BoardGame Geek has a couple more announcements of local game stores closing, and given that everyone is expecting a very weak holiday retail season I wouldn't expect these to be the last. Many will no doubt try to make it through Christmas somehow and end up closing shop after the holiday sales numbers are in.
No doubt this will be a retail industry-wide problem, but here we're just concerned with the impact on gaming.
For a generation the game hobby has largely organized itself around local game stores. People would purchase and play their games at the same place. These were often not exclusively game stores. Many were some combination of hobby (kits and trains), card (sports and magic) and/or comics retailers as well. The important thing is that they would provide space for gamers on a scheduled basis. Collectible game sanctioned play is based on the existence of these venues.
But they seem to be becoming quite rare. Here in Connecticut, for example, there are just a handful of places and just one pure game shop (The Citadel in Groton). Can this model survive?
I suspect not, but then the question becomes, how do gamers find each other and get together to play? Finding like-minded hobbyists is always a challenge for niche past times. The rise of the Internet and various meetup sites seems to have the most potential in my opinion. There are a couple of gaming related meetup groups that I know about locally.
The biggest challenge for meetup groups is securing a regular meeting place, especially one that isn't dependant on one particular host. It's a big demand on someone to expect someone to make their home available every week no matter what. The best venues are often local colleges and libraries, but I wonder if there's a big enough demand for a dedicated meetup site to operate, perhaps as a "Meetup Club" where different meetup groups could rent space. This kind of site would be especially useful for game groups, who often have a fair amount of stuff to lug around.
It's hard to say whether this is the solution, but it seems clear gamers can't count on their favorite local gaming store to be around much longer, especially outside of major urban areas.
Monday, November 10, 2008
So what happens to HeroClix now?
Topps announces it's closing up shop on HeroClix: http://www.wizkidsgames.com/wk_article.asp?cid=41914
So where does that leave the HeroClix community in the future?
The precedents aren't good. It seems that collectible games need the injection of fresh product in order to stay alive and played.
While there are examples of long out-of-print board games that keep getting played such as Up Front, this doesn't seem to happen often with collectibles.
I think HeroClix has a big enough universe of figures to be playable indefinitely, but without organized tournament play I wonder if players will lose interest. Or will scenario-based play now become the preferred way?
Crossposted from BoardgameGeek
So where does that leave the HeroClix community in the future?
The precedents aren't good. It seems that collectible games need the injection of fresh product in order to stay alive and played.
While there are examples of long out-of-print board games that keep getting played such as Up Front, this doesn't seem to happen often with collectibles.
I think HeroClix has a big enough universe of figures to be playable indefinitely, but without organized tournament play I wonder if players will lose interest. Or will scenario-based play now become the preferred way?
Crossposted from BoardgameGeek
Breaking news No More WizKids!!!!
Topps is discontinuing WizKids immediately!
http://www.wizkidsgames.com/wk_article.asp?cid=41914
Among the things this will likely mean is an eventual end to HeroClix and HeroClix support, although the company said it will continue to support December store events and brick redemptions for a short while. The company said it will look into partnership agreements that might keep HeroClix going, but I'd be skeptical of success given current conditions.
Given the sharply increased cost of bits from China along with the retail weakness in the economy there may well be some more news like this.
http://www.wizkidsgames.com/wk_article.asp?cid=41914
Among the things this will likely mean is an eventual end to HeroClix and HeroClix support, although the company said it will continue to support December store events and brick redemptions for a short while. The company said it will look into partnership agreements that might keep HeroClix going, but I'd be skeptical of success given current conditions.
Given the sharply increased cost of bits from China along with the retail weakness in the economy there may well be some more news like this.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
When Eagles Fight review
When Eagles Fight is a detailed hex-and-counter wargame. It covers the Eastern Front campaign of World War I, from August 1914 to early 1917, when the Russian Revolution ended active operations. It appeared Command Magazine issue No. 25 in 1993.
Like most Command Magazine issue games When Eagles Fight doesn’t try to break any new ground in design technique. Instead it hangs various special rules on a framework of tried and true standard wargame mechanics to simulate its topic. It’s a testimony to how robust those standard wargame mechanics are that this works so often.
Physically, the game is well presented, with a Mark Simonitch map and the 5/8-inch counters Command often used during this era. The Germans are the always-crowd-pleasing white print on black counter look often used by Command. Their Austro Hungarian allies are white print on grey. The Russians are yellow on green, which XTR often used for pre-Soviet era Russian troops. A single Rumanian Army counter is black on yellow.
The values on the counters are the usual combat-defense-movement layout, with NATO-style unit symbols for type and size. Most units on both sides are corps.
The game scale is one or two months per turn and 25 miles per hex.The basic sequence is IGO-HUGO, with a special strategic movement phase before the regular player turns. Combat is odds-based with numeric results that can be taken as step losses or retreats. The game designer is Ted Raicer, who has made a specialty of designing World War I games.Various special rules account for events such as the Czar taking command of the army, ammunition shortages and the like.
The Germans win by bringing on the Russian Revolution, their main lever being capturing Russian cities. The exact trigger for the revolution is unknown to both sides. During periodic victory check the German player rolls a die and adds the number of captured cities. If it equals or exceeds the number listed on the turn record then the Revolution starts and the Central Powers win. Sudden death victory is also available should either side capture an enemy capital. The Russian can also win by capturing territory in Germany or Austro-Hungary. Finally, if the Central Powers haven’t caused the Revolution by April 1917, the historical date, then the Russians win.
The game captures the see-saw nature of the fighting. With neither side able to achieve the troop densities of the Western Front, the front never became static. But lacking the Panzers of the next war, neither side has the maneuverability or concentrated strength for decisive victories, either.
Set up time is about 15 minutes with sorted counters and the entire 24-turn campaign is playable in an evening.
Command No. 26 contained rules and counters for a two-turn variant called Schlieffen East, which assumes the Germans decide to try to knock Russia out of the war first. This quick game gives the Germans just two turns to capture as many cities as possible. There are six Russian cities within reach. The two in Russian Poland are exposed and likely to fall, giving the Germans a 1/6 chance of winning. If they capture all six, which means driving as far as Riga and Minsk, winning is certain. This scenario should take no more than an hour to play.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: A satisfying game that allows both players to attack and defend.
(No) For Collectors
(No) For Euro gamers: As with most hard-core hex-and-counter wargames the elegance of the game play is compromised by accounting for the messiness of simulating actual events. There is a lot of detail and some of it involves extensive rules for uncommon events with little game effect such as having three A-H corps banned from moving on Turn 1.
Like most Command Magazine issue games When Eagles Fight doesn’t try to break any new ground in design technique. Instead it hangs various special rules on a framework of tried and true standard wargame mechanics to simulate its topic. It’s a testimony to how robust those standard wargame mechanics are that this works so often.
Physically, the game is well presented, with a Mark Simonitch map and the 5/8-inch counters Command often used during this era. The Germans are the always-crowd-pleasing white print on black counter look often used by Command. Their Austro Hungarian allies are white print on grey. The Russians are yellow on green, which XTR often used for pre-Soviet era Russian troops. A single Rumanian Army counter is black on yellow.
The values on the counters are the usual combat-defense-movement layout, with NATO-style unit symbols for type and size. Most units on both sides are corps.
The game scale is one or two months per turn and 25 miles per hex.The basic sequence is IGO-HUGO, with a special strategic movement phase before the regular player turns. Combat is odds-based with numeric results that can be taken as step losses or retreats. The game designer is Ted Raicer, who has made a specialty of designing World War I games.Various special rules account for events such as the Czar taking command of the army, ammunition shortages and the like.
The Germans win by bringing on the Russian Revolution, their main lever being capturing Russian cities. The exact trigger for the revolution is unknown to both sides. During periodic victory check the German player rolls a die and adds the number of captured cities. If it equals or exceeds the number listed on the turn record then the Revolution starts and the Central Powers win. Sudden death victory is also available should either side capture an enemy capital. The Russian can also win by capturing territory in Germany or Austro-Hungary. Finally, if the Central Powers haven’t caused the Revolution by April 1917, the historical date, then the Russians win.
The game captures the see-saw nature of the fighting. With neither side able to achieve the troop densities of the Western Front, the front never became static. But lacking the Panzers of the next war, neither side has the maneuverability or concentrated strength for decisive victories, either.
Set up time is about 15 minutes with sorted counters and the entire 24-turn campaign is playable in an evening.
Command No. 26 contained rules and counters for a two-turn variant called Schlieffen East, which assumes the Germans decide to try to knock Russia out of the war first. This quick game gives the Germans just two turns to capture as many cities as possible. There are six Russian cities within reach. The two in Russian Poland are exposed and likely to fall, giving the Germans a 1/6 chance of winning. If they capture all six, which means driving as far as Riga and Minsk, winning is certain. This scenario should take no more than an hour to play.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: A satisfying game that allows both players to attack and defend.
(No) For Collectors
(No) For Euro gamers: As with most hard-core hex-and-counter wargames the elegance of the game play is compromised by accounting for the messiness of simulating actual events. There is a lot of detail and some of it involves extensive rules for uncommon events with little game effect such as having three A-H corps banned from moving on Turn 1.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Solitaire play of King's Mountain in Hold the Line
The American Revolution Battle King's Mountain seems at first consideration to be an excellent topic for a wargame. You have two armies of almost identical size and quality facing off without any chance of outside interference.
Unfortunately there's the uncomfortable fact that the historical outcome was exceedingly one-sided as the losing army was completely annihilated for relatively small cost to the winner. It was, indeed, a stunning result.
By 1780 the fighting in the American Revolution had moved to the southern colonies in the face of the British defeats up north and the stalemate outside New York. As British Gen. Cornwallis campaigned through the Carolinas he dispatched a force of American Loyalists under the well-regarded Major Patrick Ferguson to cover his inland flank. Ferguson's force, while made up entirely of provincials, was well-trained and contained a core of troops trained to the standards of British regular troops. It numbered around 1,000.
Unfortunately Ferguson, while a god leader and trainer of troops, was evidently rather foolish when it came to psychology as he threatened to lay waste to rebel areas and unleash Indian raids. Rather than cowing the frontiersmen who inhabited the mountain interior his threats ended up mobilizing those folks and a force of about 900 of them moved to attack Ferguson's army. While completely irregular and not part of the formal Patriot forces (being neither Continentals nor militia) these frontiersmen was hardy campaigners with extensive experience with their weapons and no strangers to fighting.
