against human nature to engage in deadly combat with just bare hands, I'd interpret "hands" to mean being armed with sticks, primitive clubs and rocks, not just fists. Men armed with stone axes have an attack value of 3. Spearmen have an attack value of 4, plus the abaility to attack from a distance of one hex away up to three times per game. The deadliest weapon is the bow, which can attack up to 3 hexes away with a value of 6 up to six times per game. The rules inform us that "bows" can also represent blowguns or throwing spears as well as bows and arrows.
Warriors can come in any mix of weapon and armor style, within the countermix and available "weapons points" running from 0 for an unarmored and weaponless man to 7 for an armored archer.
The game includes five scenarios which do a good job of covering the gamut of likely stone age fighting. There's a small raid on an unprotected village, a territorial ritual battle (which ends when someone is actually killed), a mastadon hunt (solitaire), a bigger raid on a protected village and a full-scale war between two neighboring villages.
In the last scenario there is a slight problem because the countermix doesn't include the two fortified villages required. One could either make another fortified village or alternately let one side use a protected village and give them 6 extra weapon points to make up the difference.
There are some optional rules including setting fires, running warriors, extended range for missile weapons and poisone weapons.
Considering the game has just a couple dozen small pages the game manages to cover a lot of ground and present what seems like a good simulation of prehistoric fighting within the limits of our knowledge.
The presentation is good considering the limits of the microgame format and 1970s printing. The map is functional, if undecorative. The counters have to be cut out and feature a rather idealized and buff view of cave men, but they work. The only color in the rules is the cover, but the body of the rules are clearly written and very well-illustrated for the era and format.
All-in-all it's a good and still unique wargame and well-worth picking up out of historical interest as well as an interesting game challenge.
While the popular imagination sometimes imagines that humans once lived in more peaceful times before civilization, archeological evidence suggests that humans have died violently at the hands of their own species for a very long time. A graveyard in Egypt dating back some 12,000 years contains the remains of dozens who died from multiple wounds by stone-tipped weapons.
Whether humans are naturally violent may be unanswerable, but once humans developed weapons -- such as bows -- that enabled them to kill other men with relative safety, they got to it. There's ample evidence for fortified settlements dating back thousands of years and by the time the first battles were recorded in history after the development of writing it was clear that the military arts were already far advanced.
Sticks & Stones depicts the very early age of organized fighting using the typical techniques of a 1970s-era wargame. Units, which appear to represent small groups of warriors (a dozen or so) maneuver on a hex-gridded battlefield. Their military abilities are quantified with attack, defense and movement factors and battles are resolved via a D6 roll on an odds-based Combat Results Table. Units move and then fight in alternating player-turns. Aside from the uncommon, but not unique, rule allowing in-hex melee combat, it's a fairly standard wargame.
Various special rules give the game period flavor. There are dependents (women), goats and goods to be fought over. Newly domesticated dogs to help the warriors. And a straightforward scenario-development system that allows playrs to customize their tribal armies with reasonable historical accuracy.
Warriors come in two basic defense-styles, armored with a defense value of 3 and unarmored with a value of 2. Armor, at this early date, should be understood to be merely thicker clothes, extra animal skins or perhaps leather.
Weapons come in four varieties. There are "hands" with an attack value of 2. As it's against human nature to engage in deadly combat with just bare hands, I'd interpret "hands" to mean being armed with sticks, primitive clubs and rocks, not just fists. Men armed with stone axes have an attack value of 3. Spearmen have an attack value of 4, plus the abaility to attack from a distance of one hex away up to three times per game. The deadliest weapon is the bow, which can attack up to 3 hexes away with a value of 6 up to six times per game. The rules inform us that "bows" can also represent blowguns or throwing spears as well as bows and arrows.
Warriors can come in any mix of weapon and armor style, within the countermix and available "weapons points" running from 0 for an unarmored and weaponless man to 7 for an armored archer.
The game includes five scenarios which do a good job of covering the gamut of likely stone age fighting. There's a small raid on an unprotected village, a territorial ritual battle (which ends when someone is actually killed), a mastadon hunt (solitaire), a bigger raid on a protected village and a full-scale war between two neighboring villages.
In the last scenario there is a slight problem because the countermix doesn't include the two fortified villages required. One could either make another fortified village or alternately let one side use a protected village and give them 6 extra weapon points to make up the difference.
