The Con scene, 2009

Summertime means convention time for game hobbyists and the industry the supports their addiction. While there are conventions all year round all over the country, the big four game conventions are concentrated in the summer months and have all settled down more or less permanently towards the middling parts of the country -- or at least the East Coast.

While each con has its area of emphasis, just about any kind of game can be found at all four of them and they all include open gaming areas.

The Big Four cons are:

Origins Game Fair

June 24-28

Columbus, Ohio

http://www.originsgamefair.com/

Emphasis: Board games

Notes: Descendent of the Origins Game convention started by Avalon Hill

Historicon

July 16-19

Lancaster, Pa.,

http://www.historicon.com/

Emphasis: Historical miniatures

Notes: Originally a regional convention, this has grown into the de facto national convention for historical miniatures gamers.

World Boardgaming Championships

Aug. 3-9

Lancaster, Pa.

http://www.boardgamers.org/

Emphasis: Competitive play of board games

Notes: Originally AvalonCon, this became an independent production after Avalon Hill was bought out by Hasbro. Takes place at the same site as Historicon. There are also "pre-cons" starting the weekend before the main convention begins.

Gen Con

Aug. 13-19

Indianapolis, Ind.

http://www.gencon.com/

Emphasis: Role-playing and collectible card games

Notes: The oldest national gaming convention.

Which Borg not to resist

Star Trek's Borg famous claim "resistance is futile," and I think the same is probably true for wargame designer Richard Borg's creations. I know I haven't been able to resist buying anything related to his Commands & Colors system. I'm not alone in the collective, either, as Borg's designs are among the most popular wargames ever published.

Still, sometimes you have to choose and prospective purchasers may wonder which is the best choice for them. Each game has its vehement fans, but here is what I believe is a fairly objective rundown of their strengths and weaknesses.

Really, they are close enough in quality and game play (with the possible exception of Battle Cry) that I think the main consideration should be which theme a player finds the most interesting. pick that first.

From purely a game play perspective they each have strengths and weaknesses.

Battle Cry (American Civil War) is the weakest of the lot, simply because it was the first, and the subsequent designs have all refined the concept. If Battle Cry had expansions like the others I'm sure it would have kept up, but it's a one-off design.

Command & Colors: Ancients (Ancient battles of the Classical Era) matches its era well and is probably the most tactically intricate because of all the different troop types, which often have fairly subtle differences between them. Terrain plays a smaller role in this game than the others as ancient armies tended to fight on the flattest and clearest terrain available.

BattleLore (fantasy but also historical medieval) is similar to C&C:A, especially when played with the Medieval Rules. Adding Lore adds some interesting new twists to the game system. The fantasy aspects of the game are not overpowering and it is still an army-level game and not a sort of role-playing experience.

Memoir '44 (World War II) is a lot more about terrain and combined arms effects. The interaction between the units is more subtle than it is in C&C:A because of the long ranges involved. Just because units are not near each other doesn't mean they don't affect each other. And the air pack adds a new dimension of course. There's more variety in the scenarios compared to the other games, which are almost all line-them-up-and-fight battles, with a few notable exceptions.

You may also want to consider how they are marketed.

Battle Cry (Hasbro/Avalon Hill) is a single, self-contained game, but it's out of print.

BattleLore (originally Days of Wonder, now Fantasy Flight Games) and Memoir '44 (Days of Wonder) each start with a self-contained base game that you can add to as finances and interests allow, although that may change for BattleLore as it is moving to a new publisher. While some of the expansions require parts from other expansions there are always scenarios that require nothing more than the base game and that particular expansion to play.

C&A:A (GMT Games) has a self-contained starter and then each of the expansions is a major purchase as well. These expansion tend to build on each other, so I would say this series is something you'd want to commit to in a serious way to get the most out of it.

Comparison of advanced optional rules between Clash for a Continent and Hold the Line

A comparison between the advanced and optional rules in Worthington Games' Hold the Line and Clash for Continent games.

Hold The Line advanced/optional rules 11.1-11.3 are the same in Clash for a Continent. They deal with attacker morale checks, rally and elite units, respectively.

Clash 11.4 refers to Indians and gives them a -2 vs forts and towns. Not mentioned in HTL.

HTL 11.4 & 11.5 are the same as Clash 11.5 & 11.6, dealing with increased artillery range on hills and reduced effect firing into forest, respectively.