Still, the Rebel force would normally be expected to have some problem executing a complex battle plan, having an ill-defined and informal chain of command. In the actual event, however, the Rebel leaders seem to have had no problem cooperating despite the informal nature of their army.
The Rebels caught up with Ferguson just south of the border between North and South Carolina at King's Mountain on Oct. 7, 1780. Ferguson decided to make a stand on the high ground of King's Mountain. This must have seemed like a self-evidently good idea, but as it turns out it was an enormous blunder. Ferguson died in the battle, so we don't know what he was thinking, but it may have been that he expected to tire out the attacking Rebels by having them attack up the steep hill. Further, he may have reasonably expected that his disciplined troops would be able to defeat the Rebel attackers piecemeal, as their unpracticed and irregular force would find it difficult to coordinate its attacks.
As it turns out, Ferguson fatally misjudged his opponents. The Rebel commanders were able to devise a plan to surround the entire British force and then execute a simultaneous encircling attack. The Loyalists launched bayonet charges that drove the Rebel line back, but could not close with it in the heavily wooded terrain of the mountainside. Meanwhile the Rebel marksman picked off the Loyalists, especially the leaders, including Ferguson himself. Unable to return effective fire against the woodsmen in the trees and eventually the entire army surrended.
King's Mountain hasn't been extensively simulated, although it's not fair to say it has been ignored, either. For example, it's a scenario in Rebels & Redcoats Vol. III.
Still, simulating a battle that involved a crushing defeat for one side is never easy for designers, particularly when there's so little excuse for the loss. Ferguson's army was at least as good quality as the Americans and actually a little bit larger. His defeat is completely due to picking very poor ground on which to fight, compounded by a fatal misjudgment about his opponents.
In Hold the Line this design reflects the key facts of the battle fairly well given its simple design and manages to recreate the circumstances of the battle while presenting a chance for a different outcome. The Loyalist force of eight units and a leader sets up in the middle of the map in open ground in a line alternating between militia (2 Morale Points) and British Regulars representing the trained Loyalists (3 MPs). The American force is made up entirely of 10 militia units (2MP) with two leaders, but they have the advantage of being able to setup anywhere in a ring of hill and woods hexes completely surrounding the Tory army.
Besides the advantage of surrounding the Loyalists and having terrain cover, the Americans also have a significant command action point advantage of 3 to 1. This means that the Rebels will have at least 4 CAP per turn while the Loyalists will never have more than 4. While this helps recreate the historical result, I'm not sure it doesn't amount to an "idiot rule" for the Loyalists and is hard to justify on purely historical grounds. Ferguson's force did not, in fact, suffer from any notable command control problems.
For my solitaire run through I decided to concentrate the American effort against the middle of the British line by massing two groups of three militia each directly north and south of the middle part of the Loyalist force. Each group had one American leader. The remaining four militia units completed the encirclement around the ends of the British line. My plan for the British was to try to rush one side or the other of the American line and break through.
As it turned out, however, the first few turns really went the Americans' way and the two militia units and Loyalist regular in the middle of the map were quickly gunned down. Because the Americans didn't need to move much they could maximize their Action points to fire, which meant 5 or 6 shots each turn. Meanwhile the Loyalists were forced to spend two APs per unit as they moved and fired and/or tried assaults, so most turns they had just a couple of attempts at causing casualties and lesser odds of succeeding due to the woods and hills terrain effects. Eventually the Loyalists were able to fight their way into the woods and eliminate a couple of Rebel militia units but they were never able to make up the initial deficit and the game ended with the British scoring 4 VPs for eliminated American units while losing 6 VPs and the game. Actually, the British lost 7 VPs because they also lost their leader in the last assault combat.
As a solitaire scenario it worked reasonably well and resembled the historical result, although perhaps not quite so one-sided. I'm not sure how it would work as a two-player scenario because the Loyalist player really has few options. It might make a good scenario for an experienced player to use to teach a new player, though, giving the new person the American force.
Unfortunately there's the uncomfortable fact that the historical outcome was exceedingly one-sided as the losing army was completely annihilated for relatively small cost to the winner. It was, indeed, a stunning result.
By 1780 the fighting in the American Revolution had moved to the southern colonies in the face of the British defeats up north and the stalemate outside New York. As British Gen. Cornwallis campaigned through the Carolinas he dispatched a force of American Loyalists under the well-regarded Major Patrick Ferguson to cover his inland flank. Ferguson's force, while made up entirely of provincials, was well-trained and contained a core of troops trained to the standards of British regular troops. It numbered around 1,000.
Unfortunately Ferguson, while a god leader and trainer of troops, was evidently rather foolish when it came to psychology as he threatened to lay waste to rebel areas and unleash Indian raids. Rather than cowing the frontiersmen who inhabited the mountain interior his threats ended up mobilizing those folks and a force of about 900 of them moved to attack Ferguson's army. While completely irregular and not part of the formal Patriot forces (being neither Continentals nor militia) these frontiersmen was hardy campaigners with extensive experience with their weapons and no strangers to fighting.
Still, the Rebel force would normally be expected to have some problem executing a complex battle plan, having an ill-defined and informal chain of command. In the actual event, however, the Rebel leaders seem to have had no problem cooperating despite the informal nature of their army.
The Rebels caught up with Ferguson just south of the border between North and South Carolina at King's Mountain on Oct. 7, 1780. Ferguson decided to make a stand on the high ground of King's Mountain. This must have seemed like a self-evidently good idea, but as it turns out it was an enormous blunder. Ferguson died in the battle, so we don't know what he was thinking, but it may have been that he expected to tire out the attacking Rebels by having them attack up the steep hill. Further, he may have reasonably expected that his disciplined troops would be able to defeat the Rebel attackers piecemeal, as their unpracticed and irregular force would find it difficult to coordinate its attacks.
As it turns out, Ferguson fatally misjudged his opponents. The Rebel commanders were able to devise a plan to surround the entire British force and then execute a simultaneous encircling attack. The Loyalists launched bayonet charges that drove the Rebel line back, but could not close with it in the heavily wooded terrain of the mountainside. Meanwhile the Rebel marksman picked off the Loyalists, especially the leaders, including Ferguson himself. Unable to return effective fire against the woodsmen in the trees and eventually the entire army surrended.
King's Mountain hasn't been extensively simulated, although it's not fair to say it has been ignored, either. For example, it's a scenario in Rebels & Redcoats Vol. III.
Still, simulating a battle that involved a crushing defeat for one side is never easy for designers, particularly when there's so little excuse for the loss. Ferguson's army was at least as good quality as the Americans and actually a little bit larger. His defeat is completely due to picking very poor ground on which to fight, compounded by a fatal misjudgment about his opponents.
In Hold the Line this design reflects the key facts of the battle fairly well given its simple design and manages to recreate the circumstances of the battle while presenting a chance for a different outcome. The Loyalist force of eight units and a leader sets up in the middle of the map in open ground in a line alternating between militia (2 Morale Points) and British Regulars representing the trained Loyalists (3 MPs). The American force is made up entirely of 10 militia units (2MP) with two leaders, but they have the advantage of being able to setup anywhere in a ring of hill and woods hexes completely surrounding the Tory army.
Besides the advantage of surrounding the Loyalists and having terrain cover, the Americans also have a significant command action point advantage of 3 to 1. This means that the Rebels will have at least 4 CAP per turn while the Loyalists will never have more than 4. While this helps recreate the historical result, I'm not sure it doesn't amount to an "idiot rule" for the Loyalists and is hard to justify on purely historical grounds. Ferguson's force did not, in fact, suffer from any notable command control problems.
For my solitaire run through I decided to concentrate the American effort against the middle of the British line by massing two groups of three militia each directly north and south of the middle part of the Loyalist force. Each group had one American leader. The remaining four militia units completed the encirclement around the ends of the British line. My plan for the British was to try to rush one side or the other of the American line and break through.
As it turned out, however, the first few turns really went the Americans' way and the two militia units and Loyalist regular in the middle of the map were quickly gunned down. Because the Americans didn't need to move much they could maximize their Action points to fire, which meant 5 or 6 shots each turn. Meanwhile the Loyalists were forced to spend two APs per unit as they moved and fired and/or tried assaults, so most turns they had just a couple of attempts at causing casualties and lesser odds of succeeding due to the woods and hills terrain effects. Eventually the Loyalists were able to fight their way into the woods and eliminate a couple of Rebel militia units but they were never able to make up the initial deficit and the game ended with the British scoring 4 VPs for eliminated American units while losing 6 VPs and the game. Actually, the British lost 7 VPs because they also lost their leader in the last assault combat.
As a solitaire scenario it worked reasonably well and resembled the historical result, although perhaps not quite so one-sided. I'm not sure how it would work as a two-player scenario because the Loyalist player really has few options. It might make a good scenario for an experienced player to use to teach a new player, though, giving the new person the American force.
Czechoslovakia 38 review
Czechoslovakia '38 is an interesting treatment of a fascinating what-if from World War II from Command Magazine No. 24 in 1993. It depicts a German campaign in 1938 to conquer Czechoslovakia, assuming the Czechs had decided to fight, rather than accept the Munich appeasement.
The situation is more balanced than one might think. While the German army is stronger, the Czechs do have extensive fortified zones to help them and the Germans are on a tight timetable to secure the country before the British and French work up the courage to intervene.
The game system uses the usual Command variation on standard wargame mechanics. The 5/8-inch unit counters have attack, defense and movement factors underneath NATO-style unit symbols. Most Czech units have one step, most German units have two or four. Czech units are red on white for non-mech units and blue on white for the mechanized forces. They have some mobile "Industry" pieces which can be evacuated for victory points. The airplane counters represent the air force. The game assumes Soviet intervention on behalf of the Czechs, which comes in the form of two useful aircraft units and a 4-step mechanized unit that will likely prove less useful because of its late entry onto the map.
German mechanized forces are black with white print, most non-mechanized units are in field grey. Eight divisions of the German "Strategic Reserve" are included, but they only enter play if the Czechs enter a hex of Germany.
While the Czechs can gain victory points for capturing a German city, they have to weigh the disadvantage of adding even more to the forces arrayed against them.
The Lufwaffe is represented by light blue air landing regiment and seven aircraft counters.
Finally, as an optional unit, there is a regiment of Sudeten Germans represented with a brown counter. For both sides most units are divisions or division-sized groups, with some regiments. The Czech army comprises 45 units, the Germans also 45, not counting optional units.The campaign runs for ten two-day turns across a Mark Simonitch map at 12 km per hex.
