Among the epic wargaming experiences I've had, some of the very best were from taking part in a series of grand campaign games of Empires in Arms.
The entire grand sweep of the Napoleonic Wars is there for the taking in EIA. A would-be-Napoleon can literally change the map of Europe and create the Confederation of the Rhine, the Grand Duchy of Warsaw or the Kingdom of Westphalia.
Indeed, much more than the game actually published as War & Peace, Empires in Arms should have had that title because it's much more epic in scope.
But one might be fooled by the ordinary-sized bookcase box that the game came i. There's a small hint of what's in store on the back of the box, when it says the game can accommodate up to seven players and take up to 200 hours to play.
There are, in fact, a number of requirements left unsaid. (Or if not requirements, very strongly recommendations at least.)
First, you need to have someone in the playing group who has a lot of time on his hands and/or great dedication because someone has to play host to the game. This person will have to be present for every single game session.
That host needs to have a room that can be devoted to holding the game, all set up, for many months on end. (Having to set up and take down the game multiple times will sap everyone's enthusiasm and make it unlikely you'll see it through to the end.
That host can't have kids or cats, because no wargame can lie exposed to those two elemental forces for moths on end and survive.
That host should have no spouse, or a saintly one, because of the aforementioned requirements.
If you can find such a person, be sure to be extra generous with snacks,soda and beer. And a few flowers for the spouse would be in order as well.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Battle For Moscow and what makes a good intro wargame
I once did a Geeklist for BoardGame Geek about made-for-the-purpose introductory wargames.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/3952
Then, as now, I questioned whether these efforts ever really recruited many wargamers to the hobby.
The problem is that most of them are kind of like boiled cabbage. They've been so thoroughly cooked that they end up not having much flavor.
Most wargamers don't get their start with some simple game, I believe. Indeed, some people get their start with wildly inappropriate fare for beginners like ASL, Terrible Swift Sword or Empire III. Now, I'll admit that jumping right into ASL without any help is probably more likely to discourage than encourage a new player, one also doesn't need to start with Strike Force One, especially if you have a patient teacher.
And, in truth, most wargamers seem to get into the hobby with a buddy or two. Sometimes that friends is already a wargamer. Sometimes they're not, but the buddies learn their first games together. The social support is critical. And it's even somewhat amusing to play a few times, each time developing more understanding as you figure out rules you played wrong, or overlooked or simply didn't understand.
I remember that when my best friend and I played Stalingrad back in the 1970s it was a great revelation when we discovered the benefits of a continuous line! In our first couple of games we had stacked both armies to the maximum of three units per "square." The result was rather more like a Napoleonic or even ancient battle as the two armies tried to outflank each other and cut off supply. This naturally worked against the Soviets, who had the smaller army. Then one of us -- I like to think it was me, but I can't be sure after so much time has passed -- discovered that covering the whole front with a thinner line made grand encirclements less likely and we started having a World War II-style front.
It seems all so obvious now, but there wasn't a lot of help yet. Little bands of players were discovering this strange new hobby in isolation for the most part. It was fun, though.
What we didn't have, though, was a game designed to be introductory. Most wargames of the time would be considered pretty simple by today's standards, but that doesn't take into account how unprecedented they were, so they were not all that simple to us.
Probably the single most important tactic for making a game accessible to new players is having copious and well-illustrated examples of play. The old SPI introductory wargame Napoleon at Waterloo included a letter from Jim Dunnigan explaining the hobby, but more importantly, the back of the letter had a bunch of examples of combat, invaluable to someone who's never seen a wargame before.
Battle for Moscow has simple rules and is available online for free. But the original free GDW edition included a couple of examples of play covering movement and combat.
One of the biggest flaws in most magazine issue games is the lack of play examples. This is especially unfortunate when the game introduces some novel design element.
One of the nice things about many of the new games lately is the attention being paid to including a lot of examples. In some cases the examples can take up as much space in the rule book as the actual rules. This, more than just simple rules, is the most important thing making a game accessible.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/3952
Then, as now, I questioned whether these efforts ever really recruited many wargamers to the hobby.
The problem is that most of them are kind of like boiled cabbage. They've been so thoroughly cooked that they end up not having much flavor.
Most wargamers don't get their start with some simple game, I believe. Indeed, some people get their start with wildly inappropriate fare for beginners like ASL, Terrible Swift Sword or Empire III. Now, I'll admit that jumping right into ASL without any help is probably more likely to discourage than encourage a new player, one also doesn't need to start with Strike Force One, especially if you have a patient teacher.
And, in truth, most wargamers seem to get into the hobby with a buddy or two. Sometimes that friends is already a wargamer. Sometimes they're not, but the buddies learn their first games together. The social support is critical. And it's even somewhat amusing to play a few times, each time developing more understanding as you figure out rules you played wrong, or overlooked or simply didn't understand.
