Mark K. and I continued our full day of gaming with Hold the Line, which uses the same system as Clash for a Continent with some changes in physical components and minor rules changes.
We played the Battle on Snowshoes battle, which is rather interesting because it really pits extreme quality against quantity.
This battle finds a small force of Rogers Rangers led by Rogers himself defending a wooded hill against a larger force of French and Indians in an incident from the French and Indian war.
The Rangers are top-notch troops. They have the movement bonuses of Indians while also counting as Elite troops for morale and other purposes. They are led by Rogers, who is an excellent leader who can add as many as 2 dice to a melee and takes two hits to kill. He's also responsible for giving them a 3 +D3 command action point allowance. A tough buzzard indeed. The only weakness they Rangers have is numbers. There are just five 2-strength units. On the other hand, with 4-6 CAP per turn there's a very good chance that Rodger will be able to act with all or nearly all of his force every single turn.
In contrast the French force, while large, is cumbersome and poorly led. Five of the units are militia, barely worth committing to action. Another five are Indians, mobile through the woods but likely to come out second best in a fight with the Rangers. Finally the French have three 4-strength regulars. These can go toe-to-toe with the Rangers but are slow.
Our first battle can be summed up in one word. Disaster. I had the French and was able to actually coordinate a joint advance with the Indians, the regulars and some militia. It all came to nought, however, as the Rangers were able to deftly dance between the flanks dispersing Indians and then face-off against the French regulars. A musket ball took down the only French leader and before long the French force was completely defeated.
Out switch match was a near-run thing for me, this time as the Rangers. In this case the Indians turned out to be dead shots and the Rangers unable to make their Elite saving rolls and I ended up with two dead Rangers early on. This created a very hairy situation indeed. The Rangers were eventually able to do a lot of damage to the Indians but eventually found themselves pressed against the wall (and the map-edge victory hexes) by the French regulars. The French simply ran out of time and came out a turn short of victory.
Given the fact that almost everything that could go wrong for the Rangers did go wrong and they still manged to win, and the fact that the first battle was a blowout, I have to call this one as having a strong Ranger bias.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Brief session report: Clash for a Continent
Mark K and I had the opportunity to get in a very full day of gaming. Among our achievements was a match of Clash for a Continent, the Fort Dusquene scenario.
Fort Duquesne is Braddock's famous defeat by a French and Indian ambush in the French and Indian War.
Being more experienced in the game system, I took Braddock for the first game. We used most of the optional rules, but did keep the Command Action Point allowance at the Historical 1 + d3 roll for Braddock compared to the 3 + D3 die roll for the French. This meant that my force would have between 1-4 CAPs while Mark's had 4-6 per turn.
Recognizing that maneuver would be difficult, my basic plan was to push against the French and Indians facing the left front of my column while spending the absolute minimum elsewhere. This worked as well as one might hope, actually, as Braddock and some British regulars was able to do some significant damage to the Indians in his neighborhood and proved nearly invulnerable to fire while on the hilltop near the river. Unfortunately young George Washington caught a bullet, decreasing my already meager CAP state (as well as prompting some discussion about how events a generation later would have been different without the "indispensable" man.
In the end the French and Indians were able to get their six VPs in lost Anglo-Americans while just losing a few themselves.
We switched sides, but this time gave Mark's Braddock the same 3 + D3 CAP allowance as the French.
In this case I decided I needed to take my time because I knew I wouldn't have a CAP edge over Mark. I did, however, still have a maneuver edge, due to the Indians speed in wooded terrain and I followed a policy of retreating any Indian that took a loss. I likewise pulled the French back after they took a few losses. Mark, meanwhile, was less willing to pull troops out of the fight and this resulted in several of his units being eliminated. After spending a few turns rallying Frenchmen and Indians, the restored Franco-Indian force returned to the fray and got the last couple of losses needed for victory.
This battle took longer to win without the CAP edge, but overall the awkward tactical position of the ambushed British column was too much for either of us to overcome, although I do think that the battle is winnable for the British player. Still, in the historical event they did lose, and this scenario reflects that rather well.
Fort Duquesne is Braddock's famous defeat by a French and Indian ambush in the French and Indian War.
Being more experienced in the game system, I took Braddock for the first game. We used most of the optional rules, but did keep the Command Action Point allowance at the Historical 1 + d3 roll for Braddock compared to the 3 + D3 die roll for the French. This meant that my force would have between 1-4 CAPs while Mark's had 4-6 per turn.
Recognizing that maneuver would be difficult, my basic plan was to push against the French and Indians facing the left front of my column while spending the absolute minimum elsewhere. This worked as well as one might hope, actually, as Braddock and some British regulars was able to do some significant damage to the Indians in his neighborhood and proved nearly invulnerable to fire while on the hilltop near the river. Unfortunately young George Washington caught a bullet, decreasing my already meager CAP state (as well as prompting some discussion about how events a generation later would have been different without the "indispensable" man.
In the end the French and Indians were able to get their six VPs in lost Anglo-Americans while just losing a few themselves.
We switched sides, but this time gave Mark's Braddock the same 3 + D3 CAP allowance as the French.
In this case I decided I needed to take my time because I knew I wouldn't have a CAP edge over Mark. I did, however, still have a maneuver edge, due to the Indians speed in wooded terrain and I followed a policy of retreating any Indian that took a loss. I likewise pulled the French back after they took a few losses. Mark, meanwhile, was less willing to pull troops out of the fight and this resulted in several of his units being eliminated. After spending a few turns rallying Frenchmen and Indians, the restored Franco-Indian force returned to the fray and got the last couple of losses needed for victory.
This battle took longer to win without the CAP edge, but overall the awkward tactical position of the ambushed British column was too much for either of us to overcome, although I do think that the battle is winnable for the British player. Still, in the historical event they did lose, and this scenario reflects that rather well.
Brief session report: Winter War
Had the chance to play this SPI classic this weekend after many years in the closet, courtesy Mark K.
In order to maximize the playing time I volunteered to take the Russians so Mark could have the game set up before we started.
In my opinion the game tends to favor the Russians slightly, if played carefully. It's pretty easy to mess up as the Russians, though and hard to recover from a disaster.
My basic plan was to threaten Petsamo, in the north, mess around the Finnish center to distract them and make probes against the Lodoga Line and the Mannheim Line while biding my time for a serious offensive.
Mark deployed the standard 4-division Mannheim line defense, the rest of his 6-6-2 divisions on the Ladoga front, backed by a smattering of units.
