Fangorn Forest
A LOTR:TMG scenario based on the Fellowship of the Ring movie/book
Order of Battle:
Evil: Match the build of the Good side under standard army construction rules. The Bad force must include a version of Ugluk and a version of Grishnakh. If needed for leadership, the Bad force can optionally include versions of Snaga, Orc Lackey and/or Orc Overseer as needed and available. At least half but no more than two-thirds of the figures must be Uruk-Hai (not Mordor) and the remainder must be Orcs.
Good: As many Riders of Rohan as the player as available, fielded within standard army construction rules. The Good force must include a version of Eomer. The good force must also include any version of Merry and Pippin. The hobbits can be used to satisfy leadership requirements under the standard army construction rules. All the non-hobbit figures must be mounted except for a couple of foot Rohan figures to even off point totals. The value of the foot Rohan figures cannot exceed the point value of the cheapest mounted figure in the force. Once the good army total has been determined, give that information to the Evil force commander
Map:. Any one map that does not include buildings. Treat water hexsides as land.
Set Up
The Evil Army:. The Evil player sets up all figures in the center of the map. One hobbit must be in the very center hex, the other is adjacent. All other Evil force figures must be set up adjacent to at least two others so that the whole force forms one compact mass
The Good army: The hobbits set up in the center of the map. They start the scenario captured. All other figures can enter the map from any side on any turn.
Special Rules
1. Any Good figure can leave the map by paying 1 movement point from a map edge hex. Figures may reenter the map on any subsequent turn.
2. Merry and Pippin are prisoners, but under the control of the Good player for movement. They are unarmed and cannot fight, but they also cannot be killed. So long as an evil figure is adjacent to them they are considered bound and can only move one hex per turn and cannot enter an occupied hex. If a hobbit starts a friendly movement phase without an Evil figure adjacent the hobbit is considered freed and can move normally, but cannot attack. If an Evil figure is adjacent at the start of a movement phase the hobbit is considered recaptured and bound again. Hobbits can escape and be recaptured any number of times.
Victory.
The Evil Army wins if the Good army is routed
The Good Army wins if the Evil army is routed or both hobbits exit the map from any map edge.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
Navia Dratp, a twisted and sad saga of marketing madness
Metamorphosis is a fascinating chess-like abstract strategy game.
Players earn points by moving pawns forward, capturing opposing pieces and through some other piece-specific means. They can spend those points to metamorphose non-pawn pieces to more powerful versions or, in some cases, give the metamorphosed piece some new power.
The game has multiple ways to win: Capturing the opposing King, accumulating 60 points so the King can be metamorphosed into an Emperor or passing the king all the way across the board.
Described such, this probably sounds like a fairly easy-to-learn game that has the potential for some interesting and intricate game play. It could easily be themed, too, with wizards and dragons, insects, dream creatures, sci fi or even something whimsical.
Unfortunately BanDai, in the grip of some corporate madness, obscured this clever little strategy game under an overbearing weight of obscure and unpronounceable terms, bizarre figure art and collectible figures .
For those who wade through all that, there the reward of an intriguing game. And indeed, the game has recorded several hundred plays on BGG, which is a respectable number, exceeding all but a handful of wargames for example.
The game is Navia Dratp, and its name provides the first evidence of what was wrong with the marketing approach. If you're going to make up a name, why not make up one that people will know how to pronounce? Instead they include a silent "T' (it's Nah-Vee-ah Drahp) for know discernible reason.
Instead of calling the game's currency something obvious and easily understood such as points, or gold or jewels or whatever, they are called "Gyullas."
The game pieces bear names like Kapinah, Kapinahs (!?) Tanhoiser and Sungyullas.
And so on.
While marketing the game as a "collectible" game the maker left most of the pieces a very dark unpainted grey. In the initial offering only a small portion of the pieces were fully painted premium pieces. The second wave included one painted piece per booster, which was an improvement, albeit and inadequate one.
The sculpts are interesting in their own way, but too idiosyncratic to really draw the players in. There's an "anime" feel to the lot, but the most anime style pieces are the Navia (king) pieces,m which are rendered bizarrely as cute girls and some of their guard pieces. Most of the other pieces are more like something out of a horror movie. All that might have made some sense, except the background story for the Navia Dratp universe is very sketchy without enough information provided to really make sense of things.
Few games so professionally produced by a major company have been mismarketed so badly. Would the game have failed anyway? Perhaps. DreamBlade, which had a much more coherent marketing effort for a game that was also very interesting and well produced still didn't manage to do well enough to achieve breakthrough. (Although by boardgame standards it did rather well.)
But whatever chance Navia Dratp may have had was overwhelmed by the way it was presented.
Despite it all, however, there's an interesting game that's well worth playing. The multiple victory conditions, in particular, is a nice Eastern style touch that provides opportunities for misdirection and strategy. The interaction between pieces can lead to some unexpected combos that can tax the mind quite enjoyably. They also provide a universe of possibilities that would be unsolvable for a computer intelligence.
Ironically, the game's official demise may be good from a player's point of view. The base set and one expansion that were produced provide more than enough different pieces while stabilizing the game. Each player only needs seven pieces, so the five dozen or so available are sufficient. None of the pieces are overpowered, and indeed, most of the pieces are strictly limited in movement abilities, so there's little chance that a player will win because of the army he drafted instead of the cleverness of his play.
Navia Dratp ought to live on for quite a while as a small niche product that appeals to certain tastes.
Players earn points by moving pawns forward, capturing opposing pieces and through some other piece-specific means. They can spend those points to metamorphose non-pawn pieces to more powerful versions or, in some cases, give the metamorphosed piece some new power.
The game has multiple ways to win: Capturing the opposing King, accumulating 60 points so the King can be metamorphosed into an Emperor or passing the king all the way across the board.
Described such, this probably sounds like a fairly easy-to-learn game that has the potential for some interesting and intricate game play. It could easily be themed, too, with wizards and dragons, insects, dream creatures, sci fi or even something whimsical.
Unfortunately BanDai, in the grip of some corporate madness, obscured this clever little strategy game under an overbearing weight of obscure and unpronounceable terms, bizarre figure art and collectible figures .
For those who wade through all that, there the reward of an intriguing game. And indeed, the game has recorded several hundred plays on BGG, which is a respectable number, exceeding all but a handful of wargames for example.
The game is Navia Dratp, and its name provides the first evidence of what was wrong with the marketing approach. If you're going to make up a name, why not make up one that people will know how to pronounce? Instead they include a silent "T' (it's Nah-Vee-ah Drahp) for know discernible reason.
Instead of calling the game's currency something obvious and easily understood such as points, or gold or jewels or whatever, they are called "Gyullas."
The game pieces bear names like Kapinah, Kapinahs (!?) Tanhoiser and Sungyullas.
And so on.
While marketing the game as a "collectible" game the maker left most of the pieces a very dark unpainted grey. In the initial offering only a small portion of the pieces were fully painted premium pieces. The second wave included one painted piece per booster, which was an improvement, albeit and inadequate one.
The sculpts are interesting in their own way, but too idiosyncratic to really draw the players in. There's an "anime" feel to the lot, but the most anime style pieces are the Navia (king) pieces,m which are rendered bizarrely as cute girls and some of their guard pieces. Most of the other pieces are more like something out of a horror movie. All that might have made some sense, except the background story for the Navia Dratp universe is very sketchy without enough information provided to really make sense of things.
Few games so professionally produced by a major company have been mismarketed so badly. Would the game have failed anyway? Perhaps. DreamBlade, which had a much more coherent marketing effort for a game that was also very interesting and well produced still didn't manage to do well enough to achieve breakthrough. (Although by boardgame standards it did rather well.)
But whatever chance Navia Dratp may have had was overwhelmed by the way it was presented.
Despite it all, however, there's an interesting game that's well worth playing. The multiple victory conditions, in particular, is a nice Eastern style touch that provides opportunities for misdirection and strategy. The interaction between pieces can lead to some unexpected combos that can tax the mind quite enjoyably. They also provide a universe of possibilities that would be unsolvable for a computer intelligence.
Ironically, the game's official demise may be good from a player's point of view. The base set and one expansion that were produced provide more than enough different pieces while stabilizing the game. Each player only needs seven pieces, so the five dozen or so available are sufficient. None of the pieces are overpowered, and indeed, most of the pieces are strictly limited in movement abilities, so there's little chance that a player will win because of the army he drafted instead of the cleverness of his play.
Navia Dratp ought to live on for quite a while as a small niche product that appeals to certain tastes.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Inchon: McArthur's Gambit review
Inchon: MacArthur's Gambit is a hex-and-counter wargame depicting the bold invasion behind North Korean lines that changed the course of the Korean War. Widely considered one of the most brilliant strokes in General Douglas MacArthur's long and brilliant career, the game covers the initial days of fighting from the landing at Inchon on Sept. 15, 1950 to the recapture of the South Korean capital of Seoul.
It was the issue game in issue No. 9 of Command Magazine in 1991. The one scenario covers the 16-day battle with each turn representing a single day and each hex is one mile. The Mark Simonitch map depicts the city of Seoul, its port of Inchon and the sea and land approaches. Units are generally battalions with some company-sized units. The 12-page rulebook describes a game of moderate complexity by wargame standards with fairly standard mechanics for such games including zones of control, combat and movement factors, and movement and combat phases. Units are rated for "proficiency" with the more proficient unit having a combat edge. The 180 counters, including information markers, are functional and use standard NATO-style unit symbols.
North Korean units are red with yellow printing. The United Nations units use the standard XTR-color scheme: U.S. Army units are olive green, U.S.M.C. units are dark green, naval units are white on blue and the Republic of Korean troops are red on yellow.
The game revolves accumulating victory points for capturing terrain, with the lion's share coming from capturing Seoul as soon as possible.
The United Nations starts the game coming ashore at Inchon with the 1st Marine Division, 7th US Army Infantry Division and supporting units. While there are North Korean People's Army units defending the port and the rail line to Seoul, they will usually be quickly overwhelmed by the naval-gunfire-supported invaders. Any NKPA stand within 15 hexes of the sea is ill-advised and the real contest will take place along the Han River as the Americans try to force a crossing into Seoul against the 18th NK Infantry Division and its supports while fending off arriving NKPA reinforcements, including the potentially powerful 105th Tank Division.
Both sides get to attack and defend, and there is some minor variability in approach possible in what is essentially a stereotyped game situation caused by the strategic situation.
There are optional and variant rules that explore some possible changes, including a "nightmare" scenario for the UN with a prepared North Korean defense instead of the historical surprise.The game takes about 15 minutes to set up and can be played in one sitting, the designer notes estimate a five-hour playing time. The game succeeds in simulating the actual battle. There is no published errata.]
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: A well-done wargame.
(No) For Collectors: No remarkable collectibility.
(No) For Euro gamers: A hex-and-counter wargames with intricate and detailed rules.
It was the issue game in issue No. 9 of Command Magazine in 1991. The one scenario covers the 16-day battle with each turn representing a single day and each hex is one mile. The Mark Simonitch map depicts the city of Seoul, its port of Inchon and the sea and land approaches. Units are generally battalions with some company-sized units. The 12-page rulebook describes a game of moderate complexity by wargame standards with fairly standard mechanics for such games including zones of control, combat and movement factors, and movement and combat phases. Units are rated for "proficiency" with the more proficient unit having a combat edge. The 180 counters, including information markers, are functional and use standard NATO-style unit symbols.
North Korean units are red with yellow printing. The United Nations units use the standard XTR-color scheme: U.S. Army units are olive green, U.S.M.C. units are dark green, naval units are white on blue and the Republic of Korean troops are red on yellow.
The game revolves accumulating victory points for capturing terrain, with the lion's share coming from capturing Seoul as soon as possible.
The United Nations starts the game coming ashore at Inchon with the 1st Marine Division, 7th US Army Infantry Division and supporting units. While there are North Korean People's Army units defending the port and the rail line to Seoul, they will usually be quickly overwhelmed by the naval-gunfire-supported invaders. Any NKPA stand within 15 hexes of the sea is ill-advised and the real contest will take place along the Han River as the Americans try to force a crossing into Seoul against the 18th NK Infantry Division and its supports while fending off arriving NKPA reinforcements, including the potentially powerful 105th Tank Division.
Both sides get to attack and defend, and there is some minor variability in approach possible in what is essentially a stereotyped game situation caused by the strategic situation.