The 15-page rule-book describes a fairly standard wargame with a IGO-HUGO turn sequence. Nothing here will surprise veteran gamers.
A "Blitzkrieg" rule section gives German mach units some powers such as an overrun attack and the ability to move through zones of control at a cost in movement points.
The German wins by driving the victory point level of Czech controlled cities below 16 before the French/British intervene. Intervention happens sometime between turns 8 to 10. The Czechs control 45 points at game start, with the big prize being Prague, worth 4 VP for each of its three hexes (12 total).
The general course of play is a Czech retreat by stages in front of the German advance.
No draw is possible. The game can be played in an evening and will take about 20 minutes to set up, with starting locations printed on all the counters.
Command Magazine No. 26 added some variant rules that added another fortification unit to the Czech OB and rules for "Blitzkrieg-capable" Czech mechanized units.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: An interesting campaign well portrayed.
(No) For Collectors: Nothing remarkable.
(No) For Euro gamers: No, standard hex-and-counter wargame.
The situation is more balanced than one might think. While the German army is stronger, the Czechs do have extensive fortified zones to help them and the Germans are on a tight timetable to secure the country before the British and French work up the courage to intervene.
The game system uses the usual Command variation on standard wargame mechanics. The 5/8-inch unit counters have attack, defense and movement factors underneath NATO-style unit symbols. Most Czech units have one step, most German units have two or four. Czech units are red on white for non-mech units and blue on white for the mechanized forces. They have some mobile "Industry" pieces which can be evacuated for victory points. The airplane counters represent the air force. The game assumes Soviet intervention on behalf of the Czechs, which comes in the form of two useful aircraft units and a 4-step mechanized unit that will likely prove less useful because of its late entry onto the map.
German mechanized forces are black with white print, most non-mechanized units are in field grey. Eight divisions of the German "Strategic Reserve" are included, but they only enter play if the Czechs enter a hex of Germany.
While the Czechs can gain victory points for capturing a German city, they have to weigh the disadvantage of adding even more to the forces arrayed against them.
The Lufwaffe is represented by light blue air landing regiment and seven aircraft counters.
Finally, as an optional unit, there is a regiment of Sudeten Germans represented with a brown counter. For both sides most units are divisions or division-sized groups, with some regiments. The Czech army comprises 45 units, the Germans also 45, not counting optional units.The campaign runs for ten two-day turns across a Mark Simonitch map at 12 km per hex.
The 15-page rule-book describes a fairly standard wargame with a IGO-HUGO turn sequence. Nothing here will surprise veteran gamers.
A "Blitzkrieg" rule section gives German mach units some powers such as an overrun attack and the ability to move through zones of control at a cost in movement points.
The German wins by driving the victory point level of Czech controlled cities below 16 before the French/British intervene. Intervention happens sometime between turns 8 to 10. The Czechs control 45 points at game start, with the big prize being Prague, worth 4 VP for each of its three hexes (12 total).
The general course of play is a Czech retreat by stages in front of the German advance.
No draw is possible. The game can be played in an evening and will take about 20 minutes to set up, with starting locations printed on all the counters.
Command Magazine No. 26 added some variant rules that added another fortification unit to the Czech OB and rules for "Blitzkrieg-capable" Czech mechanized units.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: An interesting campaign well portrayed.
(No) For Collectors: Nothing remarkable.
(No) For Euro gamers: No, standard hex-and-counter wargame.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Shogun Triumphant Review
Shogun Triumphant, a Command Magazine issue game, is an odd duck of a wargame, mostly because the battle itself is so bizarre. The game itself uses a melee-era system that emphasizes the morale differences between units. Units take "cohesian hits" from fire and melee. If the hits in one combat phase equal or exceed the morale value (here called "stalwartness") thenthe unit is eliminated.
The 158 5/8-inch counters show two armies, a "Western" army in green and an "Eastern" army in red. Each has mounted samurai units and ashigaru foot soldiers. The Eastern army also has a single cannon unit.
But the game is better understood as a contest between two coalitions comprising 19 little armies, with many of those armies of uncertain loyalty.
That loyalty is tested through a fairly involved set of procedures.
While both sides are theoretically vulnerable to treachery, the Western Army clearly has the most to fear. In the historical battle four clans from the Western army affected to the East, none went the other way.
The odds are something similar will happen in the game. There's just enough of a possibility of treachery against the Eastern army to keep that player looking over his shoulder, but the Western player has the burden of fighting a battle where some key units can't be trusted.
Victory is assessed by lost stalwartness points. Units eliminated and units that defect count against the owning side. The first to lose 160 points loses the game.
The burden of attack is on the Eastern player, so if neither side reaches 160 points by turn 8 then he loses. A draw is possible if both sides pass 160 at the same time.
Units represent groups of 200-800 fighters. Each hex is 180 yards across, every turn repesents 45 minutes.
Set up locations are shown on the Mark Simonitch map, so set up is fairly easy and takes about 20 minutes. The 8-turn game can be played in a single sitting.
Recommendations.
(Conditional Yes) for Wargamers: Unusual battle, but more random than most wargames and this may turn off some people. On the other hand, this is a rarely simulated era, so it does have some interest.
(Conditional Yes) for Collectors: Rare game on a Japanese topic.
(No) for Eurogamers: Intricate game mechanics, highly random game play, make this unlikely to appeal to Eurogamers.
The 158 5/8-inch counters show two armies, a "Western" army in green and an "Eastern" army in red. Each has mounted samurai units and ashigaru foot soldiers. The Eastern army also has a single cannon unit.
But the game is better understood as a contest between two coalitions comprising 19 little armies, with many of those armies of uncertain loyalty.
That loyalty is tested through a fairly involved set of procedures.
While both sides are theoretically vulnerable to treachery, the Western Army clearly has the most to fear. In the historical battle four clans from the Western army affected to the East, none went the other way.
The odds are something similar will happen in the game. There's just enough of a possibility of treachery against the Eastern army to keep that player looking over his shoulder, but the Western player has the burden of fighting a battle where some key units can't be trusted.
Victory is assessed by lost stalwartness points. Units eliminated and units that defect count against the owning side. The first to lose 160 points loses the game.
The burden of attack is on the Eastern player, so if neither side reaches 160 points by turn 8 then he loses. A draw is possible if both sides pass 160 at the same time.
Units represent groups of 200-800 fighters. Each hex is 180 yards across, every turn repesents 45 minutes.
Set up locations are shown on the Mark Simonitch map, so set up is fairly easy and takes about 20 minutes. The 8-turn game can be played in a single sitting.
Recommendations.
(Conditional Yes) for Wargamers: Unusual battle, but more random than most wargames and this may turn off some people. On the other hand, this is a rarely simulated era, so it does have some interest.
(Conditional Yes) for Collectors: Rare game on a Japanese topic.
(No) for Eurogamers: Intricate game mechanics, highly random game play, make this unlikely to appeal to Eurogamers.
Friday, October 31, 2008
More thoughts on Austerlitz strategy for the Allies
I've now got a few more plays under my belt and adjusted my thoughts on Allied strategy accordingly.
I still think the French side is easier to play. They have the better army, with a larger stacking limit, a finer degree of articulation in units strengths (making it easier to achieve efficient odds and exchanges) and faster units. All these things make that side easier to handle. The speedy units, especially, make it possible for the French player to react to whatever strategy the Austro-Russians pursue.
The Austro-Russian allies do start with the initiative, and if they fail to keep it the French will eat their lunch.
There are three general strategies available to the Allies. My initial preference was to give up on the idea of winning by exiting units and concentrate on winning the attrition race to demoralization and seek out a decisive battle in the center of the map. With more experience I conclude that my aim was sound, but my means was deficient. It's certainly possible for the Allies to win such a battle, but against a clever French player the odds are not good. The French stacking advantage and speed will tend to result in unfavorable matchups in a main force confrontation. It's true that whichever side gets demoralized first will promptly lose, but on average it will be the Allies who suffer that fate.
A second approach that shows some promise is to try to pull the Allied army back in good order and exit off the East edge. Against a cautious or slow French player this can work. The threat of exiting most of the army may panic the French into attacking too hastily. If they do the Allies may have a chance to destroy enough French to demoralize them. Even if they don't, the Allies may be able to get enough off to win. The best French counter is a strong attack to demoralise the Austrians quickly, cut off their escape route off map and then mop up the survivors. Because there is a good counter strategy, however, it may not be as effective as the third choice. It's also likely to result something less than a decisive win for the Allies, if they win at all.
That involves making a serious effort to follow the historical Austro-Russian plan and attack on the left. The right flank Allied units and the small reinforcement group should stand on the defense at first and try to lure the French into committing a sizable force to that sector. If the French ignore them, move up. If they send too few troops over, kill them. If they send too many to fight, exit the map. The points probably won't count, but they won't count for the French, either.
Meanwhile, the Allied main body moves at top speed against the French right and the high-value exit area. They're not fast enough to make it off before the French get there, but the threat may induce the French to approach in a piecemeal fashion. If they do, then the Allies have set the stage for a winning attrition battle against just a portion of the French army. It's no sure thing, but it provides a good chance to demoralize the French. If demoralized, the surviving French will not be able to stop the Austrians from exiting enough to win a decisive victory.
I still think the French side is easier to play. They have the better army, with a larger stacking limit, a finer degree of articulation in units strengths (making it easier to achieve efficient odds and exchanges) and faster units. All these things make that side easier to handle. The speedy units, especially, make it possible for the French player to react to whatever strategy the Austro-Russians pursue.
The Austro-Russian allies do start with the initiative, and if they fail to keep it the French will eat their lunch.
There are three general strategies available to the Allies. My initial preference was to give up on the idea of winning by exiting units and concentrate on winning the attrition race to demoralization and seek out a decisive battle in the center of the map. With more experience I conclude that my aim was sound, but my means was deficient. It's certainly possible for the Allies to win such a battle, but against a clever French player the odds are not good. The French stacking advantage and speed will tend to result in unfavorable matchups in a main force confrontation. It's true that whichever side gets demoralized first will promptly lose, but on average it will be the Allies who suffer that fate.
A second approach that shows some promise is to try to pull the Allied army back in good order and exit off the East edge. Against a cautious or slow French player this can work. The threat of exiting most of the army may panic the French into attacking too hastily. If they do the Allies may have a chance to destroy enough French to demoralize them. Even if they don't, the Allies may be able to get enough off to win. The best French counter is a strong attack to demoralise the Austrians quickly, cut off their escape route off map and then mop up the survivors. Because there is a good counter strategy, however, it may not be as effective as the third choice. It's also likely to result something less than a decisive win for the Allies, if they win at all.