His central front had the 4-4-2 division and most of the rest of his army while he entrusted the defense of Petsamo to a single regiment and a battalion. This force proved inadequate and I was able to fight my way into Petsamo at the cost of a couple of exchanges. As we were not using any of the optional rules, I had to keep at least seven units up in the Petsamo/Murmansk area for the rest of the game on garrison duty.
Things went much better for Mark along the rest of the front. My one 1-1 probe against the Mannheim line was AE'd and my initial advances in the center were pretty badly cut-up by the mobile Finns, costing me two divisions and several regiments for no gain.
Only the Ladoga front started off a little better, as I was able to cause some casualties among the Finnish defenders. Mark quickly reinforced that front, however, and I had to call off the offensive.
Mark's Finns then got a little feisty and made a major effort to cut the Russian rail lines leading to Murmansk. Inside Russia, however, the Finns lose most of their advantages and I was able to counterattack his force and, while costly, manages to destroy the better part of it. The Finnish survivors fell back to Finland, confident that there was insufficient time for any Russian followup to amount to anything.
Likewise things were stalemated on the Ladoga front, with neither side willing to test the other's defenses in any meaningful way.
Things improved for the Russians on the Mannheim line, as the turn 3 & 4 reinforcements allowed some decent attacks at 3-1 and 2-1 odds. Again the Russians paid dearly for their success with exchanges (as usual the Russian must be stoic in the face of losses) but the Finns could ill afford to lose the divisions in the exchanges and the Russians started to grind forward. The Finns rushed all available troops to the front and were able to prevent a breakthrough, but the Russians did capture the entire Mannheim line and the city of Vipuri. Retaining Petsamo as well, the Russians were able to achieve a substantive victory.
Overall it was a satisfying game, taking about three hours to play. Overall I was satisfied with my play for the most part, although I did suffer some unnecessary loses in the center and I would play that portion differently next time. Mark was a gracious opponent and put up an good defense, although I think perhaps one a tad more aggressive than warranted. While he killed a lot of Russians, venturing into Russia ended up costing him quite a few Finnish troops as well and I think the Finns missed theirs more.
In order to maximize the playing time I volunteered to take the Russians so Mark could have the game set up before we started.
In my opinion the game tends to favor the Russians slightly, if played carefully. It's pretty easy to mess up as the Russians, though and hard to recover from a disaster.
My basic plan was to threaten Petsamo, in the north, mess around the Finnish center to distract them and make probes against the Lodoga Line and the Mannheim Line while biding my time for a serious offensive.
Mark deployed the standard 4-division Mannheim line defense, the rest of his 6-6-2 divisions on the Ladoga front, backed by a smattering of units.
His central front had the 4-4-2 division and most of the rest of his army while he entrusted the defense of Petsamo to a single regiment and a battalion. This force proved inadequate and I was able to fight my way into Petsamo at the cost of a couple of exchanges. As we were not using any of the optional rules, I had to keep at least seven units up in the Petsamo/Murmansk area for the rest of the game on garrison duty.
Things went much better for Mark along the rest of the front. My one 1-1 probe against the Mannheim line was AE'd and my initial advances in the center were pretty badly cut-up by the mobile Finns, costing me two divisions and several regiments for no gain.
Only the Ladoga front started off a little better, as I was able to cause some casualties among the Finnish defenders. Mark quickly reinforced that front, however, and I had to call off the offensive.
Mark's Finns then got a little feisty and made a major effort to cut the Russian rail lines leading to Murmansk. Inside Russia, however, the Finns lose most of their advantages and I was able to counterattack his force and, while costly, manages to destroy the better part of it. The Finnish survivors fell back to Finland, confident that there was insufficient time for any Russian followup to amount to anything.
Likewise things were stalemated on the Ladoga front, with neither side willing to test the other's defenses in any meaningful way.
Things improved for the Russians on the Mannheim line, as the turn 3 & 4 reinforcements allowed some decent attacks at 3-1 and 2-1 odds. Again the Russians paid dearly for their success with exchanges (as usual the Russian must be stoic in the face of losses) but the Finns could ill afford to lose the divisions in the exchanges and the Russians started to grind forward. The Finns rushed all available troops to the front and were able to prevent a breakthrough, but the Russians did capture the entire Mannheim line and the city of Vipuri. Retaining Petsamo as well, the Russians were able to achieve a substantive victory.
Overall it was a satisfying game, taking about three hours to play. Overall I was satisfied with my play for the most part, although I did suffer some unnecessary loses in the center and I would play that portion differently next time. Mark was a gracious opponent and put up an good defense, although I think perhaps one a tad more aggressive than warranted. While he killed a lot of Russians, venturing into Russia ended up costing him quite a few Finnish troops as well and I think the Finns missed theirs more.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Budapest '45 review
Budapest '45 introduced a new game system to readers of Command Magazine, one that would become XTR's alternative standard system to the classic system used in most of its 20th Century designs. While Budapest '45 still uses the attack-defense factor-movement factor system to quantify units, these values don't appear on the counters. Instead movement factors are based on unit type and appear in the rules, while the attack and defense values are tracked on a roster sheet. The Zone of Control makes a comeback to XTR in these designs, which feaure a lower unit density than usual for the scale. For example, in Budapest 45 the hex scale is only 2.5 miles per hex, which generally means regiments and battalions in most wargames, but in this game most units are divisions.
Each turn represents two days, except for the first turn, which is one day.
Most units have a half-dozen or more steps, which gives them more staying power than most games. Eliminating a unit typically takes several turns of fighting.
The components are crisp and functional. The Beth Queman map looks good and has no terrain ambiguities. The counters are the 5/8-inch size favored by XTR. Here they contain just the unit type and size using NATO-style symbols and a historical designation in large print.
On the Soviet side the non-mechanized units are red, mechanized units yellow and Romanian allies light red. On the Axis side most non-mechanized German troops are field gray and German mech are black. The single Hungarian mechanized unit is green, while the non-mechanized Hungarians are blue. In besieged Budapest all the Axis garrsion units are grey.
The turn sequence is asymetric. The Soviet movement phase follows their combat phase, which means they have to set up all their attacks the turn before. This is little handicap in the city fighting where neither side has room to move around, but is a major handicap in the mobile fighting elsewhere.
The Germans, on the other hand, move and then attack, with a mechanized movement phase following the combat phase. This makes the Germans nimble indeed. Their major problem is too few units to do everything that needs to be done.
The German Panzer divisions can detach their recon battalions to help hold some ground, but this just mitigates the unit shortage a little, it doesn't solve it.
