Sunday, November 8, 2009
Operation Torch, Nov. 8, 1942
Today is the anniversary of Operation Torch, Nov. 8 1942. I put together a short Geeklist on Boardgame Geek in honor of the event.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Butch and Sundance's Last Stand -- or maybe not
On the 101st anniversary of the gun battle in Bolivia that ended the outlaw careers of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, my step son and I played the scenario depicting that event in Cowboys: The Way of the Gun -- Scenario 20 Butch and Sundance's Last Stand, Nov. 7, 1908.
As it looked to me that it would be a pretty tough scenario for Butch and Sundance, I took the two famous Outlaws, while he took the Bolivian townsfolk and the reinforcing cowboys (who presumably represent Bolivian soldiers.
The Bolivians started off a bit cautiously approaching the Yanqui Banditos, so Butch and Sundance were able to make a dash for the corral and the horse. A couple of long-range rifle shots from the Bolivian townsfolk missed, except for one shot that hit one of the horses. (We were not playing with any of the optional rules, so that first hit had no effect on the horse.)
Once Butch grabbed a rifle off the horse the two outlaws decides to blast away at the townsfolk to get them to back off and over the next few turns they managed to hit five of the townsfolk, while only taking one hit in return. This gave the outlaws quite a few bonus cards, but a couple of them were "Town Folk" cards which were not playable for the outlaws by special rule.
By now the first reinforcements were getting into range, but the Bolivians were cautious again, after having seen so many of their friends gunned down and they spent a lot of effort maneuvering into position while trying to stay out of the line of fire.
The outlaws mounted up, and after a brief feint towards the right and center they made a dash for the board edge along the west side of board A, aided by an adrenaline card, gunning down one more townsfolk. Butch was able to ride off scot free, but Sundance had a close run of it, taking several more hits and losing the wounded horse. A fortuitous Health card kept him alive and he ducked into the back door of the Saloon to get out of the line of fire of most of his pursuers. The Bolivians followed Butch into the Saloon and he made his escape by jumping through the window and off the board, although he took one last bullet on the way out.
The end result was a victory for the outlaws, with Sundance getting away clean and Butch escaping with one hit point left. None of the six reinforcing cowboys was injured (or even shot at) but the Bolivian Townsfolk took heavy loses, losing six out of the original starting eight, although they were reinforced with two more through the play of a Town Folk card.
It was a very near-run scenario and if it wasn't for drawing that Health card the outlaws would have lost. Overall I think it's a tough scenario for the Outlaws. Not only are they outnumbered, but they can't take any losses. The outlaws have the advantage in skill, being +2 for all shots, but they can't afford to stay and shoot it out. In our battle the number of hits ended up being pretty even. The outlaws hit and killed six townsfolk (6 hits) while the Bolivians also got six hits -- two on a horse and four on Sundance (one canceled by a Health card.)
Despite the fact the Outlaws won this time, I'd expect them to lose more often than not, especially if the Bolivians try to maximize their shots and don't worry overmuch about losses. The Bolivians should especially be bold with the reinforcing Cowboys. They take four hits to kill and if the Outlaws are busy shooting at them, they're not escaping.
Friday, November 6, 2009
New starter may affect Empress Augusta Bay scenario
The new War at Sea Starter appears to have at least three ships that fought at Empress Augusta Bay included.
Speculation from ForuMINI, based on box art is:
The Shigure might be the Samidare, which was as Empress Augusta Bay, and the USS Montpelier and Haguro are already confirmed as being part of the set. If that US boat is another Fletcher then it provides another option for that class as well, although I doubt it's one of the named ships from the battle,as there are some more famous Fletchers still available.Family Game Night at Greeneville Church II
We had a good turn-out the first time, so we will be gathering again for a Family Game Night at the Greeneville Church, Prospect Street in Norwich CT on Sunday evening, Nov. 15 We'll start at 6 p.m. and go until about 10 p.m.
We'll have the usual mix of long-time family favorites such as Acquire, Monopoly, Scrabble, Clue and Yahtzee as well as some newer fare such as Carcassonne, Tigris & Euphrates, Fluxx and Cosmic Encounter.
Directions to follow.
We'll have the usual mix of long-time family favorites such as Acquire, Monopoly, Scrabble, Clue and Yahtzee as well as some newer fare such as Carcassonne, Tigris & Euphrates, Fluxx and Cosmic Encounter.
Directions to follow.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Empress Augusta Bay played
Having drawn up the outlines of a history-based scenario for War at Sea, I thought it would be interesting to play it out and see if it was viable straight up or if the scenario would need tweaking.
Right off the top, I had to come to terms with the inability of War at Sea to replicate the historical outcome -- which was a very confused affair that resulted in relatively light losses for the intensity of the fighting and was an American victory. In game terms the Japanese lost one light cruiser and one destroyer, although the destroyer was doomed because of a collision, which WAS makes no provision for. One US destroyer was a mission kill (stern blown off) but didn't sink due to heroic damage control efforts. Wargames have an inherent tendency to be bloodier than real-life fighting and War at Sea is on the bloodier end of the spectrum as far as wargames go. There's no game benefit for force preservation and indeed, a standard battle can't end until some significant portion of at least one fleet is sunk.
Instead I would be satisfied to replicate the general strategy each side followed and have an interesting fight.
The total value of the Japanese force was 145 points and the US force weighed in at 128 points, so I set it up as a 100-point game with three 50-point objective markers. Because no landforms figured in the historic fight, I used the sea map with no islands.
One notable aspect of the historical fight was that it was fought in darkness on a moonless night, so I used the official "darkness" rules from the Oct. 6, 2009 revisions and clarifications document on the Axis & Allies Web page.
Because of the OB and the darkness conditions, a number of the special abilities were inapplicable in this scenario, making the point values somewhat suspect in any case. Special abilities such as Chase the Salvoes, Antiair Specialist and Extended Range 4 were not possible to use, and quite a few others which might have been used, such as Lucky Escape and Lay Smoke Screen, didn't come up.
As a matter of fact, there were just a half-dozen special abilities that played a role, but they ended up being very important. They were:
Flotilla Leader (Yahagi) and Flagship 1 (Yahagi, Myoko, Jinstu). These basically guaranteed the Japanese would have the initiative and in the actual 4-turn battle the Japanese never lost initiative.
Long-Lance Torpedoes (All 10 Japanese ships) This meant that any torpdeo hit on a US ship was an instant kill, and while not part of the SA, all LL-equipped have a torpedo range of 3 which means they cannot be out-ranged by guns in a night scenario.
Night Fighter (Myoko, Jintsu, Yukikaze) The reroll didn't come into play because the scenario didn't last long enough, but the Night Fighter ability cancelled the darkness gunnery penalty, which was vital. The Japanese suffered because only three ships had this SA.
Radar Fire Control (Clevelands and Kidds). This also cancelled the darkness penalty and provided an extra die for gunnery to boot. This was very important, especially because two-thirds of the US fleet had the SA.
Rapid Fire (Hoels). Only used once, but it made the difference in a shot, sinking a Japanese destroyer.
Both sides were set up roughly historically.
The four US Clevelands (representing Cruiser Division 12) were set up in the center of their deployment area. Destroyer Division 46 was set up to the left, with two Fletchers and two Hoels, while Destroyer Division 45 (historically led by the dashing Arliegh Burke) was represented by four Kidds on the right. All the US ships were set up two per square with like ships together.
The Japanese deployment also resembled the historical formation. In the center were the Myoko and the Nachi (representing the Haguro). On the Japanese left was Destroyer Squadron 3 with the Jintsu (representing Sendai) and three Shigure-class destroyers. On the Japansese right was an ad hoc destroyer squadron with the light cruiser Yahagi (representing Agano), and the three destroyers Yukikaze, Isokaze and Akitsuki representing sister ships or near sisters.
Initially I wondered if this would be a fair matchup, as the Japanese force out-pointed the US force significantly (23 points or more than a cruiser's worth), but events proved that the points didn't tell the whole story in this matchup. For one thing, some of the Japanese ships are notoriously miscosted (Myoko and Jintsu) . For another, the special "darkness" conditions and OB meant quite a few SAs were useless and others (notably Night Fighter and Radar Fire Control) enhanced in importance.
Finally, the US ships had a small, but significant edge in toughness, that was of increased importance under the darkness rules. All the US destroyers had an armor value of 3 compared to 2 for the Japanese DDs, which meant that most US shots (often radar directed) would cause damage while much of the Japanese return fire (darkness-hobbled) missed. The same thing happened between the dueling cruisers. The Japanese armor values of 3 and 4 were too low to stop 8-die radar-directed shots from causing damage while the Japanese return fire often couldn't quite match the Cleveland's 5, especially if the darkness penalty applied.
The biggest wild card was the Long Lance torpedoes. These were unaffected by darkness and were big-enough to sink any US ship with a single hit and too long-ranged to avoid. A lot would come down to how lucky the Japanese rolled.
The Japanese battle plan mirrored the historical plan, which was to send all three squadron forward towards the objectives. The US plan also resembled history, with the two destroyer squadrons moving out to contest objectives and flank the Japanese while the cruisers hung back a little.
Like the historical battle, the fight turned into three separate engagements. On the US left, Japanese right, the American 46th DesDiv was defeated by the Ad Hoc Japanese squadron, with three US DDs sunk and one crippled. Concentrated US fire managed to sink the one Night Fighter Japanese DD, but the Japanese seized the objective. They ignored the crippled US Fletcher in order to try to help the embattled Japanese center.
On the other end of the line, the radar-equipped US DesDiv 45 chewed up Japanese Destroyer Squadron 3, wiping it out although not without loss. One Kidd was sunk and two were crippled before it was over, but the US got the objective.