Clash option 11.7 giving an attacker a +1 firing on units in waterways is a standard rule in HTL

Clash 11.8 and HTL 11.6 both deal with leaders. Clash simply has leaders add one extra die when attacking. HTL rule makes a few leaders better by adding more dice, taking more hits to eliminate or both. In HTL terms all Clash leaders are 1/1.

Clash 11.9 (flank/rear attacks) is the same as HTL 11.14.

Clash 11.10 (attacker advance) is the same as HTL 11.7

Clash 11.11 (force march) is the same as HTL 11.8 & 11.9 together.

Clash 11.12 (easier hill movement) is the same as HTL 11.10

Clash 11.13 (dragoon retreat before combat) is the same as HTL 11.13.

Clash 11.14 and 11.15 are the same as HTL 11.12 and 11.13 and have to do with changing the Command Action Points for play balance.

Finally, HTL includes two optional rules not mentioned in Clash.

The first is HTL 11.15 which only applies to Long Island and Brandywine scenarios. reducing the range of units.

The second is an optional rule in the French & Indian expansion that makes Indians and Rangers deadlier in close assaults in the woods (4 dice).

Other differences in the rules:

In Clash for a Continent victory is only checked at the end of a turn, in HTL it's checked at the end of each player turn.

In HTL leaders are a little less vulnerable to FIRE COMBAT. No matter how many 1's are rolled, only 1 confirmation die is rolled to see if the leader is actually hit. In Clash one confirmation die roll is made for EVERY 1 rolled in the fire attack. In both games a confirmation roll is made for every original 1 during Close Combat.

In HTL nothing is said about what happens when a leader is caught alone in a hex by an enemy unit. In Clash a leader caught alone is eliminated. I think this is just an oversight in HTL and players should use the same rule as in Clash for a Continent.

There are some advantages to being older

It means that I have some hard-to-find but sought-after games simply because I was around when they first came out!

Probably the best example of that is the Holy Grail of wargames, Up Front! This card came has a well-deserved reputation for being an excellent game (although with tough rules) and it can be hard to come by in good condition without paying a lot. And it's becoming pretty likely that it will never again reappear, at least not in its current form. Even tougher to find are its expansions.

Another classic and beloved old Avalon Hill game that will never be reprinted in the same form is Dune. I also have the expansions for that game. This is one of the best multiplayer games out there, as well as one of the best realizations of a novel in game form.

In the case of Up Front!, the original artwork has been lost. So even though Multi-man Publishing has the rights (at last report) for a reprint, a new edition will require the same work as a new game. That project appears to have stalled however, so it seems likely that all the copies of Up Front that will ever be have are already out there.

For Dune there are plans for a reprint by Fantasy Flight Games, but it will have to be rethemed because FFG got the rights to the game system, but not the Dune license. Reportedly the theme will be set in FFG's Twilight Imperium universe. This may work just fine, but it will by definition NOT be Dune.

Ambush! is another system that I got in on the ground floor when it first came out. While copies of Ambush! are still available on eBay for reasonable prices, the expansions can be hard to find cheaply. This is a problem because, as a solitaire game, you need fresh missions for replayability.

I wasn't thinking about the long-term availability of those game system back in the day, but I do consider that now when making purchases. For example, I made certain to pick up an extra copy of Simmons Games' Bonaparte at Marengo because I suspected it would become a hard-to-find game. Simmons has since confirmed that there will be no reprint for that game.

The kind of game that's most likely to become rare are unusual designs from small publishers or those dependent on a license, as well as expansions. If you really like a game it seems worthwhile to make the effort to keep up with a series in near real time, because there is no guarantee you'll be able to get it later.

Kindle blog

Pawnderings is now available on the Kindle, for those of you with that device.

Musings on British strategy in Quebec 1759

Five years ago I wrote some musings on British and French strategy in Quebec 1759, based on the 2001 version 1.1 edition of the rules. There's a new 2009 version that makes some changes, which I will be exploring this weekend. Here's what I said about British strategy in the older version.

Quebec 1759

Some musings on British strategy

The British have the burden of attack. With no advantage in numbers the British player must maneuver to one single known point and seize it in order to win the game and the campaign.

With 16 moves there is plenty of time to do what is necessary, although not so much time that the British can afford to waste moves.

The British force consists of five distinct groups of units, and it’s useful to consider their role when considering what strategies are possible.

The core of the British force is nine 4CV battalions of infantry. These units allow the British to mass a powerful striking force and are at the heart of any successful British strategy. When launching an amphibious assault with four units the British can start with 16 CV, which is a decisive edge against any comparably sized French force.The British also have a 3CV foot unit and a 2CV foot unit suitable for secondary tasks.