That involves making a serious effort to follow the historical Austro-Russian plan and attack on the left. The right flank Allied units and the small reinforcement group should stand on the defense at first and try to lure the French into committing a sizable force to that sector. If the French ignore them, move up. If they send too few troops over, kill them. If they send too many to fight, exit the map. The points probably won't count, but they won't count for the French, either.
Meanwhile, the Allied main body moves at top speed against the French right and the high-value exit area. They're not fast enough to make it off before the French get there, but the threat may induce the French to approach in a piecemeal fashion. If they do, then the Allies have set the stage for a winning attrition battle against just a portion of the French army. It's no sure thing, but it provides a good chance to demoralize the French. If demoralized, the surviving French will not be able to stop the Austrians from exiting enough to win a decisive victory.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Antietam: Burnished Rows of Steel
George B. McClellan was possibly the most frustrating man to ever command an American Army. He was brilliant and incompetent at the same time. An incomparable organizer, beloved by his soldiers of the Union Army of the Potomac, he was a good strategist. Yet he was also a coniver, a complainer, and a backstabber. He was overcautious and an inept battle manager.
Antietam was his greatest victory, but at the same time his most disappointing performance. The famous "Lost Orders" allowed him to concentrate his entire army against a portion of Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. And yet, despite outnumbering Lee by two to one, he failed to destroy him.
The issue game in Command No. 22, Antietam: Burnished Rows of Steel is a moderate complexity wargame depicting the battle. Units are brigades, turns represent 60 minutes and each hex depicts 250 yards.
The large-sized unit counters bear a full-color icon showing a soldier, a morale value, step strength, combat value and movement allowance.Turns comprise a movement phase, artillery bombardment phase and two rounds of combat. Combat is resolved brigade by brigade, with combat strengths comapred for a differential ranging from -1 to +2, unless the attacker is at least twice as strong and qualifies for the 2-1 or more table. Differences between morale levels, being surrounded and terrain effects can modify the die roll, but in almost every case both sides will take step losses on the bloody table.
The heart of the game are the Corps Commitment rules. If McClellan had committed all his troops he would have easily overwhelmed the outnumbered Confederates. Instead he committed his units piecemeal and Lee was bale to counter each blow in turn and stand his ground. The game handles this by allowing the Federal player to commit just two of his six corps at any one time.
The game also includes solitaire rules that use a modified version of the commitment rules, where the game system handles the Union side and the player represents Lee.
The quick set up will take about 20 minutes, while the fixed set up will take about 30 minutes to execute. The 11-turn game is playable in a long evening.
Recommendations
(Yes) for Wargamers. A rare workable hex-and-counter solitaire game. The two-player version is also of interest.
(no) for Collectors. No special collectibility
(no) for Eurogamers. Units are represented by multiple counters for the different step strengths, there are sixteen pages of rules and the combat rules are involved.
Antietam was his greatest victory, but at the same time his most disappointing performance. The famous "Lost Orders" allowed him to concentrate his entire army against a portion of Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. And yet, despite outnumbering Lee by two to one, he failed to destroy him.
The issue game in Command No. 22, Antietam: Burnished Rows of Steel is a moderate complexity wargame depicting the battle. Units are brigades, turns represent 60 minutes and each hex depicts 250 yards.
The large-sized unit counters bear a full-color icon showing a soldier, a morale value, step strength, combat value and movement allowance.Turns comprise a movement phase, artillery bombardment phase and two rounds of combat. Combat is resolved brigade by brigade, with combat strengths comapred for a differential ranging from -1 to +2, unless the attacker is at least twice as strong and qualifies for the 2-1 or more table. Differences between morale levels, being surrounded and terrain effects can modify the die roll, but in almost every case both sides will take step losses on the bloody table.
The heart of the game are the Corps Commitment rules. If McClellan had committed all his troops he would have easily overwhelmed the outnumbered Confederates. Instead he committed his units piecemeal and Lee was bale to counter each blow in turn and stand his ground. The game handles this by allowing the Federal player to commit just two of his six corps at any one time.
The game also includes solitaire rules that use a modified version of the commitment rules, where the game system handles the Union side and the player represents Lee.
The quick set up will take about 20 minutes, while the fixed set up will take about 30 minutes to execute. The 11-turn game is playable in a long evening.
Recommendations
(Yes) for Wargamers. A rare workable hex-and-counter solitaire game. The two-player version is also of interest.
(no) for Collectors. No special collectibility
(no) for Eurogamers. Units are represented by multiple counters for the different step strengths, there are sixteen pages of rules and the combat rules are involved.
Monday, October 27, 2008
A wargamey approach to D&D Miniatures
Most wargamers, even those with pretty eclectic tastes, will have certain types of games that appeal to them more than others. I've always had a weakness for man-to-man level skirmish games, for example. I own more than a dozen right now and have owned or played dozens more since playing Sniper! back in the 1970s.
Every wargame has to strike a balance between realism and playability, but higher-level wargames can mask some of their abstractions more easily than skirmish games. Few people who have never served at a higher-level military headquarters have a strong idea of exactly how an army works. But just about everybody can imagine very easily the potential moves of an individual soldier, so there's a strong incentive for a skirmish level wargame to become very detailed. The player knows that in real life the soldier could peek around a corner, so he wants his soldier to be able to do it.
Yet action at the skirmish level is fast and furious and a game that bogs down in too much detail runs the risk of failing to captures the chaos and quick reaction of a melee.
There's no right answer, and I've found games at both ends of the spectrum that do an acceptable job. Gunslinger, for example, may be one of the most detailed non-computer man-to-man shooter games ever published and is well-regarded and popular, But so is Cowboys, Worthington Games' newer game on the same topic that eschews much of the detail in favor of speed and ease of play. A 30-second gunfight in Gunslinger will often take a couple of hours to play. A similar gunfight in Cowboys will still take more than 30 seconds, but it's unlikely to take more than an hour.
My association with Dungeons and Dragons also goes back to the 70s. I first played with the original three books, although I never became a hard-core RPGer, preferring historical wargames instead. When I did role play, I soon moved over to the more tactically oriented Fantasy Trip which further evolved into GURPS. Interestingly enough, in its later editions D&D has also become more like a tactical skirmish wargame.
The D&D miniatures game is a simplified version of the D&D tactical system and indeed, it appears that there's not an awful lot of difference between them at this point. WOTC has recently (October) announced that it's going to discontinue new releases of the D&D Miniatures game in favor of making miniatures that are just geared toward the roleplaying game.
As a late comer to the D&D miniatures this is mildly disappointing, as I think it's actually a pretty decent light skirmish wargame, but there's a silver lining to the news, nonetheless.
Like most miniatures games these days, D&D Minis are collectible, with all the money sink potential that implies. It also means a business model heavily reliant on sanctioned tournament play that encourages constant purchases to stay competitive. While a successful approach for collectible card games, this has worked out rather less well for miniatures. The only long-running collectible miniatures game that seems to have held its own is HeroClix.
For non-competitive play, however, the end of competitive play means that after-market prices and availability of miniatures will improve and the freezing of the game's further development makes it much more favorable for casual players.
For those casual players, what does D&D miniatures offer.
It's a very straightforward man-to-monster level game. A 200-point game gives each player about a half-dozen to up to 10 figures that can battle on a square-gridded map. The usual battlefield has starting areas for each player and "victory point ares" for each that tend to lie on the opponent's side of the field. Occupying a victory area (presumably looting some treasure) provides victory points, as does eliminating enemy figures. This simple expedient encourages players to close and fight and provides a context for the battlefield maneuvers.
Combat is very simple, and is handled the same way whether it is a melee attack, a ranged attack or a magic blow. The attacking player rolls a 20-sided die (a D&D tradition) adds any modifiers and compares that result to the target's armor class (or its separate "defense" values for some kinds of attacks). If the result equals or exceed that armor value then it's a hit and it does the number of"hit points" (another traditional D&D term) indicated on the attacker's stat card. Once a target accumulates more than half it's Hit Point value in damage it is considered "bloodied" which often provides benefits for subsequent attackers. When damage equals a target's hit point value it's eliminated.
Various special powers apply various elaborations to this combat routine or affect movement or the timing of actions, but that's the essence of the game.
It compares in complexity to Heroscape or Cowboys and is a skirmish game you can definitely play with younger gamers, while the interaction of powers and the metagame of warband construction provides scope for more experienced gamers.
The miniatures are also fully usable with the role-playing game and include stats on the reverse side of the card for the role-playing rules. Having no game-specific data on the bases, the miniatures are also suitable for use with any other set of RPG rules or even other skirmish level games that use similar sized figures. (The D&D minis are billed as "28mm" scale.)
Every wargame has to strike a balance between realism and playability, but higher-level wargames can mask some of their abstractions more easily than skirmish games. Few people who have never served at a higher-level military headquarters have a strong idea of exactly how an army works. But just about everybody can imagine very easily the potential moves of an individual soldier, so there's a strong incentive for a skirmish level wargame to become very detailed. The player knows that in real life the soldier could peek around a corner, so he wants his soldier to be able to do it.
Yet action at the skirmish level is fast and furious and a game that bogs down in too much detail runs the risk of failing to captures the chaos and quick reaction of a melee.
There's no right answer, and I've found games at both ends of the spectrum that do an acceptable job. Gunslinger, for example, may be one of the most detailed non-computer man-to-man shooter games ever published and is well-regarded and popular, But so is Cowboys, Worthington Games' newer game on the same topic that eschews much of the detail in favor of speed and ease of play. A 30-second gunfight in Gunslinger will often take a couple of hours to play. A similar gunfight in Cowboys will still take more than 30 seconds, but it's unlikely to take more than an hour.
My association with Dungeons and Dragons also goes back to the 70s. I first played with the original three books, although I never became a hard-core RPGer, preferring historical wargames instead. When I did role play, I soon moved over to the more tactically oriented Fantasy Trip which further evolved into GURPS. Interestingly enough, in its later editions D&D has also become more like a tactical skirmish wargame.
The D&D miniatures game is a simplified version of the D&D tactical system and indeed, it appears that there's not an awful lot of difference between them at this point. WOTC has recently (October) announced that it's going to discontinue new releases of the D&D Miniatures game in favor of making miniatures that are just geared toward the roleplaying game.
As a late comer to the D&D miniatures this is mildly disappointing, as I think it's actually a pretty decent light skirmish wargame, but there's a silver lining to the news, nonetheless.