I remember that when my best friend and I played Stalingrad back in the 1970s it was a great revelation when we discovered the benefits of a continuous line! In our first couple of games we had stacked both armies to the maximum of three units per "square." The result was rather more like a Napoleonic or even ancient battle as the two armies tried to outflank each other and cut off supply. This naturally worked against the Soviets, who had the smaller army. Then one of us -- I like to think it was me, but I can't be sure after so much time has passed -- discovered that covering the whole front with a thinner line made grand encirclements less likely and we started having a World War II-style front.
It seems all so obvious now, but there wasn't a lot of help yet. Little bands of players were discovering this strange new hobby in isolation for the most part. It was fun, though.
What we didn't have, though, was a game designed to be introductory. Most wargames of the time would be considered pretty simple by today's standards, but that doesn't take into account how unprecedented they were, so they were not all that simple to us.
Probably the single most important tactic for making a game accessible to new players is having copious and well-illustrated examples of play. The old SPI introductory wargame Napoleon at Waterloo included a letter from Jim Dunnigan explaining the hobby, but more importantly, the back of the letter had a bunch of examples of combat, invaluable to someone who's never seen a wargame before.
Battle for Moscow has simple rules and is available online for free. But the original free GDW edition included a couple of examples of play covering movement and combat.
One of the biggest flaws in most magazine issue games is the lack of play examples. This is especially unfortunate when the game introduces some novel design element.
One of the nice things about many of the new games lately is the attention being paid to including a lot of examples. In some cases the examples can take up as much space in the rule book as the actual rules. This, more than just simple rules, is the most important thing making a game accessible.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
ASL and the urge for epics
One urge common to wargamers but rare among other board gaming flavors (although shared with RPGs) is to seek out and play the "epic," "campaign" or "monster" game. All three are just different manifestations of the same desire, I think, to capture the sweep and drama of a bigger-than-life gaming experience.
Warfare, by its very nature, lends itself to the grand sweep of things and its interrelated parts are well-suited to being linked. Even the otherwise-rather basic Commands and Colors system includes "Epic" and "Overlord" versions. Monster games requiring a half-dozen players achieve the links laterally.
But perhaps the most common way to create a campaign narrative is by linking a series of individual scenarios together into a longer metagame. The whole idea of "scenarios" is itself peculiar to wargames. I don't think there's anything like it in other boardgames.
The original Squad Leader included a way to build a campaign narrative including the opportunity for promoting a "personal leader" but there were many ways to link games even in ASL. The historical modules like Red Barricades and Kampfgruppe Peiper have obvious linkages, for example, but others are possible.
Myself and my regular ASL partners engaged in a giant metacampaign for the 50th anniversary of World War II playing the "official" Avalon Hill ASL scenarios in chronological order more or less on the 50th anniversaries of the actual fights. Like perhaps most such overly ambitious wargame projects it didn't reach completion (at least not yet) but it did reach fruition. We made it well in the summer of 1944 before life changes knocked the effort off schedule. Finishing the last year of the war is an ongoing, if very occasional, project to this day, even as the 60th anniversaries have now passed.
Still, we got some 200+ games played in some kind of order and had a good time doing so. There's a unique satisfaction to playing on the epic scale.
Warfare, by its very nature, lends itself to the grand sweep of things and its interrelated parts are well-suited to being linked. Even the otherwise-rather basic Commands and Colors system includes "Epic" and "Overlord" versions. Monster games requiring a half-dozen players achieve the links laterally.
But perhaps the most common way to create a campaign narrative is by linking a series of individual scenarios together into a longer metagame. The whole idea of "scenarios" is itself peculiar to wargames. I don't think there's anything like it in other boardgames.
The original Squad Leader included a way to build a campaign narrative including the opportunity for promoting a "personal leader" but there were many ways to link games even in ASL. The historical modules like Red Barricades and Kampfgruppe Peiper have obvious linkages, for example, but others are possible.
Myself and my regular ASL partners engaged in a giant metacampaign for the 50th anniversary of World War II playing the "official" Avalon Hill ASL scenarios in chronological order more or less on the 50th anniversaries of the actual fights. Like perhaps most such overly ambitious wargame projects it didn't reach completion (at least not yet) but it did reach fruition. We made it well in the summer of 1944 before life changes knocked the effort off schedule. Finishing the last year of the war is an ongoing, if very occasional, project to this day, even as the 60th anniversaries have now passed.
Still, we got some 200+ games played in some kind of order and had a good time doing so. There's a unique satisfaction to playing on the epic scale.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Junta: First Rebel's briefing on Junta troops
First Rebel’s Briefing On Junta Troops
Palace Guard: Four armed units that are always loyal and always available. With two shots each while in the Presidential Palace they can usually hold off a whole Army brigade, especially because it takes four coup phases for a brigade to reach the palace.