There are optional and variant rules that explore some possible changes, including a "nightmare" scenario for the UN with a prepared North Korean defense instead of the historical surprise.The game takes about 15 minutes to set up and can be played in one sitting, the designer notes estimate a five-hour playing time. The game succeeds in simulating the actual battle. There is no published errata.]
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: A well-done wargame.
(No) For Collectors: No remarkable collectibility.
(No) For Euro gamers: A hex-and-counter wargames with intricate and detailed rules.
In all my collection I only have one game with "meeples" ...
... and I haven't even played it yet.
I've got Carcassonne the City. It looks interesting and I love the presentation, being a sucker for wooden stuff, but it's unplayed as yet.
I haven't succeeded in hooking up with any regular euro players locally. There is a meetup in New Haven pretty often, but that's far enough away that my attendance has been spotty. Many of their meetings are on weekday nights, too, which is bad for me.
So I have just one meeple-equipped boardgame, despite the fact they're pretty much the signature component for euros (much like 1/2-inch square counters are for wargames).
But until I get to play more euros, I can't see buying many more. I have a few of the "classic" titles such as Lost Cities and Tigris & Euphrates, but there are plenty I've passed on. Most of my friends are wargamers and the euros are a little too abstract for family play so far.
Maybe I'll get to break the game in at WBC.
I've got Carcassonne the City. It looks interesting and I love the presentation, being a sucker for wooden stuff, but it's unplayed as yet.
I haven't succeeded in hooking up with any regular euro players locally. There is a meetup in New Haven pretty often, but that's far enough away that my attendance has been spotty. Many of their meetings are on weekday nights, too, which is bad for me.
So I have just one meeple-equipped boardgame, despite the fact they're pretty much the signature component for euros (much like 1/2-inch square counters are for wargames).
But until I get to play more euros, I can't see buying many more. I have a few of the "classic" titles such as Lost Cities and Tigris & Euphrates, but there are plenty I've passed on. Most of my friends are wargamers and the euros are a little too abstract for family play so far.
Maybe I'll get to break the game in at WBC.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Changes in the new version of War of 1812
The War of 1812 is a venerable senior citizen in the wargame world, having been more or less continuously in print since 1973. Unlike it's slightly older sister game, Quebec 1759, the War of 1812 has seen some significant rules changes over the years, although nothing so drastic as to change the character of the game.
That character is a game that's an excellent introductory level wargame with quite a bit of scope for bluff and strategy, although kept tense by a fairly high luck factor. Unlike most Columbia block games, which mitigate the luck factor through a high volume of rolls that tend to make things even out, War of 1812 is subject to wild swings of fortune. It's not uncommon for a critical battle that may determine the status of a large swath of territory to be battled out between a single pair of blocks. When you're just rolling a few dice there's less chances for luck to even out. While the odds still favor a strength 4 block against a strength 2 block, all it takes is one "snake eyes" to suddenly change it into a free-for-all.
The biggest change in the newest (2008) edition of the game is in the naval rules, which scrap the unique system that's been used in the game virtually unchanged for three-and-a-half decades in favor of a new system that's consistent with the combat system used in all the other Columbia games. Now fleets are built a step at a time and each step fires at "F1" (which means it hits on a roll of a 1) in a simultaneous exchange of broadsides. Gone are the two-step building process, distinction between "operational" and "nonoperational" ships and deciding the battle with one grand roll of the dice.
A smaller, although still significant change in the naval rules, provides fleets an option to escape capture if an enemy army attacks its port. Under the old rule the fleet's fate depended entirely on the outcome of the battle, but now the ships can attempt to sortie while the ground forces cover them. Of course, a proper tactic is to make sure a powerful fleet is already on the lake waiting for the escapees, but they at least have a hope of doing some damage.
Changes in the land game are more incremental. The dragoons introduced in the last major revision have now been expanded in number and now fight at F2 all the time, making them more powerful. Their strength of 2 keeps them from being too dominant.
A new branch is introduced, with each side having a couple of artillery units in their draw pool. These also fight at F2 and have a CV of up to 3, so they provide a bit of punch these small armies. Rolling hits on a 1 or a 2 is a big edge when there are so few dice being rolled.
Each of the army blocks has an individual name, now, which is also a change and should make PBeM easier. The game also distinguishes between militia and regular troops. This has no game effect for the Anglo-Canadians but a significant impact on American operations, in a Good New/Bad News way.
The Good News is that now the American player knows ahead of time which of his pieces are militiamen who may balk at crossing the border into Canada. The Bad News is that now there's a 50% chance the militia will hew closely to their military obligation to serve only in the US. Under the old rules there was a 1/6 chance for any US unit to refuse to cross.
It doesn't appear that these changes will change game strategy much and they have the virtue of being a bit more realistic at a very low cost in complexity. Indeed, I think the new naval rules are simpler than the old ones, so the net change may very will be nil.
That character is a game that's an excellent introductory level wargame with quite a bit of scope for bluff and strategy, although kept tense by a fairly high luck factor. Unlike most Columbia block games, which mitigate the luck factor through a high volume of rolls that tend to make things even out, War of 1812 is subject to wild swings of fortune. It's not uncommon for a critical battle that may determine the status of a large swath of territory to be battled out between a single pair of blocks. When you're just rolling a few dice there's less chances for luck to even out. While the odds still favor a strength 4 block against a strength 2 block, all it takes is one "snake eyes" to suddenly change it into a free-for-all.
The biggest change in the newest (2008) edition of the game is in the naval rules, which scrap the unique system that's been used in the game virtually unchanged for three-and-a-half decades in favor of a new system that's consistent with the combat system used in all the other Columbia games. Now fleets are built a step at a time and each step fires at "F1" (which means it hits on a roll of a 1) in a simultaneous exchange of broadsides. Gone are the two-step building process, distinction between "operational" and "nonoperational" ships and deciding the battle with one grand roll of the dice.
A smaller, although still significant change in the naval rules, provides fleets an option to escape capture if an enemy army attacks its port. Under the old rule the fleet's fate depended entirely on the outcome of the battle, but now the ships can attempt to sortie while the ground forces cover them. Of course, a proper tactic is to make sure a powerful fleet is already on the lake waiting for the escapees, but they at least have a hope of doing some damage.
Changes in the land game are more incremental. The dragoons introduced in the last major revision have now been expanded in number and now fight at F2 all the time, making them more powerful. Their strength of 2 keeps them from being too dominant.
A new branch is introduced, with each side having a couple of artillery units in their draw pool. These also fight at F2 and have a CV of up to 3, so they provide a bit of punch these small armies. Rolling hits on a 1 or a 2 is a big edge when there are so few dice being rolled.
Each of the army blocks has an individual name, now, which is also a change and should make PBeM easier. The game also distinguishes between militia and regular troops. This has no game effect for the Anglo-Canadians but a significant impact on American operations, in a Good New/Bad News way.
The Good News is that now the American player knows ahead of time which of his pieces are militiamen who may balk at crossing the border into Canada. The Bad News is that now there's a 50% chance the militia will hew closely to their military obligation to serve only in the US. Under the old rules there was a 1/6 chance for any US unit to refuse to cross.
It doesn't appear that these changes will change game strategy much and they have the virtue of being a bit more realistic at a very low cost in complexity. Indeed, I think the new naval rules are simpler than the old ones, so the net change may very will be nil.
ASL SK #1 -- Evidence wargamers don't care about mounted boards
On BoardGame Geek it's not uncommon to have some euro-background gamer express disappointment over the component quality of their first wargame compared to what they are used to.
When parsed, it usually comes down to the board, which is generally not mounted on stiff cardboard, but is paper or thick cardstock. The otter area of complaint is with rules, and often those complaints have some validity. Writing good rules is undoubtedly the biggest challenge for wargame publishers.
But long before they get to find the inadequacies of the rules, many of these new wargamers have a bad impression because the map is, to their eyes, flimsy and cheap.
Yet there's little evidence that veteran wargamers care much about whether the map is mounted or not and there's nothing to suggest a lot of agitation among consumers for mounted boards. Indeed. mounted boards have never been all that common for wargames.
Sure, Avalon Hill almost always used mounted mapboards, but that company was a special case. They published many family and adult games where having a mounted board was required, from a marketing standpoint and the company was owned by a printer, reducing the costs considerations that affected other publishers.
Throughout the history of wargames, mounted boards have been associated with attempts to branch out to the wider gaming public, which has been conditioned to expect boardgames to have mounted playing surfaces ever since they got Candyland or Monopoly. SPI's "designer" series wargames, TSR's Onslaught and Red Storm Rising, Steve Jackson Games' Deluxe Ogre, etc. are all examples from years gone by.
But hardcore, mainstream hex-and-counter wargames have generally had paper maps or, for more deluxe versions, thick cardstock. Partly this is because paper maps are the only practical option for wargames published in a magazine format such as Strategy & Tactics magazine. But even for their boxed games, publishers such as SPI, GDW, Columbia, and otters have used paper or cardstock maps.
Paper and cardstock maps are much less costly, for one thing, and given that wargames are already fairly expensive, players have been willing to save that expense. Paper and cardstock maps have some practical advantages as well. They're usually one large piece which avoids problems with the folds and gaps often seen in mounted boards and, when covered by Plexiglas, form a very flat, solid, spill-resistant and convenient playing surface.
Paper maps do have some drawbacks, of course. The most serious is durability. As they age they tend to rip and develop holes, especially along the folds, and for this reason more deluxe wargames tend to use a thick cardstock instead of paper. This medium ha all the advantages of paper maps while being more durable.
The pattern has been well-established and shows little propensity to change. The wargames that have mounted maps today tend to be the ones that appeal to a wider, non-wargame audience as well, such as Memoir' 44, War of the Ring and Napoleon's Triumph. Wargamers seem perfectly satisfied with heavy cardstock games, as the success of GMT, L2 Design and Columbia show.
The latest evidence for this is the ASL community and MMP, which is in the process of converting the ASL world from mounted maps to heavy cardstock maps, something few euro-oriented gamers would consider an improvement.
That ASL had mounted boards at all is largely because it was an Avalon Hill game and all AH games had mounted maps back then. In truth, however, the mounted boards always created some problems for ASL players because they didn't abut with the precision the game really needed. ASL traces line of sight using a "naturalistic" rule that depends on the actual contours of terrain features such as building and woods. (As opposed to the other common wargame convention of considering blocking terrain to fill en entire hex and therefore only worrying about hexsides.
The small gaps and irregular lineup caused by the board mounting process meant, in ASL, that any LOS that crossed the boundary between two boards was necessarily a little "off" from what it would have been if the boards were really adjacent.
ASL started using paper maps with the historical modules, which were based on actual terrain and usually came on one or two standard-sized game maps. This was well-received by players, so there was no obvious resistance to non-mounted maps by players. The biggest obstacle to changing over was the the fact that there was the legacy of some 40+ previously published AH mapboards. All new players necessarily started with those.
The ASL Start kits, however, have provided an alternative entry point for new players and MMP has apparently take that opportunity to switch the ASL community over to heavy cardstock maps to replace the existing stock. Reprints will have the cardstock maps instead of mounted maps. It's less of a bother than it might seem to mix them because a player can simply place a cardstock map on top of an unused mounted mapboard and use the Plexiglas to hold it all down.
There are few wargame communities more "hard core" than ASLers, and I think the evidence is clear, real wargamers don't need mounted maps.
When parsed, it usually comes down to the board, which is generally not mounted on stiff cardboard, but is paper or thick cardstock. The otter area of complaint is with rules, and often those complaints have some validity. Writing good rules is undoubtedly the biggest challenge for wargame publishers.
But long before they get to find the inadequacies of the rules, many of these new wargamers have a bad impression because the map is, to their eyes, flimsy and cheap.
Yet there's little evidence that veteran wargamers care much about whether the map is mounted or not and there's nothing to suggest a lot of agitation among consumers for mounted boards. Indeed. mounted boards have never been all that common for wargames.
Sure, Avalon Hill almost always used mounted mapboards, but that company was a special case. They published many family and adult games where having a mounted board was required, from a marketing standpoint and the company was owned by a printer, reducing the costs considerations that affected other publishers.
Throughout the history of wargames, mounted boards have been associated with attempts to branch out to the wider gaming public, which has been conditioned to expect boardgames to have mounted playing surfaces ever since they got Candyland or Monopoly. SPI's "designer" series wargames, TSR's Onslaught and Red Storm Rising, Steve Jackson Games' Deluxe Ogre, etc. are all examples from years gone by.