The game situtaion is interesting and unusual. Some 20 Soviet units surround 8 Axis inside the city. Meanwhile another two dozen Soviet units try to hold off a Panzer Army trying to break the siege before the city falls. This provides that satisfying wargame situation where both players get to attack and defend.
As usual in XTR games, various "chrome" rules are used to impart the historical factors affecting the battle. Three times the Germans get to benefit from a "surprise" turn with enhanced attacks. The Soviets have two artillery units which will help them blast into the city. The Germans also have some "heavy support units" (an engineer brigade and two Tiger tank battalions) to add power to their spearpoints.
The Germans win by breaking through to the city, the Soviets win by capturing all of it by turn 14. If neither side reaches their sudden death goal, then the game result is adjudicated on victory points at the end of turn 14. Both sides get VPs for eliminating enemy steps or putting them out of supply at game end. The Soviets can score points by exiting the west map edge, while the Germans can score points if they manage to hold onto some part of Pest (the city hexes east of the Danube river).
The game takes about 20 minutes to set up and will take a full evening to play, on average.
Recommendations:
(Yes) for Wargamers: Interesting design covering an interesting battle.
(No) for Collectors: Nothing special
(No) for Eurogamers: Constantly referring to a unit roster is not the kind of game mechanic you'll have patience for.
Each turn represents two days, except for the first turn, which is one day.
Most units have a half-dozen or more steps, which gives them more staying power than most games. Eliminating a unit typically takes several turns of fighting.
The components are crisp and functional. The Beth Queman map looks good and has no terrain ambiguities. The counters are the 5/8-inch size favored by XTR. Here they contain just the unit type and size using NATO-style symbols and a historical designation in large print.
On the Soviet side the non-mechanized units are red, mechanized units yellow and Romanian allies light red. On the Axis side most non-mechanized German troops are field gray and German mech are black. The single Hungarian mechanized unit is green, while the non-mechanized Hungarians are blue. In besieged Budapest all the Axis garrsion units are grey.
The turn sequence is asymetric. The Soviet movement phase follows their combat phase, which means they have to set up all their attacks the turn before. This is little handicap in the city fighting where neither side has room to move around, but is a major handicap in the mobile fighting elsewhere.
The Germans, on the other hand, move and then attack, with a mechanized movement phase following the combat phase. This makes the Germans nimble indeed. Their major problem is too few units to do everything that needs to be done.
The German Panzer divisions can detach their recon battalions to help hold some ground, but this just mitigates the unit shortage a little, it doesn't solve it.
The game situtaion is interesting and unusual. Some 20 Soviet units surround 8 Axis inside the city. Meanwhile another two dozen Soviet units try to hold off a Panzer Army trying to break the siege before the city falls. This provides that satisfying wargame situation where both players get to attack and defend.
As usual in XTR games, various "chrome" rules are used to impart the historical factors affecting the battle. Three times the Germans get to benefit from a "surprise" turn with enhanced attacks. The Soviets have two artillery units which will help them blast into the city. The Germans also have some "heavy support units" (an engineer brigade and two Tiger tank battalions) to add power to their spearpoints.
The Germans win by breaking through to the city, the Soviets win by capturing all of it by turn 14. If neither side reaches their sudden death goal, then the game result is adjudicated on victory points at the end of turn 14. Both sides get VPs for eliminating enemy steps or putting them out of supply at game end. The Soviets can score points by exiting the west map edge, while the Germans can score points if they manage to hold onto some part of Pest (the city hexes east of the Danube river).
The game takes about 20 minutes to set up and will take a full evening to play, on average.
Recommendations:
(Yes) for Wargamers: Interesting design covering an interesting battle.
(No) for Collectors: Nothing special
(No) for Eurogamers: Constantly referring to a unit roster is not the kind of game mechanic you'll have patience for.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Across the Potomac game review
Across the Potomac, the issue game in Command No. 30, is a variation of designer Ben Knight's popular Victory in Normandy system.
The salient aspects of Knight's system are daily turns, a very restricted number of "Command Points" and a D10 "firepower-based" combat resolution system.
The daily turns mean that his games have a very large number of turns, compared to what's typically found in wargames. While many other wargames have 10 turns or so, and a few may have up to 20, Across the Potomac has up to 50, covering the period 3 June to 22 July 1863.
Mitigating the large number of turns is the very restricted amount a player can do in each of them, and Across the Potomac is one of the most restricted in the entire series. Essentially units can only move or attack if activated with a "command point." The Union player has just one command point at start (to share among at least a dozen eligible hexes of units). Once Meade replaces Hooker (driven by certain events) the union player gains a second CP. The Union player gains another CP once the Confederates enter northern territory. The Confederates start with two CP and gain a third when they cross into the North as well. At start they only have 10 hexes of units vying for the CPs. This simple differential allocation of a limited resource easily hands the game initiative to the Confederates, and elegantly captures the Napoleonic maxim that mass times speed equals impact. Although seriously outnumbered, it's the rebels who will be dictating the action.
Finally, the combat system is a variation on the line-them-up-and-fire system seen in such disparate games as Alexandros, Victory in the Pacific and Columbia's Block games. Here the system uses a 10-sided die. With the majority of the units having less than a 50% chance of a hit, multi-day battle are likely.
One unusual aspect of the game is the optional double-blind movement system. While slowing the game somewhat, it's an interesting exercise that tends to help the Rebels even more, as the Federals struggle to use their limited CPs to react to multiple threats. The low counter density allows the double blind system to work better here than it did in most land combat games where it's been tried.
Physically the game is fairly standard XTR fare, with the large 5/8-inch iconic counters often used in Command Magazine. The game is simpler than the 14-page rule book implies. It takes less than 15 minutes to set up and the game is easily playable in an evening double blind. It may be possible to play a two-game match in an evening if you play on one map.
That map represents a transition for XTR. For several years up to that point Command Magazine maps had been done by Mark Simonitch (perhaps best known now for the map used in Europe Engulfed) which were attractive, functional yet understated. With Across the Potomac XTR switches to maps done by Beth Queman. While certainly still functional (by which I mean no terrain ambiguities and everything affecting play is clear and legible) the map is less attractive than Simonith's work in my opinion. The colors are strong and the artwork is very obviously computer generated. No one will be tempted to frame it.
Recommendations
(Yes) for Wargamers: A good treatment of the campaign at a level not usually seen. Allows a nervy Federal to try Hooker's "trading queens" strategy of reacting to a Rebel invasion by invading the South.
(conditional Yes) for Collectors: One of the very few double-blind land warfare games.
