tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6061105781537302272024-03-21T20:38:18.121-07:00A British Wargames BlogJust another place to read about wargames. I'm Owen, and I'm interested in why games work or don't work. I'm also very interested in military history, with a mixed admiration and horror - war is the theatre of the highest human virtue and the worst human sin. Wargames are a safe way of exploring some of that.Owen Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02033345001593862263noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606110578153730227.post-78057127209636628632021-01-25T13:25:00.005-08:002021-01-25T13:25:31.804-08:00REFLECTIONS: ASL Starter Kit #2 – by Ken Dunn (MMP) <p>I’ve previously offered my Reflections – not a Review – of <i>ASL Starter Kit #1</i>, which is the first
entry in the Starter Kit sub-series of <i>Advanced
Squad Leader</i>. That was a Reflection because I don’t think as vast a system
as even the Starter Kit sub-series can be sufficiently analysed after a couple
of short introductory games. This piece will be a set of Reflections in the
same way. I’d recommend reading my piece on the first game before reading this.</p><div style="text-align: left;"><o:p> <br /></o:p><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Starter Kit #1</i> (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK1</i>
henceforth) introduces infantry-only actions, with leaders, infantry squads,
and their anti-personnel support weapons (machineguns, flamethrowers, and
demolition charges). <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK2</i> introduces
ordnance, both heavy and light – particularly big guns (artillery, anti-tank
guns, big mortars, etc) on larger counters than the infantry, but also
including additional light support weapons (small mortars, and bazookas and
panzerschrecks).<br /> <o:p> <br /></o:p>Contents wise, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK2</i>
includes, nominally, counters for five different World War 2 armies: American,
British, German, Italian, and “Allied Minor”, representing Poland, Belgium, and
the like. The Italian and Allied Minor orders of battle are fairly vestigial,
sufficient for the scenarios in which they feature, and include only infantry
and machineguns. The other three include bigger guns and more varied equipment.
There are 8 scenarios to play through. The rulebook is 20 pages long (compared
to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK1</i>’s 12 pages).<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>It’s worth airing one grievance straight away, because it is
easily resolved: the rulebook is a slight improvement on <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK1</i>, with extra and clearer definitions, but it is still not always
clear to me (after several playing) where I will find certain pieces of
information, and sometimes that information is unclear – to me, at least, and I
am the punter here, so I’ll say my view counts. What is the Starter Kit effect
of small arms fire on Guns and attendant Crew, for instance? But the solution
is at hand: the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK3</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK4 </i>rulebooks are clearer again, and
there is an online “living rules” version. There is also a great community who
answer questions quickly on several sites – though I do not accept this as an
excuse for confusing rules writing.<br /><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> <br /> </span>Turning materially, then, to the game: how do the new
elements add to (or detract) from the system? And how has my experience
developed over the first two Starter Kits?<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>All (I think!) of the weaponry <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK2</i> adds utilises the “To Hit” procedure, rather than a straight
Infantry Fire Table diceroll. In fact, some Guns can fire “straight” on the
IFT, functioning basically as a giant machinegun when doing so. But usually the
Gun makes two rolls – one to check whether it hits the target, and then an IFT
roll to calculate damage (in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK3</i>, AFV
hits are calculated via a different second dieroll). The most helpful <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Starter Kit</i> provision for Guns is that
all of the “To Hit” requirements for each gun are summed up on a playaid –
players don’t calculate them manually as in ASL, but take the number on the
playaid and modify it by whatever relevant modifiers apply.<br /> <o:p> <br /></o:p>I found this fairly simple – in fact, I learned the To Hit
procedure quite quickly. I forget elements of it much less than I forget some
of the stuff in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK1</i>! In the selection
of scenarios in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK2</i>, there isn’t
really a serious possibility of getting confused on the one thing I found
harder to memorise – Target Type (most Guns use Infantry Target Type most of
the time, Mortars use Area Target Type the whole time and other Guns will use
it sometimes). “Light Anti-Tank Weapons” (bazookas and panzershrecks) have
their own To Hit tables printed on their counters, and are perfectly simple to
use (with a shorter procedure than Demolition Charges from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK1</i>).<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>One area of material confusion, even checking the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK3</i> updated rulebook, is small arms fire
vs Guns themselves – “Guns as Targets” in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK2</i> rulebook is unclear to me, at least. The full ASL rules do
include the possibility of Small Arms randomly destroying a Gun via a KIA
result on the IFT – so I’m using that for the Gun itself. (Any help or corrections
welcomed!)<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>The scenarios are a nice mix – I enjoyed playing with
British, Italians, and Greeks (Allied Minor) more than I enjoyed the
protagonists in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK1</i>. One difficult
design task for this box was to make scenarios with onboard Guns which were
historical and interesting – after all, there are AA guns with no aircraft, AT
guns with no tanks. Aside from 2 Infantry-only scenarios, the solutions the
other 6 scenarios take are various: sights-down American Artillery facing
Germans in the Ardennes, emplaced anti-aircraft batteries being attacked by
infantry in Greece and Holland, and so forth. It’s a satisfying mix. One of the
highest-rated and best-balanced Starter Kit scenarios is in this pack – ‘88s at
Zon’ – though I had a slightly odd experience of it, at least in part from
slightly misreading the Victory Conditions. The one caveat I’ll add to my
general praise for the scenarios – slight balance issues and so forth
notwithstanding – is that both the Italians and the Greeks (who are the only
Allied Minor nation used here) only have Infantry and Support Weapons, and so
are restricted to the Infantry-only scenarios and as allies to the British in a
Gun scenario. This seems a bit of a shame – and in fact to get Italian Guns and
Crew, and more interesting Support Weapons for the Allied Minor OOB, you need
both <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Starter Kit #3 </i>and the 2<sup>nd</sup>
edition of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Starter Kit Expansion Pack #1</i>.
(The only Allied Minor AFVs are a variety of very light machines in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Starter Kit Expansion Pack #2</i>, though
the Italians gets a small but acceptable selection in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK3</i>. They also get captured French tanks in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SKEP1(2<sup>nd</sup>)</i>, losing the one Italian assault gun that had
been in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SKEP1(1<sup>st</sup>)</i>.)<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>The final thing to reflect upon – and really the most
important – is my own experience of learning more <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ASLSK</i>, adding new types of situations to my record, and exploring further
into the game system.<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>I suppose the headline is that playing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK2</i> led me to enter into full ASL. The whole story is more nuanced.
What compelled me was not just enjoying the game, but seeing the deeper
possibilities of the system, if expanded to its full extent. How about Finnish
and Soviet skiers fighting it out? How about a wide range of HASL Campaign
Games? How about multi-gun and multi-turret AFVs? I think there are doubtful “alleys”
in the great city of rules that is full ASL, but on the whole the leap has been
worth it. That “promise”, shown by the Starter Kit series, drew me in – I wanted
the whole lot.<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>This box – essentially coincidentally, but it’s still worth
noting – is also where I began to actually use ASL tactics, or try to. Infantry
laying smoke to provide some inbuilt TEM, interlocking interdiction routes, etc
– stuff I hadn’t even touched, really, in my 3 games of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK1</i>. Indeed, beginning to come to grips with what is really
involved in playing ASLSK, beyond the raw rules, is part of what led me to see
the depth and breadth of the full ASL system.<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>There is another side to this, though. I’m not quite sure
how to articulate it without it either sounding like an odd sort of praise, or
an exaggerated criticism. Put it this way: there were moments where I felt
oddly unsatisfied, or unsatiated. This wasn’t because the game system was
shallow – indeed, even Starter Kit has vast depths I’ve barely explored – nor because
the rules were annoying (even if some are), nor even because the designs in the
box weren’t very good examples. They are, on the whole.<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>But I touched on the issue when mentioning the lack of
Italian and Allied Minor tech – there was an odd sense playing this of “half a
game”, even combined with <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK1</i>. Of
course, part of this is lacking AFVs – but it was more the decisions made about
what to include, what to design for, and so forth. There’s a quite fun Exit VP
scenario with Italians trapped between Greek forces – but this is definitely
denied star-billing, being an Infantry-only scenario with no tech and no chrome.
The typical commercial realities of wargaming – that American actions and the
East Front sell – are writ large on the contents of this box. Part of my move
to full ASL has been to access wider vistas, not just deeper.<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>All told, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK2</i> is –
probably – a better box than <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK1</i>. It’s
certainly a good box and well worth the price. It has fewer Infantry-only
scenarios than <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK1</i> (2, compared to 6)
and one of those is fun but has notable balance issues, but beyond that, the
scenarios offer more variety, the maps are better, the OBs are more
interesting, etc. But there is, at points, something that seems like a lack of
ambition – hopefully something that is moved beyond in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SK3</i>, which I’ll be playing next, alongside learning scenarios for
full ASL.</div>
Owen Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02033345001593862263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606110578153730227.post-58766621727759824182021-01-24T18:00:00.000-08:002021-01-24T18:00:16.628-08:00 Mini-ASL: My 3-Year-Old Wants To Play<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">My eldest son, like all 3-year-olds, is unreasonably
impressed by everything his father does. Thus, when he sees me playing wargames
or D&D, he wants to play too. He loves tanks, and we learn about World War
2 battles together (Mark Felton Productions on Youtube is great for this). I
want to play with him, too, of course – but I want to <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">play</i></b>. I want him to learn
to play ordered games with rules. It’s a great educational opportunity, too –
for counting, basic probability, and various other skills. So I make rules for
the games we play.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">Now, in practice we don’t play long and detailed games of
D&D or ASL or whatever. If we get a few “turns” of something done in
reasonable order, and he’s enjoyed himself but is beginning to flag, I’m happy
to call it a day and play more freeform with him. But I love that we share this
hobby, even in a limited way, and the rules help that.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">Here are my “Mini-ASL” rules – <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Advanced Squad Leader</i> (ASL) being the main wargame we get out and
push counters around:</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(1)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->As the scenario designer, pick some counters,
maps, and setup areas (though be flexible – if your kid wants to line up all
his troops on a road halfway to your setup area, it doesn’t matter). You can
also set a turn limit, geographic objective, etc. Setup troops.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(2)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Trucks can carry one squad each. Guns and
Support Weapons must be manned by Crews or Squads/Half-Squads – max one Gun/SW per
Squad/HS. A Leader can man a Support Weapon. I haven’t heretofore set a strict
stacking, but would suggest ‘1’ Leader and 3 x Squads maximum.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(3)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Each player takes turns (I usually let him go
first). The phasing player rallies, moves, and fire with all his counters. </p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(4)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Each Routed unit can try to rally. They rally on
a ‘1’, ‘2’, or ‘3’. A Leader improves this – a ‘4’ will also Rally with a
Leader in charge. A Routed unit cannot move or fire.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(5)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->All counters except Trucks/Recon vehicles can
move 4 hexes in any terrain, carrying their Gun or SW or Passengers with them
if appropriate. Trucks and Recon vehicles can move 8 hexes. Moving into a hex
with an enemy ends the unit’s movement. You might make special terrain rules –
tanks can’t go in Marsh, for instance. When we did a River crossing, loading on
to boats took up half a move.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(6)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Each Squad/Half-Squad/Vehicle can Fire once (and
can fire one more time with any support weapon). Crews do not fire
independently of their Gun. Add exceptions as needed: e.g., when we used Char
B1s, I let them fire twice – once for the turret gun, once for the bow gun.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(7)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->A unit must be able to see (have Line of Sight)
to a target. There is no limit on range. Line of Sight can be checked before
firing. I basically use “real” ASL LOS rules in the very loosest and most basic
sense – Woods and Buildings block LOS if the string passes through, etc. So do
Hills. Hindrance does not apply. Close Combat (see (10) below) cannot be fired into.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(8)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Roll a d6 per shot. ‘1s’ and ‘2s’ have effects; ‘1’
reduces or kills the target (Squad to Half-Squad, Japanese Step Reduction), ‘2’
routs the target (Japanese Step Reduction). Only Ordnance/ATRs/SCWs can target
Tanks. Rolling a ‘6’ with a Gun breaks it – a turn must be spent fixing it,
without the Crew doing anything else.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(9)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The only Terrain Effect I’ve created so far
(other than LOS-blocking) was a Fort functionally acting as a +1 modifier on
the die. I described this as only a ‘1’ hitting, and routing the Squad, not
reducing it.</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(10)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->If a Squad enters the hex of an enemy, Close
Combat ensues as an attack in lieu of Firing. Each Squad rolls a d6
simultaneously. A ‘1’ or ‘2’ reduces/etc the enemy Squad. If there are multiple
Squads on a side, each gets an attack. </p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(11)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Guns or SWs that lose their Crew/Squad can be
picked up by another Squad/Crew which moves in to the same hex.</p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: left; text-indent: -18pt;"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SEQUENCE OF PLAY</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(1)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Player A Turn</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 54.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo4; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(a)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Rally Attempts</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 54.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo4; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(b)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Move, Fire, Close Combat, Fix Guns</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(2)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Player B Turn</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: 54.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(a)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Rally Attempts</p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: 54.0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">(b)<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Move, Fire, Close Combat, Fix Guns</p>Owen Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02033345001593862263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606110578153730227.post-55644005009325134322020-12-31T19:00:00.008-08:002020-12-31T19:01:43.922-08:00REVIEW: Battles of the Age of Reason IX: Mollwitz 1741 and Chotusitz 1742 - by Matthew Hinkle (Clash of Arms Games)<div style="text-align: left;">Consider the rulebooks of some games I have learned to play:
the current <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Civil War Brigade Series</i>
rulebook is 32 pages long, and each game has a game-exclusive rulebook, too; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Here I Stand</i> is 48 pages long, excluding
the separate playbook/scenario book; and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Advanced
Squad Leader</i>...well, to play an Infantry Only scenario, and setting aside Nationality and Terrain rules, you still need to learn about 40 pages if you're self-teaching. All small type, tightly set. And moreover,
I’ve learned dozens of games with rulebooks in that region or longer.<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>What’s wrong with me? And what’s wrong with wargamers in
general? We learn and play games with much longer rulebooks – <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Lace Wars </i>or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A World at War</i> come to mind. I’m tempted to suggest we do so
because, the saying goes, “they’re there”. Surely the desire to accomplish a
vast task is part of the motivation of the average wargamer playing a monster
or a heavy game. Yet I think there is more.<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>This was the key question that entered my mind when I sought
to reflect on <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Battles of the Age of
Reason IX: Mollwitz 1741 and Chotusitz 1742</i>, a game covering Frederick the
Great’s first battlefield commands. Why do I play games like this? It has 48
pages of series rules, 28 pages of module-specific rules, a 12-page booklet of
tables and roster sheets, and another two double-sided charts – for a total of
92 sides of paper. Not all of this has to be learned to play a scenario – as
this contains 7 scenarios over 2 different battles, you only need to learn
battle-specific and scenario-specific rules for whatever you are playing. You
can ignore the few pages of historical notes. Beyond that, though, most of the
rules are non-negotiable.<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">BAR</i>, like its
forebear <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">La Bataille</i>, is a dense,
procedural simulation of the horse and musket era. Where <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">La Batt</i> simulates the Napoleonic era, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">BAR</i> simulates (so far) the period 1741-1783, with games covering
the War of the Austrian Succession, the Seven Years’ War, and the American
Revolution. Why did I buy <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mollwitz 1741
and Chotusitz 1742</i>, then? Well, I like the period; I have heard many good
things about the system; and the specific game was billed as a good starting
place, with two single-map battles (most of the other games set in Europe are
multi-mappers).<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>And, if I’m honest, I was curious about the weight, the
density. “It was there.” It was a mountain I wanted to climb. But why? People
climb mountains, but don’t leap into lava streams just because they are there.