In the center the two Japanese heavies were no match for the radar-quipped Clevelands. They had no luck with their Long Lances until reinforced by the Yahagi group, which sunk a Cleveland with one. The only other damage to the Clevelands was a single damage point caused by a shot from the Myoko. Meanwhile the Clevelands thoroughly shot-up the Japanese CAs and then the Yahagi and its two surviving DDs when the showed up.
The final score was 184 points for the US (134 in sunk IJN ships, plus one Objective) and just 91 for the Japanese (41 in ships -- CL, 3xDD -- and one Objective). One Objective was unclaimed. The surviving Japanese DD was a cripple, as were three US DDs. One US CL had a damage point.
Overall I think this demonstrates that it's a surprisingly even fight in War at Sea terms. Because I followed the historical deployment and general orders, I wouldn't say that either side's play was optimal, but it does appear that the Japanese point advantage is more apparent than real.
Right off the top, I had to come to terms with the inability of War at Sea to replicate the historical outcome -- which was a very confused affair that resulted in relatively light losses for the intensity of the fighting and was an American victory. In game terms the Japanese lost one light cruiser and one destroyer, although the destroyer was doomed because of a collision, which WAS makes no provision for. One US destroyer was a mission kill (stern blown off) but didn't sink due to heroic damage control efforts. Wargames have an inherent tendency to be bloodier than real-life fighting and War at Sea is on the bloodier end of the spectrum as far as wargames go. There's no game benefit for force preservation and indeed, a standard battle can't end until some significant portion of at least one fleet is sunk.
Instead I would be satisfied to replicate the general strategy each side followed and have an interesting fight.
The total value of the Japanese force was 145 points and the US force weighed in at 128 points, so I set it up as a 100-point game with three 50-point objective markers. Because no landforms figured in the historic fight, I used the sea map with no islands.
One notable aspect of the historical fight was that it was fought in darkness on a moonless night, so I used the official "darkness" rules from the Oct. 6, 2009 revisions and clarifications document on the Axis & Allies Web page.
Because of the OB and the darkness conditions, a number of the special abilities were inapplicable in this scenario, making the point values somewhat suspect in any case. Special abilities such as Chase the Salvoes, Antiair Specialist and Extended Range 4 were not possible to use, and quite a few others which might have been used, such as Lucky Escape and Lay Smoke Screen, didn't come up.
As a matter of fact, there were just a half-dozen special abilities that played a role, but they ended up being very important. They were:
Flotilla Leader (Yahagi) and Flagship 1 (Yahagi, Myoko, Jinstu). These basically guaranteed the Japanese would have the initiative and in the actual 4-turn battle the Japanese never lost initiative.
Long-Lance Torpedoes (All 10 Japanese ships) This meant that any torpdeo hit on a US ship was an instant kill, and while not part of the SA, all LL-equipped have a torpedo range of 3 which means they cannot be out-ranged by guns in a night scenario.
Night Fighter (Myoko, Jintsu, Yukikaze) The reroll didn't come into play because the scenario didn't last long enough, but the Night Fighter ability cancelled the darkness gunnery penalty, which was vital. The Japanese suffered because only three ships had this SA.
Radar Fire Control (Clevelands and Kidds). This also cancelled the darkness penalty and provided an extra die for gunnery to boot. This was very important, especially because two-thirds of the US fleet had the SA.
Rapid Fire (Hoels). Only used once, but it made the difference in a shot, sinking a Japanese destroyer.
Both sides were set up roughly historically.
The four US Clevelands (representing Cruiser Division 12) were set up in the center of their deployment area. Destroyer Division 46 was set up to the left, with two Fletchers and two Hoels, while Destroyer Division 45 (historically led by the dashing Arliegh Burke) was represented by four Kidds on the right. All the US ships were set up two per square with like ships together.
The Japanese deployment also resembled the historical formation. In the center were the Myoko and the Nachi (representing the Haguro). On the Japanese left was Destroyer Squadron 3 with the Jintsu (representing Sendai) and three Shigure-class destroyers. On the Japansese right was an ad hoc destroyer squadron with the light cruiser Yahagi (representing Agano), and the three destroyers Yukikaze, Isokaze and Akitsuki representing sister ships or near sisters.
Initially I wondered if this would be a fair matchup, as the Japanese force out-pointed the US force significantly (23 points or more than a cruiser's worth), but events proved that the points didn't tell the whole story in this matchup. For one thing, some of the Japanese ships are notoriously miscosted (Myoko and Jintsu) . For another, the special "darkness" conditions and OB meant quite a few SAs were useless and others (notably Night Fighter and Radar Fire Control) enhanced in importance.
Finally, the US ships had a small, but significant edge in toughness, that was of increased importance under the darkness rules. All the US destroyers had an armor value of 3 compared to 2 for the Japanese DDs, which meant that most US shots (often radar directed) would cause damage while much of the Japanese return fire (darkness-hobbled) missed. The same thing happened between the dueling cruisers. The Japanese armor values of 3 and 4 were too low to stop 8-die radar-directed shots from causing damage while the Japanese return fire often couldn't quite match the Cleveland's 5, especially if the darkness penalty applied.
The biggest wild card was the Long Lance torpedoes. These were unaffected by darkness and were big-enough to sink any US ship with a single hit and too long-ranged to avoid. A lot would come down to how lucky the Japanese rolled.
The Japanese battle plan mirrored the historical plan, which was to send all three squadron forward towards the objectives. The US plan also resembled history, with the two destroyer squadrons moving out to contest objectives and flank the Japanese while the cruisers hung back a little.
Like the historical battle, the fight turned into three separate engagements. On the US left, Japanese right, the American 46th DesDiv was defeated by the Ad Hoc Japanese squadron, with three US DDs sunk and one crippled. Concentrated US fire managed to sink the one Night Fighter Japanese DD, but the Japanese seized the objective. They ignored the crippled US Fletcher in order to try to help the embattled Japanese center.
On the other end of the line, the radar-equipped US DesDiv 45 chewed up Japanese Destroyer Squadron 3, wiping it out although not without loss. One Kidd was sunk and two were crippled before it was over, but the US got the objective.
In the center the two Japanese heavies were no match for the radar-quipped Clevelands. They had no luck with their Long Lances until reinforced by the Yahagi group, which sunk a Cleveland with one. The only other damage to the Clevelands was a single damage point caused by a shot from the Myoko. Meanwhile the Clevelands thoroughly shot-up the Japanese CAs and then the Yahagi and its two surviving DDs when the showed up.
The final score was 184 points for the US (134 in sunk IJN ships, plus one Objective) and just 91 for the Japanese (41 in ships -- CL, 3xDD -- and one Objective). One Objective was unclaimed. The surviving Japanese DD was a cripple, as were three US DDs. One US CL had a damage point.
Overall I think this demonstrates that it's a surprisingly even fight in War at Sea terms. Because I followed the historical deployment and general orders, I wouldn't say that either side's play was optimal, but it does appear that the Japanese point advantage is more apparent than real.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Ogre's premise
Looking over Steve Jackson's Ogre today, I wondered if it's central premise makes sense anymore, given the way technology has evolved.
A key premise of Ogre is that an artificial intelligence robot tank would be a powerful weapon, but the trend these days seems to suggest dispersion, rather than a concentration of power will be the effect of advances in computing. Ogre was designed in a pre-PC age, when mainframes were room-sized, so it made sense that you might need a large, heavily armored tank to carry it.
But now it appears that small, maybe even "nano" bots are more practical.
A key premise of Ogre is that an artificial intelligence robot tank would be a powerful weapon, but the trend these days seems to suggest dispersion, rather than a concentration of power will be the effect of advances in computing. Ogre was designed in a pre-PC age, when mainframes were room-sized, so it made sense that you might need a large, heavily armored tank to carry it.
But now it appears that small, maybe even "nano" bots are more practical.
Empress Augusta Bay in War at Sea
Japanese heavy cruiser MyokoIt's possible to closely match the order of battle for this evenly matched battle of Nov. 2, 1943, using War at Sea ships. Night rules should be used.
The US Order of battle is pretty easy.
Four Clevelands (Cleveland, Columbia, Denver and Montpelier, 16 each)
Eight Fletchers and/or Hoels and/or Kidds (Charles Ausburne, Dyson, Stanly, Claxton, Spence, Thatcher, Converse, and Foote -- 7 as Fletchers, 8 as Kidds, 9 as Hoels)
Total of 128 points assuming an average of 8 between Fletchers, Kidds and Hoels.
The Japanese OB requires one close class substitution, but otherwise is also pretty accurate.
Myoko (24 points)
Haguro (use Nachi, 19 points)
Agano (use Yahagi, 14 points)
Sendai (use Jintsu, 19 points)
Shigure (12 points)
Shiratsuyu (use Shigure, 12 points)
Samidare (use Shigure, 12 points)
Hatsukake (use Isokaze, 11 points)
Naganami (use Yukikaze, close class substitute, 12 points)
Wakatsuki (use Akizuki, 10 points)
Total Japanese force is 145 points., but a couple of Japanese ships are probably overcosted so it may be more even than it appears.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Principles of wargaming
Drawing up lists of so-called "Principles of War" have been a past time for strategists for a long time -- since Sun Tzu a couple of millennium ago at least.
Whether it's the pithy Maxims of Napoleon or a whole book-length treatment of the subject like von Clausewitz, coming up with universally applicable principles has proven elusive. A big part of the problem is disentangling the principles of war (which are by definition timeless) from the tactical conditions of the day, especially when those tactical conditions may be very important indeed to the success or failure of a given strategy. Yet the search goes on.
The the extent that wargames accurately reflect the conditions of war, one would expect the principles of war to have some application and I think you do find that they do, but the peculiar conditions of wargames tend to in crease the relative value and importance of some principles while decreasing others.
The principles of war used by the U.S. military currently are objective, offensive, mass, economy of force, maneuver, unity of command, security, surprise and simplicity (as stated in Joint Pub 1 -- Joint Warfare of the US Armed Forces). These principles are not listed in strict order of importance, but they are in rough level of general importance in this list. Every official publication that list these principles or anything similar is always careful to say something like "in all cases, the principles are applied broadly, avoiding literal or dogmatic construction."