But hardcore, mainstream hex-and-counter wargames have generally had paper maps or, for more deluxe versions, thick cardstock. Partly this is because paper maps are the only practical option for wargames published in a magazine format such as Strategy & Tactics magazine. But even for their boxed games, publishers such as SPI, GDW, Columbia, and otters have used paper or cardstock maps.
Paper and cardstock maps are much less costly, for one thing, and given that wargames are already fairly expensive, players have been willing to save that expense. Paper and cardstock maps have some practical advantages as well. They're usually one large piece which avoids problems with the folds and gaps often seen in mounted boards and, when covered by Plexiglas, form a very flat, solid, spill-resistant and convenient playing surface.
Paper maps do have some drawbacks, of course. The most serious is durability. As they age they tend to rip and develop holes, especially along the folds, and for this reason more deluxe wargames tend to use a thick cardstock instead of paper. This medium ha all the advantages of paper maps while being more durable.
The pattern has been well-established and shows little propensity to change. The wargames that have mounted maps today tend to be the ones that appeal to a wider, non-wargame audience as well, such as Memoir' 44, War of the Ring and Napoleon's Triumph. Wargamers seem perfectly satisfied with heavy cardstock games, as the success of GMT, L2 Design and Columbia show.
The latest evidence for this is the ASL community and MMP, which is in the process of converting the ASL world from mounted maps to heavy cardstock maps, something few euro-oriented gamers would consider an improvement.
That ASL had mounted boards at all is largely because it was an Avalon Hill game and all AH games had mounted maps back then. In truth, however, the mounted boards always created some problems for ASL players because they didn't abut with the precision the game really needed. ASL traces line of sight using a "naturalistic" rule that depends on the actual contours of terrain features such as building and woods. (As opposed to the other common wargame convention of considering blocking terrain to fill en entire hex and therefore only worrying about hexsides.
The small gaps and irregular lineup caused by the board mounting process meant, in ASL, that any LOS that crossed the boundary between two boards was necessarily a little "off" from what it would have been if the boards were really adjacent.
ASL started using paper maps with the historical modules, which were based on actual terrain and usually came on one or two standard-sized game maps. This was well-received by players, so there was no obvious resistance to non-mounted maps by players. The biggest obstacle to changing over was the the fact that there was the legacy of some 40+ previously published AH mapboards. All new players necessarily started with those.
The ASL Start kits, however, have provided an alternative entry point for new players and MMP has apparently take that opportunity to switch the ASL community over to heavy cardstock maps to replace the existing stock. Reprints will have the cardstock maps instead of mounted maps. It's less of a bother than it might seem to mix them because a player can simply place a cardstock map on top of an unused mounted mapboard and use the Plexiglas to hold it all down.
There are few wargame communities more "hard core" than ASLers, and I think the evidence is clear, real wargamers don't need mounted maps.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Piecepack at Waterloo
Piecepack at Waterloo
An historical battle game using the Piecepack game system.
Pieces needed:
One piecepack set
Four small coins
Set up
Using the lined side of the tiles, set up a rectangular grid of 4 by 5 tiles creating a battle map of 8 x 10 squares. The Allied player will sit at one wide end, the French player at the other. Consider the map’s as being labeled from A to H starting at the Allied player’s side. Consider the rows as being labeled from 1 to 10, starting from the Allied player’s right. So the rightmost square on the Allied side of the map is A-1 and the rightmost square on the French side is H-10.
Place a coin, heads side up in Square A-3, this represents the village of Mont St. Jean and is a French objective. Place a second coin, heads side up, in square G-7. This represents the village of Plancenoit, and is the Allied objective.
Place a coin, tails side up, in square E-4. This represents the fortified chateau of Hougoumont and is also a French objective. Place the fourth coin, tails side up, in square G-3. This represents the walled farm of La Haye Saint, also a French objective.
Set aside the following pieces as the order of battle
Allied armies (12 pieces)
Red Pawn: Wellington
Red Star 5: British 1st & 3rd divisions (Cooke and Alten)
Red Star 4: British 5th & 6th divisions (Picton)
Red Star 3: Britsh 2nd & 4th divisions (Clinton)
Red Star 2: Dutch-Belgians and other allies
Red Star blank: Cavalry Reserve (Uxbridge)
Red Star symbol: Hougoumont garrison
Black pawn: Blucher
Black Moon 5: IV Prussian Corps (Bulow)
Black Moon 4: II Prussian Corps: (Pirch)
Black Moon 2: I Prussian Corps (-) (Steinmetz)
Black Moon blank: Prussian cavalry
French Army (11 pieces)
Green Pawn: Napoleon
Blue Pawn: Ney
Green crown 5: Old Guard
Green crown 4: Young Guard
Green crown 2: Guard cavalry
Green crown symbol: Guard artillery
Blue fleur 5: I Corps (D’Erlon)
Blue fleur 4: VI Corps (Lobau)
Blue fleur 3: II Corps (-) (Reille)
Blue fleur 2: II Corps
Blue fleur blank: III & IV Cavalry corps
How to win:
The French with by capturing all three objectives.
The Allies with by capturing their objective, eliminating Napoleon or if the French fail to capture all their objectives in 10 turns.
Starting setup:
Allies deploy first.
Set aside the five black pieces, they arrive later as reinforcements.
Place the Red star symbol in Hougoumont. Place the other six red pieces on or next to Hougoumont and La Haye Saint within stacking limits.
French deploy second, within two squares of Plancenoit, but NOT next to any Allied piece.
Sequence of Play:
French move
French combat
Allied move
Allied combat
Allied reinforcement
Advance turn marker
Place an unused marker in square G-1 and advance along the G row. The game ends when the marker moves off the map.
Movement
Leaders (pawns) and cavalry units (French green crown 2, all others blank pieces) can move two squares per turn. All other pieces move 1 square. Pieces can move through friendly pieces but must stop when moving next to enemy pieces. Pieces (except leader pawns) that begin a turn next to an enemy piece cannot move. Leader pawns can move their full allowance even when starting next to an enemy piece and need not stop when moving next to one. They cannot move through an enemy piece’s square.
Hidden information
Pieces are kept symbol side up (number side down) at all times except during combat. Players can examine their own pieces at any time, but can only examine enemy pieces during combat.
Stacking
Normal stacking is one piece per square. Leader pawns can stack with any non-leader piece, but there can be just one leader per square. Symbol pieces (Hougoumont garrison and French Guard artillery) don’t count for stacking. Therefore the maximum number of pieces in a square is three: One regular piece, one symbol piece and one leader pawn.
Combat
The player who just moved should designate all attacks by pointing the line on each piece at the target enemy piece. Every piece that starts a combat phase next to an enemy piece must take part in a combat against one of those pieces. More than one piece may attack a single defending piece.
After all attacks have been designated, the attacker may resolve the attacks in any order. To resolve an attack turn over the defending piece and all attacking pieces and add up the respective numerical values. Symbol and blanks are considered “0” at this point.
Roll one combat die plus additional dice as listed below and add those values to the total for the respective side in the combat. Any blanks rolled are considered “0” while each symbol roll allows one numerical result (either a piece value or another die roll at the player’s option) to count double. No numerical result can be more than doubled and excess doubles are lost.
In addition to the base combat roll, a side can roll an additional die for each of the following that applies:
Attacker:
One per eligible leader (Napoleon, Blucher or Ney) taking part in the combat.
One per symbol piece taking part in the combat
Defender
One per eligible leader (Napoleon or Wellington) taking part in the combat
One per symbol piece taking part in the combat
One per friendly piece not being attacked by any enemy piece that is next to an attacking piece involved in the combat.
One if the defending piece is in Hougoumont or La Haye Saint.
For example:
Napoleon, the Old Guard and Guard artillery in one square and Ney and the cavalry in a second square are attacking Hougoumnt, which has the garrison, the Dutch-Belgians and Wellington. Next to Ney but not being attacked, is the British Cavalry.
The French combat value is “5” (Old Guard) plus the value of three dice (Napoleon, Ney & Guard artillery).
The Allied combat value is “2” (DB) plus the value of four dice (Wellington, Hougoumont garrison, Hougoumont chateau and the unattacked British cavalry next to Ney)
Combat results:
Total the respective numbers, making note of the highest single undoubled numerical result. The higher number wins. Each piece on the losing side is retreated two squares in any direction by the victor, but cannot retreat next to an enemy piece (except for a lone leader). If there is no possible retreat path that does not pass next to an enemy piece other than a lone leader then the retreating piece is eliminated. If the winning side is the attacker then one attacking piece can enter the defending piece’s square. The winning side is entitled to eliminate one enemy piece on the losing side whose numerical value is equal to or less than the highest number rolled among the winning dice. If the results are exactly tied, after all modifiers, then the battle is a stalemate and there is no result.
Combat example continued.
Napoleon and his crew roll a “4,” a “2” and a symbol on their three dice. The French use the symbol to double the French Guard’s “5” so the French total is “16” (French Guard, Guard doubled, the 4 and the 2).
Wellington’s defenders roll symbol, symbol, symbol and 5. They use one symbol to double the 5 and the other to double the 2. The third symbol is wasted) The Allied total is a “14” so they lose. If they had won they could have eliminated either the French Guard or the cavalry because they 5 is equal to or higher than both French pieces. But they lost, so instead the French can eliminate the DB @ and force Wellington and the Hougoumont garrison to retreat two squares.
An historical battle game using the Piecepack game system.
Pieces needed:
One piecepack set
Four small coins
Set up
Using the lined side of the tiles, set up a rectangular grid of 4 by 5 tiles creating a battle map of 8 x 10 squares. The Allied player will sit at one wide end, the French player at the other. Consider the map’s as being labeled from A to H starting at the Allied player’s side. Consider the rows as being labeled from 1 to 10, starting from the Allied player’s right. So the rightmost square on the Allied side of the map is A-1 and the rightmost square on the French side is H-10.
Place a coin, heads side up in Square A-3, this represents the village of Mont St. Jean and is a French objective. Place a second coin, heads side up, in square G-7. This represents the village of Plancenoit, and is the Allied objective.
Place a coin, tails side up, in square E-4. This represents the fortified chateau of Hougoumont and is also a French objective. Place the fourth coin, tails side up, in square G-3. This represents the walled farm of La Haye Saint, also a French objective.
Set aside the following pieces as the order of battle
Allied armies (12 pieces)
Red Pawn: Wellington
Red Star 5: British 1st & 3rd divisions (Cooke and Alten)
Red Star 4: British 5th & 6th divisions (Picton)
Red Star 3: Britsh 2nd & 4th divisions (Clinton)
Red Star 2: Dutch-Belgians and other allies
Red Star blank: Cavalry Reserve (Uxbridge)
Red Star symbol: Hougoumont garrison
Black pawn: Blucher
Black Moon 5: IV Prussian Corps (Bulow)
Black Moon 4: II Prussian Corps: (Pirch)
Black Moon 2: I Prussian Corps (-) (Steinmetz)
Black Moon blank: Prussian cavalry
French Army (11 pieces)
Green Pawn: Napoleon
Blue Pawn: Ney
Green crown 5: Old Guard
Green crown 4: Young Guard
Green crown 2: Guard cavalry
Green crown symbol: Guard artillery
Blue fleur 5: I Corps (D’Erlon)
Blue fleur 4: VI Corps (Lobau)
Blue fleur 3: II Corps (-) (Reille)
Blue fleur 2: II Corps
Blue fleur blank: III & IV Cavalry corps
How to win:
The French with by capturing all three objectives.
The Allies with by capturing their objective, eliminating Napoleon or if the French fail to capture all their objectives in 10 turns.
Starting setup:
Allies deploy first.
Set aside the five black pieces, they arrive later as reinforcements.
Place the Red star symbol in Hougoumont. Place the other six red pieces on or next to Hougoumont and La Haye Saint within stacking limits.
French deploy second, within two squares of Plancenoit, but NOT next to any Allied piece.
Sequence of Play:
French move
French combat
Allied move
Allied combat
Allied reinforcement
Advance turn marker
Place an unused marker in square G-1 and advance along the G row. The game ends when the marker moves off the map.