Police: Four armed units. These are inherently available to the Minister of Internal Security. These are subject to bribery, so they are occasionally co-opted. While deployed at the individual police stations they are dispersed but only two moves each from key locations. The difficulty is concentrating adequate force. On the other hand, if the Minister has seized the Chamber of Deputies then they are concentrated in one of the five key locations. They can also be deployed against Red units at the beginning of the coup. This is useful for blunting a coup’s starting forces or, if the Minister decides to support the coup, can create a police-led rabble that’s as strong as an army brigade. The Minister, therefore, is a useful recruit for the rebels or a dangerous and difficult to neutralize enemy.
Paratroops/air strikes: One armed unit and three one-shot air strikes. This is the air marshal’s inherent force. This is a very flexible force, although ill-suited to be the main rebel force. Instead it’s a strong supporting force. The three 6-die air strikes can decimate enemy forces anywhere on the map. The paratroops can swoop in on top of an undefended or lightly defended objective at the last minute, which can easily sway the overall result of the coup. As the paratroops aren’t subject to bribery this makes the air marshal useful to either side.
Army brigades: Six armed units inherent to each general. These are the main striking forces. No coup is likely to succeed without the support of at least one brigade. While powerful, the army brigades also have some key limitations. They can be bribed, so they are not entirely reliable. There are two event cards that can be played with the proper influence to neutralize one army brigade as long as they are played before the coup starts. Their other limitation is that they’re far from the key locations, using at least half the coup just to arrive at one of the key locations, which doesn’t leave a lot of time to seize them for the rebels.
Marines/gunboat: One armed unit and a gunboat. The weakest of the seven inherent forces. The admiral’s gunboat is a useful supporting unit for either side because it can fire anywhere, but unless it shoots every single coup phase its overall firepower during the coup is less than any other leader’s. The marines are much less useful than the paratroops because they have to land far from the action and still spend at least half the coup getting to an objective. Definitely just a supporting player no matter which side the admiral joins.
Helicopter Gunship: One armed unit. Probably the single most useful reinforcement, the helicopter is always loyal, only needs one card to play and provides a very flexible unit that can move twice a turn. The only real drawback it that it’s just a single unit and therefore vulnerable to loss unless teamed up with less-valuable friendly units. No blue units can be bribed, which makes them among the more reliable troops, if you can get the cards needed to bring them into play.
Christian Militia: Two armed units. These are very useful reinforcements to either side in a coup. They appear in a middle class neighborhood, placing the adjacent to most objectives and they’re not too hard to get in play as they have two prerequisite influence cards to chose from.
Home Defense League: Two armed units. While also providing two armed units, these are less useful than the militia because there’s only one available prerequisite card (so a specific pair of cards is required to bring these into play). They have to start in the suburbs, which puts them a little further from the action than the other blue units. If you have the cards, they can be useful to either side in support.
Bank Guard: Two armed units. The good news is that these two units start at the bank, which is one of the objectives, The bad news is that they can’t leave the bank, so they’re not a very flexible addition to the cause. Like most of the other blue units, these are difficult to bring into play because it requires the play of two specific cards – and influence followed by an event.
Student Mob: Three or four unarmed units. These appear in University City, which is in the heart of the action, next to no less than three objectives. As unarmed units, the mob is most useful when backing up armed units where they can soak up the losses. A farm strike can arm the mob, making them fully equal to other units in combat, but they are also subject to being bought off with the “Rabble” bride card. They can be summoned both with a general strike (one card play) or a student protest combined with either students, faculty or radicals influence (pairs), so they’re relatively easy to mobilize.
Rioters: Three to five unarmed units. These appear in one of the slums, which is less flexible than the students but still pretty close to at least one objective. They can also be mobilized with the general strike or with by the slum riot card combined with Radicals, Socialists, Peasants or Students, which is the largest array of card combos in the game. They can also be armed and/or bribed.
Strikers: Three to five unarmed units. These can only appear at the dockyards, which limits their flexibility considerably. As with the other red units, they can be bribed and/or armed. The general strike card brings them into play, as will a dock strike combined with labor union, radicals or socialists.
Demonstrators: Three to five unarmed units. These appear at one of the embassies, where no fighting can occur, but is, in each case, adjacent to an objective, Like other red units they can be bribed and/or armed, but unlike the other red units they are NOT summoned by the general strike. The only way to get them is by playing the demonstrators card with the radicals, conservatives or church influence card, so these are the least likely to appear.
Palace Guard: Four armed units that are always loyal and always available. With two shots each while in the Presidential Palace they can usually hold off a whole Army brigade, especially because it takes four coup phases for a brigade to reach the palace.
Police: Four armed units. These are inherently available to the Minister of Internal Security. These are subject to bribery, so they are occasionally co-opted. While deployed at the individual police stations they are dispersed but only two moves each from key locations. The difficulty is concentrating adequate force. On the other hand, if the Minister has seized the Chamber of Deputies then they are concentrated in one of the five key locations. They can also be deployed against Red units at the beginning of the coup. This is useful for blunting a coup’s starting forces or, if the Minister decides to support the coup, can create a police-led rabble that’s as strong as an army brigade. The Minister, therefore, is a useful recruit for the rebels or a dangerous and difficult to neutralize enemy.