The British start with 8 decoy units. The defining trait of the block games is the fog of war provided by the blocks, although the British will have a harder time taking advantage of the fog due to their movement limitations and the homogeneous nature of their force. Still, the decoys do provide some possibility of faking the French out.

The British have two 3CV units of light troops, (Converged Light Infantry and American Rangers). While able to take their place in the line, if needed, these have also have the ability to retaliate against the French Indian unit if it raids an area the light troops occupy. As the only counter to this very useful French unit their placement should be carefully considered.

Lastly the British have four ship units. These are vital because their ferrying ability is the only way the British can get across the river from their starting position on Ile d‘Orleans. When to move them upriver is always a major decision.

There are basically two avenues of approach to Abraham. The first and most direct is to cross the Bason and land at either Montmorency, Beauport or St. Charles, defeat any defenders, consolidate and then march to Abraham, assaulting from St. Charles. While having the virtue of simplicity, this will rarely work unless the French, through misdeployment, allow the British to defeat them in detail.

Typically the French will let you come and the game comes down to a grand assault across the river at St. Charles into Abraham. This has a low probability for success, as the 47 CV of British are facing about 34-8 CV of usuable French defenders (The Indians have to be in reserve and 3-5 units of Quebec militia have deserted by then because of burnt farms in Montmorency, Beauport , St. Charles (and maybe Levis and Etchemin).

It’s a common misconception that the block games have a lot of luck because of the large number of dice rolls. Of course the opposite is true, the large number of dice rolls tend to even out. Luck is most noticeable in smaller battles. It just takes a lucky roll or two for a CV1 unit to defeat a CV2 unit. But 10CV of defenders stands almost no chance of defeating 20CV of attackers, even with the advantage of firing first.

In the case of a grand battle between most of the French and British armies the advantage lies with the French, because their entire army is expendable, whereas the British lose the campaign if reduced below 20 total CV. There almost no chance the British can eliminate all 30+ French before they lose 28 CV of their own, given the attritional nature of the combat system and the fact the French will be firing first (and at double fire the first round).

Such a direct approach also wastes the potential of wresting an advantage through maneuver.

Such a direct approach won’t take more than half the available turns to execute, although there is no advantage for the British to occupy Abraham at any point earlier than turn 16.

The second avenue of approach is across Bason to Levis, followed by consolidation and a march to Etchemin. Meanwhile the fleet moves upriver to St. Laurent. From Etchemin the British assault across St. Laurent to either Cap Rouge, Sillery or Abraham. This approach also has drawbacks. It requires a head-on amphibious assault into Levis, which is often heavily defended. And at the end the British are still left with the necessity of launching another amphibious attack into the teeth of the French, who can easily use their interior lines to redeploy from Montmorency-Beauport-St. Charles to Cap Rouge-Sillery-Abraham. This avenue also provides the French opportunities to catch the British divided. From a central position at Sillery, or Ste Foy, the entire French army could swoop down on a smaller British force at either Cap Rouge or Abraham.

On the other hand, this avenue of approach does present the opportunity to place the French defenders on the horns of a dilemma, because they have two points needing defending. If they allow the British to occupy Cap Rouge without resistance the steady erosion of the Montreal militia could result in the final grand battle at Abraham having just 20 CV of French (the six regular regiments and some militia) facing most of the British force. With an edge of 20 or so dice the British should easily rout the French before their own losses become critical.

The best chance of success comes from using both avenues of approach, flexibly. Eventually the British will probably have to move upriver via Levis unless the French mess up their deployment along the Bason. But maintaining a threat to St. Charles and burning the farms along the north bank to eliminate three Quebec militia is a key part of succeeding with the Levis approach.

With 16 turns the British have enough time to move significant forces around the limited campaign area, so long as on Turn 16 the main British force is moving into Abraham.

Typically the British player, feeling the pressure of time, will try to bull ashore with four 4CV units on the first turn somewhere along the Bason shore on the theory the French cannot be strong everywhere. If he guesses right, he strikes a weak spot held by a half dozen militia units or less and wins a stiff fight that guts the French army by eliminating a large chunk of the available force. If he guesses wrong, the British player experiences the historical result of a bloody nose and the need to try someplace else after a hasty retreat.