There are some optional rules including setting fires, running warriors, extended range for missile weapons and poisone weapons.
Considering the game has just a couple dozen small pages the game manages to cover a lot of ground and present what seems like a good simulation of prehistoric fighting within the limits of our knowledge.
The presentation is good considering the limits of the microgame format and 1970s printing. The map is functional, if undecorative. The counters have to be cut out and feature a rather idealized and buff view of cave men, but they work. The only color in the rules is the cover, but the body of the rules are clearly written and very well-illustrated for the era and format.
All-in-all it's a good and still unique wargame and well-worth picking up out of historical interest as well as an interesting game challenge.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Featured game: Ogre
It may be hard to drum up sympathy for a souless behemoth of destruction, but consider the fate of MicroGame No. 1. Like a mega-movie star's long-forgotten first spouse, it seems an afterthought in the train of more glamorous hotties that followed. But long before there was GURPS, Illuminati, Car Wars or Munchkin -- there was Ogre.
It's fair to say there'd never be a Steve Jackson Games if it hadn't been for Ogre, the first of the Microgames published by Metagaming back in 1977. Still a highly regarded classic wargame, Ogre launched Metagaming's successful several-year run and when that publisher ceased putting out titles, Jackson used Ogre to be the initial flagship offering for his own game company.
Yet there hasn't been a new boardgame edition of Ogre since the 1987 Ogre Deluxe edition. I guess that being essentially a one-man show means that Jackson's corporate attention span tends to move from one main project to another. Between the million GURPs books, dozens of Car Wars supplements, Illuminati expansions and the never-ending Munchkin mass there hasn't been time for Ogre.
Still, there still seem to be plenty of copies of Ogre around, and many of the real hard-core fans have gotten the Deluxe Ogre miniatures rules. (Why there's both an Ogre Deluxe and a Deluxe Ogre only the Illuminati can answer. Fnord.)
The game, as befits a classic, is disarmingly simple in concept and straightforward in execution. The basic conceit is that futuristic warfare will be dominated by giant sentient cyborg tanks called Ogres. These monstrous unmanned robotic fighting machines are so powerful that only a much larger number of more conventional forces can take them on.
The game in many ways is a typical 1970s-ear wargame. It has hexes. It has alternating movement and combat phases. Combat is resolved via a D6 roll on a CRT.
The Ogre is comprised of various weapons systems (main and secondary guns, missiles and anti-personal guns) and "tread units." Speed is lost as tread units are destroyed, while the various guns are lost through direct attack. Missiles can also be lost if successfully attacked, but are also expended if used. Ogres come in two sizes, a nasty Mark III and the very nasty Mark V.
In the basic game the non-Ogre played selects conventional forces from a menu comprised of powersuited infantry and various heavy weapon/vehicle units.
The basic armored unit available is a heavy tank, somewhat similar to a modern main battle tank although more powerful. Heavy tanks have enough firepower (4) to have a decent chance of destroying any Ogre weapon and some chance -- with a defense of 3 -- of surviving the return fire. They have the speed to keep up with a healthy Ogre (3), but not enough range (2) to stay a safe distance away.
Missile tanks trade off firepower (3), defense (2) and speed (2) for some extra range (4). They have their fans, but I've never found the extra range enough to make up for the rest.
Probably the most popular vehicle is the G.E.V. (ground effect vehicle or hovercraft). While not especially powerful (attack 2, defense 2, range 2) the G.E.V. is speedy, able to move 4 hexes, fire and then move another 3. This makes it a fun tool to use because it can dance around the Ogre, darting in and out to strike and retire. Getting the most out a G.E.V. takes skill and players like the challenge.
The most powerful unit is the Howitzer. It has an attack of 6 and a range of 8 and counts as two units for force-selection purposes. On the other hand the Howitzer only has a defense of 1 and can't move, making it a sitting duck for the Ogre if it gets close enough.
The poor bloody infantry has a tough life in Ogre. It's reasonably mobile, moving 2 hexes and being the only units, aside from Ogres, that can cross the one type of difficult terrain hexside (rubble) in the game. The firepower and defense of the infantry depends upon how many squads (each representing about six soldiers, the rules tell us) are in the hex. Up to three squads can be in a hex, so the firepower and defense ranges from 1-3. Unfortunately the infantry only has a range of 1, so they have to get up close and personal with the Ogre. A lot of infantry generally dies.