Like most miniatures games these days, D&D Minis are collectible, with all the money sink potential that implies. It also means a business model heavily reliant on sanctioned tournament play that encourages constant purchases to stay competitive. While a successful approach for collectible card games, this has worked out rather less well for miniatures. The only long-running collectible miniatures game that seems to have held its own is HeroClix.
For non-competitive play, however, the end of competitive play means that after-market prices and availability of miniatures will improve and the freezing of the game's further development makes it much more favorable for casual players.
For those casual players, what does D&D miniatures offer.
It's a very straightforward man-to-monster level game. A 200-point game gives each player about a half-dozen to up to 10 figures that can battle on a square-gridded map. The usual battlefield has starting areas for each player and "victory point ares" for each that tend to lie on the opponent's side of the field. Occupying a victory area (presumably looting some treasure) provides victory points, as does eliminating enemy figures. This simple expedient encourages players to close and fight and provides a context for the battlefield maneuvers.
Combat is very simple, and is handled the same way whether it is a melee attack, a ranged attack or a magic blow. The attacking player rolls a 20-sided die (a D&D tradition) adds any modifiers and compares that result to the target's armor class (or its separate "defense" values for some kinds of attacks). If the result equals or exceed that armor value then it's a hit and it does the number of"hit points" (another traditional D&D term) indicated on the attacker's stat card. Once a target accumulates more than half it's Hit Point value in damage it is considered "bloodied" which often provides benefits for subsequent attackers. When damage equals a target's hit point value it's eliminated.
Various special powers apply various elaborations to this combat routine or affect movement or the timing of actions, but that's the essence of the game.
It compares in complexity to Heroscape or Cowboys and is a skirmish game you can definitely play with younger gamers, while the interaction of powers and the metagame of warband construction provides scope for more experienced gamers.
The miniatures are also fully usable with the role-playing game and include stats on the reverse side of the card for the role-playing rules. Having no game-specific data on the bases, the miniatures are also suitable for use with any other set of RPG rules or even other skirmish level games that use similar sized figures. (The D&D minis are billed as "28mm" scale.)
Nuclear War tournament session
We didn't have a very big turnout, I'm afraid, but the three of us who did make it had an enjoyable time of it. I decided to try the Weapons of Mass Destruction edition of Nuclear War as it seems well suited for a smaller group.
There was the usual tossing around of propaganda to start. There was an abortive start to the war as our youngest player misplayed his card order, but eventually the missiles started to fly. The youngest player attempted to minimize the chances of annoying either of his foes too much by randomizing every attack with a die roll -- which might have worked out except that every single roll came up against the middle player!
Myself, as the oldest player, managed to benefit from this turn of events, but not enough to bring victory as I had my all-too-common very poor population draw and skimped by with what events would prove to be far less than a fair share.
My missiles were able to wipe out our young friend, who maintained his policy of "random" attacks during his final retaliation, which all (four shots) happened to hit our middle player.
Despite this barrage the middle player still had the most population cards and in the brief interlude of peace that followed he was winning the propaganda war quite handily. With just 4 million people left I launched my last attack and got through. A Secret Card on Middle Player's draw wiped out the last of my folks and I launched my final retaliation in hopes of immolating the whole world. Middle player happened to have an anti-missile which shot down my best missile (a Coyote). My other two shots got through and did a lot of damage, but he ended up surviving with just 8 million left -- which happened to be the base loss the Coyote's warhead would have inflicted!
So despite being the target for almost every nuclear attack in the game, the Middle Player won.
There was the usual tossing around of propaganda to start. There was an abortive start to the war as our youngest player misplayed his card order, but eventually the missiles started to fly. The youngest player attempted to minimize the chances of annoying either of his foes too much by randomizing every attack with a die roll -- which might have worked out except that every single roll came up against the middle player!
Myself, as the oldest player, managed to benefit from this turn of events, but not enough to bring victory as I had my all-too-common very poor population draw and skimped by with what events would prove to be far less than a fair share.
My missiles were able to wipe out our young friend, who maintained his policy of "random" attacks during his final retaliation, which all (four shots) happened to hit our middle player.
Despite this barrage the middle player still had the most population cards and in the brief interlude of peace that followed he was winning the propaganda war quite handily. With just 4 million people left I launched my last attack and got through. A Secret Card on Middle Player's draw wiped out the last of my folks and I launched my final retaliation in hopes of immolating the whole world. Middle player happened to have an anti-missile which shot down my best missile (a Coyote). My other two shots got through and did a lot of damage, but he ended up surviving with just 8 million left -- which happened to be the base loss the Coyote's warhead would have inflicted!
So despite being the target for almost every nuclear attack in the game, the Middle Player won.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Nuclear War tournament Sunday
Mark the weekend that the world didn't end 46 years ago by taking part in a tournament of the Nuclear War card game at The Citadel Game store, 537 Long Hill Road, Groton CT from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
$5 entry fee, prizes.
$5 entry fee, prizes.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Hold the Line expansion session report
I tried a solitaire run-through of the first scenario in the French and Indian War expansion set for Hold the Line.
Depicting the Battle on Snowshoes on March 13, 1758, this scenario prominently features the two new unit types introduced by the expansion, Indians and Colonial Rangers.
I was curious about the scenario because the rangers are grossly outnumbered, with just five combat units and a leader facing 13 combat units and a leader.
Setting up the scenario the first thing I noticed is that I'd have to proxy some of the terrain, as there's nowhere near enough woods tiles. This was an annoying discovery and should have been pointed out in the rules.
The essential nature of the scenario is that the rangers are trying to hold out for 18 turns without losing too many units or letting the French cut them off from a retreat at nightfall. The latter condition is represented by having a couple of VP hexes behind the Ranger lines. The French win by getting 5 VPs. Between units, leader and VP hexes there are 8 possible VPs available, so winning will require doing a lot of damage to the Ranger force. The Rangers can win by avoiding those losses or, alternatively, by inflicting 7 Victory points of losses on the French, which amounts the half of the 14 possible.
The rangers set up on the edge of a big clump of 27 woods and hills hexes. Events would show that, while outnumbered, the rangers are truly an elite and dangerous force in this kind of terrain. Led by a 2 value leader (the famous Rogers), blessed with a base of 3 command action points and able to move through two woods hexes per turn the rangers are an agile force that will usually be able to move nearly every unit every turn.
The French start out with some Indians posted as an advance guard in some scattered trees in a semicircle matching the ranger front, a line of militia units and then a line of regulars. They have just one average leader for their large force and just 2 command action points so they will only be able to act with about a third or less of their army every turn.
I decided the rangers would play an active defense, using their mobility advantage to the full.
The French force started out trying to send the Indians on wide flanking maneuvers to get around the rangers with the aim of thinning the ranger front lines and threatening the VP hexes in the rear.
At first this looked promising bu the rangers were able to parry the move fairly easily and counter attack the unsupported Indians while the French were trying to sort out their infantry lines (the militia was in the way of the regulars and it seemed unwise to let the militia lead the way into the forest.
While the Indians were able to kill one ranger unit, they lost four in return (although one Indian did manage to make it to a VP hex before being killed. This put the French unider a severe VP deficit and time was also starting to become an issue.
The slow-moving French main body was forced to leave about half of its units behind as it tried to close with the rangers, who now fell back deep into the woods.
The final showdown near the VP hexes found one French regular with leader Langy, a milita unit and the surviving Indian facing off against Rogers and the surviving rangers, two of which were reduced. Another French regular unit was close by, but not quite able to get into the fight.
Langy and his regular were able to push the rangers back inexorably, killing one and capturing a victory hex for the second time, but it was in vain because the other three rangers were able to eliminate the last Indian and the militia unit, although losing one more ranger in the process. The final score was 4 to 7.
This result was close enough to suggest that the French can win, although next time I think I'll spend more time bringing up the main body before sending the Indians on their flanking task. Committing the Indians too early allowed the rangers to defeat them in detail.
Overall it appears to be an interesting scenario. Just remember to borrow some extra woods hexes from Clash for a Continent or Memoir '44.
Depicting the Battle on Snowshoes on March 13, 1758, this scenario prominently features the two new unit types introduced by the expansion, Indians and Colonial Rangers.
I was curious about the scenario because the rangers are grossly outnumbered, with just five combat units and a leader facing 13 combat units and a leader.
Setting up the scenario the first thing I noticed is that I'd have to proxy some of the terrain, as there's nowhere near enough woods tiles. This was an annoying discovery and should have been pointed out in the rules.
The essential nature of the scenario is that the rangers are trying to hold out for 18 turns without losing too many units or letting the French cut them off from a retreat at nightfall. The latter condition is represented by having a couple of VP hexes behind the Ranger lines. The French win by getting 5 VPs. Between units, leader and VP hexes there are 8 possible VPs available, so winning will require doing a lot of damage to the Ranger force. The Rangers can win by avoiding those losses or, alternatively, by inflicting 7 Victory points of losses on the French, which amounts the half of the 14 possible.
The rangers set up on the edge of a big clump of 27 woods and hills hexes. Events would show that, while outnumbered, the rangers are truly an elite and dangerous force in this kind of terrain. Led by a 2 value leader (the famous Rogers), blessed with a base of 3 command action points and able to move through two woods hexes per turn the rangers are an agile force that will usually be able to move nearly every unit every turn.
The French start out with some Indians posted as an advance guard in some scattered trees in a semicircle matching the ranger front, a line of militia units and then a line of regulars. They have just one average leader for their large force and just 2 command action points so they will only be able to act with about a third or less of their army every turn.
I decided the rangers would play an active defense, using their mobility advantage to the full.
The French force started out trying to send the Indians on wide flanking maneuvers to get around the rangers with the aim of thinning the ranger front lines and threatening the VP hexes in the rear.
At first this looked promising bu the rangers were able to parry the move fairly easily and counter attack the unsupported Indians while the French were trying to sort out their infantry lines (the militia was in the way of the regulars and it seemed unwise to let the militia lead the way into the forest.
While the Indians were able to kill one ranger unit, they lost four in return (although one Indian did manage to make it to a VP hex before being killed. This put the French unider a severe VP deficit and time was also starting to become an issue.
The slow-moving French main body was forced to leave about half of its units behind as it tried to close with the rangers, who now fell back deep into the woods.
The final showdown near the VP hexes found one French regular with leader Langy, a milita unit and the surviving Indian facing off against Rogers and the surviving rangers, two of which were reduced. Another French regular unit was close by, but not quite able to get into the fight.