The British do have the time to do it right, however, using the Louisbourg Grenadiers or the 2/60th Foot for a reconnaissance. Landing a single unit forces the use of the “skirmish” rule, revealing all the defenders (no reserve) while exposing just 2Cv or 3CV to loss. A landing against the six French regulars will cost the British an average of 6Cv from the first fire, which will decimate a 16CV maximum British landing and force an immediate retreat. (Staying under such circumstances is most unwise). No matter how many French are firing and how lucky their rolls, they can’t kill any more than 2CV of Grenadiers if that is all that has landed.

One or two probes should uncover enough of the French defense to allow the 16CV brigade landing to hit someplace the French are not while not costing any more than 5CV and a couple of turns.

If the French main body is south of the river, land on the north shore against the weakest point, consolidate, defeat the militia and march on Abraham with 4-8 units.

If the French main body is on the north shore, take the Levis route, leaving one of the light units in Ile d’Orleans to scoot across Bason to torch farms once the French pull back to counter the Levis threat.

By switching between the two avenues of approach the British player aims to spread the French defenders, defeat them in detail, induce the militia to desert and set the stage for an advantageous final battle on the plains of Abraham on campaign turn 16.

Musings on French strategy in Quebec 1759

Some while back I posted these ideas on French strategy for the game Quebec 1759, based on the version 1.1 (2001) edition of the rules. The 2009 Version 2.0 edition makes some interesting changes which I will be exploring in a game planned for this weekend, so I thought it would be instructive to review what I had said before.

Quebec 1759

Some musings on French strategy

As the defender, the French are necessarily in a reactive role. Despite this, they have the first chance to shape the course of the game with their initial setup.

The French army actually outnumbers the British, both in total numbers (20 units to 13 units) and in Combat Value (48 CV to 47 CV).

The French force comprises three distinct groups of units, and it’s useful to consider their role when considering what strategies are possible.

The core of their army are six 3CV battalions of infantry. The only force able to stand toe-to-toe with a British 4-block 16CV brigade strike force, their careful placement is vital. Filling out the French force are 13 battalions of 2CV militia. While their CV are just as deadly as the regulars, most of them are vulnerable to being removed without a fight. The six Montreal militia and one TR militia will start to desert, one per turn, if the British capture Cap Rouge, while the Quebec militia goes home as British troops occupy areas, one block per area.

The last component is a single 4CV Indian unit, which may be the single most useful. Able to scout and raid anywhere on the map, this unit will play a big role in the French success.

There are also five decoy units.

For a detailed discussion of the map look at the British strategy article. Simply said, there are basically two avenues of approach to Abraham. The first and most direct is to cross the Bason and land at either Montmorency, Beauport or St. Charles, defeat any defenders, consolidate and then march to Abraham, assaulting from St. Charles. The second avenue of approach is across Bason to Levis, followed by consolidation and a march to Etchemin. Meanwhile the fleet moves upriver to St. Laurent. From Etchemin the British assault across St. Laurent to either Cap Rouge, Sillery or Abraham.There are basically two general strategies available for the French and either can work.

Although it’s anachronistic, I’ll label the two approaches the “Rommel” and the “Rundstedt,” named after the two World War II German field marshals who faced a similar strategic debate before D-Day.

In the “Rommel”: the French will make a stand at the water’s edge, trying to inflict such heavy losses on the British that they will be reduced to below 20CV and lose the campaign whether or not they make it to Abraham. This strategy is the most obvious and simplest, but is not without risk, because the French cannot be strong everywhere. A successful British landing can place the French in danger of being defeated in detail.

The “Rundstedt” attempts to use limited British naval lift capacity against them by using the French army’s interior lines to concentrate against and overwhelm isolated detachments of the British force.

Under the “Rommel” the French also have a decision to make about allocation of force to the four possible landing sites of St. Charles. Beauport, Montmorency and Levis. An obvious, but wrong, approach, is to simply divide the forces equally between the four. This abandons any chance to shape the British strategy and actually induces a British landing in the most dangerous spot, St. Charles. If every landing site is equally defended, then the British should land at the most strategic spot, St. Charles. And that landing will probably succeed, because an even distribution of the French army means that at least one column will be held by a single 2CV or 3CV unit. Seeing this, the British will use their reserve to reinforce their 4CV unit with a second 4CV unit, giving them a decisive 8CV vs. 2 or 3 and a quick rout for the French.The French will be forced to counterattack the following turn against the bulk of the British army and can expect to dash themselves to pieces in the attempt.

No, The French have to try to ambush the British with a strong enough force to have a realistic chance to repel a landing. The minimum required for this is six militia units. Pulling this off requires that the French leave at least one area undefended. This area cannot be St. Charles, and Levis is best defended as well, so the choices come down to Beauport and Montmorency. One should be defended by the six doomed Quebec militia while the other is held by dummies and one of the Montreal militia.