Paratroops/air strikes: One armed unit and three one-shot air strikes. This is the air marshal’s inherent force. This is a very flexible force, although ill-suited to be the main rebel force. Instead it’s a strong supporting force. The three 6-die air strikes can decimate enemy forces anywhere on the map. The paratroops can swoop in on top of an undefended or lightly defended objective at the last minute, which can easily sway the overall result of the coup. As the paratroops aren’t subject to bribery this makes the air marshal useful to either side.
Army brigades: Six armed units inherent to each general. These are the main striking forces. No coup is likely to succeed without the support of at least one brigade. While powerful, the army brigades also have some key limitations. They can be bribed, so they are not entirely reliable. There are two event cards that can be played with the proper influence to neutralize one army brigade as long as they are played before the coup starts. Their other limitation is that they’re far from the key locations, using at least half the coup just to arrive at one of the key locations, which doesn’t leave a lot of time to seize them for the rebels.
Marines/gunboat: One armed unit and a gunboat. The weakest of the seven inherent forces. The admiral’s gunboat is a useful supporting unit for either side because it can fire anywhere, but unless it shoots every single coup phase its overall firepower during the coup is less than any other leader’s. The marines are much less useful than the paratroops because they have to land far from the action and still spend at least half the coup getting to an objective. Definitely just a supporting player no matter which side the admiral joins.
Helicopter Gunship: One armed unit. Probably the single most useful reinforcement, the helicopter is always loyal, only needs one card to play and provides a very flexible unit that can move twice a turn. The only real drawback it that it’s just a single unit and therefore vulnerable to loss unless teamed up with less-valuable friendly units. No blue units can be bribed, which makes them among the more reliable troops, if you can get the cards needed to bring them into play.
Christian Militia: Two armed units. These are very useful reinforcements to either side in a coup. They appear in a middle class neighborhood, placing the adjacent to most objectives and they’re not too hard to get in play as they have two prerequisite influence cards to chose from.
Home Defense League: Two armed units. While also providing two armed units, these are less useful than the militia because there’s only one available prerequisite card (so a specific pair of cards is required to bring these into play). They have to start in the suburbs, which puts them a little further from the action than the other blue units. If you have the cards, they can be useful to either side in support.
Bank Guard: Two armed units. The good news is that these two units start at the bank, which is one of the objectives, The bad news is that they can’t leave the bank, so they’re not a very flexible addition to the cause. Like most of the other blue units, these are difficult to bring into play because it requires the play of two specific cards – and influence followed by an event.
Student Mob: Three or four unarmed units. These appear in University City, which is in the heart of the action, next to no less than three objectives. As unarmed units, the mob is most useful when backing up armed units where they can soak up the losses. A farm strike can arm the mob, making them fully equal to other units in combat, but they are also subject to being bought off with the “Rabble” bride card. They can be summoned both with a general strike (one card play) or a student protest combined with either students, faculty or radicals influence (pairs), so they’re relatively easy to mobilize.
Rioters: Three to five unarmed units. These appear in one of the slums, which is less flexible than the students but still pretty close to at least one objective. They can also be mobilized with the general strike or with by the slum riot card combined with Radicals, Socialists, Peasants or Students, which is the largest array of card combos in the game. They can also be armed and/or bribed.
Strikers: Three to five unarmed units. These can only appear at the dockyards, which limits their flexibility considerably. As with the other red units, they can be bribed and/or armed. The general strike card brings them into play, as will a dock strike combined with labor union, radicals or socialists.
Demonstrators: Three to five unarmed units. These appear at one of the embassies, where no fighting can occur, but is, in each case, adjacent to an objective, Like other red units they can be bribed and/or armed, but unlike the other red units they are NOT summoned by the general strike. The only way to get them is by playing the demonstrators card with the radicals, conservatives or church influence card, so these are the least likely to appear.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Rommel in the Desert: Making a difference
Every so often a game comes along that is not only a worthwhile past time but has an impact on the wider Hobby. Rommel in the Desert is one of those games because it helped a whole gaming subgenre (in this case block wargames) break out of the box public opinion had placed it.
Rommel in the Desert wasn't the first block game, or course. Quebec 1759 holds that honor. But Rommel in the Desert was the first block wargame to venture out of the black power era and move into the era of mechanized warfare. As any observer of wargames can see, to really hit the big time and Be Serious, a wargame has to have Panzers.
World War II is the single most popular era for wargames and nothing is more popular in World War II wargaming than tanks, particularly German ones.
Rommel in the Desert showed that a block wargame could handle mechanized warfare, combined armes battles, supply and logistics. Rommel in the Desert prepared the way for EastFront, Europe Engulfed and FAB: The Bulge, not to mention every other block game that explored different eras and scales of fighting such as Wizard Kings, Hammer of the Scots, Pacific Victory and Victory.