Something valuable inheres in the target – and the hardship of the journey
makes the attainment of the target all the greater. What is this in complex
wargames?<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>I should begin my answer by saying that it does not include
the actively confused layout of the sheets and charts of this game (key charts
are hidden in the game-specific chart booklet, next to rosters; but the other
key charts are loose and cardstock; I’ve still not yet learned to instinctively
look in the right place when wanting to check the Terrain Effects Chart, or the
Fire Multiplier Chart!), or even the surprisingly disjointed rulebook, where
information is repeated across sections in a way that sometimes tricks me – is
the whole summary of Wing and Command Leader Initiative in the Sequence of Play
section? No, wait, there’s a much fuller description spread across the Initiative
Determination section and the Command and Control section, though none of this
is particularly well cross-referenced.<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>I wouldn’t want to extend this criticism too wide, but it is
certainly jarring to read an obviously refined rulebook – a system with nine
iterations, building on the whole tradition of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">La Bataille</i> beforehand – that still has concrete usability issues.
I suppose one might enjoy conquering usability issues – I enjoy solving a
complex, frustrating problem with a model train – but I don’t think that is why
wargamers flock to heavy games. We’re nerds, but most of us aren’t masochists
(direct letters disagreeing to the editor).<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>No, I think the reason I pick games like this up regularly
is that the density of procedure, the array of interlocking systems, the
neurotic attention to historic detail, all serve two purposes of core
importance to most dedicated wargamers: the seeking of mastery, and the desire
for historical transportation.<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>What do I mean? In a classic “beginner’s” wargame – <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Napoleon at Waterloo</i> is the obvious
touchstone – units move under fairly simple rules, using a simple set of
movement modifiers on a table. They attack in a fairly simple way, too.
Typically, either a “to hit” roll is made (more usual in miniatures) or a
simple odds ratio is calculated between the attacking units and the defending
units. A roll is made on a table displaying the various odds, and that gives a
result – in the simplest cases usually out of a range of “No Effect”, “Retreat”,
and “Damaged/Killed”. Everything about these results can usually be explained
in a sentence or two (though, then again, we’ve all read an otherwise simple rulebook
with a multi-page Retreat system!).<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mollwitz 1741 and
Chotusitz 1742</i> is a close follower of the second model – but significantly
more complicated. How do we work out the odds ratio, that staple of the
hex-and-counter wargame? Well, to take the example of fire combat: (1)
determine how many Strength Points can fire out of each hex firing upon a
target, and then, applying modifiers where necessary, multiply each firing unit’s
SP by the range modifier of its troop type, with e.g. a 12lb Artillery unit
multiplying its SPs by 4 at a range of 4 hexes – the cumulate result is the
Fire Strength; (2) divide that Fire Strength by the Fire Defense Value of the
targeted hex – with e.g. a Clear Hex having a FDV of 10 whilst a Village has an
FDV of 20; (3) roll d100 and apply any final modifiers, and then
cross-reference the result on the Fire Combat Table. There are actually only a
relatively few types of results of a “hit”, and none particularly complex, but
if you roll 00-09, you have rolled a Fire Combat Special Result, for the effects
of which you must consult the relevant Fire Special Results table (there are
three separate tables, for three types of Fire).<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>You get the idea. And of course, there’s plenty more of
this: multiple complicated formations, the relative inability of infantry to
move obliquely without changing facing, and even a whole Special Cavalry
Movement sub-system. Even Terrain Effects on Movement often include three items
of information – Movement Cost, Stacking Limit by Troop Type and Formation, and
Disorder Check if applicable. The system isn’t revolutionary – it doesn’t even
go so far as to use a “Differential Odds” combat system, let alone something as
quirky as that of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Civil War Brigade
Series</i>, mentioned above – but it is dense and layered.<br /> <o:p> <br /></o:p>At first, this can be exasperating. How many cases apply to
a Fire check? Have I missed something? (Yes.) Oh, wait, that line of cavalry
couldn’t have moved that far because they had to change facing – and anyway, I
miscalculated the command ranges (as there are so many different effects on
measurement) so I should have rolled Command Initiative.<br /> <o:p> <br /></o:p>Eventually, for the hardened wargamer, something clicks – <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">oh</i></b>.
It was when I realized I had a second Opportunity Fire shot on a Skirmishing
Hussar unit which was leaving a hex, and actually fairly quickly processed the
maths involved. Suddenly I felt like I saw beneath the surface of the systems,
to some kind of mathematical realm beyond – which sounds like an exaggeration,
but is not. When a system clicks, I experience a sense of sublimity – and that
means that the more complex and deep a system is, the more sublime.<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>This connects to the other great benefit I find in complex
systems – that sense of being transported across history. Some of us wargamers
are noisy in saying that we don’t believe we are playing simulations; one
particularly strange (and unnecessary) defence of ASL is that it depicts Movie
World War Two, not the real deal. Yet the very nature of typical wargame rules –
the basic “language” we use – is simulatory. Representation is the point, not
elegance or fine engineering. If you wanted elegance in your rules, virtually
no traditional wargame’s combat system would make the grade. But the combat
systems – whether CRTs or To Hits or whatever else – are meant to make us think
of the clash of arms. Thus when <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mollwitz
1741 and Chotusitz 1742</i> forces me to muck about – in a scenario with Snow,
indeed, so movement is already really slow! – with facing changes so I can
actually align my cavalry for their charge, because I can’t just move them in a
straight line of hexes but have to alternate...that’s the sweet spot for the
nerd.<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>The snow is heavy on the ground. The Prussian infantry have
to slog through it to get to the Austrian centre, where they can probably
caramelize the shaky Habsburg foot. There are strong wings of enemy cavalry on
either flank. To quick march they have to suck up Fatigue – or you can accept
the tradeoff of losing time so they can arrive in better shape. The Austrian
Hussars are providing an extra obstacle, and are so much harder to hit because
of their Skirmish formation. And the winter sun is falling fast.<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>Dense mechanics – big rulebooks – fields of chrome, endless
exceptions – these seem like a nightmare, but our Cardboard Time Machines need
lots of knobs and dials if we are to get in close. This is because the
transportation through time most of us are seeking is not the exact metrics of
shots fired vs wounds caused, but the story which explains the battle and the
personages involved. Games, in this sense, are claims about reality – they tell
the story. And the heavy games tell those stories in a way no elegant,
insightful design can – not through neat tricks but through the very weight of
the rules. When you must memorize dozens and dozens of rules and sub-systems,
the claim about the battle or war is impressed upon you in a very distinctive
way.<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mollwitz 1741 and
Chotusitz 1742</i> is a very fine example of this species of game. Its rules rarely
seem arbitrary or stupid and never really break the suspension of disbelief. This
is partly through using Strength Points and Roster Sheets rather than Steps –
damage is steady and cumulative, so Rubber-Banding or Bloodbath CRTs can’t ruin
the illusion. The battle-specific rules are not overly onerous. The range of
scenarios is fairly varied – there are two fairly different battles to begin
with, and they each have different situations, including cavalry battles and
full deployment scenarios (which remind me of the Main Scenarios in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Prussia’s Glory</i> series). All told, I
think this was a very good introduction to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">BAR</i>
(I have two other games in the series on the shelf already!).<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>What is required, to be sure, is persistence – this is a
system that has to <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">click</i> </b>to work its magic. I can teach a complete newbie a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Battles of the American Revolut</i>i<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">on</i> game by Mark Miklos with fairly
little difficulty. I might need to handhold, but the basic dynamic is clear,
and the basic mathematical problems are fairly open (though, inevitably,
Retreats are the nightmare piece of the puzzle). But with <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Battle of the Age of Reason</i>, both the engineering puzzle and the
historical vision only come out once the rules have been rehearsed.<br /><o:p> <br /></o:p>For many gamers out there, that is (naturally) a problem –
spending hours learning a game and then spending hours beginning to play it,
before even getting a hint of the joy involved, seems like more than delayed
gratification. It seems like insanity. But to the Initiate of the Wargaming
Mysteries, a game like <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mollwitz 1741 and
Chotusitz 1742</i> is a path to higher enlightenment.</div>
Owen Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02033345001593862263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606110578153730227.post-44186278033567265272019-12-31T07:17:00.000-08:002020-02-25T07:39:03.796-08:00REVIEW: Konigsberg: The Soviet Attack on East Prussia, 1945 - by Stefan Ekstrom (Revolution Games)<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<u><span style="font-size: 16.0pt;">Konigsberg: The Soviet Attack
on East Prussia, 1945</span></u><span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>by Stefan Ekstrom, Revolution Games<b><u><o:p></o:p></u></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Wargames, Good Guys, and Bad Guys<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">I have two modes of
engaging with the moral history of a wargame when playing. Competitively, I can
play whichever side, and play to win – whilst me and my buddy discuss the
history, consider the moral dimensions of the scenario, and so forth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">But playing solo
leaves me in a dilemma. In anything involving British armies, anything from
about the 19<sup>th</sup> century on – it’s not just I’ve made some general
judgement about “good guys” and “bad guys”, but I know it’ll sometimes affect
my play. In some scenarios I don’t want one side to win. Do I want the French
to win Waterloo? Some scenarios, indeed, I wouldn’t consider playing – I’ve
never owned or played a Sealion game, and I doubt I will. I’ll just take the
win of Britain not being invaded historically, thankyou very much.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">As you can imagine,
the Nazis are usually the bad guys in World War 2, even when facing the
Soviets. My favourite Wehrmacht general officer is Henning von Tresckow, to
give you a measure of my views. But <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Konigsberg:
The Soviet Attack on East Prussia, 1945</i> changes the dilemma.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">In historical terms,
the German counterattack at Pillau on the 19<sup>th</sup> February (just after
this game ends) is not only a militarily impressive one, but also in my view an
undoubtedly <b>moral</b> achievement. The reopening of the sole route of
evacuation for the hundreds of thousands of civilians – otherwise doomed to
starvation, rape, and butchery, as happened at the hands of Soviet troops
across East Prussia – may have been accomplished by Nazis, but it is undeniably
stirring. Could you or I, if we had been Germans dissenters then, desired any
other outcome than a German victory?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">This game of that campaign
also touches on the horror of the campaign in a way that many similar games do
not (I know of no Barbarossa game with Einzatsgruppen counters). The objectives
for the Soviet player include effectively cutting off Konigsberg, if it cannot
be captured; one entry on the random event table represents Soviet massacres,
and provides the German player with Volkssturm units.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">As a chit-pull game
(you draw counters from a cup to determine which group of units moves/fights
next), this is ripe for solo play, and the moral dynamics of the campaign make
it a particularly pointed example of the tension in solo play. The questions I
had in mind before playing it were: (1) was it a good game? and (2) does it effectively
engage the moral questions it touches upon?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Under The Hood<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">There’s not much
surprising about <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Konigsberg</i>. It’s
advertised as sharing a system with <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A
Victory Lost</i> and similar games, and it does. Units have the traditional
attack-defence-move stats, combat is calculated on an Odds/Ratio basis, and the
order in which groups of units move and fight is determined by chit pull. A
given formation being activated by chit can usually also move extra independent
units, which otherwise have no chit in the cup. Units from the activated
formation have to be within the command range of their formation HQ unit to
activate themselves. The activation order is strictly on the order of chits
here, limited only by each side’s “limit” – i.e. the Germans and the two Soviet
Fronts can each have a certain number of activations, after which any
additional pulls are null. There are also special chits, which if drawn cause
special effects to occur – e.g. “bombardment” attacks, which are basically just
a free chance to damage enemy units with no risk to your own guys. One special chit
triggers a roll on the Random Events Table, of which a little more later.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">That all works
perfectly well (as it ought). The statistical design of units seems to me to be
historically plausible, combat is fine, the chit pull works well. There are
also air units, which each side gets and can use to influence the combat odds –
cleverly, one can either fully commit an air unit (for a bigger effect) and
lose the use of it for a couple of turns, or partially commit it and get it
back sooner. In fact, there’s even a naval unit for the Germans, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Hipper</i>, which sits in the Frische Haff
and can add its attack strength to combats within 2 hexes of that lake. These
are lovely touches, and work well in the dynamic of the game. Good wargame mechanics
can often be identified as those that efficiently model something “in the world”
– not simply good mechanics <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">per se</i>,
nor mechanics that exhaustively model something, but that crossover of
efficiency and modelling. Both air and naval units in this game are efficiently
modelled.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">One fair critique at
a purely mechanical level is the balance of chits in the chit draw. The Soviet
player draws plenty more chits each turn than the German player. The German
player draws between 3 and 5 chits per turn depending on the turn-specific
limit; the Soviet draws between 6 and 10. Formations are of similar sizes, with
the German corps tending to be a little larger than the Soviet armies. On most
turns, then, the Soviet player will move several more units than German. By the
final turn, with the Soviet drawing 10 chits and the German drawing 3, the
Soviet player may be moving a good clip over three times as many units,
depending on German attrition.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">In solo play this
isn’t a great issue, of course, and chit pull is geared well to solo play.