The Achilles heel of the “Rommel” is a prudent British player, who spends a couple of turns probing the French defense instead of trying to bull ashore right away. Once the British have discerned the shape of the French deployment they will land in a weak spot, consolidate and start maneuvering to induce desertions.

The “Rundstedt” is harder to play, but holds the potential for thwarting experienced British players by using the compartmented geography of the map against them. While using the Quebec militia (who will generally be deserting anyway) to skirmish against the initial British moves and aggressively scouting with the Indians in order to closely track British deployments, the bulk of the French army operates within the Abraham-Sillery-Ste. Foy-Cap Rouge quadrangle. This protects the two vital locations and provides a good opportunity to catch a part of the British army. Even if the British manage to get eight 4CV across in one spot this sets up a 32CV vs. 32CV slugfest that favors the French. The entire French host is expendable, while a long attritional fight is likely to leave the “victorious” British with less than 20CV on the map.

It’s possible to convert the “Rommel” into a “Rundstedt” if the French make sure to cover Levis with the Quebec militia and don’t stay too long on the north shore of the Bason once the British make their move.

Axis and Allies Miniatures: Commissar

I'll be posting, on an occasional basis, musings about particular pieces in the Axis & Allies series of miniatures.

The Commissar is a core unit of Axis & Allies Miniatures, showing up as collector No. 3/48 from the Base Set and again unchanged as No. 17/60 of the 1939-45 set.

Stats:

Rarity: Uncommon

Speed: 1

Defense: 4/4

Cost: 5

Attacks vs troops at short-medium-long ranges: 5 - 0 - 0

Attacks vs vehicles at short-medium-long ranges: 2 - 0 - 0

Special abilities: Close Assault 6

Commander Abilities: Initiative +1, Bravery Enforcement — Friendly disrupted Soldiers adjacent to this unit don’t suffer the –1 penalty to their attack dice. (revised card wording)

Historical text: Commissars accompanied Soviet units into battle to ensure that every officer and man fought with proper patriotic zeal. failure was not an option.

The unit in history: The Soviet military had an unusual dual command structure, where the military chain of command was mirrored by a party chain of command at every level. These party officials were called commissars. The influence of commissars waxed and waned throughout the period of Soviet rule as the Communist Party wavered between fear of the army's political threat and the fear of defeat on the battlefield. The German invasion of 1941 caught the Soviets at the end of one of their swings and commissars played a big role in the battlefield events of 1941 and 1942. On the one hand they did stiffen resistance but often at the expense of tactical sense. Eventually the power of the commissars was curtailed as the Soviet military's battlefield performance increased. While the popular image is that of the political officer summarily executing the faint-hearted, their primary purpose was to monitor the loyalty of the officer corps and see to the welfare and morale of the troops -- roles that they retained after their enforcement role was reduced.

Photo caption: Political officer I. Sobchenko is briefing the 107th Separate Tank Battalion personnel on the overall situation. Volkhov Front. July 6, 1942.

Base set

The unit in the game: Because several Soviet units, including the basic rifleman, suffer from the restrictions of the Command Dependent special (in)ability the Soviets need large numbers of low-cost leader units in order to move and the Commissar fulfills this role quite nicely. For a while the only other Soviet leader was the Cossack Captain who costs almost twice as much without being twice as good. The Eastern Front set finally added a better Soviet leader in the form the the Veteran NCO, but he is not available in 1941 scenarios.

1939-45 set

The Commissar has enough inherent combat ability to defend itself against troops and light armor and the +1 initiative bonus will help reduce the likely German edge in that category. The Bravery Enhancement special ability is considerably toned down from the original wording. The old ability, which sacrificed a unit to boost other units' attacks by +1 die, was costly to use, but it could provide a critical boost to Soviet soldier attacks when facing tough German foes such as Panzergrenadiers or Tiger tanks. Now it's just a little goose for disrupted units. Still useful for for a cheap leader.

Hasbro doing something right

Although often mocked as "Hasborg" on BGG, the game and toy giant does seem to be weathering the economic storm OK. Moody's just upgraded Hasbro to investment quality. http://www.cnbc.com/id/30685708

Upgrades, new editions and money sinks

One of the curious attitudes on display on various forums is some resentment when a new or revised edition of a game comes along, especially if the changes are more than cosmetic.

I say it's curious because no one expects other products to stay the same from year to year. Everything from cereal to cars to cell phones are constantly being "new and improved." What not games?