The game itself still holds up very well, despite the passage of nearly 25 years since the first edition. It was brought back most recently in a 2004 version. It's an intense game and very, very unforgiving of mistakes, making it a little hard for beginners to pick up, but between experienced players it's an excellent contest that also manages good fidelity to the history. That's all one can ask for in a good historical wargame.
Rommel in the Desert wasn't the first block game, or course. Quebec 1759 holds that honor. But Rommel in the Desert was the first block wargame to venture out of the black power era and move into the era of mechanized warfare. As any observer of wargames can see, to really hit the big time and Be Serious, a wargame has to have Panzers.
World War II is the single most popular era for wargames and nothing is more popular in World War II wargaming than tanks, particularly German ones.
Rommel in the Desert showed that a block wargame could handle mechanized warfare, combined armes battles, supply and logistics. Rommel in the Desert prepared the way for EastFront, Europe Engulfed and FAB: The Bulge, not to mention every other block game that explored different eras and scales of fighting such as Wizard Kings, Hammer of the Scots, Pacific Victory and Victory.
The game itself still holds up very well, despite the passage of nearly 25 years since the first edition. It was brought back most recently in a 2004 version. It's an intense game and very, very unforgiving of mistakes, making it a little hard for beginners to pick up, but between experienced players it's an excellent contest that also manages good fidelity to the history. That's all one can ask for in a good historical wargame.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Up Front, Quarter-century retrospective
Up Front appeared 25 years ago in 1983.
It's one of the most innovative wargames ever done and has a large and devoted following.
It ranks very highly in both the general ratings on BoardgameGeek (43) and the wargame-specific (49) rankings.
But for such a well-respected and popular game, it's had surprisingly little impact on the wargame hobby as a whole.
It's still played quite a bit, especially for a 25-year-old wargame, (6 playes reported this month on BGG) which is a testimony to how satisfying a game experience it is. Still, it's also clearly game from a different era.
The style these days is for games that ruthlessly concentrate on the key elements of the design and keep extraneous elements to a minimum.
Now historical wargames have some limits in this regard, because real-life is not very tidy and it's hard to focus on just some elements of war without making the game too bland.
Like many 1980s wargames the essential game structure in Up Front is not overly complicated and it's not too hard to teach the basics of the game to someone. But like many wargames from its era the rules are pretty dense. This is because, typically for wargames, about 90 percent of the rules are devoted to parts of the game that come up less than 10 percent of the time.
Despite the 80s-style game approach there's a lot of support for a reprint, although chances for that ever happening seem to be slim. Multi-man Publishing holds the rights to the game from Hasbro, but there's been little progress reported for years on a planned reprint. A straight reprint is out of the question as it seems almost certain that none of the original artwork survives.
Given that new artwork will be required, it makes sense to update the game and streamline the rules. This is apparently where the rub comes in, because the design effort to do that seems to have hit a stone wall. There's no reports that anyone is currently working on the project now.
Yet the fact that Up Front is stalled wouldn't necessarily stop anyone else from doing an Up Front-style game on the same or a different topic. The game is copyrighted but the idea is not.
The are many hex-and-counter wargames but different publishers. card-driven wargames are appearing left and right. Even the long exclusivity that Columbia Games enjoyed with block games has come to an end as other publishers come up with their own variations on the idea.
But with the lone exception of the vaguely similar Attack Sub, no one has tried to do another card-wargame with a system like Up Front. The closest have been the Lightning series and the Down in Flames series, although I think they're still pretty far removed.
Given that Up Front doesn't seem to be coming back, perhaps someone will make the effort now.
It's one of the most innovative wargames ever done and has a large and devoted following.
It ranks very highly in both the general ratings on BoardgameGeek (43) and the wargame-specific (49) rankings.
But for such a well-respected and popular game, it's had surprisingly little impact on the wargame hobby as a whole.
It's still played quite a bit, especially for a 25-year-old wargame, (6 playes reported this month on BGG) which is a testimony to how satisfying a game experience it is. Still, it's also clearly game from a different era.
The style these days is for games that ruthlessly concentrate on the key elements of the design and keep extraneous elements to a minimum.
Now historical wargames have some limits in this regard, because real-life is not very tidy and it's hard to focus on just some elements of war without making the game too bland.
Like many 1980s wargames the essential game structure in Up Front is not overly complicated and it's not too hard to teach the basics of the game to someone. But like many wargames from its era the rules are pretty dense. This is because, typically for wargames, about 90 percent of the rules are devoted to parts of the game that come up less than 10 percent of the time.
Despite the 80s-style game approach there's a lot of support for a reprint, although chances for that ever happening seem to be slim. Multi-man Publishing holds the rights to the game from Hasbro, but there's been little progress reported for years on a planned reprint. A straight reprint is out of the question as it seems almost certain that none of the original artwork survives.