(conditional No) for Eurogamers: Less "fiddley" than usual for a hex-and-counter wargame with intuitive game mechanics. If interested in the topic, this might be a good game to check out.
The salient aspects of Knight's system are daily turns, a very restricted number of "Command Points" and a D10 "firepower-based" combat resolution system.
The daily turns mean that his games have a very large number of turns, compared to what's typically found in wargames. While many other wargames have 10 turns or so, and a few may have up to 20, Across the Potomac has up to 50, covering the period 3 June to 22 July 1863.
Mitigating the large number of turns is the very restricted amount a player can do in each of them, and Across the Potomac is one of the most restricted in the entire series. Essentially units can only move or attack if activated with a "command point." The Union player has just one command point at start (to share among at least a dozen eligible hexes of units). Once Meade replaces Hooker (driven by certain events) the union player gains a second CP. The Union player gains another CP once the Confederates enter northern territory. The Confederates start with two CP and gain a third when they cross into the North as well. At start they only have 10 hexes of units vying for the CPs. This simple differential allocation of a limited resource easily hands the game initiative to the Confederates, and elegantly captures the Napoleonic maxim that mass times speed equals impact. Although seriously outnumbered, it's the rebels who will be dictating the action.
Finally, the combat system is a variation on the line-them-up-and-fire system seen in such disparate games as Alexandros, Victory in the Pacific and Columbia's Block games. Here the system uses a 10-sided die. With the majority of the units having less than a 50% chance of a hit, multi-day battle are likely.
One unusual aspect of the game is the optional double-blind movement system. While slowing the game somewhat, it's an interesting exercise that tends to help the Rebels even more, as the Federals struggle to use their limited CPs to react to multiple threats. The low counter density allows the double blind system to work better here than it did in most land combat games where it's been tried.
Physically the game is fairly standard XTR fare, with the large 5/8-inch iconic counters often used in Command Magazine. The game is simpler than the 14-page rule book implies. It takes less than 15 minutes to set up and the game is easily playable in an evening double blind. It may be possible to play a two-game match in an evening if you play on one map.
That map represents a transition for XTR. For several years up to that point Command Magazine maps had been done by Mark Simonitch (perhaps best known now for the map used in Europe Engulfed) which were attractive, functional yet understated. With Across the Potomac XTR switches to maps done by Beth Queman. While certainly still functional (by which I mean no terrain ambiguities and everything affecting play is clear and legible) the map is less attractive than Simonith's work in my opinion. The colors are strong and the artwork is very obviously computer generated. No one will be tempted to frame it.
Recommendations
(Yes) for Wargamers: A good treatment of the campaign at a level not usually seen. Allows a nervy Federal to try Hooker's "trading queens" strategy of reacting to a Rebel invasion by invading the South.
(conditional Yes) for Collectors: One of the very few double-blind land warfare games.
(conditional No) for Eurogamers: Less "fiddley" than usual for a hex-and-counter wargame with intuitive game mechanics. If interested in the topic, this might be a good game to check out.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
1914: Glory's End review
Wargame Designer Ted Raicer, best known now for the popular Paths of Glory, has pretty much single-handedly resurrected interest in World War I games with his series of interesting designs depicting various aspects of the Great War. The evolution of his design philosophy continued with the issue game in Command Magazine No. 29 in 1994 with 1914: Glory's End. Published on the 80th anniversary of the opening campaign of World War I, 1914: Glory's End is a moderate-to-high complexity hex-and-counter wargame, as attested to by its 18-page rule book. The game covers the opening three months of the war with 3-day turns, corps-level units and 9.5-mile hexes.
As usual for Command Magazine games, it takes standard wargame mechanics and adds several layers of "chrome" that give the game its flavor.
The Mark Simonitch map is attractive, functional and uses oversized hexes. The counters are the 5/8-inch size that was common in Command during this era. The armies are shown using modified NATO-style symbols. In a departure from the usual XTR color scheme, all German units are white on black, the British are white on red, the French are red on light blue and the Belgians are yellow on green.
The game mechanics are standard wargame IGO-HUGO turn sequence with units moveing and fighting "march" combats during the movement phase, followed by a prepared combat phase.
The combat results table is odds-based with numerical results for the attacker and defender. The results are satisfied by losing steps. Unlike most Command games retreats cannot be used to satisfy part of the combat result, and some results mandate a retreat.
Victory is achieved by accumulating victory points for geographical objectives. Achieve enough points during a turn and a side can earn an immediate win. Otherwise victory is checked at the end of game turn 30, where certain "conditional" victory point hexes now come into play.
The allied player also has special VP awards and penalties. Eliminated Belgian unist cost the Allies points, as does failure to carry out at laest seven "Plan 17" attacks into Germany. The Allies earn a bonus of 15 VP for the Eatsern Front at game end, 20 if the Germans elect not to withdraw the two corps that historically were sent East.
A draw is possible, although not likely, if both sides end up with the same VP total.
The initial set up is important, with both sides plotting their starting positions, making the setup part of the game strategy itself. There is a historical camapign, where Belgian neutrality is violated and each side must set up in the same general location as their historical armies and a free set-up scenario.
The Germans have a range of strategic options and are not locked into the historical course of action. They are not required to violate Belgian neutrality in the free set-up scenario, for example.
It is possible for the Germans to attempt to pierce the French front in Alsace, instead, counting on superior numbers and troop quality (typical French active corps are 5-4-4 while German active corps are typically 6-7-4 in attack, defense, movement values) to win.
If Belgium neutrality is not violated the BEF doesn't appear until and unless the Germans get to 20 VP.
The campaign's general course will be familiar to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the war. Unless the Germans try to barge through the middle of the French fortified border, they will be sweeping through Belgium in a wide flanking manuever. The French, after making their mandatory Plan 17 attacks, will be scrambling to redeploy, while the British and some French units slow down the German juggernaut. Meanwhile the Belgians will hide in Antwerp.
Sometime around the middle of the game a decisive clash will happen near Paris. If it goes will for the Germans they will seize the French capital. Its 30 points will probably be enough to win a decisive victory then and there. If it goes poorly for the Germans there will be a "race to the sea" as each side tries to secure the conditional VPs for various citeis in Flanders and Calais.
Including set-up, playing the whole 30-turn campaign will probably take more than one evening, although it is playable in a Saturday afternoon.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: A detailed and satisfying simulation of this key campaign.
(No) For Collectors: Just another wargame.
(No) For Euro gamers: A hard-core hex-and-counter wargame with detailed game mechanics.
As usual for Command Magazine games, it takes standard wargame mechanics and adds several layers of "chrome" that give the game its flavor.