Movement
Leaders (pawns) and cavalry units (French green crown 2, all others blank pieces) can move two squares per turn. All other pieces move 1 square. Pieces can move through friendly pieces but must stop when moving next to enemy pieces. Pieces (except leader pawns) that begin a turn next to an enemy piece cannot move. Leader pawns can move their full allowance even when starting next to an enemy piece and need not stop when moving next to one. They cannot move through an enemy piece’s square.
Hidden information
Pieces are kept symbol side up (number side down) at all times except during combat. Players can examine their own pieces at any time, but can only examine enemy pieces during combat.
Stacking
Normal stacking is one piece per square. Leader pawns can stack with any non-leader piece, but there can be just one leader per square. Symbol pieces (Hougoumont garrison and French Guard artillery) don’t count for stacking. Therefore the maximum number of pieces in a square is three: One regular piece, one symbol piece and one leader pawn.
Combat
The player who just moved should designate all attacks by pointing the line on each piece at the target enemy piece. Every piece that starts a combat phase next to an enemy piece must take part in a combat against one of those pieces. More than one piece may attack a single defending piece.
After all attacks have been designated, the attacker may resolve the attacks in any order. To resolve an attack turn over the defending piece and all attacking pieces and add up the respective numerical values. Symbol and blanks are considered “0” at this point.
Roll one combat die plus additional dice as listed below and add those values to the total for the respective side in the combat. Any blanks rolled are considered “0” while each symbol roll allows one numerical result (either a piece value or another die roll at the player’s option) to count double. No numerical result can be more than doubled and excess doubles are lost.
In addition to the base combat roll, a side can roll an additional die for each of the following that applies:
Attacker:
One per eligible leader (Napoleon, Blucher or Ney) taking part in the combat.
One per symbol piece taking part in the combat
Defender
One per eligible leader (Napoleon or Wellington) taking part in the combat
One per symbol piece taking part in the combat
One per friendly piece not being attacked by any enemy piece that is next to an attacking piece involved in the combat.
One if the defending piece is in Hougoumont or La Haye Saint.
For example:
Napoleon, the Old Guard and Guard artillery in one square and Ney and the cavalry in a second square are attacking Hougoumnt, which has the garrison, the Dutch-Belgians and Wellington. Next to Ney but not being attacked, is the British Cavalry.
The French combat value is “5” (Old Guard) plus the value of three dice (Napoleon, Ney & Guard artillery).
The Allied combat value is “2” (DB) plus the value of four dice (Wellington, Hougoumont garrison, Hougoumont chateau and the unattacked British cavalry next to Ney)
Combat results:
Total the respective numbers, making note of the highest single undoubled numerical result. The higher number wins. Each piece on the losing side is retreated two squares in any direction by the victor, but cannot retreat next to an enemy piece (except for a lone leader). If there is no possible retreat path that does not pass next to an enemy piece other than a lone leader then the retreating piece is eliminated. If the winning side is the attacker then one attacking piece can enter the defending piece’s square. The winning side is entitled to eliminate one enemy piece on the losing side whose numerical value is equal to or less than the highest number rolled among the winning dice. If the results are exactly tied, after all modifiers, then the battle is a stalemate and there is no result.
Combat example continued.
Napoleon and his crew roll a “4,” a “2” and a symbol on their three dice. The French use the symbol to double the French Guard’s “5” so the French total is “16” (French Guard, Guard doubled, the 4 and the 2).
Wellington’s defenders roll symbol, symbol, symbol and 5. They use one symbol to double the 5 and the other to double the 2. The third symbol is wasted) The Allied total is a “14” so they lose. If they had won they could have eliminated either the French Guard or the cavalry because they 5 is equal to or higher than both French pieces. But they lost, so instead the French can eliminate the DB @ and force Wellington and the Hougoumont garrison to retreat two squares.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Heroclix Alpha restores bystanders to bystanding
HeroClix Alpha strips the Heroclix system down to its essentials, for an overall mixed result. It gets rid of the concept of "pushing" actions, which simplifies things for teaching purposes. although at some cost in tactical subtlety.
One welcome change I'd like to see ported over to the mainstream rules are the revised victory conditions. In regular tournament HeroClix battles are won by points scored, with each KO'd figure worth its build points. In HeroClix Alpha victory is achieved by the first player to KO five opposing characters.
One of the things this does is restore bystander tokens to their secondary status. I've noticed that many tournament players include a few bystander tokens and use them aggressively to tie up enemy figures, block lines of fire and otherwise take suicidal risks. While valid game tactics, it really seems out of sorts with the theme. I mean, sticking Martha Kent in front of Superman is just wrong. But hey, if Franklin Richards gets blasted by Kobra, so what? He's only worth a few points.
Under the Alpha rules, in contrast, bystander tokens are a source of weakness. A KO is a KO, and it's obviously a lot easier to pick off a one-step Joe Chill than a 10-step Batman. Bystander tokens, if used at all, will probably be kept in safe spots, which seems a much more appropriate place for Mary Jane Watson.
One welcome change I'd like to see ported over to the mainstream rules are the revised victory conditions. In regular tournament HeroClix battles are won by points scored, with each KO'd figure worth its build points. In HeroClix Alpha victory is achieved by the first player to KO five opposing characters.
One of the things this does is restore bystander tokens to their secondary status. I've noticed that many tournament players include a few bystander tokens and use them aggressively to tie up enemy figures, block lines of fire and otherwise take suicidal risks. While valid game tactics, it really seems out of sorts with the theme. I mean, sticking Martha Kent in front of Superman is just wrong. But hey, if Franklin Richards gets blasted by Kobra, so what? He's only worth a few points.
Under the Alpha rules, in contrast, bystander tokens are a source of weakness. A KO is a KO, and it's obviously a lot easier to pick off a one-step Joe Chill than a 10-step Batman. Bystander tokens, if used at all, will probably be kept in safe spots, which seems a much more appropriate place for Mary Jane Watson.
Axis & Allies: D-Day, a different point of view
Axis & Allies: D-Day is, in many ways, a throwback to an earlier age in wargaming, when simulation definitely took a back seat to rip-roaring game action. Pieces fly off the board with such abandon that it's not unusual to see an endgame devoid of front liens as the surviving clumps of combatants maneuver like Napoleonic hosts around the objectives.
The entire A&A genre by designer Larry Harris represents, in many ways, a different way at looking at wargames from the mainstream hobby, although one that's becoming rather more common now.
Traditionally wargames have generally taken an organizationally-based view of warfighting, concentrating, except at the most tactical levels, on the organizations fighting the battle, rather than their weapons. Units are squads, platoons, companies, battalions, etc., all the way up to Army groups. This viewpoint goes right back to the origin of the hobby with Charles Roberts' Tactics, and the vast majority of wargames treat their pieces as military organizations.
The main exceptions to this have been low-level tactical games and games set in the ancient era, which more often break forces down on a functional or weapons-based basis. A piece will represent a certain number of tanks or spearmen, rather than an organization such as a company or cohort.
This isn't, of course, the only way to look at things, and it's certainly possible to consider battles as being fought by numbers of men and machines without over-emphasizing their organizational basis. Is it more illuminating to consider an attack as being by a tank company or by 17 tanks?
Harris' designs have taken the functional, weapon-based approach all the way to the grand strategic level, with the base Axis & Allies game. The Axis and Allies wage war with tanks, fighters and U-boats, not armies, air forces and fleets.
The latest iterations of the A&A line have moved down the organizational scale, but still reflect a functional approach to fighting. It's instructive to compare A&A: Battle of the Bulges with FAB; The Bulge, for example. Both games are at a similar scale, but one emphasizes the weaponry much more than the other.
In this light, it's appropriate to consider the Axis & Allies title an appropriate umbrella for the Hasbro line of military and naval miniatures, even though they're not designed by Harris and don't use his typical techniques.
Likewise, it's interesting to note that the functional approach has also found a new popularity among many of the newest designs. Borg's Commands & Colors system takes a very functional look at warfare in everything from ancients to World War II. Even Bowen Simmons' Bonaparte at Marengo and Napoleon's Triumph are largely functional in approach, although the latter title adds a little organizational touch with its corps commanders. But a corps in NT is defined by the number of infantry, cavalry and artillery blocks it has, not by its regiments, brigades or divisions.
Both organizational and functional approaches have validity. It's a matter of emphasis.
The entire A&A genre by designer Larry Harris represents, in many ways, a different way at looking at wargames from the mainstream hobby, although one that's becoming rather more common now.
Traditionally wargames have generally taken an organizationally-based view of warfighting, concentrating, except at the most tactical levels, on the organizations fighting the battle, rather than their weapons. Units are squads, platoons, companies, battalions, etc., all the way up to Army groups. This viewpoint goes right back to the origin of the hobby with Charles Roberts' Tactics, and the vast majority of wargames treat their pieces as military organizations.
The main exceptions to this have been low-level tactical games and games set in the ancient era, which more often break forces down on a functional or weapons-based basis. A piece will represent a certain number of tanks or spearmen, rather than an organization such as a company or cohort.
This isn't, of course, the only way to look at things, and it's certainly possible to consider battles as being fought by numbers of men and machines without over-emphasizing their organizational basis. Is it more illuminating to consider an attack as being by a tank company or by 17 tanks?
Harris' designs have taken the functional, weapon-based approach all the way to the grand strategic level, with the base Axis & Allies game. The Axis and Allies wage war with tanks, fighters and U-boats, not armies, air forces and fleets.
The latest iterations of the A&A line have moved down the organizational scale, but still reflect a functional approach to fighting. It's instructive to compare A&A: Battle of the Bulges with FAB; The Bulge, for example. Both games are at a similar scale, but one emphasizes the weaponry much more than the other.
In this light, it's appropriate to consider the Axis & Allies title an appropriate umbrella for the Hasbro line of military and naval miniatures, even though they're not designed by Harris and don't use his typical techniques.
Likewise, it's interesting to note that the functional approach has also found a new popularity among many of the newest designs. Borg's Commands & Colors system takes a very functional look at warfare in everything from ancients to World War II. Even Bowen Simmons' Bonaparte at Marengo and Napoleon's Triumph are largely functional in approach, although the latter title adds a little organizational touch with its corps commanders. But a corps in NT is defined by the number of infantry, cavalry and artillery blocks it has, not by its regiments, brigades or divisions.
Both organizational and functional approaches have validity. It's a matter of emphasis.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Lightning: D-Day review
Lightning: D-Day was the second of the initial offerings in the Lightning series of wargame-like card games published by Decision Games.
Like Lightning: Midway, the play is too abstract to be considered any kind of simulation, but much too imbued with military arcana to be considered a simple military-themed card game.
Like its sister game it shares the problem of rules that are too succinct for the task. I didn't find it too difficult to figure out how to play, but many did and the game's official Q&A is longer than the main game rules. As with Lightning:Midway this is mostly because too much is assumed and not because there are any particular flaws in the game rules. Everything is a clarification, rather than a change.
Despite what the rules say, there are actually five, not four, different kinds of cards. Unlike Lightning:Midway, which has no explicit time limit, Lightning: D-Day is a 5-turn game. The turns are tracked using five "Turn Marker" cards which have varying special effects (such as "Wading Ashore! All Allied Attacks get -1" for Turn #1). Each card also informs the players how many cards to draw to prepare for the following turn.
There are a pair of "Country" cards which summarize the sequence of play and say who goes first (The Germans).
There are five Beach cards which are simple zone markers for (from East to West) Sword, Juno, Gold, Omaha and Utah beaches.
These dozen cards are set aside at set up and don't form part of the players' hands, which comprise the remaining 98 cards (49 each). The fighting portion of the decks are made up of Force Cards which represent major formations such as the 1st Infantry Division. These are identified by beach and are divided up by beach, shuffled and placed face-down at each beach as "inactive" units. During play these are turned face-up in order to fight. Each has a combat strength and most have some special powers or conditions as well.
The leftover cards are all "action" cards which modify the game in various ways.
A turn consists of fighting a battle at each beach in turn, comparing the respective combat strengths as modified by various action cards. As the allocation of force cards is fairly scripted the players' main tools for influencing the battle comes down to the three dozen or so Action cards that can be played, for the most part, on any beach. Winning battles generally results in discarding force cards and Allied victory is measured by how many beaches have been completely cleared of German force cards (active or inactive). In order to win the Allies must clear at least four beaches, which is considered the historical outcome. I presume that, in game terms, Omaha beach was not cleared. Clearing three beaches is a draw, while the Germans win if the Allies clear two or less.