Given that new artwork will be required, it makes sense to update the game and streamline the rules. This is apparently where the rub comes in, because the design effort to do that seems to have hit a stone wall. There's no reports that anyone is currently working on the project now.
Yet the fact that Up Front is stalled wouldn't necessarily stop anyone else from doing an Up Front-style game on the same or a different topic. The game is copyrighted but the idea is not.
The are many hex-and-counter wargames but different publishers. card-driven wargames are appearing left and right. Even the long exclusivity that Columbia Games enjoyed with block games has come to an end as other publishers come up with their own variations on the idea.
But with the lone exception of the vaguely similar Attack Sub, no one has tried to do another card-wargame with a system like Up Front. The closest have been the Lightning series and the Down in Flames series, although I think they're still pretty far removed.
Given that Up Front doesn't seem to be coming back, perhaps someone will make the effort now.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Ace of Aces: Jet Eagles mystery planes
The World War I versions in the Ace of Aces series include short paragraphs introducing each plane (and famous aces, too) which is a boon to new players whose only exposure to aerial combat in the Great War might be Snoopy's Sopwith Camel doghouse.
This commendable feature wasn't carried on in the World War II version of Ace of Aces, Wingleader, although all the planes included are reasonably well-known and players presumably can research it themselves easily enough.
This largely true of the jet age game in the Ace of Aces series, Jet Eagles, which includes well-known aircraft for the most part.
There are, however, at least three aircraft in Jet Eagles which are truly obscure, and you'd have to be quite the aviation buff to recognize them off the top of your head.
One is called the SU-49 "Fullback" in the game, although as far as I can tell Jet Eagles is the only source that gives the aircraft that designation. It's better known as the SU-34 Fullback, an advanced fighter plane offered by the Sukhoi design bureau around the time the Soviet Union fell. It has only recently started to enter service in limited numbers. How close the actual plane is to the performance represented in the game is an open question.
The second is the F-29B, a design proposal from Grumman that was in competition for the next
advanced air-to-air fighter for the U.S. Air Force that was ultimately won by the F-22. Unlike the F-22, which was emphasized stealth, the F-29B concentrated on performance, with advanced fly-by-wire technology used to control its unusual swept-forward wing design. It also never entered service.
The third plane isn't even a manned aircraft. The Rockwell HiMAT is a remote-controlled
unmanned aircraft that was used as an experimental test platform. It was unarmed, unlike the version in the game, and never also never entered production.
The F-117A included in the game bears no resemblance to the actual F-117A, which was a light stealth bomber with no air-to-air weapons. The stats given in the game are closer to what the F-22 should have in game terms and probably it should be considered that aircraft instead.
This commendable feature wasn't carried on in the World War II version of Ace of Aces, Wingleader, although all the planes included are reasonably well-known and players presumably can research it themselves easily enough.
This largely true of the jet age game in the Ace of Aces series, Jet Eagles, which includes well-known aircraft for the most part.
There are, however, at least three aircraft in Jet Eagles which are truly obscure, and you'd have to be quite the aviation buff to recognize them off the top of your head.
One is called the SU-49 "Fullback" in the game, although as far as I can tell Jet Eagles is the only source that gives the aircraft that designation. It's better known as the SU-34 Fullback, an advanced fighter plane offered by the Sukhoi design bureau around the time the Soviet Union fell. It has only recently started to enter service in limited numbers. How close the actual plane is to the performance represented in the game is an open question.
The second is the F-29B, a design proposal from Grumman that was in competition for the next
advanced air-to-air fighter for the U.S. Air Force that was ultimately won by the F-22. Unlike the F-22, which was emphasized stealth, the F-29B concentrated on performance, with advanced fly-by-wire technology used to control its unusual swept-forward wing design. It also never entered service.The third plane isn't even a manned aircraft. The Rockwell HiMAT is a remote-controlled
unmanned aircraft that was used as an experimental test platform. It was unarmed, unlike the version in the game, and never also never entered production.The F-117A included in the game bears no resemblance to the actual F-117A, which was a light stealth bomber with no air-to-air weapons. The stats given in the game are closer to what the F-22 should have in game terms and probably it should be considered that aircraft instead.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Ambush 25 years later
Ambush! was quite a breakthrough when it appeared. In the 1980s there developed a demand among wargamers for good solitaire play options. A lot of us were moving out of the high school and college environment where we had a lot of time and people to play with and into the working world and starting families, both of which cut into gaming opportunities.
Compared to other gamers, wargamers have always played a lot of games solitaire. Unlike most games, it can be rewarding to play a wargame by yourself because you're more interested in seeing how the historical battle could have developed or trying out different strategies to see how they might have affected the outcome. Indeed, most magazine wargames are played solitaire if they get played at all. It's the rare wargamer who has regular playing partners willing to try to keep up with six new magazine games a year along with all the other choices.