Moreover, at both a “tempo” level and in terms of historicity, this all makes
sense. But this imbalance, exacerbated as it is by the necessarily desperate
situation of the German defenders, does make this a game that will suit solo
players much better than face-to-face gaming.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">On the other hand,
the desperate situation mentioned there does make this very compelling for the
solo player. The red tide, activating in ever-increasing numbers (but having to
make up room over an increasingly large amount of map), swarms against ever-thinner
ad hoc lines of German defence. The German player will be desperately seeking
to hold an overland route open from Konigsberg to Brandenburg, and will be
constantly worried in the last couple of turns that he won’t succeed; the
Soviet player, on the other hand, has every resource on his side but time.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">With the one caveat
about competitive play in place – and easily solved by most wargamers being
solitary birds – it’s fair to say that this is a very respectable game. The
mechanics work, the chrome is generally efficiently flavourful, and the
situation is very tense. As a relatively inexpensive game ($45 from Revolution,
£45.95 from Second Chance Games) with a modicum of replayability, this is worth
looking into.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>The Morality of Dierolls<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">When we play an
Operation Typhoon game and play out the fall of Moscow, or when we see British
troops surrender at Singapore in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Empire
of the Sun</i>, we probably don’t overthink things. Bad things will result from
those events, whether historical or counterfactual, but the paper map and
cardboard counters give us the distance required to engage with the history as
an intellectual and even ludic exercise. I’m quite comfortable with that, on
the whole; I don’t think I’m dodging serious reflection on the morality of historical
events if I don’t constantly torment myself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">But <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Konigsberg</i> presses the question further.
The Soviet Sudden Death Victory condition gives a hint to the historical
situation – if the Soviets hold Konigsberg or Elbing at the end of a turn, they
win immediately. That’s par for the course, but the Random Events Table isn’t –
it includes “Soviet Atrocity” and “Refugees”. The former provides the Germans
with more Volkssturm (representing, presumably, motivated troops), the latter
slows down the next activation due to clogged roads.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">I appreciate the
frankness – both were serious considerations in the campaign. I don’t believe there
is any flippancy intended by Stefan Ekstrom, the designer. They are
mechanically efficient. But I can’t help but come away feeling a little –
strange. I didn’t, when playing, feel emotionally affected by these direct
references to tragedy, but nor did I glide past it. Those results brought me up
slightly – not quite to the point of reflection, but slight unease.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">I don’t mind that,
and I don’t consider it as an unfair ruining of my fun. I mean, I don’t want to
play The Train Game, but we wargamers can sometimes have the mindset of the
squeamish carnivore, can’t we? Serve me the steak, don’t show me the cow. The
designer has decided these are historically important matters to simulate; he
wouldn’t have sinned if he hadn’t, but he has. So my complaint is not at that
level. I’m just not sure it “comes off”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">What I mean is this:
It’s fine if wargames don’t simulate the grimmest aspects of their subject. It’s
fine if they do. But the simulation has to land well. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Black Orchestra</i> is a compelling game which also translates some of
the weight of the matter, of the conspiracies to kill Hitler; it’s a sober
subject but works well both ludically and emotionally. It does make it an
emotionally heavier game to play than <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Carcassonne</i>,
but that’s no complaint! On the other hand, the minimal and slightly
reductionistic references to the horrors of the East Prussian campaign we find
on the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Konigsberg </i>Random Events Table
feel slightly tacked on. They neither preserve intellectual distance nor land
an emotional punch. They are adequate at a game level but hardly exciting.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">There is a lesson
here, I suspect; cardboard does well as an intellectual time machine, but
emotional resonance requires real skill, and building it into a traditional
hex-and-counter frame is often going to struggle. The technology is maladapted
to the task.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Conclusion<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">With all that said,
this is a good game. It’s nicely produced, with a clean Joe Youst map and
decent counters. There’s plenty of nice chrome, the mechanics are smooth, and
the situation is compelling and tight. It’s ideal for solo play (if likely to
be less impressive in competitive play). The willingness to address the harder
parts of the history is admirable. It’s largely a success; its failures are
qualified. It’s worth a look.</span></div>
Owen Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02033345001593862263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606110578153730227.post-82616793249032107812019-07-01T12:10:00.001-07:002019-07-01T12:11:15.322-07:00REFLECTIONS: ASL Starter Kit #1 - by Ken Dunn (MMP)<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;">This
isn't a review, formally speaking, at least not in my usual style –
I'm not looking to come to a conclusion on ASL SK #1, yet, I'm not
going to give a system overview, and I don't have a thesis statement
about what is worth talking about in the game. But I've played SK1
three times – S1 Retaking Vierville, S2 War of the Rats, S3 Simple
Equation – with all its core mechanical components and a slight
variety of victory conditions, and am moving on to SK2 for now. It
seems a fit time to offer some thoughts about SK1. Those thoughts
are: frustrated, engaged, disaffected.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;">What's
wrong with it, then? Well, there's a raft of complaints about ASL
(and therefore the SK series) that are best second order items: Are
the squad stats historically sound (maybe not but that's not the
point of tension)? Is the art style outdated and alienating (maybe
and no, respectively)? Is even the SK series too full of exceptions
and possibilities (not...necessarily)?</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;">There's
an aesthetic experience – in the broadest sense of the word
aesthetic – involved in ASL which trades on certain design
decisions and the art style, and that aesthetic experience is
something people </span><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><b>buy</b></span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
I mean they buy it morally as much as physically: the delicate,
antiquated, compelling line art on the old-colour counters, the
lacklustre firepower and stubborn morale of the British compared to
the torrent of American guns backed by indifferent spine, the
existence of MMGs. It's a movie and it's a paean to a different era
in wargaming. To attempt to ground </span></span></span><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><b>objective</b></span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
judgements on these issues is to miss the real discussion, I think.
The art style is well-rendered and the counter iconography, though
imperfect, is perfectly functional; if you don't like it, it's a
matter of taste, not beauty. If you want better simulation of weapon
kitlists, you want a different game, not a “better” one.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">But
there is a discussion to have about ASL SK – do the bones support
the torso, or not? Is it a </span></span></span><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><b>good
</b></span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">movie
and paean? After a little experience with Infantry+SWs (so avowedly
not the WHOLE experience), I think this isn't self-evident. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">I'll
offer two examples of cinematic gameplay that seem to me, finally, to
be anti-cinematic, anti-dramatic; I cite them because they are often
mentioned in (exciting, enjoyable) AARs. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">EXAMPLE
ONE: ELR. Field Promotions have a similar effect to this, but a more
transparent mechanic, so I'll exclude them. ELR is a pretty central
feature of units in ASL SK, because it means every failed MC must be
checked against it for the breakdown effect, which itself requires
access to hypothetically the whole collection of SMC/MMC for that
nationality in this box. As the ELR rating is applied to the modified
MC DR, you can't readily eyeball a roll before applying modifiers; if
you do, the ELR check is one step later again. Given the relatively
high failure rate on MCs (i.e. a 2d6 roll against a usual range of
5-8, modified by IFT results and terrain, often trending to negative
modifiers once an MC is actually rolled), this is stuff you have to
do a lot.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
upside is this: troops break down in combat, some troops turn out to
be more resilient than others, and so forth (and Field Promotion
accomplishes the reverse). This is fun. But the mechanic is
distancing for me; fiddly, time-consuming, and requiring a larger
table footprint (for the various counters potentially needed).</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">EXAMPLE
TWO: Cowering. Simpler than ELR, certainly; if an MMC rolls doubles
when firing without Leader Direction, its attack is resolved on the
next-left column on the IFT. Great. This represents a unit failing to
put its heart into the attack when unsupervised. But this struggles
to make sense as a flat effect (thus requiring SSRs to let the stoic
British 1</span></span></span><sup><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">st</span></span></span></sup><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
Liners off!), is mechanically flavourless (that is, its flavour
effect is nominal at the strictly mechanical level; arbitrary doubles
turn into a column shift; no decisions, no special tables, just a
flat and arbitrary effect), and is easy to forget in the moment
unless one is a very seasoned ASL SK player.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Example
One offers us emotionally distancing fiddle, whilst Example Two is
weakly-flavoured chrome (to use a mixed metaphor). I'm not against
fiddly games; try running through fire combat in Civil War Brigade
Series or unit states in Musket and Pike, both of which I love, and
you'll see what I mean! Nor am I against chrome. My point is that
these examples seem to me to be examples of ASL SK utilising the
wrong tools to accomplish its objective as a game. These examples of
“cinematic mechanics” tend, for me, to make the game </span></span></span><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><b>less</b></span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><b>
</b></span></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">cinematic
and to be somewhat frustrating mechanics, too.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Now
I can only assume that to some degree these concerns of mine will
multiply with playing SK2-4 (all of which I own). Why torture myself?
There are some secondary reasons: it's gaming history repackaged, I
already own the games, and it's a cheapish and interesting way to get
a wide variety of WW2 squad tactical (including PTO, looking at you
</span></span></span><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Band
of Brothers</span></span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
including tanks, looking at you </span></span></span><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Combat
Commander</span></span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">).