Playing the entire invasion takes about 30 minutes, making this another good filler game for wargamers once they have worked through the rules issues.
Like Lightning: Midway, the play is too abstract to be considered any kind of simulation, but much too imbued with military arcana to be considered a simple military-themed card game.
Like its sister game it shares the problem of rules that are too succinct for the task. I didn't find it too difficult to figure out how to play, but many did and the game's official Q&A is longer than the main game rules. As with Lightning:Midway this is mostly because too much is assumed and not because there are any particular flaws in the game rules. Everything is a clarification, rather than a change.
Despite what the rules say, there are actually five, not four, different kinds of cards. Unlike Lightning:Midway, which has no explicit time limit, Lightning: D-Day is a 5-turn game. The turns are tracked using five "Turn Marker" cards which have varying special effects (such as "Wading Ashore! All Allied Attacks get -1" for Turn #1). Each card also informs the players how many cards to draw to prepare for the following turn.
There are a pair of "Country" cards which summarize the sequence of play and say who goes first (The Germans).
There are five Beach cards which are simple zone markers for (from East to West) Sword, Juno, Gold, Omaha and Utah beaches.
These dozen cards are set aside at set up and don't form part of the players' hands, which comprise the remaining 98 cards (49 each). The fighting portion of the decks are made up of Force Cards which represent major formations such as the 1st Infantry Division. These are identified by beach and are divided up by beach, shuffled and placed face-down at each beach as "inactive" units. During play these are turned face-up in order to fight. Each has a combat strength and most have some special powers or conditions as well.
The leftover cards are all "action" cards which modify the game in various ways.
A turn consists of fighting a battle at each beach in turn, comparing the respective combat strengths as modified by various action cards. As the allocation of force cards is fairly scripted the players' main tools for influencing the battle comes down to the three dozen or so Action cards that can be played, for the most part, on any beach. Winning battles generally results in discarding force cards and Allied victory is measured by how many beaches have been completely cleared of German force cards (active or inactive). In order to win the Allies must clear at least four beaches, which is considered the historical outcome. I presume that, in game terms, Omaha beach was not cleared. Clearing three beaches is a draw, while the Germans win if the Allies clear two or less.
Playing the entire invasion takes about 30 minutes, making this another good filler game for wargamers once they have worked through the rules issues.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Lightning: Midway review
Lightning: Midway is published by a wargame company and is about one of history's most famous, dramatic and consequential battles -- but it's not a wargame.
But Lightning: Midway is a game so permeated with the flavor of its topic that is not a simple military-themed card game like Battle Line or Naval War.
The basic structure of the game is exceedingly simple. Each player has four objective cards the opponent may target, four Japanese aircraft carriers on the one hand, and on the other, three American aircraft carriers and an island base that's indistinguishable from an aircraft carrier in game terms. These objectives are attacked and defended by various "force" cards as modified by different "action" cards. On a player's turn he/she can either attack an objective put up to three force cards into play or draw cards up to a hand size of nine cards.
That's pretty much it. It's a very spare game design and the rules included with the game reflect that, being included on two sides of a single 8 1/2-inch sheet of paper, with plenty of white space and illustrations. While I didn't have any trouble understanding how to play the game, the very minimalist presentation did cause some problems for players used to more elaborate explanations and less experienced players. The company Website includes FAQ that are easily longer than the base rules, although to be fair, this isn't really a reflection of any real problems with the rules. The game is perfectly playable out of the box. Nearly everything in the FAQ merely makes explicit many provisions that are implicit in the rules.
Of the 110 cards included, two are "country cards" that review the sequence of play, describe the starting force cards and tell players who goers first (The U.S. player). Eighty more are the objectives, leaving 100 cards to actually play with -- 50 for each side.
The cards fall into five types:
The first are "force" cards, which in Lightning: Midway all represent groups of aircraft such as B-17 bombers, Zero fighters, Dauntless Dive Bombers and the like. Each is rated for its strength in attack and defense. Some have bonuses based on certain conditions (such as defending a carrier) and some are "dependent" on a specific objective and are removed from play if that objective is take out of play.
Supporting the force cards are three types of "action" cards: leaders, events and tactics. Each of these provides various modifications in combat. The key aspect of playing these cards is that there can be just one of each in any combat. Note, not one per side, but one total. So playing these cards is very much a zero-sum move that causes a big swing. Not only do you get whatever benefit your leader may provide, you also deny your opponent the benefit he might have gained from his leader. The same goes for tactics and events.
This provides some interesting game play while also providing a way to introduce many colorful personalities and real-life events to the game with few rules.
Filling out the card roster are a few "special action" cards that are played outside of combat resolution to affect the game in some way. I think the use of the term "special action" is one of the truly confusing aspects of the rule because they are not "action" cards as otherwise defined. I would have just called them "special" cards and left it at that.
The game plays very fast, the box says 30 minutes and that seems about right. It's an excellent two-player "filler" game for wargamers. For non-wargamers the unfamiliar terms and too-sparingly worded rules may make the game seem a bit more difficult than it really is.
But Lightning: Midway is a game so permeated with the flavor of its topic that is not a simple military-themed card game like Battle Line or Naval War.
The basic structure of the game is exceedingly simple. Each player has four objective cards the opponent may target, four Japanese aircraft carriers on the one hand, and on the other, three American aircraft carriers and an island base that's indistinguishable from an aircraft carrier in game terms. These objectives are attacked and defended by various "force" cards as modified by different "action" cards. On a player's turn he/she can either attack an objective put up to three force cards into play or draw cards up to a hand size of nine cards.
That's pretty much it. It's a very spare game design and the rules included with the game reflect that, being included on two sides of a single 8 1/2-inch sheet of paper, with plenty of white space and illustrations. While I didn't have any trouble understanding how to play the game, the very minimalist presentation did cause some problems for players used to more elaborate explanations and less experienced players. The company Website includes FAQ that are easily longer than the base rules, although to be fair, this isn't really a reflection of any real problems with the rules. The game is perfectly playable out of the box. Nearly everything in the FAQ merely makes explicit many provisions that are implicit in the rules.
Of the 110 cards included, two are "country cards" that review the sequence of play, describe the starting force cards and tell players who goers first (The U.S. player). Eighty more are the objectives, leaving 100 cards to actually play with -- 50 for each side.
The cards fall into five types:
The first are "force" cards, which in Lightning: Midway all represent groups of aircraft such as B-17 bombers, Zero fighters, Dauntless Dive Bombers and the like. Each is rated for its strength in attack and defense. Some have bonuses based on certain conditions (such as defending a carrier) and some are "dependent" on a specific objective and are removed from play if that objective is take out of play.
Supporting the force cards are three types of "action" cards: leaders, events and tactics. Each of these provides various modifications in combat. The key aspect of playing these cards is that there can be just one of each in any combat. Note, not one per side, but one total. So playing these cards is very much a zero-sum move that causes a big swing. Not only do you get whatever benefit your leader may provide, you also deny your opponent the benefit he might have gained from his leader. The same goes for tactics and events.
This provides some interesting game play while also providing a way to introduce many colorful personalities and real-life events to the game with few rules.
Filling out the card roster are a few "special action" cards that are played outside of combat resolution to affect the game in some way. I think the use of the term "special action" is one of the truly confusing aspects of the rule because they are not "action" cards as otherwise defined. I would have just called them "special" cards and left it at that.
The game plays very fast, the box says 30 minutes and that seems about right. It's an excellent two-player "filler" game for wargamers. For non-wargamers the unfamiliar terms and too-sparingly worded rules may make the game seem a bit more difficult than it really is.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Gettysburg: Badges of Courage and "Lost Triumph"
Back in April I looked at how someone could use a wargame (Gettysburg '88) to evaluate an author's theory (Tom Carhart in "Lost Triumph") that Lee had a secret plan to coordinate Pickett's Charge with a attack on the rear of the Federal Army by Stuart's cavalry. Carhart's theory is that Lee's brilliant plan was undone by the Boy General Custer and his unexpectedly effective resistance during the cavalry battle on Low Dutch Road on July 3rd, 1863.
I concluded back then that the wargame didn't suggest that the scheme was workable, but noted that few Gettysburg wargames allow players to really look at that end of the field.
A newer game that indirectly allows a look at the prospects for Lee's alleged plan is Columbia Games' Gettysburg: Badges of Courage. While not including the Low Dutch Road area, an optional rule allows for an off-map cavalry battle that could, conceivably, allow some of Stuart's troopers to arrive at 4 p.m., around the time of Pickett's attack.
Chances are so low that this will happen, though, that player's interested in the notion will have to tweak the Day 3 scenario somewhat.
Instead of playing the Cavalry battle exactly as written, player's can goose Stuart's chances by implementing the following measures: Assume Huey doesn't arrive and assume Custer stays with Kilpatrick's Division instead of joining Gregg. Add Jenkins to the off-board CSA cavalry force. Playing this out, though, will still reveal that Stuart's surviving force, if it can defeat Gregg, will often be too weak to attack the Union rear.
So as an alternative, there's the "Lost Triumph" variant, or Carhart's Fantasy scenario. Assume that Huey doesn't arrive and Custer is assigned to Gregg, but assume that the Union player rolls really, really bad and Custer, Gregg and McIntosh's brigades, Robertson's guns and the Gregg divisional leader are all eliminated while the Rebels just lose Jenkins in the fighting. Have Stuart, Beckham, Hampton, F.Lee and Chambliss arrive on the Baltimore Pike at full strength. In addition, on the 4 p.m. turn no Federal units within 2 hexes Powers Hill can move.
I concluded back then that the wargame didn't suggest that the scheme was workable, but noted that few Gettysburg wargames allow players to really look at that end of the field.
A newer game that indirectly allows a look at the prospects for Lee's alleged plan is Columbia Games' Gettysburg: Badges of Courage. While not including the Low Dutch Road area, an optional rule allows for an off-map cavalry battle that could, conceivably, allow some of Stuart's troopers to arrive at 4 p.m., around the time of Pickett's attack.
Chances are so low that this will happen, though, that player's interested in the notion will have to tweak the Day 3 scenario somewhat.
Instead of playing the Cavalry battle exactly as written, player's can goose Stuart's chances by implementing the following measures: Assume Huey doesn't arrive and assume Custer stays with Kilpatrick's Division instead of joining Gregg. Add Jenkins to the off-board CSA cavalry force. Playing this out, though, will still reveal that Stuart's surviving force, if it can defeat Gregg, will often be too weak to attack the Union rear.
So as an alternative, there's the "Lost Triumph" variant, or Carhart's Fantasy scenario. Assume that Huey doesn't arrive and Custer is assigned to Gregg, but assume that the Union player rolls really, really bad and Custer, Gregg and McIntosh's brigades, Robertson's guns and the Gregg divisional leader are all eliminated while the Rebels just lose Jenkins in the fighting. Have Stuart, Beckham, Hampton, F.Lee and Chambliss arrive on the Baltimore Pike at full strength. In addition, on the 4 p.m. turn no Federal units within 2 hexes Powers Hill can move.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Bang! and the mythology of the Old West
The "Old West" of American history is one of the more remarkable episodes of cultural myth-making in human history. The height of the era is generally considered to last from the end of the Civil War until the beginning of the 20th Century, although the entire story of Manifest Destiny and the settlement of North America naturally took longer.
The Old West plays a big role in the self-image of Americans and its image abroad and holds a continued fascination here and overseas. Despite only lasting a few decades in real life, the Old West has proven to be an inexhaustible source for storytelling for more than a century.
One of the most unusual characteristics of the Old West's mythology is that the myth-making was contemporaneous with the historical events. Even as settlers poured west dime novels chronicled their adventures in fictionalized form and actual people often featured in the stories. William "Buffalo Bill" Cody actually organized a hugely popular travelling show in the late 1800s that included famous folks from the Old West such as Annie Oakley and Sitting Bull. His Wild West show even performed in Europe "before the crowned heads." Perhaps Cody's show explains the continuing European interest in the period.
It's ironic that so much of the myth-making is centered around the lawlessness of the frontier. Indeed, many of the most notorious characters were simple criminals, members of nothing more romantic than a gang. Murder and robbery figure prominently and violence was common. When there wasn't civil violence to contend with there were constant flareups between Indians and settlers as they native population was inexorably pushed back.