That said, I think we can see that some principles seem more obviously and generally applicable across the wargame table than in real life, whereas some important real-life applications of the principles have little relevance to tabletop wargaming.
Objective -- This is one that I think does retain its importance on the wargame table. In a phrase: victory conditions. In real life the challenge is not merely to keep focuses on the objective, but one of the high arts of actual generalship is determining what the objective is. The wargamer has it easier than his real-life counterparts in this regard, because How to Win is explicitly defined, so in this sense the wargamer is more like a subordinate commander in actual operations who is ordered to "Take That Hill" without regard for whether that hill is actually important. Still, one of the easiest and most common mistakes on the wargame table is for a player to lose sight of what the victory conditions are, in the heat of battle, so it does bear in mind keeping this principle in mind -- everything you do should keep in mind the victory conditions.
Offensive -- This principle is of high importance in real-life warfare, but of very doubtful general applicability in wargames. In actual operations it's accepted that final success is dependent on accomplishing some positive goal. A strong defense is to be followed up with an offensive in order to win, for any defense can eventually be overcome. But there are many, many wargames where one side or the other is cast into a defensive role and making an offensive move is not only unwise, but positively dangerous. A well-known example would be the Dunngian wargame Drive on Metz, where it's almost impossible for the Germans to muster the odds to a successful attack and even if they did, it would almost never be a good idea. In wargames where either side can seize the initiative it's still important, but it can't really be considered a principle if it's so situationally dependent. Offensive drops near the bottom of any list of principles of wargaming.
Mass -- Wargaames are, in large measure , all about this principle of war, almost above any other. The forte for wargames is depicting the massing of combat power at the decisive point. So if anything, compared to real life generalship, mass assumes an extra degree of importance in wargames.
Economy of Force -- This is the flip side of Mass, and may be even more emphasized in wargames than it is in real life generalship. The basic idea to to avoid dissipating your strength in secondary efforts in order to achieve Mass. In real life warfare calibrating exactly how much force is just enough is an uncertain business and precision can't be expected. In contrast, it's a big part of good wargame play, especially for traditional hex-and-counter wargames where calculating the exact factors needed for the most effective attacks is vital.
Maneuver -- In actual operations this is generally interpreted to mean trying to gain an advantage in mobility in order to support achieving Mass, and as such is a kind of supporting principle. Proponents of Maneuver Warfare and the Indirect Approach theories that gained popularity in the 20th Century like to emphasis the ability of astute maneuvering to achieve success at less cost in blood and treasure than hard fighting, but all successful maneuver culminates in the application of mass at the decisive point, so I don't see a conflict between these principles. And in wargames Maneuver is inextricably with Mass and Economy of Force as each factor is reflected on the wargame table. Allowing your forces to get pinned down so that they lose the freedom of maneuver can make it hard to achieve Mass elsewhere and obviously violates Economy of Force as well. As wargames are mostly about moving pieces on the board, this has to be considered a principle of elevated importance.
Unity of Command -- This is another critical factor in real life operations, but it has minimal applicability in most wargames. Indeed, even real life battles where Unity of Command was a major issue often see it much reduced in importance in wargames covering the topic. A 2-player Waterloo game is naturally not going to have the same kind of coordination problems (even with a pile of special rules) as Wellington and Blucher experienced. To the extent the Unity of Command issues are introduced in wargames, such as in multiplayer games) the aim is to increase the confusion to reflect reality. Overall, this is definitely the least important principle of wargames and probably even drops off the list.
Security and Surprise -- This pair of principles are really two sides of the same coin. Security is basically guarding against surprise and taking those deception measures you can in order to surprise the enemy. In real life military operations achieving surprise is highly sought after because of the extreme multiplicative effect. In Numbers, Predictions & War Col. T.N. Dupuy's model for predicting combat outcomes suggests surprise can double of triple the combat power of a force. Even in wargames that devote considerable attention to Fog of War such as block wargames and wargames with hidden movement systems the effect of surprise is likely to be much less dramatic. A big reason for this is that the players have much better knowledge of the possible universe of outcomes than real life warriors do. In a wargame it's almost impossible to replicate the kind of complete surprise experienced when something happens that you didn't even consider possible -- or considered and rejected as impossible -- happens. About the only time that experience happens is when you forget a rule -- and no one considers that a positive thing in wargames and players are likely to consider that as ruining the game result when it does. If Surprise plays a small role in wargames, it stand to reason that Security would be diminished as well. Neither principle disappears, but they aren't usually game breakers, although they do play a bigger role in block games and the like.
Simplicity -- The final principle of war on the US military's list, is also a minor principle, largely for the same reasons that minimize Unity of Command. The player is just one mind, or at most one of a handful of minds, controlling the activity of his side's forces and therefore doesn't face all the complications that introducing large numbers of unpredictable human beings into the mix does for real-life commanders. There's still some virtue in simple plans over complicated ones, because the friction of tabletop wargaming is still increased by the number of moving parts, but it's several orders of magnitude less than real-life command and many wargame designs introduce special rules in order to lessen the ability of players to micromanage their armies. Still, the wargamer can plan and execute far more intricate operations with his troops than even the most optimistic commander would attempt with his best-trained, elite veterans.
Bottom line -- If adapted to the wargame table, the principles would need to have their order of importance adjusted to the reality of wargame generalship. I'd suggest the revised order of principles to be as follows -- First Tier (always applicable) : Objective, Mass, Maneuver, Economy of Force; Second Tier (applicable in some games): Surprise, Security, Offensive, Simplicity. Unity of Command is off the list. Thoughts?
Whether it's the pithy Maxims of Napoleon or a whole book-length treatment of the subject like von Clausewitz, coming up with universally applicable principles has proven elusive. A big part of the problem is disentangling the principles of war (which are by definition timeless) from the tactical conditions of the day, especially when those tactical conditions may be very important indeed to the success or failure of a given strategy. Yet the search goes on.
The the extent that wargames accurately reflect the conditions of war, one would expect the principles of war to have some application and I think you do find that they do, but the peculiar conditions of wargames tend to in crease the relative value and importance of some principles while decreasing others.
The principles of war used by the U.S. military currently are objective, offensive, mass, economy of force, maneuver, unity of command, security, surprise and simplicity (as stated in Joint Pub 1 -- Joint Warfare of the US Armed Forces). These principles are not listed in strict order of importance, but they are in rough level of general importance in this list. Every official publication that list these principles or anything similar is always careful to say something like "in all cases, the principles are applied broadly, avoiding literal or dogmatic construction."
That said, I think we can see that some principles seem more obviously and generally applicable across the wargame table than in real life, whereas some important real-life applications of the principles have little relevance to tabletop wargaming.
Objective -- This is one that I think does retain its importance on the wargame table. In a phrase: victory conditions. In real life the challenge is not merely to keep focuses on the objective, but one of the high arts of actual generalship is determining what the objective is. The wargamer has it easier than his real-life counterparts in this regard, because How to Win is explicitly defined, so in this sense the wargamer is more like a subordinate commander in actual operations who is ordered to "Take That Hill" without regard for whether that hill is actually important. Still, one of the easiest and most common mistakes on the wargame table is for a player to lose sight of what the victory conditions are, in the heat of battle, so it does bear in mind keeping this principle in mind -- everything you do should keep in mind the victory conditions.
Offensive -- This principle is of high importance in real-life warfare, but of very doubtful general applicability in wargames. In actual operations it's accepted that final success is dependent on accomplishing some positive goal. A strong defense is to be followed up with an offensive in order to win, for any defense can eventually be overcome. But there are many, many wargames where one side or the other is cast into a defensive role and making an offensive move is not only unwise, but positively dangerous. A well-known example would be the Dunngian wargame Drive on Metz, where it's almost impossible for the Germans to muster the odds to a successful attack and even if they did, it would almost never be a good idea. In wargames where either side can seize the initiative it's still important, but it can't really be considered a principle if it's so situationally dependent. Offensive drops near the bottom of any list of principles of wargaming.
Mass -- Wargaames are, in large measure , all about this principle of war, almost above any other. The forte for wargames is depicting the massing of combat power at the decisive point. So if anything, compared to real life generalship, mass assumes an extra degree of importance in wargames.
Economy of Force -- This is the flip side of Mass, and may be even more emphasized in wargames than it is in real life generalship. The basic idea to to avoid dissipating your strength in secondary efforts in order to achieve Mass. In real life warfare calibrating exactly how much force is just enough is an uncertain business and precision can't be expected. In contrast, it's a big part of good wargame play, especially for traditional hex-and-counter wargames where calculating the exact factors needed for the most effective attacks is vital.
Maneuver -- In actual operations this is generally interpreted to mean trying to gain an advantage in mobility in order to support achieving Mass, and as such is a kind of supporting principle. Proponents of Maneuver Warfare and the Indirect Approach theories that gained popularity in the 20th Century like to emphasis the ability of astute maneuvering to achieve success at less cost in blood and treasure than hard fighting, but all successful maneuver culminates in the application of mass at the decisive point, so I don't see a conflict between these principles. And in wargames Maneuver is inextricably with Mass and Economy of Force as each factor is reflected on the wargame table. Allowing your forces to get pinned down so that they lose the freedom of maneuver can make it hard to achieve Mass elsewhere and obviously violates Economy of Force as well. As wargames are mostly about moving pieces on the board, this has to be considered a principle of elevated importance.
Unity of Command -- This is another critical factor in real life operations, but it has minimal applicability in most wargames. Indeed, even real life battles where Unity of Command was a major issue often see it much reduced in importance in wargames covering the topic. A 2-player Waterloo game is naturally not going to have the same kind of coordination problems (even with a pile of special rules) as Wellington and Blucher experienced. To the extent the Unity of Command issues are introduced in wargames, such as in multiplayer games) the aim is to increase the confusion to reflect reality. Overall, this is definitely the least important principle of wargames and probably even drops off the list.