Some folks seem annoyed that there's a new edition of Axis & Allies coming out shortly, so soon after the Anniversary edition. Yet the new 1942 edition is clearly aimed at a different market than AA50. The new edition is much less expensive and will probably take much less time to play as well. AA50 was definitely aimed at the true Axis & Allies fanatic. I doubt many copies were sold to customers who didn't already have a copy of some prior Axis & Allies.

Generally speaking I like to upgrade my favorite games when new and improved version appear. For example, I recently paid for new blocks and stickers for Quebec 1759 when the new edition came out. A nice service of Columbia Games is that they offer parts, so you don't necessarily have to buy a whole new game when they make a change. And they are pretty conservative with the changes, too. I'm still using the mounted Quebec 1759 I got with my 1970s-era edition, for example.

But even when the changes are enough to require a whole new game, it can be worth it. For example I bought the Jutland edition of the Great War at Sea series when it came out, even though I already had its Baltic and North Sea predecessor. I did the same things with Bitter Woods. I sold off the old copies, but sometimes I keep the old version. Probably the best example of that is the game Napoleon, where i kept my old Avalon Hill versions even after I got the Columbia edition. I thought the changes were significant enough in that case that it was really two different games.

But often I also elect not to try to keep up with game system. I've bailed on the Down In Flames series, for example, even though i have quite a few parts. One has to draw the line somewhere. But I'm satisfied with what I have of it and I'll probably keep it because there's no reason why I can't keep playing with it. It's not a game I'd play in a tournament and it doesn't hit the table too often at game clubs, so the only time I'll probably play it is with some friend. And for that purpose it won't be obsolete.

And that seems to me to be the bottom line. I think everybody probably has maybe a dozen or at most two dozen games/system they can keep up with. Those favorite/popular/tournament games are worth keeping up with, but should be focused enough to stay within whatever budget you have. For everything else, so what if there's a new edition? Unlike a VHS tape or a Nintento cartridge a good board game is just as playable with your friends no matter how many new versions are out there. Indeed. I know that many Cosmic Encounter players didn't even bother with the Hasbro/AH edition because they thought the earlier Mayfair edition was better.

Few modern games are as stable as something like Chess, but then the era of innovation for that game was a few centuries ago. Maybe some of today's favorites will settle down in the future.

Cheaters

A discussion on the Hexwar forum prompts this musing --why cheat?

Any Ty Bomba game that involved an element of hidden information usually carries the warning that social science research shows that anyone will cheat if they perceive the stakes are high enough.

I'm not entirely sure this is true. I suppose anybody who refused to cheat would just, by definition, not believe the stakes are high enough. Yet we do have plenty of examples of people maintaining their honor at great cost, so I am not entirely on board. Still, I will admit that most of us would cheat under certain high stakes circumstances. And cheating at casinos, for example, seems pretty easy to understand.

But it's hard to imagine that a game played for pleasure could achieve the status of "high stakes." Yet clearly it does. I just can't figure out what those stakes must be. If it's ego, then surely that ego must feel empty because the cheater knows he's just a fraud. Or can self-delusion protect the ego from that?

I've never been one to worry overmuch about Ws and Ls. I used to track them for a while and under certain conditions it can be useful knowledge that may help improve the quality of one's play. But as a general rule it doesn't mean very much. If i have a 24-4 record in a game does that mean I am a good player or does it just mean I'm careful to select weak opponents? Can't tell unless you examine many factors.

The bottom line is that cheating only makes sense if you care an awful lot about winning and THAT only makes sense if you're willing to play under controlled conditions that give the games meaning. The allegation is that Hexwar's die rolling program is either flawed or can be manipulated. I don't know which it is, if either. But what is the point of winning that way? There's no money and very little fame involved. it's not the World Series of Poker. It's only even known to a hundred or so hardcore wargamers. Winning a trophy at the WBC is a much bigger deal.

I hope some resolution to the issue can be found, because it does threaten the trust needed to keep the site going.

Whither Axis & Allies? Now we know

There's been speculation since it first cane out that the Anniversary Edition of Axis & Allies was a special limited edition run that would not be repeated. The deluxe components and the high price seemed to many to make it unsuitable as the standard A&A game.

We know today that they were right, because Hasbro has just posted on its Web site news of a new "Spring 1942" edition of Axis & Allies: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/prod/spring1942

So far there's not a lot of info. The only illustration is of the box:

It appears that it will be a game more on the scale of the Revised Edition, probably meaning just two mapboards again. A lot of rules from the Anniversary Edition will be ported over. The ad copy specifically mentions the cruisers and the naval rules from A&A:50, although I would also expect the artillery to show up as well as other systemic changes seen in A&A:50.