Langy and his regular were able to push the rangers back inexorably, killing one and capturing a victory hex for the second time, but it was in vain because the other three rangers were able to eliminate the last Indian and the militia unit, although losing one more ranger in the process. The final score was 4 to 7.
This result was close enough to suggest that the French can win, although next time I think I'll spend more time bringing up the main body before sending the Indians on their flanking task. Committing the Indians too early allowed the rangers to defeat them in detail.
Overall it appears to be an interesting scenario. Just remember to borrow some extra woods hexes from Clash for a Continent or Memoir '44.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
National Heroscape Day
I wasn't able to attend any of the scheduled events, but i did the next best thing by playing a couple of games with C.K. at his house.
While I had a good time, I can't say I had a very successful outing.
We played two game using a map set up from one of the download sites. It was a pretty straightforward battlefield just using the basic set terrain. Essentially it was a flat battlefield with a steep and fairly high hill on my left and a small knoll with a glyph on the right. Running down the middle of the battlefield from the high ground and around the glyph's knoll was a stream.
Our first contest was a straight-up 450 point fight to the death. And die my army of elves did. I had a handful of elven wizards backed by some elven archers against a force of knights, a Soulborg and a dragon. All were wiped out with no real damage to C.K.'s force. The Elves suffered from not having any real heavy hitters and pretty weak defenses to boot. They had quite a few special abilities, but nothing that could turn the tide.
The second battle was a 600-point battle. I went with a Vydar largely Soulborg army while C.K. went with a pure Marro host. Things went decently well at first. I was able to use my range advantage to pick off a large portion of his forces while just losing one Major and a few squad pieces. Unfortunately his Marro drones got into close combat range and a good turn of fighting and a key initiative loss led to my force being mauled.
Enjoyable game, but I suffered a bit from not having played in a little while.
While I had a good time, I can't say I had a very successful outing.
We played two game using a map set up from one of the download sites. It was a pretty straightforward battlefield just using the basic set terrain. Essentially it was a flat battlefield with a steep and fairly high hill on my left and a small knoll with a glyph on the right. Running down the middle of the battlefield from the high ground and around the glyph's knoll was a stream.
Our first contest was a straight-up 450 point fight to the death. And die my army of elves did. I had a handful of elven wizards backed by some elven archers against a force of knights, a Soulborg and a dragon. All were wiped out with no real damage to C.K.'s force. The Elves suffered from not having any real heavy hitters and pretty weak defenses to boot. They had quite a few special abilities, but nothing that could turn the tide.
The second battle was a 600-point battle. I went with a Vydar largely Soulborg army while C.K. went with a pure Marro host. Things went decently well at first. I was able to use my range advantage to pick off a large portion of his forces while just losing one Major and a few squad pieces. Unfortunately his Marro drones got into close combat range and a good turn of fighting and a key initiative loss led to my force being mauled.
Enjoyable game, but I suffered a bit from not having played in a little while.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Dunnigan and The Drive On Metz
Charles Roberts may be the founder of modern board wargaming, but no one individual did more to expand the reach of the hobby than James F. Dunnigan. Under his leadership SPI and Strategy & Tactics magazine produced a flood of wargames tat shaped the direction of the hobby for years to come.
From a player's point of view Dunnigan's designs were definitely misses as least as often as they were hits. Dunnigan clearly came down on the realism side of the realism vs. playability debates that raged in the 70s and 80s. Still, some of his games were really quite good.
Dunnigan left active boardgame design for the most part when he left SPI just before its collapse and purchase by TSR. He found a second career as a military analyst and popular author on military affairs. He wasn't completely absent however, returning for a brief stint as editor of S&T at one point and authoring the Wargames Handbook, which is still one of the basic works about the hobby.
In the Wargames Handbook Dunnigan included a sample wargame, Drive on Metz, although not in ready-to-play format. The player would have to photocopy and cut and paste in order to actually play the game from the book. Recently, however, the game has appeared in ready-to-play formats in two venues C3I magazine and as a standalone from Victory Point Games. I recently picked up a copy of the latter edition.
As a writer Dunnigan has a pithy style, so it seems appropriate he's designed a pithy little wargame that makes his design points in the most economical way possible. With a battlefield of just 99 hexes The Drive on Metz is on the small side in the wargame universe, but more notably it includes just eight U.S. pieces and 11 German units.
In many ways the game is standard hex-and-counter wargame, with zones of control, combat and movement factor counters with NATO symbols and a simple IGO-HUGO turn sequence.
Yet clever victory point assignments, an unusual disparity in combat strength between the German and American units, a bloodless CRT and careful terrain design turn a minimalist design into an interesting little contest between quality and quantity. (In this case, the U.S. forces represent the quality and the Germans the quantity.)
The Victory Point Games version adds a few optional units and rules, but leaves the game's nature unchanged.
The Americans have enough power to do anything they want, but too few units to do everything they want. The Germans have the challenge of fighting an economy of force delaying action, trying to minimize U.S. progress while also freeing up some combat power for use elsewhere.
Recommendations:
(Yes) For wargamers: A fun little wargame that is good for introducing the hobby to newbies.
(No) For the collector: Not rare
(Yes) For eurogamers: A great sampler of wargaming principles in a tight, inexpensive package.
From a player's point of view Dunnigan's designs were definitely misses as least as often as they were hits. Dunnigan clearly came down on the realism side of the realism vs. playability debates that raged in the 70s and 80s. Still, some of his games were really quite good.
Dunnigan left active boardgame design for the most part when he left SPI just before its collapse and purchase by TSR. He found a second career as a military analyst and popular author on military affairs. He wasn't completely absent however, returning for a brief stint as editor of S&T at one point and authoring the Wargames Handbook, which is still one of the basic works about the hobby.
In the Wargames Handbook Dunnigan included a sample wargame, Drive on Metz, although not in ready-to-play format. The player would have to photocopy and cut and paste in order to actually play the game from the book. Recently, however, the game has appeared in ready-to-play formats in two venues C3I magazine and as a standalone from Victory Point Games. I recently picked up a copy of the latter edition.
As a writer Dunnigan has a pithy style, so it seems appropriate he's designed a pithy little wargame that makes his design points in the most economical way possible. With a battlefield of just 99 hexes The Drive on Metz is on the small side in the wargame universe, but more notably it includes just eight U.S. pieces and 11 German units.
In many ways the game is standard hex-and-counter wargame, with zones of control, combat and movement factor counters with NATO symbols and a simple IGO-HUGO turn sequence.
Yet clever victory point assignments, an unusual disparity in combat strength between the German and American units, a bloodless CRT and careful terrain design turn a minimalist design into an interesting little contest between quality and quantity. (In this case, the U.S. forces represent the quality and the Germans the quantity.)
The Victory Point Games version adds a few optional units and rules, but leaves the game's nature unchanged.
The Americans have enough power to do anything they want, but too few units to do everything they want. The Germans have the challenge of fighting an economy of force delaying action, trying to minimize U.S. progress while also freeing up some combat power for use elsewhere.
Recommendations:
(Yes) For wargamers: A fun little wargame that is good for introducing the hobby to newbies.
(No) For the collector: Not rare
(Yes) For eurogamers: A great sampler of wargaming principles in a tight, inexpensive package.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Blood & Iron review
Blood and Iron is the issue game in Command Magazine No. 21 in 1993.It's a straightforward wargame in the classic style. Two evenly matched armies go toe to toe on an odds-based combat results table, using an IGO-HUGO turn sequence, with combat factor/movement factor units that exercise zones of control. Units are brigades for both armies, every turn represents one hour of fighting and every hex represnts 500 meters of actual ground.
In usual Command Magazine fashion the game hangs some special chrome rules on its basic standard wargame structure to provide a reasonably authentic portrayal of the decisive battle of the 1866 war between Austria and Prussia.
The 1/2-inch unit counters are functional and easy to read. The anachronistic NATO-style unit symbols are color-coded to designate which Army (Prussian 1st, 2nd or Elbe; Austrian North, Saxon or optional South) the unit belongs to. The background colors are based on the traditional uniform colors of the two sides, field grey for the Prussians and white for the Austrians.
The most important chrome rule has to do with leadership. The Prussian leaders are assumed to be efficient and competent, allowing the whole Prussian army to operate without command problems unless completely cut off from friendly lines. The Austian side is a different story. The fractious and politicized Austrian high command is depicted with a leader counter for every corps, and the Army leader Benedek. In order for Austrian units to operate at full effectiveness they must be within command range of their corps leader (2-4 hexes) and that leader has to pass a command control check on a two-dice roll (usually a 7 or less, although some poor leaders need a 5 or less). In addition, if the command roll is high enough (usually a 12, although for one leader its 11 and another it's 10) the [i]Prussian[/i] player gets to move that corps!
Victory is assessed through accumulated victory points. Most are scored for eliminating enemy units, but some geographic points are also worth points to one side or the other.
The game includes scenarios for the historical battle (either the morning only or the whole day); an earlier start (5 a.m. instead of 8 a.m.); or an Austrian offensive. In addition, there are two variants presented. The variants assume the Austrians sent their best general (Archduke Albert) to the key front instead of wasting him in Italy and add either him alone, or him and his South Army, to the Austrian OB.
Set up is semi-free deployment off a list, taking about 20-30 minutes. The 5-turn morning battle can be easily played in an evening, while playing the longest 16-turn early start scenario may take two evenings or a sSaturday afternoon to finish.
Recommendations:
(Yes) for Wargamers: A good, solid, old-style battle game.
(No) for collectors: Nothing special
(No) for Eurogamers: An old-style hex-and-counter battle game.
In usual Command Magazine fashion the game hangs some special chrome rules on its basic standard wargame structure to provide a reasonably authentic portrayal of the decisive battle of the 1866 war between Austria and Prussia.
The 1/2-inch unit counters are functional and easy to read. The anachronistic NATO-style unit symbols are color-coded to designate which Army (Prussian 1st, 2nd or Elbe; Austrian North, Saxon or optional South) the unit belongs to. The background colors are based on the traditional uniform colors of the two sides, field grey for the Prussians and white for the Austrians.
The most important chrome rule has to do with leadership. The Prussian leaders are assumed to be efficient and competent, allowing the whole Prussian army to operate without command problems unless completely cut off from friendly lines. The Austian side is a different story. The fractious and politicized Austrian high command is depicted with a leader counter for every corps, and the Army leader Benedek. In order for Austrian units to operate at full effectiveness they must be within command range of their corps leader (2-4 hexes) and that leader has to pass a command control check on a two-dice roll (usually a 7 or less, although some poor leaders need a 5 or less). In addition, if the command roll is high enough (usually a 12, although for one leader its 11 and another it's 10) the [i]Prussian[/i] player gets to move that corps!