The Mark Simonitch map is attractive, functional and uses oversized hexes. The counters are the 5/8-inch size that was common in Command during this era. The armies are shown using modified NATO-style symbols. In a departure from the usual XTR color scheme, all German units are white on black, the British are white on red, the French are red on light blue and the Belgians are yellow on green.
The game mechanics are standard wargame IGO-HUGO turn sequence with units moveing and fighting "march" combats during the movement phase, followed by a prepared combat phase.
The combat results table is odds-based with numerical results for the attacker and defender. The results are satisfied by losing steps. Unlike most Command games retreats cannot be used to satisfy part of the combat result, and some results mandate a retreat.
Victory is achieved by accumulating victory points for geographical objectives. Achieve enough points during a turn and a side can earn an immediate win. Otherwise victory is checked at the end of game turn 30, where certain "conditional" victory point hexes now come into play.
The allied player also has special VP awards and penalties. Eliminated Belgian unist cost the Allies points, as does failure to carry out at laest seven "Plan 17" attacks into Germany. The Allies earn a bonus of 15 VP for the Eatsern Front at game end, 20 if the Germans elect not to withdraw the two corps that historically were sent East.
A draw is possible, although not likely, if both sides end up with the same VP total.
The initial set up is important, with both sides plotting their starting positions, making the setup part of the game strategy itself. There is a historical camapign, where Belgian neutrality is violated and each side must set up in the same general location as their historical armies and a free set-up scenario.
The Germans have a range of strategic options and are not locked into the historical course of action. They are not required to violate Belgian neutrality in the free set-up scenario, for example.
It is possible for the Germans to attempt to pierce the French front in Alsace, instead, counting on superior numbers and troop quality (typical French active corps are 5-4-4 while German active corps are typically 6-7-4 in attack, defense, movement values) to win.
If Belgium neutrality is not violated the BEF doesn't appear until and unless the Germans get to 20 VP.
The campaign's general course will be familiar to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the war. Unless the Germans try to barge through the middle of the French fortified border, they will be sweeping through Belgium in a wide flanking manuever. The French, after making their mandatory Plan 17 attacks, will be scrambling to redeploy, while the British and some French units slow down the German juggernaut. Meanwhile the Belgians will hide in Antwerp.
Sometime around the middle of the game a decisive clash will happen near Paris. If it goes will for the Germans they will seize the French capital. Its 30 points will probably be enough to win a decisive victory then and there. If it goes poorly for the Germans there will be a "race to the sea" as each side tries to secure the conditional VPs for various citeis in Flanders and Calais.
Including set-up, playing the whole 30-turn campaign will probably take more than one evening, although it is playable in a Saturday afternoon.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: A detailed and satisfying simulation of this key campaign.
(No) For Collectors: Just another wargame.
(No) For Euro gamers: A hard-core hex-and-counter wargame with detailed game mechanics.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
One irony of Avalon Hill's "50th" anniversary
Hasbro selected three games for "Anniversary" editions to mark the 50th anniversary of Avalon Hill's founding.
While all three games are worthy classics (Acquire, Axis & Allies, and Diplomacy), none of them are original Avalon Hill games. Acquire was published by 3M and brought into the AH line when it took over the 3M line. Diplomacy, of course, is just as old as AH, but was first published by Gamescience before being bought and published by AH. Axis & Allies was never in the old Baltimore-based Avalon Hill's lineup at all.
It would have been nice to see a real Avalon Hill classic republished, but there are few candidates that might match Hasbro's market. Perhaps the most likely candidate would be an updated edition of Football strategy that reflected the way the NFL is played today.
Among the wargames I think there are few games that could make the transition. Most of the better games are in the hands of MMP or being republished elsewhere. Maybe, just maybe, a heavily revised Midway with plastic Axis & Allies style ships could catch the eye of the modern bit-oriented gamer. Of the classic hex-and-counter games Afrika Korps has probably held up the best, but I don't see it appealing to Wal-Mart shoppers.
No, it's easy to see w hy Acquire, Dip and A&A made the cut.
While all three games are worthy classics (Acquire, Axis & Allies, and Diplomacy), none of them are original Avalon Hill games. Acquire was published by 3M and brought into the AH line when it took over the 3M line. Diplomacy, of course, is just as old as AH, but was first published by Gamescience before being bought and published by AH. Axis & Allies was never in the old Baltimore-based Avalon Hill's lineup at all.
It would have been nice to see a real Avalon Hill classic republished, but there are few candidates that might match Hasbro's market. Perhaps the most likely candidate would be an updated edition of Football strategy that reflected the way the NFL is played today.
Among the wargames I think there are few games that could make the transition. Most of the better games are in the hands of MMP or being republished elsewhere. Maybe, just maybe, a heavily revised Midway with plastic Axis & Allies style ships could catch the eye of the modern bit-oriented gamer. Of the classic hex-and-counter games Afrika Korps has probably held up the best, but I don't see it appealing to Wal-Mart shoppers.
No, it's easy to see w hy Acquire, Dip and A&A made the cut.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Like Lions They Fought review
Like Lions They Fought
a review
Some wargames cover situations where one side’s chances of winning militarily were small to nonexistent. The usual design approach is to set up the victory conditions so that each player must strive to better the historical result.
Like Lions They Fought, the issue game in Command Magazine No. 28 in 1994, takes that approach to game the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 in an entertaining way while bowing to the historical reality that the Zulus, a locally powerful tribe of herder-warriors, had no chance of prevailing over the military might of the British Empire. But if the Zulu player can keep his king, Cetshwayo, out of British hands longer than the historical result, he wins.
The game scale is 5 miles per hex, one month per turn. Zulu units are regiments of varying strength, with each combat factor representing about 500 warriors. Combat factors range from 1-5. British units represent companies and battalions of regular and colonial troops, with each combat factor representing between 80 and 120 men. The counters are the user-friendly 5/8-inch pictographic style favored by Command Magazine during this era. Zulus are white background, British are light red and some neutral Zulus are gray. The map is another functional and attractive Mark Simonitch production.
The game sequence is a little unusual, in that the Zulus move, the British move and then there is a mutual combat phase where the Zulus are always the attacker, no matter who initiated the combat. The designer notes explain that the spear-armed Zulus had no choice but to attack the rifle-armed British to avoid getting shot up at long range.