The cruisers were not an unambiguous success, so it will be interesting to see if there are any adjustments. The consensus of opinion seems to be that they were a bit expensive for what they brought to the table in capability, so perhaps there will be a tweak in that department.

The game is listed for 2-5 players, so we know that Italy is out again. Whether China will be back is harder to say. I think most players liked the way China was handled in A&A:50 so it would be nice to see some version of that, including China-specific infantry, in any new version.

What this means in the short term is that anyone interested in getting a copy of A&A:50 should act now, because it's highly unlikely anything like it will be done again. It's already reported sold out at the distributor level, although copies are still available at MSRP in stores and online retailers.

Anniversary of the Battle of Coral Sea

It's worth noting that today is the 67th anniversary of the Battle of Coral Sea.

While somewhat of a stalemate, or even a tactical victory for Japan, it was a clear strategic defeat and had a big impact on the Battle of Midway a month later. Consider how differently that pivotal battle would have gone if the Japanese strike force had been stronger by 2 fleet carriers -- or if the Yorktown had been sunk has the Japanese believed.

I have several games that cover the Coral Sea action in whole or part, although I've also owned others over the years.

Currently I have the Coral Sea expansion, which adds maps, counters and scenarios to the classic game Midway.

I also have SOPAC, which provides a somewhat more detailed look at the same action.

The Zero! game in the Down in Flames system has a Coral Sea campaign game. This game covers plane-to-plane fighting so it's representative of the kind of tactical engagements involved but doesn't purport to show the entire battle.

And finally the Coral Sea battle with an abbreviated OB is one of the scenarios in Shipbase III.

Red Dragon Rising musings

This game seems to have legs, especially for a magazine game. There will be a major 70+ counter variant in S&T 258, reportedly.

It's also seeming quite topical these days. Note this recent article: http://uk.reuters.com/article/usPoliticsNews/idUKTRE54363X20090504?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

It's no surprise that China would gear their naval buildup towards countering our Navy. And Adm. Mullen seems to be doing his best to tamp down the hype in the article.

If Japan and Taiwan were not strong US allies then China might be expected to gear its (deliciously named) People's Liberation Army Navy to dealing with those two local and regional powers. But it's hard to imagine any scenario involving conflict with either that would not instantly involve the USN, so the PLAN is obligated to deal with the threat as matter of basic military prudence.

That said, I don't think a conflict is inevitable. In the short and medium term the main cause for concern would be some sudden flareup over Taiwan. This is always a possibility because of the political and emotional stakes involved, which can be volatile. On the other hand, time may very well solve this problem.

There is, however, a long-term threat caused by grand strategic factors. Simply stated, the USA is the Top Dog in the world power structure. China is a former Top Dog that believes it is long overdue to return to Top Dog stature and it has the booming economy to support that. It's busy building up some military capability to back that up, but military hardware is just a small part of China's ambitions as it improves domestic infrastructure, reforms domestic affairs and invests in science and technology. This is a multi-generational affair that will play out over the rest of the 21st Century. It may result in some major war or wars just as the rivalry between the British Empire and Germany did in the first half of the 2oth Century. Or it may be resolved relatively peacefully like the Cold War. Can't say yet.

There may be "interesting times"" ahead.

*Interesting in the sense implied by the Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times."

A weakness for tin

I have to admit I have a weakness for tin game boxes. Nothing is more likely to get me to shell out money for a game I already own than putting it in a snazzy tin box.

I'm not sure what the economics are of tin boxes. On the one hand, I do see them used to package some decidedly low-end products. It's not uncommon to see a tin box version of chess or dominoes in a retailer like Wal-Mart or Walgreens that doesn't cost a lot. These do tend to be public domain games where nearly all the cost in in materials and not in any creative design.

But Hasbro has put out some nice tin-box editions for games such as Scrabble, Clue and Monopoly as well that also have really nice game play components as well.

Tin boxes stand up well to the test of time, compared to paper boxes, although they still require proper storage. The weak point in game boxes are the seems, which tend to split with age. For tin boxes the biggest threats are dents and rust. Some tin boxes use hinges, which can break, but most tin boxes simply use a snug fit for the top.