Victory is assessed through accumulated victory points. Most are scored for eliminating enemy units, but some geographic points are also worth points to one side or the other.
The game includes scenarios for the historical battle (either the morning only or the whole day); an earlier start (5 a.m. instead of 8 a.m.); or an Austrian offensive. In addition, there are two variants presented. The variants assume the Austrians sent their best general (Archduke Albert) to the key front instead of wasting him in Italy and add either him alone, or him and his South Army, to the Austrian OB.
Set up is semi-free deployment off a list, taking about 20-30 minutes. The 5-turn morning battle can be easily played in an evening, while playing the longest 16-turn early start scenario may take two evenings or a sSaturday afternoon to finish.
Recommendations:
(Yes) for Wargamers: A good, solid, old-style battle game.
(No) for collectors: Nothing special
(No) for Eurogamers: An old-style hex-and-counter battle game.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Cortes review
Cortes: Conquest of the Aztecs is the kind of wargame that only could appear in a magazine.
As important as the event was, there are no panzers, it didn't involve English speaking peoples and it involved high dissimilar armies.
One value to magazine wargames is the chance to learn some history and maybe experience an unusual game situation. Cortes, the issue game in Command No. 20, succeeds on those grounds.
While the 14-page rules describe a moderately complex wargame, they include a lot of chrome that helps capture the color in a colorful campaign that featured some colorful characters. As noted in the game description, this may be the only board game that includes a rule for human sacrifice!
The tactical problem is unique, with the Spanish assaulting a island connected to the mainland by several causeways. Every hex represents 300 meters, but the turn length is indeterminate, representing anything from a few minutes to several days. Most of the Indian units represent several thousand warriors, but the elite Aztec knight units represent about 200 individuals. The Spanish units represent about 50 foot soldiers or 20 mounted troops.
The turn sequence is a straight-forward movement and combat phase system.
The 128 large 5/8-inch counters have full-color iconic representations of the various warriors, with the Aztecs on green and the Spanish and their allies on light brown. Fourteen of the Spanish units are boats and many of the Indians have an ability to move onto the lake using their canoes. While land movement happens on a hex grid, the lake is divided into areas.
Unusually for a Command game, the combat result table uses a two-dice sum, but the results are the usual Command step loss numeric result. Units are either four or two steps in strength.
The Aztecs win by killing Cortes, or failing that by racking up "loss points" for eliminating Spanish units. The Spanish player has the option of pausing his assault for a mutual Redeployment and Recovery interphase. During an R&R both sides can recover lost steps, although the Spanish will tend to recover a larger portion of their strength. Every R&R phase cost the Spanish 5 loss points, however, meaning that having more than two will probably cost the Spanish player a victory.The game lasts until the Spanish clear the city of Indian units, however long that takes.
Set up will take less than 10 minutes, with a semi-free set up for both sides. The game will probably take one sitting to play, although the lack of a time pressure for the Spanish player could cause the game to drag a bit with some playing styles.
Recommendations
(Yes) for wargamers. Interesting and unique tactical situation depicted in colorful yet authentic fashion.
(No) for collectors.
(No) for Eurogamers. A hex-and-counter wargame without mitigating factors that might appeal to eurogamers.
As important as the event was, there are no panzers, it didn't involve English speaking peoples and it involved high dissimilar armies.
One value to magazine wargames is the chance to learn some history and maybe experience an unusual game situation. Cortes, the issue game in Command No. 20, succeeds on those grounds.
While the 14-page rules describe a moderately complex wargame, they include a lot of chrome that helps capture the color in a colorful campaign that featured some colorful characters. As noted in the game description, this may be the only board game that includes a rule for human sacrifice!
The tactical problem is unique, with the Spanish assaulting a island connected to the mainland by several causeways. Every hex represents 300 meters, but the turn length is indeterminate, representing anything from a few minutes to several days. Most of the Indian units represent several thousand warriors, but the elite Aztec knight units represent about 200 individuals. The Spanish units represent about 50 foot soldiers or 20 mounted troops.
The turn sequence is a straight-forward movement and combat phase system.
The 128 large 5/8-inch counters have full-color iconic representations of the various warriors, with the Aztecs on green and the Spanish and their allies on light brown. Fourteen of the Spanish units are boats and many of the Indians have an ability to move onto the lake using their canoes. While land movement happens on a hex grid, the lake is divided into areas.
Unusually for a Command game, the combat result table uses a two-dice sum, but the results are the usual Command step loss numeric result. Units are either four or two steps in strength.
The Aztecs win by killing Cortes, or failing that by racking up "loss points" for eliminating Spanish units. The Spanish player has the option of pausing his assault for a mutual Redeployment and Recovery interphase. During an R&R both sides can recover lost steps, although the Spanish will tend to recover a larger portion of their strength. Every R&R phase cost the Spanish 5 loss points, however, meaning that having more than two will probably cost the Spanish player a victory.The game lasts until the Spanish clear the city of Indian units, however long that takes.
Set up will take less than 10 minutes, with a semi-free set up for both sides. The game will probably take one sitting to play, although the lack of a time pressure for the Spanish player could cause the game to drag a bit with some playing styles.
Recommendations
(Yes) for wargamers. Interesting and unique tactical situation depicted in colorful yet authentic fashion.
(No) for collectors.
(No) for Eurogamers. A hex-and-counter wargame without mitigating factors that might appeal to eurogamers.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Port Arthur review
Highly scripted, even by wargame standards, the Command Magazine game Port Arthur, when played correctly by the rules, will follow the historical course of events very closely. There will be an initial skirmish along the border, a brief stand at Liao Yang, a long and bloody siege at Port Arthur and a final, climactic battle on turn 9 or 10 at Mukden.
With only 10 pages of rules and fairly standard hex-and-counter wargame mechanics, this game seems nonetheless to have confused a lot of players with the unusual strategic movement rules.
Essentially, after every set of regular player moves there is a special strategic movement segment that allows unlimited movement across the map so long as units do not pass adjacent to enemy units. Players who fail to understand the implications of this rule and do not set up their forces accordingly are in for a disaster shortly. The sequence of play makes the Russians most vulnerable to this, as the Japanese strategic movement comes right after the regular Russian movement phase. Russian players have to be sure to use their movement phase to protect themselves from being surrounded or outflanked. The Japanese, on the other hand, can use their strategic movement to make sure their own army is safe from Russian mischief.
The overall effect is to keep the initiative firmly in Japanese hands and induce a suitably historic sense of caution in the Russians.
The game cannot be won on the first turn by either side. (The strategic movement rules don't kick in until the second turn, so both sides will have two regular movement and combat phases before the first strategic movement occurs.)
Each hex represents five miles and each turn is a month, except for the wintertime when it's two months per turn.
Units are generally divisions for both sides. Japanese divisions have four steps and Russians have two steps.
The combat system is the familiar odd-based numeric result style common in Command games where results list losses in steps and defenders can mitigate the losses partially with retreats.
Japanese units are white on red, while Russians are yellow on green, on the larger 5/8-inch counters common in Command issue games during this era.
There are 101 counters, with most representing units.
The game will only take about 10 minutes to set up and can easily be played in one sitting.
Recommendations:
(Conditional Yes) for Wargamers: There's little scope for innovative strategies. Any attempt to deviate from the script is an invitation for swift defeat. On the other hand, the game is a tight contest that will usually be decided on the last turn.
(No) for Collectors: Nothing special.
(No) for Eurogamers: In addition to all the usual drawbacks of hex-and-counter wargames from their point of view, Port Arthur is highly scripted AND unforgiving of error.
With only 10 pages of rules and fairly standard hex-and-counter wargame mechanics, this game seems nonetheless to have confused a lot of players with the unusual strategic movement rules.
Essentially, after every set of regular player moves there is a special strategic movement segment that allows unlimited movement across the map so long as units do not pass adjacent to enemy units. Players who fail to understand the implications of this rule and do not set up their forces accordingly are in for a disaster shortly. The sequence of play makes the Russians most vulnerable to this, as the Japanese strategic movement comes right after the regular Russian movement phase. Russian players have to be sure to use their movement phase to protect themselves from being surrounded or outflanked. The Japanese, on the other hand, can use their strategic movement to make sure their own army is safe from Russian mischief.
The overall effect is to keep the initiative firmly in Japanese hands and induce a suitably historic sense of caution in the Russians.
The game cannot be won on the first turn by either side. (The strategic movement rules don't kick in until the second turn, so both sides will have two regular movement and combat phases before the first strategic movement occurs.)
Each hex represents five miles and each turn is a month, except for the wintertime when it's two months per turn.
Units are generally divisions for both sides. Japanese divisions have four steps and Russians have two steps.
The combat system is the familiar odd-based numeric result style common in Command games where results list losses in steps and defenders can mitigate the losses partially with retreats.
Japanese units are white on red, while Russians are yellow on green, on the larger 5/8-inch counters common in Command issue games during this era.
There are 101 counters, with most representing units.
The game will only take about 10 minutes to set up and can easily be played in one sitting.
Recommendations:
(Conditional Yes) for Wargamers: There's little scope for innovative strategies. Any attempt to deviate from the script is an invitation for swift defeat. On the other hand, the game is a tight contest that will usually be decided on the last turn.
(No) for Collectors: Nothing special.
(No) for Eurogamers: In addition to all the usual drawbacks of hex-and-counter wargames from their point of view, Port Arthur is highly scripted AND unforgiving of error.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Axis & Allies and How the Allies Won
A passing comment by Axis & Allies designer Larry Harris on some forum helped put his classic Axis & Allies design into a different perspective for me. He remarked that in order to be historically accurate the U.S. should have double or even triple the resource points the game gives. The lower number is used for game balance purposes.
Given this design note, I think it's fairer to consider the standard Axis & Allies (and all its related strategic level games like the Revised, Europe, Pacific and upcoming Anniversary editions) as really being an "alternate history" of World War II rather than a model of the actual conflict.
This isn't as unreasonable a design approach as it may seem, either. While the common perception today is that an Allied victory in World War II was inevitable, if wasn't seen that way at the time -- especially from the perspective of 1941 or 1942 when the game starts.
Richard Overy's excellent book, "Why the Allies Won," explains how an Allied victory was far from inevitable. He outlines a number of critical factors that played a huge role in the outcome of the war, but one in particular is notable in the context of Axis & Allies.