Security and Surprise -- This pair of principles are really two sides of the same coin. Security is basically guarding against surprise and taking those deception measures you can in order to surprise the enemy. In real life military operations achieving surprise is highly sought after because of the extreme multiplicative effect. In Numbers, Predictions & War Col. T.N. Dupuy's model for predicting combat outcomes suggests surprise can double of triple the combat power of a force. Even in wargames that devote considerable attention to Fog of War such as block wargames and wargames with hidden movement systems the effect of surprise is likely to be much less dramatic. A big reason for this is that the players have much better knowledge of the possible universe of outcomes than real life warriors do. In a wargame it's almost impossible to replicate the kind of complete surprise experienced when something happens that you didn't even consider possible -- or considered and rejected as impossible -- happens. About the only time that experience happens is when you forget a rule -- and no one considers that a positive thing in wargames and players are likely to consider that as ruining the game result when it does. If Surprise plays a small role in wargames, it stand to reason that Security would be diminished as well. Neither principle disappears, but they aren't usually game breakers, although they do play a bigger role in block games and the like.
Simplicity -- The final principle of war on the US military's list, is also a minor principle, largely for the same reasons that minimize Unity of Command. The player is just one mind, or at most one of a handful of minds, controlling the activity of his side's forces and therefore doesn't face all the complications that introducing large numbers of unpredictable human beings into the mix does for real-life commanders. There's still some virtue in simple plans over complicated ones, because the friction of tabletop wargaming is still increased by the number of moving parts, but it's several orders of magnitude less than real-life command and many wargame designs introduce special rules in order to lessen the ability of players to micromanage their armies. Still, the wargamer can plan and execute far more intricate operations with his troops than even the most optimistic commander would attempt with his best-trained, elite veterans.
Bottom line -- If adapted to the wargame table, the principles would need to have their order of importance adjusted to the reality of wargame generalship. I'd suggest the revised order of principles to be as follows -- First Tier (always applicable) : Objective, Mass, Maneuver, Economy of Force; Second Tier (applicable in some games): Surprise, Security, Offensive, Simplicity. Unity of Command is off the list. Thoughts?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Martin Wallace's Waterloo: A dramatization of the famous battle in game terms
After playing a few times solitaire and against live opponents, I think a review of Martin Wallace's unusual Waterloo game is in order.
The game caused quite a stir when first announced, especially when Mr. Wallace indicated it was going to be a limited run special edition. Wallace is a justly well-regarded eurogame designer, with some big hits in that field, but Waterloo was his first foray into wargaming.
And there's no mistake, Waterloo is definitely a wargame, although a highly innovative one, and not a merely Waterloo-themed Martin Wallace game. This caused some confusion among many Wallace fans, it appears, and not a little disappointment, as the game wasn't what many of them were expecting. It's not some super-elegant, stripped down intriguing game-puzzle of the sort prized among many eurogamers. Waterloo is full of the sort of procedures, modifiers, exceptions and quirky rules wargamers are used to seeing as their games try to wrestle the chaos of battle into some sort of game system.
On the other hand, Waterloo is not a simulation. In his designer's notes (another wargame staple rarely seen in euros) Wallace expressly denies any simulation intent and says there was no attempt to, for example, make his Napoleonic meeples represent a certain number of troops each or specific military units. But his rules do take into account the different arms of Napoleonic era warfare (infantry, artillery and cavalry) and the importance of troop quality (various rules benefit or penalize Imperial Guard, British, Dutch and Prussian Landwehr, for example).
So if not purely a game, and yet not really a simulation, then what is it? I'd say it's a dramatization of the Battle of Waterloo in game form, more than anything else. I think this characterization accounts for some of the details that euro-conditioned Wallace fans may have found so off-putting. There's a lot of little modifiers to remember and some of them may not make a lot of sense in game terms, but do in dramatization terms. While Wallace denies that there's a simulation going on, his rules do penalize British guns -- not because they were poor, but because there actually were not so many of them as he provides. He explains that they were spread out across the British front, a well-known fact to wargamers. Likewise there are rules for forming squares. Not because they're particularly relevant from a simulation point of view (few wargames set at this level -- roughly brigades -- use squares. that was tactic for battalions) but because, I suspect the British squares at Waterloo were too famous and dramatic element to leave out.
The game itself is probably best known for its use of Napoleonic "Meeple-style" wooden figures to represent the leaders, cannons, cavalrymen and infantry troops. This is not the only unusual aspect of the game, or even the most innovative, but it does illustrate the fresh approach Wallace took to the whole wargame genre -- something that I think many wargamers may have been uncomfortable with. Wallace's design accomplishes many of the same design goals of traditional wargames but gets there in fresh ways. For example, casualty markers and step losses have been seen before, but not quite in the same way as Wallace's use of damage cubes which sort of float around until a moment of truth requires them to be allocated.
Some love the Meeples, some hate them, but they are different. Myself, I think they're charming but they're not just there for decoration. Wallace uses their physical characteristics to include more dramatic elements while avoiding a lot of messy markers or rules. The British troops famously lay down to avoid artillery fire -- the player can lay his meeples down for defensive benefit. Blown cavalry mounts figure in most accounts -- so players may find their fresh upright cavalry units reduced to a "tired" status and have to lay them on their side.
And so it goes throughout the design. Although eschewing the rigors of simulation pretension, the game falls well within the mainstream of Waterloo presentations. One can quibble with design points on simulation grounds, but the overall effect is not "off" in any major way, except perhaps for pacing. It seems to unfold a little too fast, but that may be a function of player inexperience. I think casualty rates may decline a bit as players learn how to avoid costly blunders.
And the game is as intertwined with the history that it represents as any detailed simulation might be, so it's far from treating its theme as a decorative device far removed from the core game elements. Treating all the strongholds alike would have been simpler, for example, but instead each of the three key natural bastions in front of Wellington's line -- Hougoumont, La Haye Sainte and Papelotte -- has its own flavor, based on their historical impact.
Martin Wallace's Waterloo, not unlike Bowen Simmons' equally fresh (although systemically quite different) Bonaparte at Marengo/Napoleon's Triumph, shows there are different ways to skin the cat of Napoleonic wargaming other than hexagons and cardboard counters. From a wargaming design perspective it's an interesting design that questions some conventions and assumptions underlying conventional wargames.
And from a game player's perspective, the game succeeds in providing a very intense and involving and dramatic experience that does evoke the colorful aspects of Waterloo. British squares and impetuous cavalry charges, stalwart Prussians rushing to join the fray, Napoleon's grand battery blasting away and the Imperial Guard pressing forth to carry the day -- or perhaps La Garde Recule!
The physical presentation is absolutely first-rate, far above typical wargame fare and matching many of the nicer euros. As mentioned, the meeple troops will be a hurdle for some, but they do serve a useful game purpose while providing a distinctive look.
I'm very pleased with the game. I certainly wouldn't claim it's the ultimate Waterloo simulation and it's not the only Waterloo game I own. It might be the only Waterloo game in a more game-oriented collection, though, and I'd call that an excellent choice.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Looney Labs casts its first stoner
In an interesting development, Looney Labs, best known for its loopy card game Fluxx and the various Pyramid games has started a whole new game company to market adult-themed games. Turns out Andy Looney (yeah, really his name) is a marijuana legalization activist, as well as game designer but felt that there was a growing conflict between his light-hearted Looney Labs line of game products (like Family Fluxx) and his activism on the marijuana issue. So he decided a clean break was in order, hence the new imprint Fully Baked Ideas.
The initial product for the new line is a new edition of Stoner Fluxx, which is, naturally, a pot-themed version of Fluxx. Stoner Fluxx is being removed from the main Looney Labs line and won't be mentioned on its Web site or catalog.
Given how crazy a Fluxx game is anyway, it might very well be even more amusing to try playing it while stoned. Looney reports they're working on a drinking-themed version of Fluxx as well, although I suspect more than a few game groups play an alcohol-enhanced version on their own anyway.
(Optional explanation -0- skip if you know how to play Fluxx) Fluxx is a card game of ever-changing rules. The game starts with just two rules: Draw a card and then play a card. But new rules can be played that change those rules or add to them. Some cards are Actions that allow you to do certain bonus things. Other cards are Keepers, which are played in front of the player and other cards are Goals, which specify the current winning conditions -- which usually involve having particular Keepers in play. A (usually) bad kind of card is a Creeper (a sort of anti-Keeper), which prevents a player from winning -- unless a Goal says otherwise! It' s all gloriously chaotic and occasionally confusing, but a lot of fun.
It will be interesting to see how this initiative pans out, but I think there's a growing sense among the public that the so-called war on drugs has been an irredeemable failure and medical-use marijuana has increasing support as well. This may be an issue of, er, growing relevance in the future.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Battle of the Flu
Been engaged in a knock-down, drag-out fight with the flu bug for the past four days, but finally emerged victorious. Nasty little bugger.
I hope to be back on track soon.
I hope to be back on track soon.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Drive on Metz -- differences between editions
Drive on Metz is an introductory wargame first published in 1980 inside the pages of prolific game designer James Dunnigan's book, The Complete Wargames Handbook. Since then the book as gone through several print editions and is also available for download at Dunnigan's Website. It may well be Dunnigan's last print wargame to see the market, so in a sense it represents the distilled essence of his design philosophy.
It might have remained a bit of a curiosity, except in 2007 it reappeared -- in not one, but two brand-new print editions!
In one case it appears as a full-fledged wargame inside the pages of GMT's C3i Magazine, issue No. 20., on a countersheet otherwise filled out with variant and bonus counters for more than a half dozen other wargames.
The other edition is a more deluxe. stand-alone version of the game published by Victory Point Games.
None of the games differ substantively in the rules, although the sketchier rules found in Dunnigan's book are filled out a bit in the magazine version and much more in the stand-alone version, which includes more examples of play.