But what's the main reason? Well, there's just very plainly something
else going on here. It is undoubtedly the case that there is a game
underneath the fiddle. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">ASL
SK is not simply a dirge-like calculation of factors, placement of
confusing counters, and forgetting of obscure rules (though at a low
point it can feel like that!). It's actually fascinating. The
differing unit capabilities, the array of decisions/options (I still
need to learn to use Smoke properly), the range of scenario designs
within the SK series – all these speak strongly for the series. And
it looks and feels good moving the counters, guessing LOS, applying
the best of the chrome. It is an often-compelling experience.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">It's
not my favourite squad tactical, but its mighty pedigree is justified
– there is a reason that ASL is a game which has justified five
boxed games in a specialist starter series.</span></span></span></div>
Owen Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02033345001593862263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606110578153730227.post-63805873679791790292019-02-27T12:35:00.001-08:002019-07-01T12:11:29.855-07:00REWIEW: Root - by Cole Wehrle (Leder Games)<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><u>Root
– by Cole Wehrle, Leder Games</u></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
Root
is a fantasy-themed card-assisted asymmetric wargame seating 2-4
players (with its first expansion, this shifts to 1-6). It's really
quite good, but beyond that there are some specifics which are worth
some thought and analysis. Particularly, I'm thinking about (1)
asymmetry in design – particularly in wargame design – and (2)
the fantasy theme in wargames.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><u><b>Design
Overview</b></u></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
First,
it's worth giving the design as a whole an overview. It's not super
rules-heavy; BGG gives it a moderate 3.45/5 rules weight, but it's
fair to say most of the difficulty experienced is in the asymmetry,
not in the rules any one player has to learn to play the game. There
are two rulebooks – they use the Fantasy Flight nomenclature to a
degree, with one called the “Learning to Play” book, but the
second book, the “Law of Root” (aka the rules reference manual)
does suggest reading one or the other on the basis of your learning
style – the LtP book is programmed instruction in a Euro style,
whilst the Law of Root is a case-system wargame manual, with full
numbering. The rulebooks are both adequate and I appreciate the dual
approach, though the Law lacks contents or index, which is a faux pas
for a wargame manual.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
The
other components are uniformly gorgeous, with decent cardstock
counters, linen-finish cards, wonderfully cute screen-printed wooden
warrior pieces, and a beautiful double-sided map depicting 12 clearings connected by paths, with each clearing matching one of the
suits of cards (Fox, Bunny, Mouse; there's also a Bird suit, which is
wild). The aesthetic effect cannot be underestimated – though the
design itself is very good, it is made maximally enjoyable via its
beauty and tactility.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
There
are four core factions, each looking to either be the first to score
30 points, or in 3-4 player games alternatively secure a “Dominance
Victory” (essentially, fulfil given map control conditions). There
are two universal ways to score points – destroying enemy
buildings or tokens (but not warriors, the military pieces) and
crafting cards from your hand (which can also be special abilities
for you to use, or items which you can potentially sell to one
specific faction). Each faction also has unique ways to score points. There
are also unique ways to score points, which naturally leads us to
examine the factions themselves. I'll do so in some detail, partly to
win over the hoary grognards amongst my readership by the beauty of
the design, and partly to explore the game's asymmetry.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><b>Faction
1: The Marquise de Cat</b></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
The Marquise starts in control of all but one of the 13 clearings on
the map. She has warriors all over, plus one of each of her three
types of building – the sawmill, the recruiting station (or as my
buddy has nicknamed it, “the Friendship Barn”), and the workshop.
Each of these fulfils a different function; the sawmill produces wood
each turn to use in constructing more buildings, the recruiter is
where the Marquise places new warriors, whilst the workshop
contributes to her ability to craft. She scores points by building
more buildings, though each type of building costs increasingly more
wood the more she builds (i.e. 1 wood allows you to build the second
instance of any type of building and scores 1 or 2 VP depending on
type, but the third instance requires 2 wood and scores 2 or 3 VP).
Buildings can only go on empty spaces in clearings – of which there
will always be a limited number. The Marquise has three actions per
turn (with the ability to gain more via discarding wild cards from
her hand); this is a low cap but her actions are pretty efficient,
with a Move action moving two groups, for instance. The Marquise
needs to control territory to get her economic engine going and
efficient, including maintaining lines of supply for her wood to be
used to build. I've seen the Marquise summed up as a Euro economy
faction – but there's far more to it than that, with a fine balance
needed of economy, military buildup/action, and secure area control.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><b>Faction
2: The Eyrie Dynasties</b></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
These guys used to rule the forest, but are now restricted to one
clearing, albeit in strength. The Eyrie is usually the most
explicitly “militaristic” faction; most of the time its ability
to score from crafting cards is limited, its main way of scoring
points is checking how many of its Roost buildings are on the board
at the end of each turn (so you need to expand to score higher
numbers of points), and its internal politics drive it forward to
conquer territory and make war. What do I mean by its internal
politics? Oh, just that the only way the Eyrie takes actions on the
map itself is via a card-driven programming game, where it must
fulfil all the steps in its programme or fall into chaos, and its
programme is partly defined by which Leader of the Eyrie currently
rules. The Eyrie's programme is called the Decree, which has four
consecutive steps: Recruit, Move, Battle, Build. These are parallel
to the Marquise's actions, though each instance is less efficient.
That's fine, because where the Marquise has that semi-capped 3
actions, the Eyrie can have as many as it can fulfil; you will see
functional Decrees with 9 or 10 cards in them, for example. However,
you HAVE to add 1 or 2 cards to the Decree every turn, and HAVE to
take actions in a clearing matching the “suit” of the particular
card. Oh, there are no enemy pieces in a Bunny clearing and you have
a Bunny Battle card? Sucks to be you, Eyrie – time to go into
Turmoil, lose some points, replace your Leader card, empty your
Decree, and lose the rest of your turn. Like the Marquise, the Eyrie
wants to build buildings, and it wants to control territory, but it
feels utterly different – the Eyrie is made up of aggressive birds
of prey who are able to strike with a rapidity and ferocity unknown
to the calculating Marquise, but they're also prone to squabbling
themselves to defeat. A functional Decree is a scary sight, and is
about the most powerful thing in the game, but it's a fine line
between a relentless machine of war and an ugly car crash.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><b>Faction
3: The Woodland Alliance. </b></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">For
those familiar with the COIN series, this is the IN faction, with the
Marquise and Eyrie acting as CO factions. The Woodland Alliance are
the common animals/people of the forest, sick to their eyeteeth of
the cats and birds bossing them around. They don't start on the
board, or with any ability to undertake military operations; instead,
their first few turns will be spent spending cards to spread Sympathy
across the Forest, before sparking a Revolt and setting up a Base in
a given clearing. They score points via Sympathy tokens, and they can
craft cards based on the “suits” of the clearings they have
Sympathy in – so Sympathy is a very powerful thing; however, if the
CO factions march their troops into a Sympathetic clearing, or
destroy a Sympathy token, they have to surrender cards to the
Alliance, representing more supporters joining the Alliance in anger
at the heavy-handed enforcement. Now, that's the soft war, the
hearts-and-minds stuff. The Alliance also have a limited ability to
wage war – much more limited than the Marquise or Eyrie, but
nonetheless significant. They're more limited because they have fewer
warrior pieces than the CO factions (10 Alliance, 15 Eyrie, 25
Marquise), and what's more, to take any military actions they have to
set aside some of those warriors as Officers – kept off the map,
allowing one military action (Move, Recruit, Battle, and the special
Organise action which removes a warrior to place a Sympathy token)
per Officer. This means that in a normal situation, they might have
only 7 warriors available to put on the map, and 3 actions to do
stuff with them. They are also vulnerable to having their operations
seriously disrupted if they see their Bases destroyed – they lose
cards and Officers in such an event. On the other hand, the game for
the Alliance isn't total map control, as they can only build three
Bases anyway. The game is spreading Sympathy and crafting, using the
Bases as hubs of power to secure Sympathetic pockets, enable Organise
actions, and disrupt opponents. By the end of the game the Alliance
superficially resemble the Marquise and Eyrie; they have buildings,
they have warriors, they have crafted stuff. However, they play
completely differently, relying much less on main force and much more
on strategic use of soft power.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;"><b>Faction
4: The Vagabond</b></span><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
To the wargamer, the Vagabond is the most distinct and strange
faction. Basically the Vagabond is some little dude wandering round
playing their own RPG. The Vagabond only has one piece on the board,
representing themselves; they can't be knocked off the board by
battle, and they can't control clearings. They do score points for
crafting and destroying buildings and tokens, and in a 4 player game
can win via a Dominance card – but in the latter case it actually
just allows them to ally with a different player and share their
victory. How on earth does the Vagabond win, then? They have three
unique ways of scoring points: (1) the Aid action, which involves
giving cards to other players (potentially in return for Items that
player has crafted) – the higher your Friendship rating with a
faction, the more points you score, and if you reach the maximum
level you can also treat that faction's pieces as your own, moving
and battling with them; (2) killing Hostile warriors scores you 1VP
per warrior removed – a faction is Hostile after the first time you
attack them; and (3) via Quests, which are cards which require you
exhaust certain Items in a particular suit of clearing – as the
reward of a Quest, you can either draw 2 cards from the main deck, or
score VP by the number of Quests you've completed in that suit. If
that wasn't distinct enough, the Vagabond undertakes actions not via
a default cap, a programme of cards, or a number of Officers, but via
using Items. The Vagabond starts with four Items, and gains more
either by buying them from other players with Aid actions, Crafting
them himself, or exploring the four Ruin markers dotted across the
map. There are different types of Items, allowing different actions –
for instance Boots allow movement, Swords allow combat, Bags allow
you to carry more items, and Hammers allow crafting or Item repair.
Item repair is relevant because you take hits in combat by damaging
Items. So you have your own little action economy based on having
bought/made/discovered specific Items. There are also multiple
Vagabond “characters”, one of which you pick before the game,
which defines your starting Items and gives you a special ability.
The Vagabond may seem the odd faction out, but as the player count
rises, the chaos factor they represent, and the value of their
friendship – whether in terms of Aid or in terms of them attacking
your enemies – can be a decisive element.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><u><b>Asymmetry
and War</b></u></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Root</span></span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
is an asymmetric wargame. There's a presupposition nested in that
statement – that war can be, or is, asymmetric. The main series of
wargames that investigates this concept is the </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">COIN</span></span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
series from GMT Games. One game in that series has as its four
factions the Colombian government, Marxist guerrillas, right-wing
deaths squads, and drug syndicates. Another has the Romano-British
military, the Romano-British civilian government, Celtic tribes, and
Germanic invaders. You can see how the abilities and objectives of
such factions might vary. </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">COIN</span></span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
games do give different factions mechanically distinct options –
e.g., Faction 1 can place “troop types” A and B (which can act in
slightly different ways) but no special markers, whilst Faction 2 can
place troop type B but has access to the special markers. This style
obviously suits strategic faction-driven games; some might argue that
it applies less well to other types of wargames. I think I'd observe
that all wars and all battles are somewhat asymmetric, in a strict if
limited sense – troop numbers vary, command ability differs,
industrial capacity is higher or lower, and so forth. You do see
other fairly “straight” games experiment with this in mechanical
terms – for instance, again at a strategic level, </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
U.S. Civil War</span></span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
by Mark Simonitch provides different victory conditions,
point-scoring methods, and recruiting rules for each side. It's far
more uncommon for battlefield games to represent actual mechanical
asymmetry – the two sides use the same rules, with the asymmetry
being numeric </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">within</span></span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
the mechanics – the Old Guard have Morale A, the pike-armed Russian
militia have Morale E. </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Table
Battles</span></span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
by Tom Holland does use significantly more asymmetry in its
mechanics, though this is arguably due to a significant abstraction –
it's not a map-based game, but is at core a dice pool game, with
different units (cards you place dice on) having quite distinct
abilities.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">All
these are forms of asymmetry – whether it's serious factional
asymmetry as in </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">COIN</span></span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
or “logistic” asymmetry as in </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
US Civil War</span></span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
“numeric” asymmetry as in the typical battle game, or
asymmetry-via-abstraction as in </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Table
Battles</span></span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
It's an obvious point, but a significant reason people play
historical wargames over, say, chess or Go is that it represents
actual situations, with two or more sides with leaders and troops of
different quality and use fighting over terrain that may give each
side different advantages. The flavour of historical wargames relies
– usually implicitly, but sometimes explicitly – on an asymmetry
of competence, opportunity, and capacity between the combatants.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Root</span></span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
is a game with as much if not more asymmetry as any </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">COIN</span></span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
game; it is mechanically smooth and comparatively easy to learn; it
is compact in terms of time (30-120 minutes, depending on player
count) and box size (more important than some think!). Most of all,
it's just very good fun. It's fun for the reasons stated – playing
a real game of discovery in a relatively short time period with
grokkable rules is rare and great – but it's also fun because it's
cute and it tells great stories.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Why
hasn't it achieved the same sort of success with my fellow
“traditional” wargamers as the </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">COIN</span></span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
series? Sure, the latter gets some sniffs from grognards over how
like a Euro it seems to them, but that hasn't stopped plenty of
greyheads getting into the series, and one need only look at the
speed of release of new volumes by GMT to see how commercially viable
it's been for them. </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Root</span></span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
is, in most respects, a “bigger” game – it's already in the BGG
top 100, it's gone through three printings, with the latest in five
figure numbers, it's got massive industry coverage. Why isn't it more
popular with wargamers?</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Because it's a fantasy game about cute little animals.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><u><b>The
Fantasy Theme and Wargames</b></u></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-size: small;">The fantasy theme is not terribly well respected by
traditional wargamers. This isn't surprising; if one is interested in
history, then fantasy wargames do not cut the mustard. In a way, this
is an unanswerable criticism. Fantasy wargames – whether <i>War of
the Ring</i>, <i>Wizard Kings</i>, or <i>Root</i> – simulate no
actual conflict, offer no actual historical insight.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<span style="font-size: small;">This probably explains why none of the three games I've
just mentioned are hex-and-counter, and scarcely any fantasy wargames
are. The most traditional, the most simulatory of subgenres has no
place for entirely ahistorical fantasy (though you wouldn't know it
based on some of the World War 2 games I've played...).</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-decoration: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
best way to frame any argument for grizzled grognards to play fantasy
wargames (</span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Root</span></span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
in this case) is instead, I think, to explain why I enjoy it. It
won't convince those most focussed on games-as-history, but it may
sway some fence-sitters.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Well,
Root is fun, it's not super-weighty, it has a quick playtime (30
minutes per player once players know rules). But it's also,
definitively, a wargame – even within the narrower definitions you
sometimes get, it involves plenty of direct conflict based on armies.