The objective is called a Command Post in the game, although it doesn't exercise any command and control game function. It's defenseless and immobile, so it could easily represent any kind of soft strategic objective. Still, Ogres are obviously rare and expensive war machines, probably comparable to battleships or aircraft carriers in 21st century terms, so they wouldn't be risked on routine operations or minor objectives. When an Ogre appears it's a major battle by definition.
The Ogre itself is very dangerous. The lesser, Mark III version has a main gun with an attack of 4, a range 3 and a defense of 4 and four secondary guns with vales of 3, 2 and 3, respectively. (Note very important errata. In the Ogre Deluxe boardgame both the mapboard display and the rules booklet list incorrect -- and different from each other -- values for the Ogre's guns. The correct values are listed in May 21, 1993 errata.)
The Mark III carries two missiles that have a range of 5, attack of 6 and defense of 3. It also has 8 antipersonnel guns that have a range and defense of 1 and an attack value of 1 against infantry and CPs only.
Finally the Mark III has a total of 45 tread units to support its starting movement factor of 3. For every 15 it loses it's speed is reduced by 1.
In the basic scenario a force of 20 infantry and 12 armor units make an even match for the Mark III Ogre.
The Mark V Ogre sports two main guns, six secondaries, six missiles, 12 antipersonnel guns and 60 tread units, so it has relatively more firepower than a Mark III but is somewhat less robust in the treads department in proportion.
The conventional force fields 30 infantry and 20 armor against a Mark V in the basic setup.
This involves the Ogre entering the map, endeavoring to destroy the CP and then escape. The rules include obvious variations such as a defending Ogre, two attacking Ogres, etc. There's also a Scenario Book 1 (no book 2 as yet) with seven more scenarios.
The classic scenario is, however, a single Ogre against the world, and that's the game's signature. There are many approaches to both the attack and defense and Ogre is one of those rare wargames that's actually developed a body of theory. There are named defenses such as the "Three howitzer" defense, for example.
The game is simple enough that it can be used an an introduction to wargaming. Often a new player can be given the Ogre, which seem less overwhelming to handle because it's a single unit, while the more experienced player can take the conventional forces, perhaps spotting the Ogre a unit or two.
While Steve Jackson hasn't paid much attention to Ogre in years, it would seem like a perfect candidate for a new edition, taking advantage of plastic bits from Chinese factories to create a super duper Deleuxe Ogre. That would be a fitting tribute to the game that got him started 30-odd years ago.
It's fair to say there'd never be a Steve Jackson Games if it hadn't been for Ogre, the first of the Microgames published by Metagaming back in 1977. Still a highly regarded classic wargame, Ogre launched Metagaming's successful several-year run and when that publisher ceased putting out titles, Jackson used Ogre to be the initial flagship offering for his own game company.
Yet there hasn't been a new boardgame edition of Ogre since the 1987 Ogre Deluxe edition. I guess that being essentially a one-man show means that Jackson's corporate attention span tends to move from one main project to another. Between the million GURPs books, dozens of Car Wars supplements, Illuminati expansions and the never-ending Munchkin mass there hasn't been time for Ogre.
Still, there still seem to be plenty of copies of Ogre around, and many of the real hard-core fans have gotten the Deluxe Ogre miniatures rules. (Why there's both an Ogre Deluxe and a Deluxe Ogre only the Illuminati can answer. Fnord.)
The game, as befits a classic, is disarmingly simple in concept and straightforward in execution. The basic conceit is that futuristic warfare will be dominated by giant sentient cyborg tanks called Ogres. These monstrous unmanned robotic fighting machines are so powerful that only a much larger number of more conventional forces can take them on.
The game in many ways is a typical 1970s-ear wargame. It has hexes. It has alternating movement and combat phases. Combat is resolved via a D6 roll on a CRT.
The Ogre is comprised of various weapons systems (main and secondary guns, missiles and anti-personal guns) and "tread units." Speed is lost as tread units are destroyed, while the various guns are lost through direct attack. Missiles can also be lost if successfully attacked, but are also expended if used. Ogres come in two sizes, a nasty Mark III and the very nasty Mark V.