The whole era is obviously a fertile one for conflict games, and there have been some notable ones over the years. While there aren't an overwhelming number of game titles with Old West themes, many of those that have appeared are quite popular.
Although based on actual historical events, it seems that games about the Old West can't escape the influence of the mythology. Although published by a wargame company, for example, Gunslinger admittedly includes a lot of Hollywood and dime novel style aspects. Yet Gunslinger's wargame roots keep it pretty close to the real thing. The recent Cowboys seems to aim to be a Gunslinger Lite, and very much in the tradition of man-to-man skirmish wargames.
At the other extreme, the Munchkin-series card game The Good, The Bad and the Munchkin just tacks Old West terms onto the tried and true RPG-based "Dungeon Crawl" game. It's mildly amusing but still a pretty big stretch.
Perhaps the oddest thing about the American Old West is global culture is the prominent role played by Italian filmmakers in its interpretation with the famous "spaghetti Westerns."
So it shouldn't be any surprise that an Italian game designer created a card game based on the Old West that capitalized on that tradition to create something that's turned out to be a big winner.
Bang! doesn't show much resemblance to the actual Old West, but it does capture a lot of the flavor of the Old West as seen through the lens of Spaghetti Western directors and it ends up being a loving depiction of that genre.
The Old West plays a big role in the self-image of Americans and its image abroad and holds a continued fascination here and overseas. Despite only lasting a few decades in real life, the Old West has proven to be an inexhaustible source for storytelling for more than a century.
One of the most unusual characteristics of the Old West's mythology is that the myth-making was contemporaneous with the historical events. Even as settlers poured west dime novels chronicled their adventures in fictionalized form and actual people often featured in the stories. William "Buffalo Bill" Cody actually organized a hugely popular travelling show in the late 1800s that included famous folks from the Old West such as Annie Oakley and Sitting Bull. His Wild West show even performed in Europe "before the crowned heads." Perhaps Cody's show explains the continuing European interest in the period.
It's ironic that so much of the myth-making is centered around the lawlessness of the frontier. Indeed, many of the most notorious characters were simple criminals, members of nothing more romantic than a gang. Murder and robbery figure prominently and violence was common. When there wasn't civil violence to contend with there were constant flareups between Indians and settlers as they native population was inexorably pushed back.
The whole era is obviously a fertile one for conflict games, and there have been some notable ones over the years. While there aren't an overwhelming number of game titles with Old West themes, many of those that have appeared are quite popular.
Although based on actual historical events, it seems that games about the Old West can't escape the influence of the mythology. Although published by a wargame company, for example, Gunslinger admittedly includes a lot of Hollywood and dime novel style aspects. Yet Gunslinger's wargame roots keep it pretty close to the real thing. The recent Cowboys seems to aim to be a Gunslinger Lite, and very much in the tradition of man-to-man skirmish wargames.
At the other extreme, the Munchkin-series card game The Good, The Bad and the Munchkin just tacks Old West terms onto the tried and true RPG-based "Dungeon Crawl" game. It's mildly amusing but still a pretty big stretch.
Perhaps the oddest thing about the American Old West is global culture is the prominent role played by Italian filmmakers in its interpretation with the famous "spaghetti Westerns."
So it shouldn't be any surprise that an Italian game designer created a card game based on the Old West that capitalized on that tradition to create something that's turned out to be a big winner.
Bang! doesn't show much resemblance to the actual Old West, but it does capture a lot of the flavor of the Old West as seen through the lens of Spaghetti Western directors and it ends up being a loving depiction of that genre.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Bitter Woods and the upgrading dilemma
One aspect of this new "golden age" for wargaming is the plethora of reprints and reissues that have been appearing.
In some cases when a newer edition comes out it's possible to just upgrade some components so it's not too hard of a decision to make. For example the new edition of Columbia's War of 1812 only needs new stickers as a minimum (the rules can be downloaded).
More often, though, the changes are extensive enough to require purchase of a whole new game. Some recent examples include War at Sea, The Russian Campaign, Napoleon, Third Reich, For the People and others.
So the dilemma is, if one already owns an earlier edition, should one lay out the money for the new edition?
On the one hand, if perfectly satisfied with the old version, and most likely to just play the game with friends, and have a limited budget (who doesn't?) there's some reason for not upgrading.
On the other hand, it's likely that, in the larger gaming world, the new edition will become the standard at game conventions, will be the only one that gets supported for rules questions, errata and new variants, and will be the one that new opponents will want to play. So there's ample reason to upgrade.
There's still that budget issue, though. Games are a luxury expense and trying to justify to the significant other that you might want to buy a brand-new copy of a game you already have makes a tough sell even tougher. And even if there's no significant other to consult, there's your little wallet angel to placate. It's easier to justify buying something new than a new copy of an old game, even to yourself. And the new editions usually aren't cheap.
So in some cases, I've decided to pass on the opportunity to upgrade. I don't plan to get the new War at Sea and I dropped out of the Third Reich cycle a while back. While tempted, I didn't get the new EastFront II and its buddy games, even though I really do like the system. But I don't have a likely opponent for that system and if I'm going to play a big block game it'll probably be Europe Engulfed.
Yet I went ahead and bought the new Deluxe edition of Bitter Woods, despite the fact I wasn't actually all that thrilled with the first, Avalon Hill edition.
That 1998 AH version was a bit of a disappointment. It seemed very undeveloped and incomplete, and shortly it became clear why when Avalon Hill was sold. But it was also clear here was a good game there, if it just got the right treatment, so I was willing to give the L2 folks a shot. I wanted to have at least one good solid hex-and-counter grognard-style wargame that was new enough to get new opponents even though my tastes were changing overall in the direction of more block- and figure-based designs.
And the new edition doesn't disappoint. While pricey, in every way it's a big improvement over the AH version. The large counters and larger hexes are a boon for older players like myself. The rules are chock full of great chrome stuff and there are a large number of player aids, too.
Still, there's more coming out than the budget can bear and it's getting more and more important to pick my fights and a lot of otherwise worthy updates and upgrades aren't going to make the cut as time goes on.
My advice to others considering upgrades is to seriously consider what a new eidtion will do for you. If you think it will breathe new life into an old game you play within your established ganing circle or enhance your chances of adding to that cirlce then an upgrade ought to be considered. If you plan to play at game conventions, tournaments or online an upgrade is close to mandatory.
But if the game's been gathering dust on the shelf anyway, then there's porbably no need to buy a new copy.
In some cases when a newer edition comes out it's possible to just upgrade some components so it's not too hard of a decision to make. For example the new edition of Columbia's War of 1812 only needs new stickers as a minimum (the rules can be downloaded).
More often, though, the changes are extensive enough to require purchase of a whole new game. Some recent examples include War at Sea, The Russian Campaign, Napoleon, Third Reich, For the People and others.
So the dilemma is, if one already owns an earlier edition, should one lay out the money for the new edition?
On the one hand, if perfectly satisfied with the old version, and most likely to just play the game with friends, and have a limited budget (who doesn't?) there's some reason for not upgrading.
On the other hand, it's likely that, in the larger gaming world, the new edition will become the standard at game conventions, will be the only one that gets supported for rules questions, errata and new variants, and will be the one that new opponents will want to play. So there's ample reason to upgrade.
There's still that budget issue, though. Games are a luxury expense and trying to justify to the significant other that you might want to buy a brand-new copy of a game you already have makes a tough sell even tougher. And even if there's no significant other to consult, there's your little wallet angel to placate. It's easier to justify buying something new than a new copy of an old game, even to yourself. And the new editions usually aren't cheap.
So in some cases, I've decided to pass on the opportunity to upgrade. I don't plan to get the new War at Sea and I dropped out of the Third Reich cycle a while back. While tempted, I didn't get the new EastFront II and its buddy games, even though I really do like the system. But I don't have a likely opponent for that system and if I'm going to play a big block game it'll probably be Europe Engulfed.
Yet I went ahead and bought the new Deluxe edition of Bitter Woods, despite the fact I wasn't actually all that thrilled with the first, Avalon Hill edition.
That 1998 AH version was a bit of a disappointment. It seemed very undeveloped and incomplete, and shortly it became clear why when Avalon Hill was sold. But it was also clear here was a good game there, if it just got the right treatment, so I was willing to give the L2 folks a shot. I wanted to have at least one good solid hex-and-counter grognard-style wargame that was new enough to get new opponents even though my tastes were changing overall in the direction of more block- and figure-based designs.
And the new edition doesn't disappoint. While pricey, in every way it's a big improvement over the AH version. The large counters and larger hexes are a boon for older players like myself. The rules are chock full of great chrome stuff and there are a large number of player aids, too.
Still, there's more coming out than the budget can bear and it's getting more and more important to pick my fights and a lot of otherwise worthy updates and upgrades aren't going to make the cut as time goes on.
My advice to others considering upgrades is to seriously consider what a new eidtion will do for you. If you think it will breathe new life into an old game you play within your established ganing circle or enhance your chances of adding to that cirlce then an upgrade ought to be considered. If you plan to play at game conventions, tournaments or online an upgrade is close to mandatory.
But if the game's been gathering dust on the shelf anyway, then there's porbably no need to buy a new copy.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Mattel worth more than General Motors!
This Bloomberg story reports that toymaker Mattel is now worth more than Automaker GM!
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aVRw0iPJled0&refer=us
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aVRw0iPJled0&refer=us
Europe Engulfed: Does it make the most use of the blocks?
There are three main ways of depicting military units is wargames these days: Figures, blocks and counters.
Figures have the advantage of being fun the handle and attractive, but can't convey much game-related information, This means they have to either be supplemented by data cards or limited to game systems that don't get into too much detail. They're also expensive to produce. Counters are the other extreme. They're the cheapest and least attractive (although some games do an awful lot with them) but can be filled with all sorts of game information.
Blocks form a middle ground. They're attractive, can carry a lot of game information and are not as expensive as figures.
They also have a couple of additional advantages. When placed on edge they provide an elegant way to handle reductions in strength and also provide some fog of war.
Columbia's games, for example, make use of all three of the main features of blocks. The games are attractive, always use step reduction and always use fog of war. While wooden blocks have gained some popularity recently, many of the other company's games don't really use all the features.
For example, Simmons Games' titles use the Fog of War and attractiveness of blocks, but not the step reduction feature,using unit substitution instead.
Some of Worthington Games' offerings are Columbia style (like Forged in Glory) but others just use the wood to make sturdier and prettier counters (Like For Honor And Glory).
At GMT, likewise, wooden blocks aren't really used to full effect. In C&C: Ancients they're merely less expensive substitutes for figures, having no FOW or step reduction role at all. But even in Europe Engulfed, their primary role seem to be making the product appear spiffier and providing an easier way to handle step reduction (4 steps per unit) than counters (two-steps) would provide.
It appears that Fog of War is also present, but it seems to me to play a very minor role in the game system, especially compared to the typical Columbia design. Bluff and deception usually plays a vital role in Columbia Games titles, with it mattering a lot what a specific block's identity is.
In EE, in contrast, the key battles usually involve so many pieces that their specific identities and qualities are much less important. There are relatively few regions and important battles will tend to involve dozens of pieces. There are important system advantages for having units at full strength, so it seems there's less scope for deception operations. Is it a realistic tactic to bluff strength by having an area held with a large number of weak units,for example? Or is it an invitation to disaster?
Figures have the advantage of being fun the handle and attractive, but can't convey much game-related information, This means they have to either be supplemented by data cards or limited to game systems that don't get into too much detail. They're also expensive to produce. Counters are the other extreme. They're the cheapest and least attractive (although some games do an awful lot with them) but can be filled with all sorts of game information.
Blocks form a middle ground. They're attractive, can carry a lot of game information and are not as expensive as figures.
They also have a couple of additional advantages. When placed on edge they provide an elegant way to handle reductions in strength and also provide some fog of war.
Columbia's games, for example, make use of all three of the main features of blocks. The games are attractive, always use step reduction and always use fog of war. While wooden blocks have gained some popularity recently, many of the other company's games don't really use all the features.
For example, Simmons Games' titles use the Fog of War and attractiveness of blocks, but not the step reduction feature,using unit substitution instead.
Some of Worthington Games' offerings are Columbia style (like Forged in Glory) but others just use the wood to make sturdier and prettier counters (Like For Honor And Glory).