That action is relatively simple and the tactics abstracted (affected
chiefly by card-use, both passive and active), but it's a big part of
the game. Indeed, it's here that the least wargamey faction, the
Vagabond, becomes the MOST wargamey – once he's committed, and is
scoring points off killing off warriors from a faction, he becomes
the faction who most directly benefits from conflict.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Of
course, “involves direct army conflict” is a very limited
definition of wargame, and does mean that, yes, </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Risk</span></span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
is a wargame. More importantly, </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Root</span></span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
does actually offer light but compelling simulation of a number of
wargaming norms, which add up to make it an interesting lens through
which to see the hobby's subject. (Also – a non-traumatic lens for
some who would find actual war, especially modern war, disturbingly
close to home.)</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
game offers up one of the cleverest simple supply systems I know. You
can only move over a particular connecting path if you control either
the clearing you are moving from or the clearing you are moving to.
For the Marquise, her supply system of wood to build industrial
buildings relies on paths of controlled clearings. As a way to get
you thinking about the value of control of space – especially in
the context of space with particular connections and routes – this
is good. It's a lot simpler than Zucker!</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Root</span></span></span></i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
also leverages its asymmetry with incredible elegance to model two
elements of war which plenty of traditional wargames look at –
doctrine and war aims. Doctrine is a nearly universal concern of
games at the grand tactical and (for WW2) operational scales. This
can be modelled via OOBs, or via special rules for one side or the
other, or via the simple expedient of combat strength (Panzer divisions
get 5 attack whilst French DCRs get 3, or whatever). Root effectively
uses the special rule system, but in a way that is organically
determinative of play, which I appreciate but which isn't always the case. The Eyrie are
very aggressive, skilled in combat, but not very interested in
non-combat tech – their limitations on crafting, the Decree forcing
them to fight or Turmoil, and the three of the four leaders who
incentivize warfare all not just represent that ludically, but also
inform your play. You can play around their limitations, or seek to
develop other strengths, but the standard combat doctrine of a nation
of falcons and hawks is definitely there – and it's very different
from the Marquise, who is mostly aggressive to find space to build
(to score points via building and via Crafting) and is otherwise more
defensive of her territory, and they're both very different from the
Woodland Alliance, who scores points not via territorial control or
expansion or combat, but via gaining soft power through Sympathy,
with their military bases as a hub from which to spread propaganda. </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Which
brings us to war aims – though this is chiefly a concern of
strategic games in the traditional sphere, it's nonetheless a key
area of simulation design. How do you show the player why Germany
invaded Russia in the two world wars? Do you, as a designer, simply
think it was the “arrogance of princes”, do you think it related
to a perceived need for flank security, or do you think it was really
about the resources of the Ukraine and the Caucasus? Your design will
follow from there. Root does the same, and does it asymmetrically –
as mentioned above, each faction scores points differently. The
Marquise is concerned with industry and makes war to aid that, the
Eyrie has a domestic audience who demands success and expansion, the
Woodland Alliance wins by surviving its battles and winning hearts
and minds, and the Vagabond defines their own objectives in their
wanders through the forest.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Elegant,
intelligent pieces of wargame design – here I've considered supply,
doctrine, and war aims, though there are other similarly clever
things in this game – can give us insight even where they apply to
no actual conflict. Modelling a fantasy situation allows us to
consider how certain needs or ideas drive both battle and war,
without immediately needing to argue out whether it was in fact some
bloke called Franz Ferdinand or the grain of the Ukraine that was the
real reason for the whole thing. </span></span></span></span><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Root
</span></span></span></i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">presents,
at a fairly simple and approachable level, an Ideal form of war, its
motives, and its means. It simulates no particular war – and in
doing so, I think, gives insight on every war.</span></span></span></span></div>
Owen Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02033345001593862263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606110578153730227.post-8925816912905729782018-11-02T18:05:00.000-07:002018-11-02T18:05:08.198-07:00REVIEW: Fort Sumter – by Mark Herman (GMT Games)<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Mark
Herman invented the modern card-driven game (CDG), particularly in
its most common formulation – players take turns playing a card
from their hand either for the amount of action points denoted at the
top of the card, or for the special event described on it. The former
is much more flexible, whilst the latter is much more specific but
more powerful.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="text-decoration: none;">These
games range from the former BoardGameGeek #1 </span><i><span style="text-decoration: none;">Twilight
Struggle</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">
to the six-player game of diplomacy and warfare </span></span><i><span style="text-decoration: none;">Here
I Stand</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">.
A lot of these games run long – though a few examples might take 2
or 3 hours, some of the big boys like Herman's own </span></span><i><span style="text-decoration: none;">Empire
of the Sun</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">
can run at least 6 hours. </span></span><i><span style="text-decoration: none;">Fort
Sumter</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">,
Herman's latest from GMT, is a CDG that takes 25-40 minutes, and is
intended to be played over a single lunchtime. It's a game about the
efforts by Unionist and Secessionist politicians to see their side
win out leading up to the American Civil War,</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">Very
quick run-down: over three rounds plus a final minigame, two players
vie for control of four areas (Public Opinion, Political, Secession,
Armaments) on the board, each of which is made up of three spaces.
One space is in turn the “Pivotal Space” for that area –
control of it allows manipulation of the control tokens in that area
at the end of the round, before scoring. Players alternate playing
cards, generally to place or remove their tokens or their opponents
from the spaces on the board (both action point use and most card
events have to do with this). They are trying to control areas at the
end of the round, and to control a specific space defined by a secret
objective card they drew at the start of the round. They also set
aside a card each round to use in the final minigame, the “Final
Crisis”, which has three mini-rounds of its own, the result of each
of which gives players another chance to manipulate the control of
spaces on the board (this is a way in which </span></span><i><span style="text-decoration: none;">Fort
Sumter</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">
is very like </span></span><i><span style="text-decoration: none;">1960:
The Making of the President</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">,
for those familiar). Each card has a characteristic matching one of
three areas of the four you want want to control during the game –
if you and your opponent play a matching characteristic in a Final
Crisis mini-round, you both remove cubes from that area, if you play
different characteristics, you both can place cubes into that area.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">There
are a couple of garnishes on this fairly simple salad. A bit of saucy
drizzle, if you will. There is a Crisis Track, which is where the
cubes you use to mark your side's control of a space are stored. This
is divided into four zones; as you escalate the crisis by putting
more influence into the struggle to win over key constituencies,
certain effects come into play. Basically, if you breach Crisis zones
before your opponent, you generally receive a penalty. One of the
zones involves a VP penalty (but you get more bonus cubes than your
opponent will); another lets your opponent play the Peace
Commissioner, a piece who blocks placement, movement, or removal of
pieces from a particular space. That's the second garnish – the
Peace Commissioner lets you lock down a piece of the board, and can
be moved by certain cards being played for their event.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">It's
fun, simple, clean. It's a solid introduction to CDGs, with fairly
open interactions which allow you to consider whether you should play
a card for points, its event, or put it into the Final Crisis. The
order in which you play your cards each turns matters, whether
because it masks or exposes your objective card, or because of the
roving Peace Commissioner. The Final Crisis itself has some
borderline meaningful bluffing and pop psychology involved (“if
they have Armaments, when will they play it?!”). It's a lovely
little palate cleanser with real content. But.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">But
it raises for me the complex question – especially with wargames,
which this is adjunct to – of the relationship of theme and rules.
Yes, the cards are called things like “Frederick Douglass” (a
Unionist event who boost Public Opinion for your side) or “Russell
of the Times” (a neutral event who lets you convert Public Opinion
into Secession or Political influence). There's some slight
connection between card theme and area of influence here, yes –
Frederick Douglass writes a book which increases Abolitionist
sentiment, Russell is an influential journalist who affects local
politics. But it's skin-deep, really. The areas are broadly
interchangeable, except Politics can't be shifted during the Final
Crisis, and the Armaments space Fort Sumter is the tiebreaker space.
That's cute, but ultimately bland.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">In
the strongest Euros – at least those which I engage with best –
the theme communicates the rules. In the best wargames, the rules
teach you the theme, that is, the history behind the game. There's
little of either here. At best, the theme, so far as the cards and
map go, can act as a mnemonic to remind you of something – Fort
Sumter is the tiebreaker! But that's it. That's not issues,
necessarily – if it's a traditional wargame with abtruse rules
which aim to simulate the conflict.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">But
you learn little about the actual events leading up to Secession,
either. You might perhaps be prompted to find out why Frederick
Douglass might be considered to have swayed public opinion at the
time, but the card itself, and its interplay with the game, gives you
nothing concrete. The card gives you a set of mathematical options,
not an insight into history. It's a prod to learning, but not a form
of learning itself.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">I
think many – though not all – of us wargamers play games to learn
history. We don't believe the game is “historically accurate” in
some sort of Emperor's Map form – of course it's abstracting
everything to one degree or another. But we play games to help us
learn and reflect upon aspects of war. OCS or the Campaigns of
Napoleon help us comprehend a bit more about logistics, whilst
something lighter like Napoleonic 20 gives us a simpler insight into
operational manoeuvre. </span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i><span style="text-decoration: none;">Fort
Sumter </span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">does
not accomplish that goal. The mechanics of the game do not
meaningfully teach me anything about the Secession Crisis. The game
may be a spur to education – but the artefact itself teaches the
basics of CDGs far better than it teaches American history.</span></span></div>
<br /><br />
Owen Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02033345001593862263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606110578153730227.post-64734305104092471452018-01-18T10:39:00.003-08:002018-01-20T12:04:30.403-08:00REVIEW: Cruel Morning: Shiloh 1862 - by Sean Chick (Tiny Battle Publishing)<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<u>Cruel Morning Shiloh
1862, designed by Sean Chick, published by Tiny Battle Publishing</u></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>The
Review Bit</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I want to accomplish two things with this review: explain what <i>Cruel
Morning: Shiloh 1862 </i> attempts
to achieve, and whether it does so; and to use that as a way of
connecting wargame design, in a very light way, to auteur theory.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The game is designed by Sean Chick,
with art by Jose Ramon Faura. The art is colourful and stylish
without being particularly “deep”; it's colourful and the colour
prints well, on map and counters. The counterstock is a little
dubious, though that has something to do (one imagines) with the
price point – this is a very affordable folio game. On the other
hand, the counters themselves are individually lasercut, and are a
generous size. The map is small (11x17) with large hexes and fairly
clear terrain and objective markers.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The situation is a brigade-scale
examination of the Battle of Shiloh (6<sup>th</sup>
to 7<sup>th</sup>
April, 1862, in south-eastern Tennessee), during the American Civil
War. The Rebels launch a surprise attack on the encamped Federals
beside the Tennessee River.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The game in most respects follows
typical hex-and-counter conventions: move units, attack with units,
roll dice to determine the results. There are three key mechanical
distinctives, however, relating to the 2<sup>nd</sup>,
3<sup>rd</sup>,
and 5<sup>th</sup>
phases of each player's turn – Artillery Bombardment, Activation,
and Combat (the other four phases, Initiative, Movement, Recovery,
and Victory, are slightly more familiar).