In the basic game the non-Ogre played selects conventional forces from a menu comprised of powersuited infantry and various heavy weapon/vehicle units.
The basic armored unit available is a heavy tank, somewhat similar to a modern main battle tank although more powerful. Heavy tanks have enough firepower (4) to have a decent chance of destroying any Ogre weapon and some chance -- with a defense of 3 -- of surviving the return fire. They have the speed to keep up with a healthy Ogre (3), but not enough range (2) to stay a safe distance away.
Missile tanks trade off firepower (3), defense (2) and speed (2) for some extra range (4). They have their fans, but I've never found the extra range enough to make up for the rest.
Probably the most popular vehicle is the G.E.V. (ground effect vehicle or hovercraft). While not especially powerful (attack 2, defense 2, range 2) the G.E.V. is speedy, able to move 4 hexes, fire and then move another 3. This makes it a fun tool to use because it can dance around the Ogre, darting in and out to strike and retire. Getting the most out a G.E.V. takes skill and players like the challenge.
The most powerful unit is the Howitzer. It has an attack of 6 and a range of 8 and counts as two units for force-selection purposes. On the other hand the Howitzer only has a defense of 1 and can't move, making it a sitting duck for the Ogre if it gets close enough.
The poor bloody infantry has a tough life in Ogre. It's reasonably mobile, moving 2 hexes and being the only units, aside from Ogres, that can cross the one type of difficult terrain hexside (rubble) in the game. The firepower and defense of the infantry depends upon how many squads (each representing about six soldiers, the rules tell us) are in the hex. Up to three squads can be in a hex, so the firepower and defense ranges from 1-3. Unfortunately the infantry only has a range of 1, so they have to get up close and personal with the Ogre. A lot of infantry generally dies.
The objective is called a Command Post in the game, although it doesn't exercise any command and control game function. It's defenseless and immobile, so it could easily represent any kind of soft strategic objective. Still, Ogres are obviously rare and expensive war machines, probably comparable to battleships or aircraft carriers in 21st century terms, so they wouldn't be risked on routine operations or minor objectives. When an Ogre appears it's a major battle by definition.
The Ogre itself is very dangerous. The lesser, Mark III version has a main gun with an attack of 4, a range 3 and a defense of 4 and four secondary guns with vales of 3, 2 and 3, respectively. (Note very important errata. In the Ogre Deluxe boardgame both the mapboard display and the rules booklet list incorrect -- and different from each other -- values for the Ogre's guns. The correct values are listed in May 21, 1993 errata.)
The Mark III carries two missiles that have a range of 5, attack of 6 and defense of 3. It also has 8 antipersonnel guns that have a range and defense of 1 and an attack value of 1 against infantry and CPs only.
Finally the Mark III has a total of 45 tread units to support its starting movement factor of 3. For every 15 it loses it's speed is reduced by 1.
In the basic scenario a force of 20 infantry and 12 armor units make an even match for the Mark III Ogre.
The Mark V Ogre sports two main guns, six secondaries, six missiles, 12 antipersonnel guns and 60 tread units, so it has relatively more firepower than a Mark III but is somewhat less robust in the treads department in proportion.
The conventional force fields 30 infantry and 20 armor against a Mark V in the basic setup.
This involves the Ogre entering the map, endeavoring to destroy the CP and then escape. The rules include obvious variations such as a defending Ogre, two attacking Ogres, etc. There's also a Scenario Book 1 (no book 2 as yet) with seven more scenarios.
The classic scenario is, however, a single Ogre against the world, and that's the game's signature. There are many approaches to both the attack and defense and Ogre is one of those rare wargames that's actually developed a body of theory. There are named defenses such as the "Three howitzer" defense, for example.
The game is simple enough that it can be used an an introduction to wargaming. Often a new player can be given the Ogre, which seem less overwhelming to handle because it's a single unit, while the more experienced player can take the conventional forces, perhaps spotting the Ogre a unit or two.
While Steve Jackson hasn't paid much attention to Ogre in years, it would seem like a perfect candidate for a new edition, taking advantage of plastic bits from Chinese factories to create a super duper Deleuxe Ogre. That would be a fitting tribute to the game that got him started 30-odd years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)