At GMT, likewise, wooden blocks aren't really used to full effect. In C&C: Ancients they're merely less expensive substitutes for figures, having no FOW or step reduction role at all. But even in Europe Engulfed, their primary role seem to be making the product appear spiffier and providing an easier way to handle step reduction (4 steps per unit) than counters (two-steps) would provide.
It appears that Fog of War is also present, but it seems to me to play a very minor role in the game system, especially compared to the typical Columbia design. Bluff and deception usually plays a vital role in Columbia Games titles, with it mattering a lot what a specific block's identity is.
In EE, in contrast, the key battles usually involve so many pieces that their specific identities and qualities are much less important. There are relatively few regions and important battles will tend to involve dozens of pieces. There are important system advantages for having units at full strength, so it seems there's less scope for deception operations. Is it a realistic tactic to bluff strength by having an area held with a large number of weak units,for example? Or is it an invitation to disaster?
Liberty: Non-optional optional rules
Columbia Website lists the following optional rules for Liberty (which are in addition to some optional rules in the actual rulebook:
LIBERTY OPTIONAL RULES
The following optional rules have been suggested by Liberty players. Gamers may choose to experiment with any or all of them in their games. Feedback is encouraged.
1) French Entry roll
At the end of:1776: Roll 11 or higher (enter in 1777)1777: Roll 8 or higher (enter in 1778)1778: Roll 5 or higher (enter in 1779)1779: Automatic (enter in 1780)
2) Prisoner Exchange Rule
A player can use a Supply card (2 or 3) to force a Prisoner Exchange (assuming both players have at least one unit captured). Both players can then choose one of their own captured pieces and return it to their force pool.
3) British West Indies Forces
British forces in the West Indies can not be moved or used until the French enter the war.
4) Extra Card Draw
Players draw one extra card each year (4 in 1775, and 6 each year thereafter). Each player then chooses one of those cards and returns it to the deck (not showing it to his opponent). Players then use the 5 cards in their hand (or the 3 in their hand in 1775) normally.
5) Indian Home Defense
Whenever a blue block ends a move in an Indian home town, the corresponding Indian block is immediately returned to its home town (if it is currently on the map and unengaged) and defends it (at B2).
6) Draw Result
If the game does not end due to the British gaining 30 or more points, or the British being reduced to less than 12 points, then the players get a draw if the British hold 25-29 points at the end of 1783.
Frankly, with the exception of No. 6, none of these are really optional in my opinion. The first two, in particular, are really necessary for regular play. If the French entry is delayed too long the game balance becomes badly skewed. And prisoner exchanges will almost never happen because one side or the other will almost always benefit from NOT exchanging.
LIBERTY OPTIONAL RULES
The following optional rules have been suggested by Liberty players. Gamers may choose to experiment with any or all of them in their games. Feedback is encouraged.
1) French Entry roll
At the end of:1776: Roll 11 or higher (enter in 1777)1777: Roll 8 or higher (enter in 1778)1778: Roll 5 or higher (enter in 1779)1779: Automatic (enter in 1780)
2) Prisoner Exchange Rule
A player can use a Supply card (2 or 3) to force a Prisoner Exchange (assuming both players have at least one unit captured). Both players can then choose one of their own captured pieces and return it to their force pool.
3) British West Indies Forces
British forces in the West Indies can not be moved or used until the French enter the war.
4) Extra Card Draw
Players draw one extra card each year (4 in 1775, and 6 each year thereafter). Each player then chooses one of those cards and returns it to the deck (not showing it to his opponent). Players then use the 5 cards in their hand (or the 3 in their hand in 1775) normally.
5) Indian Home Defense
Whenever a blue block ends a move in an Indian home town, the corresponding Indian block is immediately returned to its home town (if it is currently on the map and unengaged) and defends it (at B2).
6) Draw Result
If the game does not end due to the British gaining 30 or more points, or the British being reduced to less than 12 points, then the players get a draw if the British hold 25-29 points at the end of 1783.
Frankly, with the exception of No. 6, none of these are really optional in my opinion. The first two, in particular, are really necessary for regular play. If the French entry is delayed too long the game balance becomes badly skewed. And prisoner exchanges will almost never happen because one side or the other will almost always benefit from NOT exchanging.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Spooks and the five-suit solution
Spooks is a fun little game, but I was curious why the designer decided on five suits for the cards.
It occurred to me that Spooks, like some other fairly simple card games such as Lost Cities (which uses 5 "suits") and Battle Line (Which has 6 colors) are pretty easy to play in principle using a standard deck of cards.
By adding a suit or two the designer creates a product that's a little harder to copy (not impossible, as various threads on BGG attest) even if it doesn't change game play in any fundamental way.
Certainly the theme is usually pretty thin in these sorts of games. There's nothing especially "spooky" about spooks and it could have used just about any theme just as well -- or even no theme at all. To a large extent the theme just provides the artist with something to work with. As it turns out, I like the artwork in Spooks, but it's not vital to play.
It occurred to me that Spooks, like some other fairly simple card games such as Lost Cities (which uses 5 "suits") and Battle Line (Which has 6 colors) are pretty easy to play in principle using a standard deck of cards.
By adding a suit or two the designer creates a product that's a little harder to copy (not impossible, as various threads on BGG attest) even if it doesn't change game play in any fundamental way.
Certainly the theme is usually pretty thin in these sorts of games. There's nothing especially "spooky" about spooks and it could have used just about any theme just as well -- or even no theme at all. To a large extent the theme just provides the artist with something to work with. As it turns out, I like the artwork in Spooks, but it's not vital to play.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Back to Iraq Historical Scenario
Back to Iraq (3rd Ed.) Historical Scenario
S&T No. 208
By Seth Owen
Back to Iraq was published in 2002 prior to the actual outbreak of fighting in 2003. Although pretty close to the mark, the actual course of events naturally diverged in details from the best Bomba/Miranda pre-war guesses.
This scenario reflects the actual events as they developed in game terms. Unless otherwise noted, all rules from Scenario One apply. This scenario is meant to use the Advanced Game rules.
3.2 Set aside all Turkish, Syrian, Al-Qaeda, Saudi, Israeli, French, Kuwaiti and NATO forces. None of these will be used. Pull out the three Iranian divisions numbered 1 through 3 and set the rest aside. They will not be used in this scenario.
3.3 Set up the following Coalition forces only.
Anywhere in Kuwait: HQ V Corps, HQ MEF-1, 3rd US Mech Div., 1st UK Armored Div., US MEF.
Anywhere in the Kurdish zone as shown on the map: The three US SOCPG and stacked with them the three like-minded “Iranian” infantry divisions. These now represent the Kurdish Peshmerga troops and are Coalition allies.
In any rough terrain hex within six hexes of the Syrian border: UK SAS
All the air units.
Reinforcements (Can’t move during turn of entry)
Place on the Turn Record Track:
Turn 2: 82nd Airborne and 101st Air Assault in Kuwait (I realize that the entire 82d didn’t deploy, but consider the counter to also represent various non-divisional units not otherwise accounted for.
Turn 4: 10th Mtn Div. Hex 2504 (Represents all the conventional force deployed with JSOTF-North including the 173rd Airborne Bde, the 26th MEU, the EUCOM Heavy Reaction Company with M1 tanks/M2 IFV, the EUCOM Medium Reaction Company with M113 APC and, yes, ONE battalion from the 10th Mountain Div.
Turn 12: 4th Mech Div. in Kuwait. (Optionally, to increase the chances the unit will arrive in time to fight, start rolling for arrival starting turn 5. On a roll of “6” the 4th Mech arrives in Kuwait and can move the following turn.
3.4 Set Up Iraqi forces as follows:
Within 3 hexes of Mosul, but NOT in any Kurdish area hex as shown by the shaded area on the map: V Corps HQ, 1st Mech Div, 7th, 16th and 38th Inf. Div., AA and AD Republican Gd. Div.
Within 3 hexes of Kirkuk, but NOT in any Kurdish area hex as shown by the shaded area on the map: I Corps HQ, 5th Mech Div., 2nd & 8th Inf. Div., NB Rep. Gd. Div.
Within 1 hex of Baqubah: II Corps HQ, 3rd Tank Div., 15th & 34th Inf. Div.
Within 3 hexes of Al-Amarah in Iraq: IV Corps HQ, 10th Tank Div., 14th & 18th Inf. Div.
Within 3 hexes of An-Nasiriyah: III Corps HQ, 6th Tank Div., 11th Inf. Div.
Hex 3329: 51st Mech Div.
Basra: 44th Marine Brigade
Al-Kut: Baghdad Rep. Gd. Div.
Hex 2811: MeK
Within 3 hexes of Baghdad but NOT in Baghdad: RGN HQ, RGS HQ, AN, AD and HM Rep. Gd. Div.
In Baghdad: SRG HQ, SRG “Corps” ADC Bde
Any hex not already containing a unit and NOT in Baghdad: 65thg, 66th and 68th SF Bde
ANY hex in Iraq: AC Tank Bde, RSV arty regt, SdFe Div., GSS Bde, RSV, SBM & MIR Bns, 999 SOF (remove the 999 SF Div.)
Strategic Targets (Rule AG 1.1) Remove the WMD and Terror Camps from the counter mix before following the Scenario 1 instructions
4.6. Iraqi units may not leave Iraq. Any unit which does so is immediately eliminated.
13.4 to 13.7 Do not use. There are no Iraqi chemical weapons
13.8 to 13.13 Do not use. There are no Iraqi nuclear weapons
AG 1.1 Remove the WMD and Terror Camps strategic targets before following the set up rules under Scenario 1.
Use rule sections AG 2.0, 3.0 except for AG 3.11 and AG 4.0
Use AG 5.5 an 5.6
Add the following special rule:
AG 7.0 Operation Iraqi Freedom
In the actual event the Iraqi regular armed forces played a minimal role in the fighting while the Iraqi special forces were much more difficult to neutralize than expected. To account for this employ the following rules:
AG 7.1 Iraqi morale collapse. All regular Iraqi units, defined as all units with black on red print, are subject to morale collapse from the beginning of the game. Any time a regular Iraqi unit moves or is engaged in a battle as either the attacker or defender then roll one die before resolving the battle or conducting the movement. On an odd number the Iraqi regular unit disbands and is permanently removed from play. Roll for each unit individually and roll for each occurrence of the eligible reason (so, for example, an Iraqi regular unit that attempts to move and then attack will roll twice – once before moving and again before attacking.
In addition, during every Coalition Recovery Phase the Iraqi player will roll one die for each regular Iraqi unit and add the current turn number, on a roll of 10 or greater than the unit is disbanded and removed from play. (Note: This means that all remaining Iraqi army units will automatically disband during the Coalition Recovery Phase of Turn 9)
All white-on-red print Iraqi units are immune from the provisions of this rule
AG 7.2 Fedayeen. All Iraqi white-on-red battalions, the GSS Bde, the SdFe “Saddam’s Fedayeen ‘division’” and 999 SOF units can “hide” during their turn by flipping over to their blank side Flipping must be the first action taken before any movement. While hidden they cannot attack or be attacked but can move normally. (Note this means they cannot move through Coalition units, they count for stacking and are subject to all supply and weather effects). Coalition unit can move through a hidden unit and if they end the turn stacked with a hidden unit then the hidden unit must immediately displace one hex within stacking limits and all other rules. If, for any reason, a hidden unit has no legal hex it can displace to then it is removed from the map and placed on the turn record track on the next turn. It can return to play in any legal hex in Iraq. Hidden units can be reconned by AG Surveillance Airstrikes just as if they were Strategic Marker. While face up these units act as ordinary units in every way.
Sources:
Cobra II, by Michael R. Gordon and Gen. Bernard E. Trainor
The Iraq War, by Williamson Murray and Maj. Gen. Robert H., Scales Jr.
Saddam’s Forces Map, Army Times, Feb. 17, 2003
Author’s personal knowledge from duty with JSOFTF-North in 2003
S&T No. 208
By Seth Owen
Back to Iraq was published in 2002 prior to the actual outbreak of fighting in 2003. Although pretty close to the mark, the actual course of events naturally diverged in details from the best Bomba/Miranda pre-war guesses.
This scenario reflects the actual events as they developed in game terms. Unless otherwise noted, all rules from Scenario One apply. This scenario is meant to use the Advanced Game rules.