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Artillery Bombardment is the first
thing to happen after Initiative is rolled – players alternate
place and firing with their artillery. Place artillery? Yes –
artillery is usually off-map in between turns. Instead, if it's
available, it's placed during the Bombardment phase in a hex with a
unit from the same formation of troops. It then, aside from
Bombarding (which isn't required), supports its hexmates through the
turn. Artillery can also be placed by a defender in Combat, if
available and if it passes a 50/50 check. After each player has done
all their own Movement and Combat, most Artillery is removed from the
map, and a six-sided die rolled to determine how many turns it will
take for the Artillery to be available again (there are, of course,
modifiers to the table based on situation). This makes Artillery
flexible and partially fungible – it does not have movement
restrictions as artillery in similar games do, and can, with a little
luck, dash between different points of crisis. An artillery counter
is more abstract than, say, an infantry brigade – it represents
several batteries, and its use indicates a particular commitment or
effort by some of its constituent units. It is more clearly a
“resource counter” than the other unit counters; its use is
actually half-way toward the entirely abstracted use of Support
Makers in the <i>Fire and Movement</i>
system. This is, generally speaking, something I appreciate – not
<i>over</i> artillery being a
normal unit, but as a different way of discussing the use of
artillery in the era.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The Activation Phase is the first
part of each player's own little sub-turn – Activation, Movement,
Combat. In it, the player checks how many Command Points he has –
he starts with a Base CP from the specific scenario, and, if he has
an Army Commander on the field, rolls to see if he gets any bonus CP
(the better the Army Commander the more likely he is to get a nice
bonus). CP are spent in varying denominations to activate either
individual counters or whole formations. Two factors influence how
this happens – first, whether you want to guarantee activation or
just want to gamble on the unit passing a Quality Check. The latter
is cheaper! Second, units that are “in command” - that is, within
a certain distance of their commander's counter – have an easier
time being activated than those outside. Some people hate “Action
Point” systems like this – I quite like them. They abstract the
general “luck” of command and control in a way that places the
decisions squarely in the hands of the player – look, your army
isn't going to do loads this turn; some commanders are being
sluggish, others are busy scouting, your staff officers are very
dispersed. But you get to pick what you focus on. Interesting
decisions make for good games.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I've touched on the final
distinctive – Combat is chiefly based on a Quality Check. A key
feature of the system is that, though units have a Strength value
showing how many men there are in it, they also have a Quality value
showing how experienced or motivated they are. In combat (which is
mandatory; all possible attackers must attack all possible
defenders), each side rolls a six-sided die for each of its Units
participating in the specific combat being resolved. The die roll is
modified by the relative strengths of the two sides – whoever has
more troops usually gets a bonus (which is, in this case, a negative
value!), which is higher or lower depending on their strength
advantage, expressed as an odds ratio. Units are trying to roll equal
or lower than their Quality, with a 6 an auto-fail and 1 an
auto-pass. If you fail, the unit is damaged. This is a really
interesting way of doing things – quality, not numbers, are usually
the main determinant, but numbers can eventually tell!
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Here comes some criticism, however:
the game is incredibly bloody due to the particular interaction of
these systems and others in the game. Combat is mandatory, and it can
be practically hard to move away from the enemy; there is a 1-in-6
chance for every unit that they will take damage, usually amounting
to a 50% loss of their starting strength; and though there is a
chance in the Recovery Phase for units destroyed that turn to come
back at half-strength, it's a fairly small probability that they will
do so, all told (it must pass a Quality Check and must be able to be
placed back on the map outside of certain ranges of the enemy, and
within 3 hexes of their Division Commander – which given the high
leader casualty rates in the game can be impossible!). The net result
of this is the wholesale destruction of armies. The rules attempt to
model – in an intelligent and creative way – the way in which
morale was a massive factor, and ebbed and flowed during battle. But
the narrow probability range on a six-sided die and the difficulty of
Recovery make it very easy for formations to evaporate. The designer
has recognised this as a problem already, and intends to make
Recovery more likely in future games using this system; this is an
excellent pieces of news, as it will really help improve the system.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There are also some great ways in
the game of offering variation and replayability. One is the chance
every turn of a random event, like Poor Weather or an Obtuse
Commander ruining things. The other is a massive variety of both
scenarios and optional reinforcements – 4 scenarios, including two
alt-history ones; 3 blocks of optional Confederate reinforcements
(one of which may bring in extra Union reinforcements too) and 1
change to normal reinforcement entry; and 7 optional rules or normal
reinforcement changes for the Union. This is just excellent and to be
learned from by designers of bigger games – how about GBACW or LOB
having a Shiloh game with the possibility of a division escaping
Donelson, or Charles F. Smith remaining in command of the Army of the
Tennessee?</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>The
Designer-as-Auteur Bit</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
All wargames have a view of history; all wargames offer some sort of
interpretation of their history. GBACW, as a series, has always
argued that weaponry and troop quality were the key features of the
American Civil War – though the latest incarnation adds in
chit-pull to handle command-and-control (units activate based on when
their chit is pulled out of a cup, broadly speaking). I suppose I
don't know if this is what Richard Berg himself thinks about the
American Civil War, but the stats used in the game and the weight
assigned to them suggest so. <i>Across Five Aprils </i>also
uses chit-pull, but implies that the key factor about the troops
themselves was their number, with troop quality as a modifier to
combat resolution dice rolls; on the other hand, it also emphasizes
the incredible difficult of executing tactical planning via its
Combat Chit mechanism (combat only happens when Combat Chits comes
out of the cup). The relatively simple <i>Battle Cry</i>
uses a randomized hand of cards to determine what units you can use
each turn, and uses strength as pretty much the sole determinant of
combat effectiveness.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i>Cruel Morning</i>, on the other
hand, gives players more control over who does what when – rather
than using randomized chit pull or card draw to determine who moves
or who attacks, you get to decide. But you don't know how much you'll
be able to do each turn. This makes a different statement about
battle: rather than emphasizing chaos, it emphasizes command
decision. It has an element of chaos (a die roll), just as the other
games let you decide how to manage that chaos – but <i>Cruel
Morning</i> reflects its designer's
stated belief that command problems are better represented via Action
Point systems, and indeed that this makes for a better and more
interesting game. <i>Cruel Morning</i>
also emphasizes troop quality over strength; it is the precise
inverse of <i>Across Five Aprils</i>
in that way, with strength being the modifier rather than troop
quality. Chick is claiming that – at least in the American Civil
War – élan and experience matter more than numbers.
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The massive variety of alt-history
options also show the designer's view of that history – history
isn't inevitable, at least before it happens! What if some other
relatively small thing had happened? Would it have changed history?
What if Napoleon had been killed by that pike at Toulon? What if the
Valkyrie bomb had done its job? On a smaller scale – what if
Buckner had been permitted to finish the break out at Donelson? Sure,
Shiloh still happens, as Donelson and Nashville still fall – but
Johnston has several thousand extra troops, who have seen combat and,
in a sense, triumphed.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The designer's work is not
inevitable either – they make decisions. They don't just make
decisions about what specific factoids they believe – did the Nth
Division take this or that road? Why was the message delayed? They
also make statements about how they think whole wars were fought, and
ultimately, even how human beings work. All designers live inside a
broader tradition – and interpret the history of that tradition as
much as the history of their game – but some are bolder, or make
different statements. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone
faithfully reproducing the tradition in a sharper form – we need
that. But we also need those with a distinct style and willingness to
disagree or diverge. Jim Krohn is an obvious designer in this mould,
especially with <i>Band of Brothers</i>
– “how did WW2 squad tactical battles actually happen, because I
don't think they happened like in ASL?” Another might be Carl
Paradis - “man, these million-year-long Barbarossa games are
ubiquitous and boring, what might be a simple but good simulation and
game?” Sean Chick is definitely in this vein. He is willing to
abandon hex-and-counter truisms to do with strength and focus very
tightly on quality; he wants the ability to explore all sorts of
alternate timelines. Of course, one may robustly disagree with Krohn
or Paradis or Chick – I do sometimes! - but they have succeeded at
making us think, which is for me a key objective in my wargaming. We
need “auteur designers” - to push forward the hobby, and to
challenge its players.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Conclusion</b></div>
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i>Cruel Morning</i> is seriously
flawed – its combat ends up significantly impinging on its simulation
value and its gameplay fun. But the sheer scope of what is offered –
in 9 or so pages of rules! - is remarkable and impressive. It's also
a genuinely promising system – it has essentially quite clever,
fun, and thought-provoking systems, offered on a small footprint at a
low price. Its one real flaw is being resolved. This is genuinely
a system to get into, if you are into simple-but-good games, or if
you're more generally into the American Civil War. I highly recommend
it.</div>
Owen Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02033345001593862263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606110578153730227.post-24258191069367262212017-08-10T10:27:00.003-07:002017-08-10T10:32:02.408-07:00REVIEW: Musket and Saber QP: Wilson's Creek 1861: Opening Round in the West, 10 August 1861 - by Chris Perello (Decision Games)<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i><u>Musket &
Saber Quickplay - Wilson's Creek: Opening Round in the West, 10
August 1861</u></i><u> – by Chris Perello (Decision Games)</u></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Introduction</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I
am really interested in “intro games” for the wargaming hobbies –
legitimately good, deep games with a short play time and
easy-to-learn rules. I like the <i>Commands
& Colors</i>
system on that basis. I'm looking forward to Mark Herman's <i>Fort
Sumter</i>
for the same reason (you can pre-order it from GMT Games, people).
Having enjoyed Decision Games' <i>Fire
and Movement</i>
system in its Folio Series representation of the Battle of the
Scheldt in World War 2, I picked up several games from another system
of theirs – <i>Musket
and Saber</i>. My wife enjoyed the Scheldt game, but would prefer to play Napoleonic Wars/American Civil War – the core time period for Musket and Saber. <i>Musket and Saber</i> seemed like a perfect fit on that basis.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Of the games I bought, one was a Folio Series game (Pea Ridge), and
three were Mini Series games (Wilson's Creek, Salem Church, and
Mansfield). The Folio Series game has 8 pages of core rules for the
series, and 4 pages for the specific scenario; the Mini Series has a
“Quickplay” version of the rules, with 4 pages of core series
rules, and 2 pages for the scenario. The Mini Series games claim a
lower-end gametime of 60 minutes, topping out at a high-end gametime
of 2 hours, and use around 40 counters total on an 11”x17” map (a
gorgeous piece by Joe Youst). These are small games and can be played
on a very small playing area. The only thing you'll need to add are
two normal six-sided dice.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I've played one so far – Wilson's Creek – and have mixed feedback
to offer. For the sake of this review, it'll be useful to, in a
sense, discuss the two sets of rules in the ziplock, and ask – are
the rules any good? And is the scenario any good?</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Are
the rules any good?</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The
core Quick Play rules for <i>Musket
and Saber</i> are 4 pages long. Somehow a lot of system fits into that. This is a
pretty standard hex-and-counter game in most respects, modelling
grand tactical (i.e. whole battles) actions in the 19<sup>th</sup>
century – players take turns moving and attacking with their
counters (usually consisting of Leaders, Cavalry, Infantry, and
Artillery) on a hexgrid map. After a certain number of turns the game
ends and the victor is determined. There are no surprises in the
basic flow of the game for players who have any experience in the
genre. The rules are fairly simple and clearly laid out.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Items of interest for curious gamer include: (1) Leaders chiefly
function as stat buffs for units they are stacked with, if those
units share the Leader's formation; (2) super-hard ZOCs (Zones of
Control, the six hexes around the hex the unit is in), ending
movement in but also restricting movement out to one hex, which
cannot be another enemy ZOC; (3) Differential-based combat, where an
attacking forces of 9 Strength Points against 3 defending is
expressed as +6 rather than 3:1; (4) a simultaneous Combat and Morale
roll during combat, with two dice rolled, one representing each; (5)
a distinction between Safe, Unsafe, and No Lines of Retreat for units
forced to retreat in combat, based on where enemy units are in
respect of the retreating units, leading to different secondary
results. There are also rules for cavalry and infantry forming
square, but these aren't germane to the American Civil War scenarios.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There are some really fun things in the system. It's simple but has a
decent amount going on behind the scenes, which is a big thing in its
favour. It has the pleasing efficiency of simultaneously rolling the
die which will determine the Melee results, whilst also rolling a die
to determine any Morale checks which are a result of that Melee. Its
approach to ZOCs is evidently an attempt to encourage the use of
reserves and of modelling the stickiness of close engagement without
resort to extra markers or dice modifiers. Differential-based combat
is a satisfying way of providing better granularity (albeit
necessarily over a smaller range of unit strength points/combat
factors) in combat than odds-based systems.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Not all of it quite works, at least in all situations – the low
counter density and generally short length of game (in terms of
number of turns in the game) means that the hyperactive effects of
ZOCs in the game is exaggerated. In scenarios where the ground scale
is 352 yards and each turn covers 1 and a half hours, it feels
strange that a regiment or brigade might take a whole 90 minutes to
move 352 yards away from an enemy it's been fighting (where a routed
unit might take no casualties whilst safely fleeing three times that
distance in the face of the enemy). That's not to say they shouldn't
be slow in withdrawal – but semi-porous ZOCs, with moving out
costing extra movement rather than causing a flat cap, seems like a
better bet, and would reward having a Leader stacked with that unit
(as his Movement buff could be used to get your troops into the fight
elsewhere quickly).