The game itself depicts the attempt by a US corps in Patton's Third Army to seize the ancient city of Metz before the disorganized Germans can react. The Germans forces are a hodge podge of units, seriously understrength, attempt to stop them.
Normally a wargame about a battle at this scale would be set at the battalion level in order to give each player a substantial number of units, but Dunnigan's aim is to keep things simple and one way he does this is by bumping the scale up a notch, the regimental level. This results is just eight US pieces battling 10 German units at the start, plus one reinforcement. Combat is handled with a D6 die roll on a differential combat results table. American units range from a 4 to a 7 in combat strength, while the Germans are 1s, 2s or 3s. The battlefield is full of restrictive terrain, with forests, hills, forts, cities and a couple of major rivers aiding the Germans.
The components:
Counters
Book -- Half-inch counters that you'll have to photocopy, cut out and past onto cardboard to use. The American units are black print on white, the Germans are black print on gray. An optional counter for the US 502d Airborne regiment is mentioned i the rules, but not provided. There's also a game turn marker.
C3i -- Half-inch counters that you can punch out. The American units are multi-colored on green, with two optional units, the 502d and an additional infantry regiment. The German units are multi-colored on gray for the regular army units and white on black for the SS. The German units are backprinted with a combat value one higher than their standard value for use in a variant. Besides the game-turn marker, there are markers to mark the capture of the cities of Thionville and Metz, which are worth VPs.
VPG -- Three-quarter inch counters to punch out. The American and Germans are colored much like the C3i version, but here the German variant units are separate counters. Again there are markers for the capture of Metz and Thionville and for the game turn.
Dice
In all versions the player has to provide a six-sided die.
Map
Book -- The map is on back and white on an 8 1/2-inch by 5 1/2 inch page in the book. To play it will need to be photocopied.
C3i -- The map is in color on a 17-inch by 8 1/2-inch paper surface, with the actual map taking up half the area and the rest being fileld with charts and tables needed for play.
VPG -- The map is in color on a 17-inch by 8 1/2-inch cardstock surface. The actual map takes up about 60 percent of the area, with the tables and charts making up the rest.
Rules
Book -- 12 pages of rules in the book.
C3i -- Six magazine-sized pages as an insert.
VPG -- Six magazine-sized pages
Extras
Book -- Well, besides a 332-page book on the design, history and play of wargames, the book includes a 15-page illustrated example of play.
C3i -- A 48-page magazine with inserts, but nothing else directly related to the game.
VPG -- A four magazine-sized illustrated example of play. A setup map. A small insert about computer versions of the game.
Price
Book -- It's free online, but the map and counters are rather poor-quality scans from the book. The 3rd edition of the book is listed at $23.95, but Amazon lists it as low as $16.
C3i -- Included in the magazine, which is $20.
VPG -- List price is $19.95, but currently on sale at $12.95.
There's not much to choose from in price between the different editions, although I think the Victory Point Games edition is probably the best value unless you also own some of the GMT games featured in the magazine, like Asia Engulfed, Flying Colors, Command & Colors Ancients, Down in Flames, etc. The book version is free, of course, if you download it, but more work to prepare.
It might have remained a bit of a curiosity, except in 2007 it reappeared -- in not one, but two brand-new print editions!
In one case it appears as a full-fledged wargame inside the pages of GMT's C3i Magazine, issue No. 20., on a countersheet otherwise filled out with variant and bonus counters for more than a half dozen other wargames.
The other edition is a more deluxe. stand-alone version of the game published by Victory Point Games.
None of the games differ substantively in the rules, although the sketchier rules found in Dunnigan's book are filled out a bit in the magazine version and much more in the stand-alone version, which includes more examples of play.
The game itself depicts the attempt by a US corps in Patton's Third Army to seize the ancient city of Metz before the disorganized Germans can react. The Germans forces are a hodge podge of units, seriously understrength, attempt to stop them.
Normally a wargame about a battle at this scale would be set at the battalion level in order to give each player a substantial number of units, but Dunnigan's aim is to keep things simple and one way he does this is by bumping the scale up a notch, the regimental level. This results is just eight US pieces battling 10 German units at the start, plus one reinforcement. Combat is handled with a D6 die roll on a differential combat results table. American units range from a 4 to a 7 in combat strength, while the Germans are 1s, 2s or 3s. The battlefield is full of restrictive terrain, with forests, hills, forts, cities and a couple of major rivers aiding the Germans.
The components:
Counters
Book -- Half-inch counters that you'll have to photocopy, cut out and past onto cardboard to use. The American units are black print on white, the Germans are black print on gray. An optional counter for the US 502d Airborne regiment is mentioned i the rules, but not provided. There's also a game turn marker.
C3i -- Half-inch counters that you can punch out. The American units are multi-colored on green, with two optional units, the 502d and an additional infantry regiment. The German units are multi-colored on gray for the regular army units and white on black for the SS. The German units are backprinted with a combat value one higher than their standard value for use in a variant. Besides the game-turn marker, there are markers to mark the capture of the cities of Thionville and Metz, which are worth VPs.
VPG -- Three-quarter inch counters to punch out. The American and Germans are colored much like the C3i version, but here the German variant units are separate counters. Again there are markers for the capture of Metz and Thionville and for the game turn.
Dice
In all versions the player has to provide a six-sided die.
Map
Book -- The map is on back and white on an 8 1/2-inch by 5 1/2 inch page in the book. To play it will need to be photocopied.
C3i -- The map is in color on a 17-inch by 8 1/2-inch paper surface, with the actual map taking up half the area and the rest being fileld with charts and tables needed for play.
VPG -- The map is in color on a 17-inch by 8 1/2-inch cardstock surface. The actual map takes up about 60 percent of the area, with the tables and charts making up the rest.
Rules
Book -- 12 pages of rules in the book.
C3i -- Six magazine-sized pages as an insert.
VPG -- Six magazine-sized pages
Extras
Book -- Well, besides a 332-page book on the design, history and play of wargames, the book includes a 15-page illustrated example of play.
C3i -- A 48-page magazine with inserts, but nothing else directly related to the game.
VPG -- A four magazine-sized illustrated example of play. A setup map. A small insert about computer versions of the game.
Price
Book -- It's free online, but the map and counters are rather poor-quality scans from the book. The 3rd edition of the book is listed at $23.95, but Amazon lists it as low as $16.
C3i -- Included in the magazine, which is $20.
VPG -- List price is $19.95, but currently on sale at $12.95.
There's not much to choose from in price between the different editions, although I think the Victory Point Games edition is probably the best value unless you also own some of the GMT games featured in the magazine, like Asia Engulfed, Flying Colors, Command & Colors Ancients, Down in Flames, etc. The book version is free, of course, if you download it, but more work to prepare.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Gameplay magazine
Today's project was a Geeklist on Boardgame Geek about Gameplay magazine, which appeared from 1983-84.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Munchkin Impossible -- The Door Deck
Continuing my ruminations on Munchkin Impossible.
In Munchkin-series games treasure cards are important, but it's Door cards that you interact with very turn. The very first thing a character does is open a door and, if no monster is present and none brought out of the hand to fight, a second door card is drawn while "looting the room."
Monsters -- 37 cards with nominal levels ranging from 1 to 20 broken down as follows: Five each Level 1 & 2; Four each Level 4,6 & 8; three each Level 10, 12, 14 & 16; Two Level 18 and one Level 20. I say "nominal" because 50 of them have bonuses and/or penalties depending upon the class, gender, loyalty or other characteristics of the player character fighting them.
Discussion -- In keeping with the general lack of inspiration in this particular set, I didn't find any of the "monster" names (and monster seems an odd name for them anyway) especially funny. I mean "Dr. Maybe" is a pretty lame and obvious joke. There's nothing half as funny as the "Space Goats" of Star Munchkin for example. Four of the monsters are "(monster) in black" which allows them to be reinforced in a fight by other "in black" monsters which provides some limited scope for thwarting a player's bid for victory is he's incautious enough to try to beat an "in black" creature for his 10th level. The "in black" thing is odd, though, because that's more of a Sci Fi thing than a Spy genre thing. Two monsters are "undead" which has no effect in MI but may in a blended game.
Loyalty -- 12 cards. Three each of American, British, Chinese and Russian. Loyalty is a new attribute in the Munchkin series, but operates much like a class, providing certain benefits. For example American Loyalty allows you to use one extra hand's worth of items and get a 300 gold piece bonus when selling items for levels. A player can have just one loyalty unless allowed by another card (such as Double Agent) to have more.
Discussion -- American, British and Russian loyalties all have good and obvious advantages, but the Chinese loyalty's edge seems kind of underpowered. You can take a Level 1 or 2 monster off the top of the discard pile at the beginning of your turn, if it happens to be there and there's no limit to to the number of minions you can have in play -- but there are only four minions in the game, so this isn't a big help either.
Trap! -- 11 cards. Nine of them may cause you to lose cards from your hand or on the table, two cost a level.
Discussion -- If encountered while opening doors, these can be annoying, but usually aren't too debilitating. With 11 in the deck they'll come up pretty often and only the Playboy class has any anti-trap ability. But if collected while looting the room these may be one of your few tools to stop an opponent's bid for victory. The two Lose a Level traps (Snake Pit and Shark Tank) are especially worth holding onto if you have it in the late game.
Class -- 9 cards. Three each of Assassin, Playboy and Tourist. Every Munchkin game includes class cards, if for no other reason than the opportunity to use the line "Everyone starts as a Level 1 character with no loyalty and no class. (heh heh)." Each class provides a couple of bonuses. A player can belong to only one class unless having a card that allows otherwise such as Super Munchkin.
Discussion -- With only three classes available the class attribute plays a smaller role in MI than the typical Munchkin game. All three classes have useful and obvious advantages, so there's little to choose from between them. Note that the British loyalty automatically provides them with the benefits of Playboy as long as they don't have another class, so Playboys will be the most common type in play.