But playing a two-player wargame solitaire introduces problems of its own because of bias, misunderstood rules and the general schizo feeling involved in trying to play both sides in a competitive contest.
Players and designers wondered if there was a way to provide a solitaire wargaming challenge. It's not a coincidence that all this development in board wargaming happened in the 1980s, before the widespread availability of computer and video games. The dearth of titles similar to Ambush! since is probably because computer and video games can do this better than paper-based games.
Many games created a game system that the player could struggle against, such as B-17, RAF, Patton's Best and Mosby's Raiders.
Ambush took a different, story-telling approach, with it's paragraph based system. The player's movements across the map and other actions would trigger looking up specific paragraphs in a "paragraph book" which would describe events. Paragraphs would dictate how enemy soldiers acted, what scouting would see and the impact of various special events. Some would trigger "Condition" changes, which would bring entirely new sets of paragraphs into play.
The disadvantage of this approach was that it was a lot of work from the design point of view and it reduced playability somewhat. During repeated playings of the same mission players would necessarily learn what was possible, reducing the surprise effect.
That surprise effect is one the game's real strengths. Unlike most tactical wargames, where the players have an unrealistic level of knowledge about what the other side is bringing to the table, in Ambush! it's possible to be really surprised by developments. This makes it one of the more realistic tactical wargames ever, despite some "Hollywood" elements in the missions.
Times have changed and it's hard to imagine anything like Ambush! ever being published again, but it's still worth pulling out now and then. One advantage of advancing years is that it's easier to forget what you saw before and if you haven't played a mission in a decade or so it's like you never played it at all, trust me.
Compared to other gamers, wargamers have always played a lot of games solitaire. Unlike most games, it can be rewarding to play a wargame by yourself because you're more interested in seeing how the historical battle could have developed or trying out different strategies to see how they might have affected the outcome. Indeed, most magazine wargames are played solitaire if they get played at all. It's the rare wargamer who has regular playing partners willing to try to keep up with six new magazine games a year along with all the other choices.
But playing a two-player wargame solitaire introduces problems of its own because of bias, misunderstood rules and the general schizo feeling involved in trying to play both sides in a competitive contest.
Players and designers wondered if there was a way to provide a solitaire wargaming challenge. It's not a coincidence that all this development in board wargaming happened in the 1980s, before the widespread availability of computer and video games. The dearth of titles similar to Ambush! since is probably because computer and video games can do this better than paper-based games.
Many games created a game system that the player could struggle against, such as B-17, RAF, Patton's Best and Mosby's Raiders.
Ambush took a different, story-telling approach, with it's paragraph based system. The player's movements across the map and other actions would trigger looking up specific paragraphs in a "paragraph book" which would describe events. Paragraphs would dictate how enemy soldiers acted, what scouting would see and the impact of various special events. Some would trigger "Condition" changes, which would bring entirely new sets of paragraphs into play.
The disadvantage of this approach was that it was a lot of work from the design point of view and it reduced playability somewhat. During repeated playings of the same mission players would necessarily learn what was possible, reducing the surprise effect.
That surprise effect is one the game's real strengths. Unlike most tactical wargames, where the players have an unrealistic level of knowledge about what the other side is bringing to the table, in Ambush! it's possible to be really surprised by developments. This makes it one of the more realistic tactical wargames ever, despite some "Hollywood" elements in the missions.
Times have changed and it's hard to imagine anything like Ambush! ever being published again, but it's still worth pulling out now and then. One advantage of advancing years is that it's easier to forget what you saw before and if you haven't played a mission in a decade or so it's like you never played it at all, trust me.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
B-17: Military Chutes and Ladders
Now, don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed "playing" B-17 these past 25 years. But it's really a strange bird among wargames. Or even among solitaire wargames. Unlike some solitaire games it's not really a puzzle. And unlike most wargames, there aren't a lot of strategies available. Actually, there are hardly any decisions at all.
It's really more like an interactive movie or play. The player takes part, but mostly to execute lines provided by the script. Things happen to the plane and crew, but there's little they can do about it.
This is all very accurate, of course. While valiant and needing a lot of technical competence, the bomber crews of the 8th Air Force had no tactical decisions to make. Their courage was the steadfast bravery needed to stay in formation despite terror and distraction. It would be like creating a man-to-man game about Greek hoplites. Bravery was required, but tactically the overriding concern was to stay in formation.
For the B-17 crew it was much the same. The various gunners fired at the targets presented. The pilots maintained formation with the other planes. The bombardier manipulated the bombsight to drop the bombs at the proper moment. Everyone's duty required staying at their posts and doing their jobs. But almost all those jobs are simulated with die rolls with no real player input.
Like I said, I like the game and enjoy playing it, but on some level I have to admit it's much more like playing a game of Chutes and Ladders than, say, Memoir' 44, let alone being like Bitter Woods.