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
That's the most significant niggle, but in a small footprint, short
playtime game it's no big deal. There are other small issues –
Leaders are very powerful as unit buffs but not that important for
command and control, for instance. However, on the whole, the system
does give a sense of the major battlefield concerns of the era
(keeping reserves to bolster armies with fragile morale, the complex
battlefield logistics of massing forces, holding that terrain which
aided contemporary weaponry), with a fairly small rules overhead.
However, one vital thing is missing from the core rules – the
Combat Results Table (CRT), which is instead customized for each
scenario and included in the scenario rulesheet. The CRT is the final
test of the system, which if successful gives the player a sense of
being at the sharp end in the combat of the specific era; it's a
serious litmus test for simulation realism and player engagement. To
know how successful that element of the game is, we'll need to look
at its iteration in a specific scenario. On that basis, let's turn to
Wilson's Creek.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Is
the scenario any good?</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The types of results available on the CRT are nuanced and show some
thought behind the design – for instance, a roll of 4 always leads
to all Leaders on both sides in the combat rolling to check if they
are wounded or killed. This makes close combat risky for all sides,
no matter how otherwise overwhelming one force is – if you get that
“middling” result on the CRT, your heroic general may be struck
down at the moment of his triumph. The CRT in general emphasizes
Morale Checks, which if passed allow you to hold your ground in a
tight battle. A few of the results also create a decision space for
players – do they withdraw, or stay close but apply a different
negative result? It is a relatively bloodless CRT – except for
“coincidental” losses to units from unsuccessful Routs, there is
only one result (Ex) which guarantees casualties on either side. In
the only other result which produces losses (Ax/Dx), the loss is an
alternative to retreating which the player may choose if they pass a
Morale Check.
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Though
this doesn't completely model the relative bloodyness of American
Civil War battles (which often saw about 3 times as many casualties
as in the same-sized battle of the American Revolution), the number
of losses for each side in my play of this isn't far off the
historical percentage. The Union took 3 step losses out of 15 total
steps of infantry and artillery – historically they took about 20%
casualties, so that seems right. The Confederates took 2 step losses
out of 22 totals steps of mounted infantry, infantry, and artillery,
not far from their historical loss rate of 10%. That said, the
Confederates are able to “heal” damaged units using a special
rule only available to them, so at the end of the game they actually
had functionally suffered no step losses. That special rule, however,
is pretty insignificant given the real issue with this scenario.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Essentially,
given the bloodlessness of the CRT, and the relative possibility of
escaping unscathed when Retreating or Routing from combat, the
victory condition for the Confederates is next to impossible. For a
major victory, they are supposed to eliminate or rout off the map all
Union units (except Vedettes, of which more below) whilst also having
moved some of their mounted infantry units off the board in pursuit.
A minor victory for them still requires them to chase the Union
entirely off the board and then score more Victory Points. The Union,
to win a major victory, must simply still have a unit on the board at
the end of the game, or they must take the Confederate HQ (but why
would they even bother to try?).</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Now,
in one sense, given the time scale represented in the game, this is
nearly the historical result – there are 9 turns in the game,
running from 5:30am to 5:30pm. The main battle was over earlier in
the afternoon, albeit via the Union forces formally withdrawing
rather than being routed. However, as described, there are simply not
realistically enough combat results forcing losses to do real damage,
and even when Routed I was usually able to safely withdraw my Union
troops.
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This
leaves one with the uneasy sense that this scenario was not properly
playtested. That's a shame, given a lot of the scenario design is
clever or interesting. For instance: Union Vedette units who can't
fight but can slow Confederate movement; the Union player choosing
where and when to enter the map; the Confederates being initially
less able to move their units due to their surprise, and being unable
to effectively co-ordinate the two groups that made up their army
(Confederate and Arkansas troops and the Missouri State Guard);
Confederate mounted riflemen being basically just quick but unwieldy
infantry; and various historically elite units being represented
nicely (the capable and robust Confederate Army troops under McIntosh
and Hebert, the very good but very fragile regular US Army troops
which have the highest Combat rating in the game but only one step
per unit). Nonetheless, the final impression I took away was of a
half-baked design which had been churned out upon demand.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Conclusion</b></div>
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The
<i>Musket and Saber
</i>Quickplay
rules are very functional. I'll need to play them more to get a
thorough sense of how they model, at a simple level, ACW battles.
However, they do some key things well – for instance, the
prevalence of poor drill and discipline, represented by the way Routs
and Disruption work. As to the specific scenario, only play it with
some kind of “fix” in place for the victory conditions – I've
uploaded an alternative on BGG (and Confederate set-up information,
as the module as published gives unhistorical set-up positions),
which you can find at
<a href="https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/150312/musket-saber-qp-wilsons-creek-unofficial-alternate">https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/150312/musket-saber-qp-wilsons-creek-unofficial-alternate</a>.</div>
Owen Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02033345001593862263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606110578153730227.post-75917683275487296422017-08-03T06:36:00.001-07:002017-08-10T10:27:33.189-07:00REVIEW: Commands and Colors: Ancients - by Richard Borg (GMT Games)<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i><u>Commands and
Colors: Ancients</u></i><u> by Richard Borg</u></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Introduction</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
That <i>Commands &
Colors: Ancients </i>is a great
game, is a fact (nearly) universally acknowledged; but it ought to
interest us why great games are great games. Naturally, the way we
usually first respond to games we enjoy is along the following lines:
“that mechanic was really fun”, “I enjoyed this decision”,
and so forth. For <i>C&C:A</i>,
the impressionistic statement that sums up what makes the game great
is an unusual one, insomuch as it sounds negative: “why on earth is
my hand of cards this bad?!”. However, what that statements
represents is this: <i>C&C:A </i>may
be the best, most satisfying simulator of command and control issues
in warfare on the market.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Summary</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
First,
a summary of the game: in <i>C&C:A</i>,
each player controls an army of the ancient world – Romans,
Carthaginians, Greeks, and so forth. Their army consists of various
units, each of which consists of a number of wooden blocks (4 for
infantry, 3 for cavalry, 2 for elephants and chariots, 1 for leaders).
These are deployed on a hex-based map, which may be entirely open
ground or may have some terrain hexes in place, as per the historical
battle being fought. Each player has a hand of cards – more cards
if their generals are better – and each turn they will each play
one, before drawing a new card. These cards broadly fall into two
types: one type activates units in each of the three sectors of the
battlefield (Left, Centre, Right); the other activates units based on
their formation and weaponry (Light, Heavy, Mounted, etc). Activating
a unit allows you to move and attack at range or in close combat;
each unit's capabilities in movement and combat are defined in one of
the play aids. Light troops are fast, capable of ranged combat, and
able to avoid the worst of enemy melee attacks, whilst being pretty
bad up close themselves; Heavy troops are slow, can't fire at range,
but are lethal in close combat. Essentially the game consists of
stringing together moves and attacks from the cards in your hand, so
as to destroy the number of enemy units and occupy victory hexes
required by the scenario for victory.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
You
can learn it in just a few minutes with the right teacher, though the
rulebook doesn't always make it seem that simple. The niggles there
include: terrain effects could be made clearer (as they are with the
TEC in the <i>Napoleonics</i>
version of the game), and unit special rules could be collated
better. Generally, one's induction into the game could be done better
in the first few pages of the rulebook. But this is nonetheless all
pretty trivial stuff. The components – mounted mapboard, command
cards, wooden blocks, stickers – are all of a very high quality.
Some players complain about having to affix stickers to the blocks
(hundreds of blocks in the core set, 2 stickers each) – frankly I
quite enjoy it. Your anal retention mileage may vary on that, of
course.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Command
and Control</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So
what about my claim above that the command and control mechanics in
this game are amongst the best? Well, for the sense of frustration I
described, imagine this: your hardest hitting units are spread on
your right and centre. You manage to get moving in the centre, but
you're just not getting cards for the right section. You're having to
use other cards (Move Heavy Troops, for instance, or a card allowing
you to activate a Leader and nearby units) to get anything going
there. Your centre units take out some of the enemy, but are
shattered in turn. The enemy is just in reach of your right flank
units, and it may all come down to what you draw at the end of your
turn. If it activates those troops – victory! But if not –
disaster.
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Is
this relying too much on luck? Well, over the course of a game, you
should get at least some useful cards, and at any rate, your job at
the start of Turn One is to see what strategy you can come up with
what's in your starting hand. My experience of over 50 games of C&C:A
is that what feels like bad luck in your hand – or on the dice –
turns out to be far more nuanced, far more balanced. You always get
some good cards and you always get some good dice, but we tend to
assign disproportionate weight to those moments we *think*
are key, and forget everything else. If nothing else, what
goes around comes around. Sure, it seemed like your opponent had all
the good cards one game, but watch their face fall in your rematch.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But
why am I saying this is so good? Well, the cards themselves and the
hand-management sub-game are very successful at creating the effect
of “friction”, Clausewitz's concept of the confusion and
efficiency degradation inherent on the battlefield. I say they
produce the effect, because this is avowedly “design for effect”
- the experience you have is a good simulation, but the way you
accomplish that is not. You may be surprised to hear this, but real
world generals don't manage their armies using cards of hands.
Napoleon didn't lose at Waterloo because he couldn't get a card for
Grouchy's wing. However, all wargame mechanics have a degree of
“design for effect” involved, even at the basic level that
gamemaps are tiny-scale 2D representations of real physical space.
Abstraction always leads away from “design for cause” to “design
for effect”. The fact that – as I'll explain – the cards in
C&C:A do the latter so well is worth remarking and studying.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
On
a battlefield, two key things affecting command and control are the
amount of information available to the command and the efficiency of
the command and control structures. In C&C:A, the players know
exactly where every unit is, they know what the victory conditions
are, they know any special rules – but they don't know what units
can move at any time. They don't know what choices are available to
their opponent (as they can't see their hand of cards), and they
don't know what future choices are available to them (as they can't
see the ordering of the deck). They can try to guess what their
opponent is doing based on what cards they've played, they can try to
piece together a strategy of their own from what's in their hand and
what they can hope to get from the deck, and those two pieces of
speculation are a large part of the skill of the game. This isn't
just a fun game element – it does (I'd argue) successfully
challenge the player with the real lack of information generals
suffer from, and force them to make the sort of speculative decisions
necessary on a changing battlefield.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The
card mechanic also helps model the effect of friction on the
efficiency of command and control structures. The contents of the
deck helps players with units spread evenly across the battlefield,
but in adjacent groups led by Leader blocks (via its spread of
Section and Leadership cards). The size of your hand is affected by
the skill of your commanding general, so the number of choices and
amount of information available to you is in proportion to your
army's command and control capability. As the battle proceeds, and
each player's formations begin to break up due to combat and due to
only being able to order so many units each turn, command and control
becomes harder to exercise. By the end, both players are desperately
trying to mass forces at the point of decision via increasingly
inefficient cardplays, each looking to strike the final winning blow.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Plenty
of very good games don't offer this much simulation of command and
control issues. The two previous games I've reviewed here – <i>Fire
and Movement: Battle of the Scheldt</i> and <i>BoAR: Monmouth</i> –
and three games I'll be reviewing soon – <i>Rommel's War</i>, <i>ASL
Starter Kit #1</i>, and <i>Musket and Saber: Wilson's Creek</i> –
all have essentially good core systems, but none seriously model
command and control, whether at the squad tactical, grand tactical,
or operational scale. Most of those games are the same sort of
complexity as C&C:A or heavier. For a simple-ish game to so
effectively give players the sort of difficulties and confusion
proper to a general on a battlefield is, I think, a real success.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Sniffs
and Coughs</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The <i>Commands and Colors</i> series receives a lot of
condescension. Critical grognards may allow that it's “more or
less” a wargame, and that possibly it's an alright gateway game,
but real wargamers will grow past it. The core of the criticism is
about the game's depth – does it simulate at any deep level the way
ancient (or Napoleonic, or WW2, or whatever) worked? I'll stick here
to discussing how it deals with ancient warfare.