It may very well be that tin containers are not an economic decision for low print-run products such as wargames, but I wouldn't mind seeing them used for some euros. Tin boxes may be too associated with U.S. producers, though, to appeal to the Euro crowd. And there may be less incentive for them to go that route because German-style game boxes are very sturdy.

Right now the latest editions of some Hasbro titles have gone low-cost, presumably to attract new players and keep sales up during tough times. But eventually there will be new "deluxe" editions of Acquire and Diplomacy and I wouldn't mind seeing a tinned version of either one.

Nice obituary for Dave Arneson in The Guardian newspaper

Here's the link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/24/obituary-david-arneson-dungeons-dragons-creator

Thought experiment; games you could play via Twitter

I'm recently on Twitter, although I'm not sure I'm getting the most out of it. I don't live the sort of hyperactive urban young professional lifestyle that I think it's most aimed at.

On the other hand, I could see some use for it, one of which is playing a quick PBeM-style game against a friend also on Twitter. So what kind of games could work on Twitter, given its extremely low bandwidth.

Chess would probably be pretty easy. Chess notation is very efficient and there are easily portable magnetic chess sets that would be easy to use for a running game.

I think some other chess-like games might also work, although in some cases you'd probably have to leave it set up at a specific site and you might need to invent a short notation style.
Examples might include Proteus, Navia Dratp and Shogi.

If both players have the necessary books, it should be possible to play Ace of Aces or Lost Worlds, although with so many different Lost Worlds books it might be hard to find a match.

I think Diplomacy might be possible to play with a combination of Twitter and emails. It would be easy enough for a GM to take orders via Twitter and for players to negotiate via the service, but reporting adjudications would probably need an email.

Harpoon Naval Review 2009

There's a lot of worthwhile material in this 2009 edition of the Harpoon Naval Review.

The lead article is a 16-page comprehensive accounting of the Spanish Navy as of mid-2008, something you won't find a lot of information about anywhere else. Given its very long naval tradition, it's nice to see that the Spanish Navy is enjoying something of a resurgence. The article ends with a small-scale scenario depicting a potential conflict between Spain and a Jihadist Morocco. Like many more recent Harpoon scenarios this is suitable for play between two players or a small group, useful given how hard it can be to gather a large group these days.

The second piece looks at a possible fighting between Venezuela and Columbia back in 1987 with two scenarios, again suitable for two or three players.

Venezuela is featured again in the third article, where a Venezuelan sub duels with US Navy forces in another small-scale engagement.

The fourth article is a scenario based on Larry Bond's book Cauldron and pits US forces against "EurCom" (mostly French/German) in a series of engagements in the Baltic and Atlantic. Most of these are bets for a team.

The fifth piece is, perhaps, the most ambitious to actually try to play, as it examines massive air attacks against a US carrier battle group at various times from the 60s right through 2010. In each case the CVBG is based around the USS Enterprise with the escorts and air groups changing through time as well as the attacking Soviet (later Chinese) bomber force. Very interesting but definitely needing several players to pull off.

The sixth article is very topical, as Western naval forces try to run ships past Somali pirates in a small scenario.

The last article is a Sub vs. Convoy scenario generator.

The balance of the book is made of of ship forms and aircraft forms for most of the ships and planes involved in all the scenarios except the convoy generator. Everything is brought up to Harpoon 4 standards.

A good buy.

Geek alert!

It's not quite as stark of a contrast as this ....

But I wonder if the updated look for The Enterprise in the new Star Trek might be retconning things a little too much. Undoubtedly it will depend on how good a story the movie tells.

The fact is that the number of old gezzers like me who remember the old series is dwindling. The original series, which used to be a staple of syndicated TV, hasn't seen much air time lately. The advent of CGI has made cool special effects much cheaper to achieve and even some fairly low-budget Sci Fi channel (or is it SyFy now? ech) original series routinle use effects that leave Star Trek looking too cheesy. Lucas was smart to update the Star Wars originals, I think, for that reason.

Harpoon Naval Review 2009

Got the 2009 Harpoon Naval Review today in the mail.

It's filled with a lot of good stuff, including an 11-page article on the current Spanish Navy, scenarios involving fighting between Venezuela and Columbia, an attack on a US Carrier battle group and even one on Somali pirates! Quite topical.

Unfortunately I don't have any local naval miniatures opponents at the moment, so I'm not sure when I'll get to try out any of the battles. On the other hand, Harpoon and indeed all the Admiralty trilogy games are so chock full of information that they are worth having even if never played.

Indeed, they are really more like reference books in game form than games.

As I digest the book over the week I'll try to give capsule reviews of the contents.