It's really more like an interactive movie or play. The player takes part, but mostly to execute lines provided by the script. Things happen to the plane and crew, but there's little they can do about it.
This is all very accurate, of course. While valiant and needing a lot of technical competence, the bomber crews of the 8th Air Force had no tactical decisions to make. Their courage was the steadfast bravery needed to stay in formation despite terror and distraction. It would be like creating a man-to-man game about Greek hoplites. Bravery was required, but tactically the overriding concern was to stay in formation.
For the B-17 crew it was much the same. The various gunners fired at the targets presented. The pilots maintained formation with the other planes. The bombardier manipulated the bombsight to drop the bombs at the proper moment. Everyone's duty required staying at their posts and doing their jobs. But almost all those jobs are simulated with die rolls with no real player input.
Like I said, I like the game and enjoy playing it, but on some level I have to admit it's much more like playing a game of Chutes and Ladders than, say, Memoir' 44, let alone being like Bitter Woods.
Samurai Blades - review
Samurai Blades is a 1984 game using the Cry Havoc system. Unlike it's Europe-based sister games (Cry Havoc, Siege and Outremer) it's a completely standalone product with one small exception. This isn't a surprise, as the game's theme is man-to-man combat in feudal Japan, which is a few centuries and many thousands of miles away from the medieval Euro-centric world of the other games.
Systemically, however, it's exactly the same. Betraying its mid-1980s wargame roots, the game uses the usual attack factor-defense factor-movement factor system so familiar to wargamers along with an odds-based combat result table for melee combat.
Missile combat is handled somewhat differently, with die rolls on a table based on the target type with modifiers for cover and range. There's only one type of missile weapon, the longbow, making that aspect of the game a little simpler than the others.
The turn sequence is also familiar for experienced wargamers. Archers fire, everybody moves, archers fire again and finally adjacent figures battle in melee.
Samurai Blades is more limited in scope than the other games of the series which have a fairly large number of available scenarios included in the published games. (All games in the series also have fan-generated material available).
Of the six scenarios included in the game, three involve unique sets of characters that aren't used in any other scenarios.
The other three could be called the "saga of pack 8" as all of them involve characters from the set called "pack 8" in the rules, sometimes alone and sometimes combined with other packs. One of the three "pack 8" scenarios also uses the Crossroads map from the original Cry Havoc game. Other than that you don't need any of the earlier games in order to play.
Compared to the other games the scenarios in Samurai Blade tend to be small to medium sized, using a dozen to two-dozen characters in total.
While a couple are fairly straightforward battle scenarios, some of the others are notable riffs on famous Japanese movies or stories including a scenario based on The Seven Samurai, one based on the Kagemusha (Shadow Warrior) and a ninja assassination scenario.
The physical presentation was superior for its time, with full-color artwork on the board and the character counters, although the counters and boards are thinner stock than many would prefer.
The rules were written in the informal British style which assumes everyone will make a good-faith effort to play within the spirit of the game and is therefore ill-suited for groups infested with rules lawyers.
Not every 24-year-old wargame holds up well, but Samurai Blades does better than most and it's well worth snagging a copy if you're interested in the topic.
Systemically, however, it's exactly the same. Betraying its mid-1980s wargame roots, the game uses the usual attack factor-defense factor-movement factor system so familiar to wargamers along with an odds-based combat result table for melee combat.
Missile combat is handled somewhat differently, with die rolls on a table based on the target type with modifiers for cover and range. There's only one type of missile weapon, the longbow, making that aspect of the game a little simpler than the others.
The turn sequence is also familiar for experienced wargamers. Archers fire, everybody moves, archers fire again and finally adjacent figures battle in melee.
Samurai Blades is more limited in scope than the other games of the series which have a fairly large number of available scenarios included in the published games. (All games in the series also have fan-generated material available).
Of the six scenarios included in the game, three involve unique sets of characters that aren't used in any other scenarios.
The other three could be called the "saga of pack 8" as all of them involve characters from the set called "pack 8" in the rules, sometimes alone and sometimes combined with other packs. One of the three "pack 8" scenarios also uses the Crossroads map from the original Cry Havoc game. Other than that you don't need any of the earlier games in order to play.
Compared to the other games the scenarios in Samurai Blade tend to be small to medium sized, using a dozen to two-dozen characters in total.
While a couple are fairly straightforward battle scenarios, some of the others are notable riffs on famous Japanese movies or stories including a scenario based on The Seven Samurai, one based on the Kagemusha (Shadow Warrior) and a ninja assassination scenario.
The physical presentation was superior for its time, with full-color artwork on the board and the character counters, although the counters and boards are thinner stock than many would prefer.
The rules were written in the informal British style which assumes everyone will make a good-faith effort to play within the spirit of the game and is therefore ill-suited for groups infested with rules lawyers.
Not every 24-year-old wargame holds up well, but Samurai Blades does better than most and it's well worth snagging a copy if you're interested in the topic.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Gulf Strike 25 years later
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)