Training -- 8 cards. These generally provide level bonuses either directly to the character (like Karate Training +4) or indirectly (Knife Training gives +3 per knife) although a couple provide other benefits. A character can have one training unless another card, such as Extra Training, allows more.
Discussion -- Training is another new attribute in the Munchkin series, providing a similar benefit as Style in Munchkin Fu.
Munchkins --8 cards. While not a formal category under the rules, these all operate in much the same way, allowing the player to "break" the rules by allowing additional classes (Super Munchkin) , loyalties (Double Agent and Triple Agent), items (Cheat) or training (Extra Training).
Discussion -- One of the core concepts underlying the design of the series, Munchkin-style cards are pretty common in this set and player characters with multiple loyalties, classes and extra training will be common.
Miscellaneous -- 7 cards. These provide a hodge-podge of benefits. All but one is one-use only.
Discussion -- Using these cards is situational, but most provide an unsubtle benefit like Scripted Escape which allows an automatic escape from combat if you fail your roll to run away. Gender changing is pretty far outside the spy genre, so MI only includes one sex-changing card, Discard Clever Disguise, which changes the player character's sex without penalty ("because you were really that sex all along"). Because of this, the usefulness of the two Seduce Enemy Agent cards will depend an awful lot on the composition of your gaming group, but if it's a bunch of guys then these may be nearly useless outside of a blended Munchkin game.
Monster enhancers -- 6 cards. Two are +10 to the monster's level, three are +5 and one is a -5 penalty.
Discussion --There are just a half dozen of these, so their rarity makes them valuable. The dramatic end-of-game-bid-for-victory that other players beat back is less common in MI than the other Munchkin games. It's hard to really juice up a monster to an unexpected degree.
Wandering Monster -- 2 cards. These allow a player to add another monster to a combat.
Discussion -- Most useful when trying to stop another player's bid for victory, it's also useful for jacking up the potential treasure haul by adding a second weak monster to a monster you can easily defeat. Still, given the shortage of means to thwart other players, it's probably best reserved for later use if you're in the middle or late stages of the game.
Overview.
Munchkin Impossible is the runt of the litter in the Munchkin Line. Thematically strained and humor-starved, Munchkin Impossible doesn't quite work and evidently has not been a sales success, attested to by its singular status as the one Munchkin game that didn't have an immediate expansion.
Still, the game is not without merit for certain groups. I think that it may, oddly enough, be a good gateway game in groups that have limited exposure to RPGs or highly competitive gaming in general. The spy genre does have the advantage of being widely recognizable outside gaming circles. While your Monopoly or Scrabble partner may not be familiar with Dwarves and Elves they have almost certainly seen at least one James Bond movie. Munchkin Impossible is more straightforward than other games in the line, and the lack of a lot of end-of-game interaction (which can get pretty hard to follow in a good Munchkin game) may be considered a feature, rather than a bug.
In Munchkin-series games treasure cards are important, but it's Door cards that you interact with very turn. The very first thing a character does is open a door and, if no monster is present and none brought out of the hand to fight, a second door card is drawn while "looting the room."
Monsters -- 37 cards with nominal levels ranging from 1 to 20 broken down as follows: Five each Level 1 & 2; Four each Level 4,6 & 8; three each Level 10, 12, 14 & 16; Two Level 18 and one Level 20. I say "nominal" because 50 of them have bonuses and/or penalties depending upon the class, gender, loyalty or other characteristics of the player character fighting them.
Discussion -- In keeping with the general lack of inspiration in this particular set, I didn't find any of the "monster" names (and monster seems an odd name for them anyway) especially funny. I mean "Dr. Maybe" is a pretty lame and obvious joke. There's nothing half as funny as the "Space Goats" of Star Munchkin for example. Four of the monsters are "(monster) in black" which allows them to be reinforced in a fight by other "in black" monsters which provides some limited scope for thwarting a player's bid for victory is he's incautious enough to try to beat an "in black" creature for his 10th level. The "in black" thing is odd, though, because that's more of a Sci Fi thing than a Spy genre thing. Two monsters are "undead" which has no effect in MI but may in a blended game.
Loyalty -- 12 cards. Three each of American, British, Chinese and Russian. Loyalty is a new attribute in the Munchkin series, but operates much like a class, providing certain benefits. For example American Loyalty allows you to use one extra hand's worth of items and get a 300 gold piece bonus when selling items for levels. A player can have just one loyalty unless allowed by another card (such as Double Agent) to have more.
Discussion -- American, British and Russian loyalties all have good and obvious advantages, but the Chinese loyalty's edge seems kind of underpowered. You can take a Level 1 or 2 monster off the top of the discard pile at the beginning of your turn, if it happens to be there and there's no limit to to the number of minions you can have in play -- but there are only four minions in the game, so this isn't a big help either.
Trap! -- 11 cards. Nine of them may cause you to lose cards from your hand or on the table, two cost a level.
Discussion -- If encountered while opening doors, these can be annoying, but usually aren't too debilitating. With 11 in the deck they'll come up pretty often and only the Playboy class has any anti-trap ability. But if collected while looting the room these may be one of your few tools to stop an opponent's bid for victory. The two Lose a Level traps (Snake Pit and Shark Tank) are especially worth holding onto if you have it in the late game.
Class -- 9 cards. Three each of Assassin, Playboy and Tourist. Every Munchkin game includes class cards, if for no other reason than the opportunity to use the line "Everyone starts as a Level 1 character with no loyalty and no class. (heh heh)." Each class provides a couple of bonuses. A player can belong to only one class unless having a card that allows otherwise such as Super Munchkin.
Discussion -- With only three classes available the class attribute plays a smaller role in MI than the typical Munchkin game. All three classes have useful and obvious advantages, so there's little to choose from between them. Note that the British loyalty automatically provides them with the benefits of Playboy as long as they don't have another class, so Playboys will be the most common type in play.
Training -- 8 cards. These generally provide level bonuses either directly to the character (like Karate Training +4) or indirectly (Knife Training gives +3 per knife) although a couple provide other benefits. A character can have one training unless another card, such as Extra Training, allows more.
Discussion -- Training is another new attribute in the Munchkin series, providing a similar benefit as Style in Munchkin Fu.
Munchkins --8 cards. While not a formal category under the rules, these all operate in much the same way, allowing the player to "break" the rules by allowing additional classes (Super Munchkin) , loyalties (Double Agent and Triple Agent), items (Cheat) or training (Extra Training).
Discussion -- One of the core concepts underlying the design of the series, Munchkin-style cards are pretty common in this set and player characters with multiple loyalties, classes and extra training will be common.
Miscellaneous -- 7 cards. These provide a hodge-podge of benefits. All but one is one-use only.
Discussion -- Using these cards is situational, but most provide an unsubtle benefit like Scripted Escape which allows an automatic escape from combat if you fail your roll to run away. Gender changing is pretty far outside the spy genre, so MI only includes one sex-changing card, Discard Clever Disguise, which changes the player character's sex without penalty ("because you were really that sex all along"). Because of this, the usefulness of the two Seduce Enemy Agent cards will depend an awful lot on the composition of your gaming group, but if it's a bunch of guys then these may be nearly useless outside of a blended Munchkin game.
Monster enhancers -- 6 cards. Two are +10 to the monster's level, three are +5 and one is a -5 penalty.
Discussion --There are just a half dozen of these, so their rarity makes them valuable. The dramatic end-of-game-bid-for-victory that other players beat back is less common in MI than the other Munchkin games. It's hard to really juice up a monster to an unexpected degree.
Wandering Monster -- 2 cards. These allow a player to add another monster to a combat.
Discussion -- Most useful when trying to stop another player's bid for victory, it's also useful for jacking up the potential treasure haul by adding a second weak monster to a monster you can easily defeat. Still, given the shortage of means to thwart other players, it's probably best reserved for later use if you're in the middle or late stages of the game.
Overview.
Munchkin Impossible is the runt of the litter in the Munchkin Line. Thematically strained and humor-starved, Munchkin Impossible doesn't quite work and evidently has not been a sales success, attested to by its singular status as the one Munchkin game that didn't have an immediate expansion.
Still, the game is not without merit for certain groups. I think that it may, oddly enough, be a good gateway game in groups that have limited exposure to RPGs or highly competitive gaming in general. The spy genre does have the advantage of being widely recognizable outside gaming circles. While your Monopoly or Scrabble partner may not be familiar with Dwarves and Elves they have almost certainly seen at least one James Bond movie. Munchkin Impossible is more straightforward than other games in the line, and the lack of a lot of end-of-game interaction (which can get pretty hard to follow in a good Munchkin game) may be considered a feature, rather than a bug.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Munchkin Impossible -- the Treasure Deck
In another one of my running projects on questions that suit my fancy, I'm going to look at the cards of various Munchkin series games and how they effect play of that particular edition.
I'll be starting with Munchkin Impossible, as it's the smallest set, currently, with only the basic game appearing. I think it's safe to say that, considering the game has been out for three years already and past Steve Jackson Games practice has been to push out all the expansions the market can stand, that there won't be an expansion.
Munchkin Impossible is the least successful of the series. Many people found it unfunny and I think that the play tends to be less interesting because the mix of cards doesn't really allow the sort of back-and-forth endgame drama that usually makes Munchkin games fun and frustrating.
I believe there may a promo card or two for MI that I don't have and therefore won't be considered.
This will be a two-part post. First I'll look at the Treasure Deck. this won't be a card-by-card look but an overviews of the cards by frequency and category.
Items (permanent) -- 36 items, ranging from +1 to +5 in level bonuses, plus one item of footgear providing a +1 bonus to run away and two items that are enhancements to Guns (a +1 and +2). Three of the items are considered vehicles (a new kind of item introduced in MI) and one item can be optionally be a vehicle. Six of the items have restrictions on who can use them (i.e. female, assassin, British, etc.)