The overall strategic situation has the British invading Zululand with multiple independent columns converging on the Zulu Capital of Ulundi. The Zulus have an opportunity to recreate the battle of Isandlwana and decimate one column, but for religious reasons the victorious Zulus are removed from the map for two turns while the warriors go home to their “kraals” to purify. Each Zulu regiment is associated with a kraal and if it’s home kraal is burned, the unit cannot return to play.
Naturally, therefore, a major British objective is to burn kraals, causing an inexorable decline in the number of Zulus. Meanwhile the British get stronger.
The middle period of the game sees the British, after having torched many kraals, closing in on Ulundi. The Zulu king flees and the British spend the rest of the game chasing him around the map. If they catch him, it’s game over, British victory. Historically the British captured the king in the eighth month. If he’s still on the lam at the end of that month, the Zulu player wins.
Combat is reminiscent of XTR’s pre-gunpowder games, where both sides line up their units off board and match unit for unit. The British shoot. Zulus die. More Zulus step into the gap, there is a melee. Both sides have a chance to retreat. If neither does, the battle goes on for another round. Essentially, the Zulus must ensure they have numerical superiority to have any chance of winning a battle.
The game takes about ten minutes to set up and can easily be played in one sitting.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: A unique topic covered in a playable way.
(No) For Collectors: No remarkable collectibility.
(No) For Euro gamers: A hex-and-counter wargame where the theme is a little more unpleasant than usual, as the British player has to go around burning homes in order to win.
a review
Some wargames cover situations where one side’s chances of winning militarily were small to nonexistent. The usual design approach is to set up the victory conditions so that each player must strive to better the historical result.
Like Lions They Fought, the issue game in Command Magazine No. 28 in 1994, takes that approach to game the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 in an entertaining way while bowing to the historical reality that the Zulus, a locally powerful tribe of herder-warriors, had no chance of prevailing over the military might of the British Empire. But if the Zulu player can keep his king, Cetshwayo, out of British hands longer than the historical result, he wins.
The game scale is 5 miles per hex, one month per turn. Zulu units are regiments of varying strength, with each combat factor representing about 500 warriors. Combat factors range from 1-5. British units represent companies and battalions of regular and colonial troops, with each combat factor representing between 80 and 120 men. The counters are the user-friendly 5/8-inch pictographic style favored by Command Magazine during this era. Zulus are white background, British are light red and some neutral Zulus are gray. The map is another functional and attractive Mark Simonitch production.
The game sequence is a little unusual, in that the Zulus move, the British move and then there is a mutual combat phase where the Zulus are always the attacker, no matter who initiated the combat. The designer notes explain that the spear-armed Zulus had no choice but to attack the rifle-armed British to avoid getting shot up at long range.
The overall strategic situation has the British invading Zululand with multiple independent columns converging on the Zulu Capital of Ulundi. The Zulus have an opportunity to recreate the battle of Isandlwana and decimate one column, but for religious reasons the victorious Zulus are removed from the map for two turns while the warriors go home to their “kraals” to purify. Each Zulu regiment is associated with a kraal and if it’s home kraal is burned, the unit cannot return to play.
Naturally, therefore, a major British objective is to burn kraals, causing an inexorable decline in the number of Zulus. Meanwhile the British get stronger.
The middle period of the game sees the British, after having torched many kraals, closing in on Ulundi. The Zulu king flees and the British spend the rest of the game chasing him around the map. If they catch him, it’s game over, British victory. Historically the British captured the king in the eighth month. If he’s still on the lam at the end of that month, the Zulu player wins.
Combat is reminiscent of XTR’s pre-gunpowder games, where both sides line up their units off board and match unit for unit. The British shoot. Zulus die. More Zulus step into the gap, there is a melee. Both sides have a chance to retreat. If neither does, the battle goes on for another round. Essentially, the Zulus must ensure they have numerical superiority to have any chance of winning a battle.
The game takes about ten minutes to set up and can easily be played in one sitting.
Recommendations
(Yes) For Wargamers: A unique topic covered in a playable way.
(No) For Collectors: No remarkable collectibility.
(No) For Euro gamers: A hex-and-counter wargame where the theme is a little more unpleasant than usual, as the British player has to go around burning homes in order to win.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Out of the box impression of Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition
I haven't even punched out the counters or taken the figures out of their bags, yet, so this is a very preliminary impression.
That said, I am impressed. It's a LOT of game. The storage boxes 
are an especially nice touch. In game storage is usually hit or miss and Hasbro's storage up to now hasn't usually been very inspired, but this game changes all that.
are an especially nice touch. In game storage is usually hit or miss and Hasbro's storage up to now hasn't usually been very inspired, but this game changes all that.Besides solving the storage of parts, this conficuration of storage bixes should help keep the very large box rigid and avoid some of the kind of damage that tends to make large flat boxes less stury than other types.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Proud Monster, a review of the Command Magazine version
Let's see. Two full-sized maps, 959 counters, 18 pages of rules, 23 player-turn "couplets." This is a big game. Especially for a magazine. Proud Monster was the issue game in Command Magazine No. 27 in 1994.
While not the largest "monster" game about the Eastern Front in World War II, Proud Monster may be the most playable. While there are 18 pages of rules, the game is only of moderate complexity by wargame standards. The game is basically your standard hex-and-counter wargame with an IGO-HUGO turn sequence.
Units are generally brigades and divisions. German mechanized divisions have four steps, infantry divisions have two and Axis allied units one. On the Soviet side nearly all the units have one step, with the reverse side of the counter showing the unit in an untried status. This rule gives the game a lot of its character and helps speed play because there's no "factor counting." The exact strength of any given hex or group of attackers is usually unknown. This creates an appropriate mind set of "I'll send six divisions to attack that city or I'll hold the line with 24 divisions" instead of looking for the exact last factor for a 3-1.
The game is sweeping in scope, covering the first six months of the invasion of Russia. The Panzers rampage where they will, send fistfuls of Soviet units into the "dead pile" while the infantry struggles to keep up. Meanwhile, zombie-like, the recently slaughtered Soviet units return to play, along scores of new units. This is actually a nice touch. The Germans woefully underestimated the size of the Soviet military establishment and within a few weeks of the start of the war had already destroyed more divisions than they thought existed before the war.
There are a lot of little things that help make the game playable despite its vast size. For example, the map's hexes are slightly larger than standard helping fingers handle the large stacks of 1/2-inch counters. All the different types of Soviet units are color-coded, making set up and running the reinforcement/replacement system easier.