One advantage a simple game like A&A has over more complex treatments of the same topic is a certain freedom from constraints. Usually a more detailed design adds more and more restrictions on what the player can do. While certainly justified from one perspective, as the real world is indeed full of constraints, it also means that the game player is forced to accept the designer's premises. The necessity of keeping a complex design manageable will keep the designer from straying too far from his design parameters. A complex simulation of World War II will have to stick to the historical script on the really macro issues such as economic mobilization.
But the differential between the economic efforts of the Axis and the Allies was one of the key reasons for the outcome of the war, according to Overy. In particular, the Americans and the Soviets each, albeit in different ways, mobilized their economies far in excess of what the Germans thought possible. Meanwhile the Gemrans, despite having the resources of all of Europe and an educated, skilled workforce, didn't make the most of what they had. Those interested in the details of the argument are directed to Overy's book, but the bottom line is that the Soviets were able to outstrip the Germans despite having an economic base just a fraction of the size. And the Americans were able to switch over from a peacetime economy to a fully mobilized war effort in a little over a year.
So, while it's true that the Germans were overwhelmed by superior numbers, it's largely their own fault. Had they mobilized an effort comparable to the Americans than the war might have turned out quite differently. Indeed, once Speer took charge of the economy the Germans started to turn things around. But just as Speer's reforms were beginning to bite the Allied bomber offensive started to hinder the German economy effectively. It was a near-run thing. Had Speer been put in charge six months or a year earlier, the bomber offensive might never have been able to really get going. (That bomber offensive is another of Overy's key factors.)
Axis & Allies allows some experimentation with the potential consequences of a better German economic mobilization by increasing the number of German resource points.
Given this design note, I think it's fairer to consider the standard Axis & Allies (and all its related strategic level games like the Revised, Europe, Pacific and upcoming Anniversary editions) as really being an "alternate history" of World War II rather than a model of the actual conflict.
This isn't as unreasonable a design approach as it may seem, either. While the common perception today is that an Allied victory in World War II was inevitable, if wasn't seen that way at the time -- especially from the perspective of 1941 or 1942 when the game starts.
Richard Overy's excellent book, "Why the Allies Won," explains how an Allied victory was far from inevitable. He outlines a number of critical factors that played a huge role in the outcome of the war, but one in particular is notable in the context of Axis & Allies.
One advantage a simple game like A&A has over more complex treatments of the same topic is a certain freedom from constraints. Usually a more detailed design adds more and more restrictions on what the player can do. While certainly justified from one perspective, as the real world is indeed full of constraints, it also means that the game player is forced to accept the designer's premises. The necessity of keeping a complex design manageable will keep the designer from straying too far from his design parameters. A complex simulation of World War II will have to stick to the historical script on the really macro issues such as economic mobilization.
But the differential between the economic efforts of the Axis and the Allies was one of the key reasons for the outcome of the war, according to Overy. In particular, the Americans and the Soviets each, albeit in different ways, mobilized their economies far in excess of what the Germans thought possible. Meanwhile the Gemrans, despite having the resources of all of Europe and an educated, skilled workforce, didn't make the most of what they had. Those interested in the details of the argument are directed to Overy's book, but the bottom line is that the Soviets were able to outstrip the Germans despite having an economic base just a fraction of the size. And the Americans were able to switch over from a peacetime economy to a fully mobilized war effort in a little over a year.
So, while it's true that the Germans were overwhelmed by superior numbers, it's largely their own fault. Had they mobilized an effort comparable to the Americans than the war might have turned out quite differently. Indeed, once Speer took charge of the economy the Germans started to turn things around. But just as Speer's reforms were beginning to bite the Allied bomber offensive started to hinder the German economy effectively. It was a near-run thing. Had Speer been put in charge six months or a year earlier, the bomber offensive might never have been able to really get going. (That bomber offensive is another of Overy's key factors.)
Axis & Allies allows some experimentation with the potential consequences of a better German economic mobilization by increasing the number of German resource points.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Tet 68 review
The issue game in Command Magazine No. 18, Tet 68 is the most S&T-like wargame to appear in the pages of Ty Bomba's competing periodical. While always clearly simulation wargames, rather than just war-themed games, most Command Magazine wargames stressed playability as a major factor. One of their techniques was a reliance on standard wargame mechanics and an avoidance of charts and tables whenever possible, which caused some critics to say the games were too much alike (but it did succeed in making the games easier to play).
On the other hand, over its long history Strategy & Tactics magazine games have often experimented with different game mechanics and have not been afraid to use charts/tables and intricate game rules in order to be more realistic. Many S&T games seem designed more to be a study than a game.
Tet 68 is closer to the S&T philosophy than most Command games, which is not surprising, considering that the game's designer, Joe Miranda, designed many games for S&T and eventually became its editor. Miranda's designs are notable for paying a lot of attention to the political aspects of warfare, and Tet 68 is no exception. Players who bring a "panzer-pushing" mindset will find themselves losing in spectacular fashion, especially as the Communist side. But even US/ARVN players are cautioned that a purely military approach will not bring victory in this game, which covers the decisive 1968 Communist offensive. While a failure militarily, the Communist offensive's political impact was wide and deep and set the stage for their eventual victory.
Each hex is about 25 miles across and the map covers all of South Vietnam and southern Laos, and parts of Cambodia, Thailand and North Vietnam. Another functional and attractive Mark Simonitch production, it shows a wide variety of natural and man-made terrain, including jungles, swamps, mountains, cities, towns, camps, roads, bases and rivers. One unusual terrain feature are "popular areas" which represent rural regions that were friendly to one side or the other. Concentrated in the southern part of South Vietnam, they play a large part in the political warfare of the game.
The 1/2-inch counters in wargame standard NATO symbol/combat factor/movement factor format depict the sides in the by-now familiar color schemes that were usually used by XTR. The US forces are in black on olive, South Vietnamese are red on yellow and various allied forces (Australia, South Korea, Philippines, Thai, Laos, Cambodia) are black on brown. Units are divisions and brigades/regiments. US divisions have two steps while other units have just one. Some of the unusual units that appear include military police, psychological warfare units and various kinds of special forces.
The North Vietnamese Army (NVA) units are yellow on red and Viet Cong forces are black on red. All the Communist units are one-step, with the other side using a yellow or black star to show the Communists in "underground" mode. A few US side units also have this ability.This "underground" mode is the key design element of the game, as it allows guerrilla units to be hidden, and makes them immune from attack except under certain conditions.
The 14-pages of rules include sections on intelligence, combat support, popular areas, Dau Tranh (Total Struggle) and other peculiar aspects of the war, for a game of moderate complexity by wargame standards. Victory is measures by victory points, with both sides amassing their totals separately (one side's gain is not the other side's loss, directly). The Communist player gets points for attacking American units, holding cities and bases. The American side scores points for eliminating Communist units. Both sides can gain or lose points for political combat and collateral damage.Combat is firepower based, with the more combat factors increasing the chances or a favorable result. Defenders fire first, followed by the attacker. The US side had an enormous advantage in available firepower, naturally.
The game takes about 20 minutes to set up and can be played in one sitting.There is a 10-turn standard scenario covering the first phase of the offensive and a second 11-turn "total victory" scenario for the Allied counteroffensive. Each turn is a week.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: A interesting game on the campaign.
(No) For Collectors: No remarkable collectibility.
(No) For Euro gamers: A detailed, intricate hex-and-counter wargame with some arcane game mechanics on top of that.
On the other hand, over its long history Strategy & Tactics magazine games have often experimented with different game mechanics and have not been afraid to use charts/tables and intricate game rules in order to be more realistic. Many S&T games seem designed more to be a study than a game.
Tet 68 is closer to the S&T philosophy than most Command games, which is not surprising, considering that the game's designer, Joe Miranda, designed many games for S&T and eventually became its editor. Miranda's designs are notable for paying a lot of attention to the political aspects of warfare, and Tet 68 is no exception. Players who bring a "panzer-pushing" mindset will find themselves losing in spectacular fashion, especially as the Communist side. But even US/ARVN players are cautioned that a purely military approach will not bring victory in this game, which covers the decisive 1968 Communist offensive. While a failure militarily, the Communist offensive's political impact was wide and deep and set the stage for their eventual victory.
Each hex is about 25 miles across and the map covers all of South Vietnam and southern Laos, and parts of Cambodia, Thailand and North Vietnam. Another functional and attractive Mark Simonitch production, it shows a wide variety of natural and man-made terrain, including jungles, swamps, mountains, cities, towns, camps, roads, bases and rivers. One unusual terrain feature are "popular areas" which represent rural regions that were friendly to one side or the other. Concentrated in the southern part of South Vietnam, they play a large part in the political warfare of the game.
The 1/2-inch counters in wargame standard NATO symbol/combat factor/movement factor format depict the sides in the by-now familiar color schemes that were usually used by XTR. The US forces are in black on olive, South Vietnamese are red on yellow and various allied forces (Australia, South Korea, Philippines, Thai, Laos, Cambodia) are black on brown. Units are divisions and brigades/regiments. US divisions have two steps while other units have just one. Some of the unusual units that appear include military police, psychological warfare units and various kinds of special forces.
The North Vietnamese Army (NVA) units are yellow on red and Viet Cong forces are black on red. All the Communist units are one-step, with the other side using a yellow or black star to show the Communists in "underground" mode. A few US side units also have this ability.This "underground" mode is the key design element of the game, as it allows guerrilla units to be hidden, and makes them immune from attack except under certain conditions.
The 14-pages of rules include sections on intelligence, combat support, popular areas, Dau Tranh (Total Struggle) and other peculiar aspects of the war, for a game of moderate complexity by wargame standards. Victory is measures by victory points, with both sides amassing their totals separately (one side's gain is not the other side's loss, directly). The Communist player gets points for attacking American units, holding cities and bases. The American side scores points for eliminating Communist units. Both sides can gain or lose points for political combat and collateral damage.Combat is firepower based, with the more combat factors increasing the chances or a favorable result. Defenders fire first, followed by the attacker. The US side had an enormous advantage in available firepower, naturally.
The game takes about 20 minutes to set up and can be played in one sitting.There is a 10-turn standard scenario covering the first phase of the offensive and a second 11-turn "total victory" scenario for the Allied counteroffensive. Each turn is a week.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: A interesting game on the campaign.
(No) For Collectors: No remarkable collectibility.
(No) For Euro gamers: A detailed, intricate hex-and-counter wargame with some arcane game mechanics on top of that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)