Discussion -- By Munchkin standards the items are fairly low-powered. The majority are +1 or +2 and there are just a couple that can enhance other cards. This makes it hard to juice up your character levels in combat.
Items (one-use) -- 15 items, with a variety of benefits. Most of the ones that give combat bonuses are +3. A few have restrictions on who can use them, including the most powerful combat effect, the +5 American Pie usable only by American loyalty only.
Discussion -- There aren't a lot of these in the deck, but the ability to combine them is probably the player's best chance to get to some high levels or block another player going for the win. One particularly odd item is the Poison Pill, which allows you to kill yourself. You can avoid Bad Stuff or Traps with it, but you'll lose your stuff. On the plus side you draw your new hand immediately.
Level-ups -- 11 cards! In a humor-deprived set, these are the more amusing ones as a group. Nine are straight Go Up a Level. For one you have to eliminate a Hireling (not necessarily your own) to Go Up a Level. The last one lets you Go Up 2 Levels, but only if you've just lost a level or a card.
Discussion -- These are always useful, but 11 seems like an awful lot of arbitrary levels for the base game. These should make up a little for the inability to earn your levels.
Hirelings -- 4 cards. These folks range from 0 to +4 in combat bonus.
Discussion -- Dusty McRonin (+4) and Agent K-8 (+3) will be appreciated in a game without too many combat bonuses. Arm Candy is only a +1 and restricted to Playboys, so she won't have a big impact. The Hireling called "N" doesn't provide a combat bonus, but does provide a free stream of treasures, so he may be the most useful one in the box. His ability is, I believe, unique in the Munchkin series so far.
Loaded Die -- 2 cards. Allows you to change one die roll.
Discussion -- Another card with no real downside. Given the difficulty in building up real studly munchkins in MI, I suspect these may be a little more valuable than usual for running away.
Miscellaneous -- 1 card. He Was Loaded lets you draw three more treasure cards.
Discussion -- No drawbacks except the lack of juicy treasures to draw from. This is a better card when playing a Blended Munchkin.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
BattleLore session report: Free Companies on a War Footing
After a long hiatus playing other things, Young general and Old Warrior returned to BattleLore. The nice thing about being young is that you don't have has much to remember, so what you do remember to tend to remember rather well. Young General retained his grasp of the rules without any trouble at all, even reminding the Old Warrior of a few he had forgotten during the hiatus.
The point of this scenario is to introduce the concept of a full war council. Each player had the option of choosing the composition of their war council with only a few limitations. Each player's commander has to be at Level 1 at least, there are no "strongholds" (introduced in the next scenario) and the Banner Player has the Giant Spider, which counts as one level for his war council.
Young general prefers to play with the monsters on his side, so we agreed he'd take the Banner Army. He chose to go with a Level 2 commander, giving him a hand of five command cards and a Level 2 Warrior Loremaster and a Level 1 Rogue Loremaster. The Spider rounded out the six-level council.
My choice was to go heavily militarized this time, so I took a Level 3 Commander, giving me six command cards and a Level 3 Warrior.
This made a Lore Deck comprised of 14 Warrior, 8 Rogue, 5 Wizards and 5 Cleric lore cards.
Troopwise, the Banner Army was pretty strong, with human troops comprising the center and right sectors with three Red, 4 Blue and a Green unit, plus the Spider. The left flank was Dwarves -- one red and three blue sword units. The Banner army was short on numbers of horse (just 2) and just a single missile unit (the green human unit on the right flank.)
My Standard army was much weaker in melee power, with just a single red human unit, five blue and three green. The humans made up the Standard center and left flank, facing the Banner human units. Facing the Dwarves were a mass of seven Goblinoid units, all green or blue. Our experience so far has been the Goblinoid quantity rarely makes up for Dwarvish quality and I determined from the beginning I'd do my best to keep the Goblins away from the Dwarves. My army did have an edge in cavalry units (three blue human horse and two green Goblin lizard-riders) and missile units (three).
The battlefield is rather unuusal in Battlelore, being devoid of any large exapns of clear ground. Instead it's all scattered hills and woods throughout, with the only extensive clear spots along the board edge. A small clearing existed where the Goblins set up, but otherwise every other clear hex in the central 7 rows of the map was next to a woods or a hill.
The two sides are nominally Burgundian and d'Armagnac, but this has no bearing on play.
My initial draw gave me three attack cards in the center, although my Lore hand was nothing special. I started off with some minor maneuvers to adjust my troops positions a little and improve my hand, expecting that my redoubtable, but young, opponent would follow his usual scattered toss-everything-and-see-what-sticks approach. While fatal in many wargames this kind of approach can work surprisingly well in BattleLore. It's hard to plan against because you literally don't know what's coming next and it tends to make efficient use of whatever cards one draws, although not the most efficient deployment of the troops.
Young General's dwarves made an effort against the Goblins, but apparently he failed to draw the cards needed for a sustained effort on that flank. The opposite flank was much better served by the card draws and the Spider and its escort pressed back that wing rather effectively.
Meanwhile I made my big center push, actually reinforcing the center with some troops detached from the two wings.
A long struggle ensued along the whole line, with my two flanks doing their best to hold on until the center was able to break through. Unfortunately the Banner center was pretty hard to crack, especially the two red sword units. Eventually the crisis of the battle was reached, with my army having just three victory medals while the Banner army had five -- leaving it one away from victory. Lore cards played a bigger role in this battle than earlier ones, although Young General still seems to be reluctant to part with them. On the other hand, I persisted in my spendthrift ways, and sometimes found myself needing to save up Lore over a couple of turns in order to play the cards I wanted. Generally the Lore cards were useful, although I did end up spending 8 Lore to activate a Lost Orders Rogue card (cost double Lore because I had no Rogue Loremaster) that ended up helping the Banner army because the random command card I forced him to play was really better than the card he had originally wanted to play.
Fortunately for my cause, I was able to execute a plan that had been in the making for several turns as I gathered even more forces in the center, including both Goblin mounted units and one full-strength human cavalry. I played a Mounted Charge along with the Cry Havoc Lore card. The Banner's Young General countered with a Mass Shield Lore card, a very good play that did mitigate the damage a little, but not enough to stop the Goblins and Humans from riding down the enemy with 5-dice and 6-dice attacks to bring me to the magic number of 6 victory medals.
The final score was 6-5, therefore, and there's little doubt that had the Mounted Charge fallen short the Banner army wouldn't have had any trouble grabbing that last casualty.
Lessons I derived from this encounter were to be a little more cautious about expending Lore cards and tokens for minor advantage because it may mean not being able to play the decisive card in time. I was vulnerable for a couple of turns as I massed not just my mounted forces but the lore tokens I needed to play the Cry Havoc card. The Banner army came within one figure of making that effort too late.
The lesson was reinforced that Goblin foot units are best kept out of the fighting when possible, especially when facing Dwarves. The Banner army had a shortage of command cards for the Dwarvish flank and a good thing, too. The Goblinoid mounted units' speed makes them very useful and being able to play a Mounted Charge/Cry Havoc combo made them into the equivalent of enhanced heavy cavalry for the decisive moment.
As usual. the game was entertaining to play and the actual gameplay only took a little over an hour, although setup time is starting to become substantial now that the full Lore rules are in effect.
The point of this scenario is to introduce the concept of a full war council. Each player had the option of choosing the composition of their war council with only a few limitations. Each player's commander has to be at Level 1 at least, there are no "strongholds" (introduced in the next scenario) and the Banner Player has the Giant Spider, which counts as one level for his war council.
Young general prefers to play with the monsters on his side, so we agreed he'd take the Banner Army. He chose to go with a Level 2 commander, giving him a hand of five command cards and a Level 2 Warrior Loremaster and a Level 1 Rogue Loremaster. The Spider rounded out the six-level council.
My choice was to go heavily militarized this time, so I took a Level 3 Commander, giving me six command cards and a Level 3 Warrior.
This made a Lore Deck comprised of 14 Warrior, 8 Rogue, 5 Wizards and 5 Cleric lore cards.
Troopwise, the Banner Army was pretty strong, with human troops comprising the center and right sectors with three Red, 4 Blue and a Green unit, plus the Spider. The left flank was Dwarves -- one red and three blue sword units. The Banner army was short on numbers of horse (just 2) and just a single missile unit (the green human unit on the right flank.)
My Standard army was much weaker in melee power, with just a single red human unit, five blue and three green. The humans made up the Standard center and left flank, facing the Banner human units. Facing the Dwarves were a mass of seven Goblinoid units, all green or blue. Our experience so far has been the Goblinoid quantity rarely makes up for Dwarvish quality and I determined from the beginning I'd do my best to keep the Goblins away from the Dwarves. My army did have an edge in cavalry units (three blue human horse and two green Goblin lizard-riders) and missile units (three).
The battlefield is rather unuusal in Battlelore, being devoid of any large exapns of clear ground. Instead it's all scattered hills and woods throughout, with the only extensive clear spots along the board edge. A small clearing existed where the Goblins set up, but otherwise every other clear hex in the central 7 rows of the map was next to a woods or a hill.
The two sides are nominally Burgundian and d'Armagnac, but this has no bearing on play.
My initial draw gave me three attack cards in the center, although my Lore hand was nothing special. I started off with some minor maneuvers to adjust my troops positions a little and improve my hand, expecting that my redoubtable, but young, opponent would follow his usual scattered toss-everything-and-see-what-sticks approach. While fatal in many wargames this kind of approach can work surprisingly well in BattleLore. It's hard to plan against because you literally don't know what's coming next and it tends to make efficient use of whatever cards one draws, although not the most efficient deployment of the troops.
Young General's dwarves made an effort against the Goblins, but apparently he failed to draw the cards needed for a sustained effort on that flank. The opposite flank was much better served by the card draws and the Spider and its escort pressed back that wing rather effectively.