The game includes several of Bomba's signature East Front interpretations, including the "GAS" line, about halfway to Moscow, where the German supply system attenuates. The Germans can avoid the penalty if they declare a "pause" and basically suspend their offensive for a turn. This is always a difficult choice. Another big decision for the Germans is whether or not to concentrate supply on 18 mobile divisions for a final push, at the cost of starving the rest of the army. (Bomba returned to this idea in The Moscow Option, which is essentially a "what-if" mini-game of Proud Monster playing out the drive on Moscow proposed by Guderian.
The Combat Results Table is the same odd-based step-loss-result system familiar to players of Command Magazine games.
While billed as 12 "turns" long, each "turn" is really two turns as the term is used in most wargames. Here they are called "couplets." The game could just as easily have been called 23 turns long, with every odd turn starting with a reinforcement phase and every even turn ending with a victory check phase. This is a long game, and will take at least a weekend to play. Setup will also takes time , and will probably need to be done before the play date.
While it can be a long game, it may end early. Every turn the Germans check to see how many victory points (scored by capturing cities) they have achieved. If it's more than that turn's goal then the game ends in German victory. Naturally the amount need increased every turn, but this rule prevents the Soviets from merely high-tailing it to the rear at top speed. On turn I the Germans need just 4 VPs, which they can achieve by taking just Kaunus, Vilnius, Minsk and Kishinev (near Odessa). The game scale is 20 miles per hex, two weeks per turn.
Recommendations
(Yes) for wargamers: A very big, but still playable wargame on the biggest campaign in history. Really captures the vast scope of the campaign. There's a new edition available, so players will presumably prefer that one.
(Yes) for Collectors: Sought-after.
(No) for Eurogamers: Way, way too much wargame.
While not the largest "monster" game about the Eastern Front in World War II, Proud Monster may be the most playable. While there are 18 pages of rules, the game is only of moderate complexity by wargame standards. The game is basically your standard hex-and-counter wargame with an IGO-HUGO turn sequence.
Units are generally brigades and divisions. German mechanized divisions have four steps, infantry divisions have two and Axis allied units one. On the Soviet side nearly all the units have one step, with the reverse side of the counter showing the unit in an untried status. This rule gives the game a lot of its character and helps speed play because there's no "factor counting." The exact strength of any given hex or group of attackers is usually unknown. This creates an appropriate mind set of "I'll send six divisions to attack that city or I'll hold the line with 24 divisions" instead of looking for the exact last factor for a 3-1.
The game is sweeping in scope, covering the first six months of the invasion of Russia. The Panzers rampage where they will, send fistfuls of Soviet units into the "dead pile" while the infantry struggles to keep up. Meanwhile, zombie-like, the recently slaughtered Soviet units return to play, along scores of new units. This is actually a nice touch. The Germans woefully underestimated the size of the Soviet military establishment and within a few weeks of the start of the war had already destroyed more divisions than they thought existed before the war.
There are a lot of little things that help make the game playable despite its vast size. For example, the map's hexes are slightly larger than standard helping fingers handle the large stacks of 1/2-inch counters. All the different types of Soviet units are color-coded, making set up and running the reinforcement/replacement system easier.
The game includes several of Bomba's signature East Front interpretations, including the "GAS" line, about halfway to Moscow, where the German supply system attenuates. The Germans can avoid the penalty if they declare a "pause" and basically suspend their offensive for a turn. This is always a difficult choice. Another big decision for the Germans is whether or not to concentrate supply on 18 mobile divisions for a final push, at the cost of starving the rest of the army. (Bomba returned to this idea in The Moscow Option, which is essentially a "what-if" mini-game of Proud Monster playing out the drive on Moscow proposed by Guderian.
The Combat Results Table is the same odd-based step-loss-result system familiar to players of Command Magazine games.
While billed as 12 "turns" long, each "turn" is really two turns as the term is used in most wargames. Here they are called "couplets." The game could just as easily have been called 23 turns long, with every odd turn starting with a reinforcement phase and every even turn ending with a victory check phase. This is a long game, and will take at least a weekend to play. Setup will also takes time , and will probably need to be done before the play date.
While it can be a long game, it may end early. Every turn the Germans check to see how many victory points (scored by capturing cities) they have achieved. If it's more than that turn's goal then the game ends in German victory. Naturally the amount need increased every turn, but this rule prevents the Soviets from merely high-tailing it to the rear at top speed. On turn I the Germans need just 4 VPs, which they can achieve by taking just Kaunus, Vilnius, Minsk and Kishinev (near Odessa). The game scale is 20 miles per hex, two weeks per turn.
Recommendations
(Yes) for wargamers: A very big, but still playable wargame on the biggest campaign in history. Really captures the vast scope of the campaign. There's a new edition available, so players will presumably prefer that one.
(Yes) for Collectors: Sought-after.
(No) for Eurogamers: Way, way too much wargame.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
WizKids and the future of bit-based games
What the exact story is behind the surprise announcement by Topps that WizKids will fold is buried in corporate confidentiality. While the game industry is pretty small and the wargame industry even smaller, it's relatively transparent as such things go. There's a lot of gossip that passes around and many of the company's talk a lot about their plans and many of them are pretty good at interacting with their customers.
This is less true for the bigger guys, although I think even Hasbro is better than most wholesale/retail outfits in communicating with its customers. Topps and WizKids seem more in the traditional corporate mold that way.
Still, the WizKids announcement follows an industry-wide pattern of delays and product changes that may very well be affected by larger economic conditions. The global credit crisis and retail retrenchment will, of course, not leave the game industry unscathed, but I think the real impact of that still lies in the future (not the far future, though, just Christmas). I suspect that this year's production issues are related to changes in China, where the vast majority of the nice bits that graced games over the last decade or so were made.
For most of the last 10 years there was a "sweet spot" where low labor and production costs and favorable exchange rates made it very inexpensive for games to include nice bits, especially plastic pieces. It was possible to include large amounts of pieces (War of the Ring, Tide of Iron, Axis & Allies, Memoir' 44, etc.) and it was possible to have hand-painted pieces: (HeroClix, Axis & Allies miniatures, D&D miniatures, Star Wars etc.). It was even possible to have large numbers of hand-painted pieces (Heroscape).
I think that era is coming to a rapid end and will not reoccur for the foreseeable future. There will still be nice bits, but I think there will be more reliance on blocks and counters (Worthington Games, GMT) because it's considerably cheaper to use print instead. There will probably be a more judicious use of plastic as far as quamity goes and less use of expensive hand-painted models.
This is less true for the bigger guys, although I think even Hasbro is better than most wholesale/retail outfits in communicating with its customers. Topps and WizKids seem more in the traditional corporate mold that way.