3.2 Set aside all Turkish, Syrian, Al-Qaeda, Saudi, Israeli, French, Kuwaiti and NATO forces. None of these will be used. Pull out the three Iranian divisions numbered 1 through 3 and set the rest aside. They will not be used in this scenario.
3.3 Set up the following Coalition forces only.
Anywhere in Kuwait: HQ V Corps, HQ MEF-1, 3rd US Mech Div., 1st UK Armored Div., US MEF.
Anywhere in the Kurdish zone as shown on the map: The three US SOCPG and stacked with them the three like-minded “Iranian” infantry divisions. These now represent the Kurdish Peshmerga troops and are Coalition allies.
In any rough terrain hex within six hexes of the Syrian border: UK SAS
All the air units.
Reinforcements (Can’t move during turn of entry)
Place on the Turn Record Track:
Turn 2: 82nd Airborne and 101st Air Assault in Kuwait (I realize that the entire 82d didn’t deploy, but consider the counter to also represent various non-divisional units not otherwise accounted for.
Turn 4: 10th Mtn Div. Hex 2504 (Represents all the conventional force deployed with JSOTF-North including the 173rd Airborne Bde, the 26th MEU, the EUCOM Heavy Reaction Company with M1 tanks/M2 IFV, the EUCOM Medium Reaction Company with M113 APC and, yes, ONE battalion from the 10th Mountain Div.
Turn 12: 4th Mech Div. in Kuwait. (Optionally, to increase the chances the unit will arrive in time to fight, start rolling for arrival starting turn 5. On a roll of “6” the 4th Mech arrives in Kuwait and can move the following turn.
3.4 Set Up Iraqi forces as follows:
Within 3 hexes of Mosul, but NOT in any Kurdish area hex as shown by the shaded area on the map: V Corps HQ, 1st Mech Div, 7th, 16th and 38th Inf. Div., AA and AD Republican Gd. Div.
Within 3 hexes of Kirkuk, but NOT in any Kurdish area hex as shown by the shaded area on the map: I Corps HQ, 5th Mech Div., 2nd & 8th Inf. Div., NB Rep. Gd. Div.
Within 1 hex of Baqubah: II Corps HQ, 3rd Tank Div., 15th & 34th Inf. Div.
Within 3 hexes of Al-Amarah in Iraq: IV Corps HQ, 10th Tank Div., 14th & 18th Inf. Div.
Within 3 hexes of An-Nasiriyah: III Corps HQ, 6th Tank Div., 11th Inf. Div.
Hex 3329: 51st Mech Div.
Basra: 44th Marine Brigade
Al-Kut: Baghdad Rep. Gd. Div.
Hex 2811: MeK
Within 3 hexes of Baghdad but NOT in Baghdad: RGN HQ, RGS HQ, AN, AD and HM Rep. Gd. Div.
In Baghdad: SRG HQ, SRG “Corps” ADC Bde
Any hex not already containing a unit and NOT in Baghdad: 65thg, 66th and 68th SF Bde
ANY hex in Iraq: AC Tank Bde, RSV arty regt, SdFe Div., GSS Bde, RSV, SBM & MIR Bns, 999 SOF (remove the 999 SF Div.)
Strategic Targets (Rule AG 1.1) Remove the WMD and Terror Camps from the counter mix before following the Scenario 1 instructions
4.6. Iraqi units may not leave Iraq. Any unit which does so is immediately eliminated.
13.4 to 13.7 Do not use. There are no Iraqi chemical weapons
13.8 to 13.13 Do not use. There are no Iraqi nuclear weapons
AG 1.1 Remove the WMD and Terror Camps strategic targets before following the set up rules under Scenario 1.
Use rule sections AG 2.0, 3.0 except for AG 3.11 and AG 4.0
Use AG 5.5 an 5.6
Add the following special rule:
AG 7.0 Operation Iraqi Freedom
In the actual event the Iraqi regular armed forces played a minimal role in the fighting while the Iraqi special forces were much more difficult to neutralize than expected. To account for this employ the following rules:
AG 7.1 Iraqi morale collapse. All regular Iraqi units, defined as all units with black on red print, are subject to morale collapse from the beginning of the game. Any time a regular Iraqi unit moves or is engaged in a battle as either the attacker or defender then roll one die before resolving the battle or conducting the movement. On an odd number the Iraqi regular unit disbands and is permanently removed from play. Roll for each unit individually and roll for each occurrence of the eligible reason (so, for example, an Iraqi regular unit that attempts to move and then attack will roll twice – once before moving and again before attacking.
In addition, during every Coalition Recovery Phase the Iraqi player will roll one die for each regular Iraqi unit and add the current turn number, on a roll of 10 or greater than the unit is disbanded and removed from play. (Note: This means that all remaining Iraqi army units will automatically disband during the Coalition Recovery Phase of Turn 9)
All white-on-red print Iraqi units are immune from the provisions of this rule
AG 7.2 Fedayeen. All Iraqi white-on-red battalions, the GSS Bde, the SdFe “Saddam’s Fedayeen ‘division’” and 999 SOF units can “hide” during their turn by flipping over to their blank side Flipping must be the first action taken before any movement. While hidden they cannot attack or be attacked but can move normally. (Note this means they cannot move through Coalition units, they count for stacking and are subject to all supply and weather effects). Coalition unit can move through a hidden unit and if they end the turn stacked with a hidden unit then the hidden unit must immediately displace one hex within stacking limits and all other rules. If, for any reason, a hidden unit has no legal hex it can displace to then it is removed from the map and placed on the turn record track on the next turn. It can return to play in any legal hex in Iraq. Hidden units can be reconned by AG Surveillance Airstrikes just as if they were Strategic Marker. While face up these units act as ordinary units in every way.
Sources:
Cobra II, by Michael R. Gordon and Gen. Bernard E. Trainor
The Iraq War, by Williamson Murray and Maj. Gen. Robert H., Scales Jr.
Saddam’s Forces Map, Army Times, Feb. 17, 2003
Author’s personal knowledge from duty with JSOFTF-North in 2003
Kadesh, a review
Kadesh: Mobile Warfare in the Ancient Middle East is a hex-and-counter wargame depicting the first battle in history we have any kind of substantial historical record for.
Fought between the Egyptians and Hittites in modern-day Syria, it occurred sometime between 1300 and 1275 B.C., (sources differ, the game asserts it was May 10, 1285 B.C.).
Unlike nearly all other ancient battles, Kadesh was not a line up and hack away formal fight. Instead it was a dramatic battle of maneuver, attack and counterattack. In part this was because of the large numbers of chariots present, and in part it was because the Egyptian army was organized into all-arms independently marching divisions, a concept not seen again for some 30 centuries.
In this case, it caused one part of Pharoah Ramses II's army to be routed in a surprise attack, but it also allowed him to rally his troops, based on another division, and use a third division to launch a counterattack that saved a battle that had seemed lost and turn it into something he could (and would) call a victory.
The game, which was the issue game in Command Magazine No. 7, covers the whole day's battle, at 100 yards per hex, 30 minutes per turn and 1,000 men per infantry unit. Chariot units represent 250 machines.
The 12-page rule book describes a game of low complexity by wargame standards. The Mark Simonitch map is attractive and functional. It shows an open and nearly featureless plain divided by several watercourses ranging from a dry streambed to a major river. Several roads converge on the fortress city of Kadesh, while two potential Egyptian campsites are shown.
The 168 counters are mostly combat units, with a few markers. Units have values for close combat, movement, morale and, in some cases, missile fire. All the counters are cleanly laid out. This was the first wargame to use full-color icons instead of silhouettes. The Egyptian troops are generally on light blue counters, except for a few allies with light or dark green or dark blue backgrounds. The native Hitittes are tan, vassal states in dark brown and Syrian allies in red. The different divisions are identified through shield colors.
The game turn uses a straightforward IGO-HUGO sequence with leadership, movement, combat and rally phases. Chariot units can use a form of overrun combat called "pass-through" against units in certain vulnerable postures such as marching. Units pass through four levels of effectiveness from ordered through shaken and disrupted to routed. Routed units are subject to "slaughter" if attacked and may be eliminated. In order to act at full effect, units need to be in command control, which is defined as a chain of units all connected to the division headquarters.
Those headquarters can only move if they pass an "initiative" roll. This is where the two armies differ, as most of the Egyptian units have high initiative, while only the Hittite Chariot Reserve does.
The game has a lot of variety after the initial onslaught of the Hittite Chariot Reserve against the marching P'Re division. After routing that force the Hittite is faced with two choices. He can follow the historic course of action and pursue the fugitives to the Egyptian camp in hopes of overrunning it before the defenses can be organized. This is likely to result in the historical result of the Chariot Reserve fighting alone against most of the Egyptian army as it arrives on the field. Or the Hittites can try to move their whole army into action. This may be feasible if Muwatallish, the Hittite king, comes out of his tent and takes an active role in the battle. (Historically he did little).
After recovering from the initial attack, Ramses likewise has some options, including trying to capture the fortress city of Kadesh.
Victory is based on losses, the capture of Kadesh and the camps.
The game is easily playable in one sitting and only takes about a quarter hour to set up. There is just one scenario.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: An unusual ancient battle with some interesting choices.
(No) For Collectors: No remarkable collectibility.
(No) For Euro gamers: As a hex-and-counter wargames the game play is intricate and detailed.
Fought between the Egyptians and Hittites in modern-day Syria, it occurred sometime between 1300 and 1275 B.C., (sources differ, the game asserts it was May 10, 1285 B.C.).
Unlike nearly all other ancient battles, Kadesh was not a line up and hack away formal fight. Instead it was a dramatic battle of maneuver, attack and counterattack. In part this was because of the large numbers of chariots present, and in part it was because the Egyptian army was organized into all-arms independently marching divisions, a concept not seen again for some 30 centuries.
In this case, it caused one part of Pharoah Ramses II's army to be routed in a surprise attack, but it also allowed him to rally his troops, based on another division, and use a third division to launch a counterattack that saved a battle that had seemed lost and turn it into something he could (and would) call a victory.
The game, which was the issue game in Command Magazine No. 7, covers the whole day's battle, at 100 yards per hex, 30 minutes per turn and 1,000 men per infantry unit. Chariot units represent 250 machines.
The 12-page rule book describes a game of low complexity by wargame standards. The Mark Simonitch map is attractive and functional. It shows an open and nearly featureless plain divided by several watercourses ranging from a dry streambed to a major river. Several roads converge on the fortress city of Kadesh, while two potential Egyptian campsites are shown.
The 168 counters are mostly combat units, with a few markers. Units have values for close combat, movement, morale and, in some cases, missile fire. All the counters are cleanly laid out. This was the first wargame to use full-color icons instead of silhouettes. The Egyptian troops are generally on light blue counters, except for a few allies with light or dark green or dark blue backgrounds. The native Hitittes are tan, vassal states in dark brown and Syrian allies in red. The different divisions are identified through shield colors.
The game turn uses a straightforward IGO-HUGO sequence with leadership, movement, combat and rally phases. Chariot units can use a form of overrun combat called "pass-through" against units in certain vulnerable postures such as marching. Units pass through four levels of effectiveness from ordered through shaken and disrupted to routed. Routed units are subject to "slaughter" if attacked and may be eliminated. In order to act at full effect, units need to be in command control, which is defined as a chain of units all connected to the division headquarters.
Those headquarters can only move if they pass an "initiative" roll. This is where the two armies differ, as most of the Egyptian units have high initiative, while only the Hittite Chariot Reserve does.
The game has a lot of variety after the initial onslaught of the Hittite Chariot Reserve against the marching P'Re division. After routing that force the Hittite is faced with two choices. He can follow the historic course of action and pursue the fugitives to the Egyptian camp in hopes of overrunning it before the defenses can be organized. This is likely to result in the historical result of the Chariot Reserve fighting alone against most of the Egyptian army as it arrives on the field. Or the Hittites can try to move their whole army into action. This may be feasible if Muwatallish, the Hittite king, comes out of his tent and takes an active role in the battle. (Historically he did little).
After recovering from the initial attack, Ramses likewise has some options, including trying to capture the fortress city of Kadesh.
Victory is based on losses, the capture of Kadesh and the camps.
The game is easily playable in one sitting and only takes about a quarter hour to set up. There is just one scenario.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: An unusual ancient battle with some interesting choices.
(No) For Collectors: No remarkable collectibility.
(No) For Euro gamers: As a hex-and-counter wargames the game play is intricate and detailed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)