Meanwhile I made my big center push, actually reinforcing the center with some troops detached from the two wings.
A long struggle ensued along the whole line, with my two flanks doing their best to hold on until the center was able to break through. Unfortunately the Banner center was pretty hard to crack, especially the two red sword units. Eventually the crisis of the battle was reached, with my army having just three victory medals while the Banner army had five -- leaving it one away from victory. Lore cards played a bigger role in this battle than earlier ones, although Young General still seems to be reluctant to part with them. On the other hand, I persisted in my spendthrift ways, and sometimes found myself needing to save up Lore over a couple of turns in order to play the cards I wanted. Generally the Lore cards were useful, although I did end up spending 8 Lore to activate a Lost Orders Rogue card (cost double Lore because I had no Rogue Loremaster) that ended up helping the Banner army because the random command card I forced him to play was really better than the card he had originally wanted to play.
Fortunately for my cause, I was able to execute a plan that had been in the making for several turns as I gathered even more forces in the center, including both Goblin mounted units and one full-strength human cavalry. I played a Mounted Charge along with the Cry Havoc Lore card. The Banner's Young General countered with a Mass Shield Lore card, a very good play that did mitigate the damage a little, but not enough to stop the Goblins and Humans from riding down the enemy with 5-dice and 6-dice attacks to bring me to the magic number of 6 victory medals.
The final score was 6-5, therefore, and there's little doubt that had the Mounted Charge fallen short the Banner army wouldn't have had any trouble grabbing that last casualty.
Lessons I derived from this encounter were to be a little more cautious about expending Lore cards and tokens for minor advantage because it may mean not being able to play the decisive card in time. I was vulnerable for a couple of turns as I massed not just my mounted forces but the lore tokens I needed to play the Cry Havoc card. The Banner army came within one figure of making that effort too late.
The lesson was reinforced that Goblin foot units are best kept out of the fighting when possible, especially when facing Dwarves. The Banner army had a shortage of command cards for the Dwarvish flank and a good thing, too. The Goblinoid mounted units' speed makes them very useful and being able to play a Mounted Charge/Cry Havoc combo made them into the equivalent of enhanced heavy cavalry for the decisive moment.
As usual. the game was entertaining to play and the actual gameplay only took a little over an hour, although setup time is starting to become substantial now that the full Lore rules are in effect.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Martin Wallace's Waterloo session report No. 2
I had another rare Friday night off from work so I took advantage of that good fortune to head over to Windsor for the biweekly game session of the Central Connecticut Wargamers. I wasn't sure what I might get to play, but I brought four game I'd be interested in trying. The three that didn't get played this time were Onslaught, War of 1812 and Red Dragon Rising. Maybe next time.
The game that did get payed was Martin Wallace's Waterloo, which is what I played the last time I went to the CCW session.
I did better this time with the French, although still coming up short of victory at the end as the British took advantage of a couple of mistakes to win the battle of attrition. The final score was 22 to 17 casualties. While I reached the target of 13 British casualties before the British reached their target of 16, they were able to come back in a very bloody turn that saw every attempt of mine to stay ahead in the casualty count more than matched.
I think the French side is a bit more challenging for new players because there's a lot to figure out in this game, so I decided it was only fair for me to take the French side because I had played once before, while my opponent had not.
Once again I sent a flanking cavalry force around the Allied left, but I ended up not pressing that attack after an initial repulse. I suspect that is a dead end. Instead I concentrated on capturing the three strongpoints and eventually succeeded without too much loss. I committed some Guard to exploit that success, but I'm not sure that was wise as that exposed the Guard to losses and they count double for the casualty victory condition.
We found that attacking infantry has to be careful about being caught by cavalry counterattacks, both sides lose several brigades that way and I discovered that unsupported cannons were vulnerable as well. The British player in particular got a couple of good action draws that let him just cut through my artillery park without opposition. He ended up losing most of the force, but most of it was Prussian or cavalry and did not count for victory.
It was a very intense game and definitely provokes a strong desire to study it in order to do better. I think the Waterloo situation is inherently challenging for the French in any game on the topic. Usually the French have to get off to a good start in order to win. early missteps tend to snowball. I didn't feel satisfied with my progress during the first two turns. By the time I felt like I was hitting my stride the Prussians were starting to be an issue. Because the game is so different from usual wargame norms there's a pretty steep learning curve, but I feel like I'm starting to get the hang of it. I can't wait to play again.
The game that did get payed was Martin Wallace's Waterloo, which is what I played the last time I went to the CCW session.
I did better this time with the French, although still coming up short of victory at the end as the British took advantage of a couple of mistakes to win the battle of attrition. The final score was 22 to 17 casualties. While I reached the target of 13 British casualties before the British reached their target of 16, they were able to come back in a very bloody turn that saw every attempt of mine to stay ahead in the casualty count more than matched.
I think the French side is a bit more challenging for new players because there's a lot to figure out in this game, so I decided it was only fair for me to take the French side because I had played once before, while my opponent had not.
Once again I sent a flanking cavalry force around the Allied left, but I ended up not pressing that attack after an initial repulse. I suspect that is a dead end. Instead I concentrated on capturing the three strongpoints and eventually succeeded without too much loss. I committed some Guard to exploit that success, but I'm not sure that was wise as that exposed the Guard to losses and they count double for the casualty victory condition.
We found that attacking infantry has to be careful about being caught by cavalry counterattacks, both sides lose several brigades that way and I discovered that unsupported cannons were vulnerable as well. The British player in particular got a couple of good action draws that let him just cut through my artillery park without opposition. He ended up losing most of the force, but most of it was Prussian or cavalry and did not count for victory.
It was a very intense game and definitely provokes a strong desire to study it in order to do better. I think the Waterloo situation is inherently challenging for the French in any game on the topic. Usually the French have to get off to a good start in order to win. early missteps tend to snowball. I didn't feel satisfied with my progress during the first two turns. By the time I felt like I was hitting my stride the Prussians were starting to be an issue. Because the game is so different from usual wargame norms there's a pretty steep learning curve, but I feel like I'm starting to get the hang of it. I can't wait to play again.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
By popular request -- Family Game Night
My church actually anticipated this Hasbro ad campaign -- we had a Family Game Night months ago, but I'm glad to see Hasbro pushing this:
As a matter of fact. we're having another one on Nov. 15. I don't know if anyone will be playing Monopoly, but we did have a Scrabble game going on.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Axis & Allies Miniatures Inspiring Lieutenant
I'll be posting, on an occasional basis, musings about particular pieces in the Axis & Allies series of miniatures.
The Inspiring Lieutenant is a core British leader unit of Axis & Allies Miniatures, showing up as collector No. 11/48 from the Base Set and again unchanged as No. 3/60 of the 1939-45 set.
Base set
Photo caption: Platoon Commander Lieutenant I. MacDonald (with binoculars and Thompson SMG) ready to give order to attack at S. Leonardo di Ortona, Italy, 10 December 1943.
The Inspiring Lieutenant is a core British leader unit of Axis & Allies Miniatures, showing up as collector No. 11/48 from the Base Set and again unchanged as No. 3/60 of the 1939-45 set.
Base setStats:
Rarity: Uncommon
Speed: 1
Defense: 4/4
Cost: 10
Attacks vs troops at short-medium-long ranges: 8 - 6 - 0
Attacks vs vehicles at short-medium-long ranges: 2 - 0 - 0
Special abilities: Close Assault 7 -- This unit has an attack value of 7 against Vehicles in its hex. this attack ignores cover.
Commander Abilities: Initiative +2,
Tally-Ho! — In your movement phase, friendly non-Artillery Soldiers that start their move adjacent to this unit get +1 speed. (revised wording)
Tally-Ho! — In your movement phase, friendly non-Artillery Soldiers that start their move adjacent to this unit get +1 speed. (revised wording)
1939-45 set
Historical text: The 42nd Division, or East Lancashire, was part of the British Expeditionary Force that fought in France in 1940. its soldiers were among the thousands evacuated from Dunkirk.
The unit in history: The junior British officer was expected to lead from the front, leading to heavy casualties among them. At the small unit level British units tended to be effective, if lacking in flexibility compared to their most formidable foes, the Germans. Still, the British Army went toe-to-toe with the Germans for more than five years. Against the Japanese and Italians British units tended to fare better, although they w ere sometimes undone by failures at higher levels.
The 42nd Division was a Territorial Army formation that had a distinguished record in the Great War. In the Second World War it formed part of the BEF in France and was caught up in the disaster that led to the evacuation from Dunkirk. In England it was reformed as an armored division but later broken up in 1943 without seeing any more action. The British ended up disbanding several divisions over the course of the war due to manpower shortages.
The 42nd Division was a Territorial Army formation that had a distinguished record in the Great War. In the Second World War it formed part of the BEF in France and was caught up in the disaster that led to the evacuation from Dunkirk. In England it was reformed as an armored division but later broken up in 1943 without seeing any more action. The British ended up disbanding several divisions over the course of the war due to manpower shortages.
Photo caption: Platoon Commander Lieutenant I. MacDonald (with binoculars and Thompson SMG) ready to give order to attack at S. Leonardo di Ortona, Italy, 10 December 1943.
The unit in the game: The Inspiring Lieutenant is one of the more expensive officers, but the +2 Initiative is handy and the Tally-Ho special ability is also often useful. The unit also has a credible combat ability on its own, being roughly equal to a rifle squad. The Tally-Ho ability may tempt a force build that includes more than one Inspiring Lieutenant but I think he's a little expensive for multiple copies compared to some of the other leaders available for Commonwealth armies.
The revised wording specified that only non-Artillery Soldiers could benefit from Tally-Ho! Also note that the SA specifies the Movement Phase, so movement in the Assault Phase does not get the +1 to speed.
The revised wording specified that only non-Artillery Soldiers could benefit from Tally-Ho! Also note that the SA specifies the Movement Phase, so movement in the Assault Phase does not get the +1 to speed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)