Still, the WizKids announcement follows an industry-wide pattern of delays and product changes that may very well be affected by larger economic conditions. The global credit crisis and retail retrenchment will, of course, not leave the game industry unscathed, but I think the real impact of that still lies in the future (not the far future, though, just Christmas). I suspect that this year's production issues are related to changes in China, where the vast majority of the nice bits that graced games over the last decade or so were made.
For most of the last 10 years there was a "sweet spot" where low labor and production costs and favorable exchange rates made it very inexpensive for games to include nice bits, especially plastic pieces. It was possible to include large amounts of pieces (War of the Ring, Tide of Iron, Axis & Allies, Memoir' 44, etc.) and it was possible to have hand-painted pieces: (HeroClix, Axis & Allies miniatures, D&D miniatures, Star Wars etc.). It was even possible to have large numbers of hand-painted pieces (Heroscape).
I think that era is coming to a rapid end and will not reoccur for the foreseeable future. There will still be nice bits, but I think there will be more reliance on blocks and counters (Worthington Games, GMT) because it's considerably cheaper to use print instead. There will probably be a more judicious use of plastic as far as quamity goes and less use of expensive hand-painted models.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Unheralded use for the Memoir '44 Overlord counters
There's been some grousing about the counters included in the Memoir '44 Overlord expansion but I think even owners of two M'44 sets can find a use for them.
Memoir' 44 has many good qualities, but portability isn't one of them. It's a big box and with expansions it can be quite a bit to haul around.
Using the counters, though, one can create a "travel" edition that will fit in a folder with the rules and many of the marker counters. If you use one of the paper maps it will be even more compact. You'll still need a dice pouch and a box for the cards but overall it's a much smaller package.
Memoir' 44 has many good qualities, but portability isn't one of them. It's a big box and with expansions it can be quite a bit to haul around.
Using the counters, though, one can create a "travel" edition that will fit in a folder with the rules and many of the marker counters. If you use one of the paper maps it will be even more compact. You'll still need a dice pouch and a box for the cards but overall it's a much smaller package.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The issue game in Command No. 26 in 1994 was When Tigers Fight covering the 1944 campaign in the rarely-simulated China-Burma-India theater.
With one-month turns and 60 km hexes, it's clearly strategic in scope. The game is pretty much XTR-standard, with NATO-style unit symbols, attack-defense-movement factor units in most of the standard XTR color themes: Red Japanese, Brown Commonwealth and Olive American forces. The higher quality Chinese Nationalist units are blue, while the "junque" stuff is purple and uses the reverse side to show untried unit status.
The game sequence is standard IGO-HUGO with various special rules added for chrome. Units are generally divisions, except for the mob-like Chinese forces, which bear unit symbols ranging from division to army group size. Japanese and Allied units are 2-4 steps, while the untried units are one-steppers.
All-in-all a fairly unexceptional game of the sort Command successfully published for eight years. When Tigers Fight is in just about the middle of that run.
But unlike most of that run When Tigers Fight has been criticized for play balance issues. Some maintain that the Japanese can guarantee a win by concentrating on the sudden death victory conditions of capturing two of three Chinese supply cities. The player's notes published with the game note that the Japanese can go any one place they choose, but evidently the playtesters missed that if the Japanse picked the sudden-death cities as their goal they could not be denied.
I haven't played enough to verify that the Chinese cannot stop such a strategy, but this kind of complaint is rare for an XTR game and that rarity adds credibility to the charge.
There's also a problem in the Burma front, where the Japanese can almost certainly ensure getting at least one unit into India at game end, costing the Allies one of their three possible victory points.
If the Japanese don't win a sudden-death victory, the winner is determined by comparing victory point totals. Each side has three possible victory points, awarded by achieving listed goals such as capturing all the Flying Tiger airbases (for the Japanse) or controlling a Chinese city original under Japanese control (for the Allies). The side with the most VPs wins.
The game itself is well presented, with the usual quality Mark Simonitch map work and player-friendly 5/8-inch unit counters.
Set up will take about 20 minutes and the entire 10-turn campaign can be played in an evening.
Recommendations:
(Conditional No) for Wargamers: You may want to consider adjusting the victory criteria if you do play. Published on the 50th anniversary of the campaign, it's too bad the game doesn't work better.
(No) for Collectors
(No) for Eurogamers: Not only a detailed hex-and-counter wargame, but one with reported problems. Stay away.
With one-month turns and 60 km hexes, it's clearly strategic in scope. The game is pretty much XTR-standard, with NATO-style unit symbols, attack-defense-movement factor units in most of the standard XTR color themes: Red Japanese, Brown Commonwealth and Olive American forces. The higher quality Chinese Nationalist units are blue, while the "junque" stuff is purple and uses the reverse side to show untried unit status.
The game sequence is standard IGO-HUGO with various special rules added for chrome. Units are generally divisions, except for the mob-like Chinese forces, which bear unit symbols ranging from division to army group size. Japanese and Allied units are 2-4 steps, while the untried units are one-steppers.
All-in-all a fairly unexceptional game of the sort Command successfully published for eight years. When Tigers Fight is in just about the middle of that run.
But unlike most of that run When Tigers Fight has been criticized for play balance issues. Some maintain that the Japanese can guarantee a win by concentrating on the sudden death victory conditions of capturing two of three Chinese supply cities. The player's notes published with the game note that the Japanese can go any one place they choose, but evidently the playtesters missed that if the Japanse picked the sudden-death cities as their goal they could not be denied.
I haven't played enough to verify that the Chinese cannot stop such a strategy, but this kind of complaint is rare for an XTR game and that rarity adds credibility to the charge.
There's also a problem in the Burma front, where the Japanese can almost certainly ensure getting at least one unit into India at game end, costing the Allies one of their three possible victory points.
If the Japanese don't win a sudden-death victory, the winner is determined by comparing victory point totals. Each side has three possible victory points, awarded by achieving listed goals such as capturing all the Flying Tiger airbases (for the Japanse) or controlling a Chinese city original under Japanese control (for the Allies). The side with the most VPs wins.
The game itself is well presented, with the usual quality Mark Simonitch map work and player-friendly 5/8-inch unit counters.
Set up will take about 20 minutes and the entire 10-turn campaign can be played in an evening.
Recommendations:
(Conditional No) for Wargamers: You may want to consider adjusting the victory criteria if you do play. Published on the 50th anniversary of the campaign, it's too bad the game doesn't work better.
(No) for Collectors
(No) for Eurogamers: Not only a detailed hex-and-counter wargame, but one with reported problems. Stay away.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Does the game hobby need a non-FLGS based model?
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)