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I've already vigorously lauded its command and control mechanics. The
most popular approaches to modelling that in the current wargames
market, as far as I can see, rely on either chitpull or on Berg-style
leader activation (ala <i>Great Battles of History </i>or <i>of the
American Civil War</i>). Chit pull is slightly more complex than
C&C:A, and the contents of a chit cup or the order of activations
can be manipulated in various ways; Berg-style systems are almost by
their nature a lot more complex, though they do bring a lot of depth
with them. Chit-pull, then, is almost as simple to integrate into a
system, though arguably less intuitive to the non-wargamer, and seems
easier to granulate. However, the same can be done with <i>Commands
and Colors</i> – specific cards can start in player's hands, for
instance. One could argue either way as to dramatic value (which chit
comes out next, which cards comes out from the deck), but C&C:A's
Igo Ugo play probably helps keep the newer player better invested.
So, yes, as to command and control, C&C:A is a great beginner
game, but – for the reasons offered above – it keeps giving.
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Another critique as to depth is as to whether the way unit types act
is deep or realistic. Well, it's not deep in detail, and detail can
be fun, but it can also be distracting. I have theorized that C&C:A
draws inspiration from the <i>DBx</i> series of miniature rules
before, and the key innovation there was designer Phil Barker moving
from granular equipment-based unit rules in his previous <i>WRG</i>
rulesets towards a “battlefield function/activity” system. In the
Ancients iteration of the system, for instance, troops with bows
might be either Psiloi or Bow, depending upon whether they functioned
as skirmishers or as massed missile fire. Psiloi aren't very
dangerous but are hard to kill and good at screening other troops;
Bow are dangerous but easier to break up in the field. Same weapons,
different effect. The same logic is applied to unit types in C&C:A
– Heavy Infantry covers heavily armoured, formed troops armed with
with pikes, spears, and swords, for instance. This is more
abstraction than in <i>DBx</i>, but the same principle is in play –
these are your slow-moving, heavy-hitting troops. And on the field
the way the rules work for each unit type does make it feel like it.
Light Infantry can skip forward and fire a bit (but not always very
effectively), before Evading mele attacks and thereby making it
harder to kill them. Heavy Infantry move half the speed of Light but
once they're in combat they're deadly. Warriors (a special type of
Medium Infantry) can move quickly into combat and whilst
full-strength and high morale can do loads of damage, but their
willingness to fight degrades once they take damage. This is more
than enough unit detail for a game that takes an hour to play.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
One
also hears critique not about whether the behaviour is detailed but
whether it is realistic. I can only really see this having much
weight in one instance – in the case of the slightly more complex
rules for Elephants. Beyond that, I'd argue unit behaviour is
realistic to the depth the system goes. Elephants, on the other hand,
can be a frustration – not so much with their unique attack dice
situation (they attack with whatever their opponent attacks with, so
they are much better against Heavy Infantry than Light, which is a
fantastic way of modelling their battlefield strengths and
weaknesses), but with the propensity for them to be a decisive factor
in their army winning or losing, essentially on two or three rolls of
the dice. Let's say you line up your Elephants perfectly and release
them into the middle of your opponent's Heavy Infantry – there's a
perfectly good chance they'll either shatter two or three enemy
units, or that they'll do one block of damage and then be instantly
killed in return. Of course, that's not entirely untrue to history,
but it's an area where the luck involved does not always feel either
a leveller or a challenge to be dealt with, but a punishment for one
player or the other. However, again, with the weight of much
experience of playing this game behind me, things do even out, both
within the individual game and over a series of games. Elephants
could be improved, certainly, but given that's the worst I have to
say about the unit depiction, I think the game's doing pretty well.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Conclusion</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Obviously
I think this is a really good game. It's one of four games I've
given a 10/10 on BGG. I think it's a great introductory game – I've
played it with two of my preteen nephews and nieces, I've played it
with my non-gamer dad, and I've introduced several other people to
wargames via it. Furthermore, those people enjoy it! But it's a game
I still enjoy playing, too. The variety of scenarios, the variety of
unit types, the tension and challenge inherent in the core card
mechanic, all combine to make this eminently playable for the veteran
as well as the beginner.</div>
Owen Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02033345001593862263noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606110578153730227.post-77803495048446893202017-07-10T07:26:00.001-07:002017-08-10T10:27:59.674-07:00REVIEW: Fire and Movement: Battle of the Scheldt: The Devil's Moat - by Eric R. Harvey and Christopher Cummins (Decision Games)<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>An
Introductory Wargame</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So – what makes an
ideal introduction to wargames? Well, you'll need to define ideal,
introduction, and wargames. I'm cheekily not going to it, but I'm
going to say that <i>Battle of the Scheldt: The Devil's Moat</i>
by Decision Games is, at least, a very good introduction to
hex-and-counter wargames. I say on the basis that my wife played it
and enjoyed it. She plays hobby games generally (and successfully),
and wargames in amongst that, but her only hex-and-counter experience
previously was <i>The US Civil War</i>
(GMT Games, designed by Mark Simonitch). She simultaneously enjoyed
it and found it bafflingly dense. My current campaign game of<i>
Rommel's War</i> both bemuses her
and takes up a lot of precious space in the dining room she could
probably use better. But this worked.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i>Battle of the
Scheldt</i>, designed by Christopher
Cummins and Eric R. Harvey, utilises the <i>Fire &
Movement </i>system, one of a number
of simple systems Decision Games use in their Folio Game Series. <i>Fire
& Movement</i> covers 20<sup>th</sup>
century warfare (where <i>Musket & Saber</i>,
for instance, covers 19<sup>th</sup>
century warfare); the main rulebook is 8 pages long, whilst the
exclusive rules for this scenario are 4 pages long. The game also
includes a 17”x22” map and 100 counters. All components are
functional-to-good – the rule are pretty clearly laid out, the
counters are alright (with nice national colour schemes), the map by
Joe Youst is as simple and attractive as his usual work. But why is
it <i>good</i> – at least
as an introductory game?</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Well,
I suppose in one sense it has to be a good game, and we should
address mechanics. But there's something about the “feel” -
accomplished both by the core mechanics and the scenario chrome –
which means that, once it's proven to function as a game proper, it
can also function as a way to understand and engage with wargames as
history and as conflict simulation (which are slightly different
things, I'd argue, without desiring to prove why at this point).</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>A
Short Mechanical Overview</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
A<i>
Fire & Movement</i> game will
consist of a number of turns, each of which will consist of one
player taking their own turn and then the other player taking theirs.
Each player turn consists of 4 phase – Movement, Combat, Mobile
Movement, Mobile Combat. All units can move and attack in the first
two, as appropriate; units marked as Mobile that have not already
acted can move and attack in the Mobile phases. This allows armoured
exploitation, which obviously fits the WW2 dynamic. Only one unit
(counter) can be in a hex, though movement and retreat through
friendly hexes is possible. There are soft zones of control (ie the 6
hexes around a unit), limiting but not blocking enemy movement, and
affecting retreats after combat.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Combat
is resolved by totalling the attacking units' Attack stats, comparing
them with the defender's Defence stat, and then adding Support
markers (on which more in a moment) to find a “differential” (the
difference between the two totals). The attacking player then rolls a
six-sided die and checks the result on a combat result table (CRT),
with the column being the differential and the dice result being the
row – the better the differential for the attacker, the worse the
column's results are for the defender, and so forth. <i>Fire &
Movement</i> does something quite
clever with the CRT, integrating terrain into the CRT directly. You
look at the top of the CRT, where the terrain is listed, find the
right terrain row, and read along to the differential; this scales
results in favour of the defender in a simple way. Of course that
loses some of the delicacy possible with a separate terrain effects
chart (TEC) – you can't have one terrain type double defence points
whilst another just gives one column shift in favour of the defender.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Support
markers replace specific counters for air and artillery assets, and
are rated with a number which influences the differential (+2, +7,
etc). In <i>Battle of the Scheldt</i>,
you randomly draw from your side's pool of facedown counters each
turn; in other games in the system your pool is fixed. You return all
your counters at the end of each turn and draw again. These are used
as part of a bidding mechanic in combat; the attacker gets to put one
down first, or not; then the defender; then the attacker again; and
finally the defender. There's a bluffing element in here (is he going
to put down a marker or not? can I get him to waste a token for
minimal cost?); there's a question of resource management (what other
combats are going to happen this turn? am I going to attack in my
player turn and so need to conserve markers?). This is clever and
fun.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The
other way you can use them – as part of an attack without an
attacking counter, as part of a “bombardment” - is pretty lame.
Not inherently, but the lack of restrictions on where bombardments
can happen and the fact that if the attackers lose they have to
damage their nearest counter (“friendly fire”) mean you'd have to
houserule to make this worth the risk in most situations, and to
ensure the breach in immersion isn't too extreme. In my two and a
half plays, I haven't bothered doing that. No harm is done by leaving
them out.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqyfE3NfB08LIbYstqbUawWoI4OUlGD_kFvJDozg8KECtMJ8r8HDI9CFFlWvnZlAuwlcoWCMS84OIBbeFe35DphI7GasjaNo4Q57JrQmA8oBz_5TMDIttCNSgv0aMoF4lZj97xGJo5WiM/s1600/scheldtsetup.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="256" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqyfE3NfB08LIbYstqbUawWoI4OUlGD_kFvJDozg8KECtMJ8r8HDI9CFFlWvnZlAuwlcoWCMS84OIBbeFe35DphI7GasjaNo4Q57JrQmA8oBz_5TMDIttCNSgv0aMoF4lZj97xGJo5WiM/s320/scheldtsetup.jpg" width="170" /></a></div>
<i>Initial Setup and Support Markers</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>The
Feel of a Wargame</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
That
question of immersion brings me back to what I in fact think is a
great strength of the game and system. A good wargame, for me, isn't
simply a good game (though it is that); it's a game which utilises
the theme (war – and a specific war or battle) to engage the player
in interesting decisions and to help them understand historical
situations. Perhaps in a more nuanced sense, it combines the two so
that players inhabit something like the historical decision space (or
an interpretation of it).
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This
game achieves that. What's most interesting from a design perspective
is that the game offers a relatively small number of big decisions.
It offers any number of small decisions and tests of skill, but for
the German player there's really only one big decision (seek to hold
the Allies short of Beveland for most of the game, or defend the
peninsula's neck whilst counterattacking further up the map to mess
with the Allies). Indeed, for the Allies there isn't even a decision
on that scale – the biggest decisions are about where to stick
amphibious landings on a very limited coastal stretch.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But
it is by limiting that decision space but making the management of it
challenging, and adding in small bits of historical feel, that the
game triumphs. The Germans have initially useful reinforcements and
can even heal damage from some of their units early in the game –
but they have very few counters and very soon their forces are in
irretrievable decline. The Allies have a lot of units and a lot of
replacement points, as well as useful batches of reinforcements later
in the game, but they suffer from very real time pressure which makes
every delay infuriating, whilst the need to cycle out weakened
brigades and preserve their limited Mobile units means a lot of
thoughtful management and manoeuvre. The scenario-specific movement
rules and CRT help with this – moving through the ubiquitous
Flooded areas is painfully slow, whilst the high likelihood of
indecisive combat results in urban areas can make the Germans very
hard to shift from their basement bunkers and church spires.
Meanwhile, the Canadians landing in the Breskens Pocket in their
amphibious vehicles or the special German 88mm Anti-Tank support
marker (which can be played as a bonus marker against Allied tanks)
are really nice small touches which make the era seem more real –
this isn't just a wargame, but a wargame about World War 2. The
scenario accurately depicts the superior numbers and firepower of the
Allies, whilst also showing what a slog the campaign was – but in
an enjoyable and immersive way. It does all this in a simple way, as
well, which shows up many more complex systems.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>A
Primer for Wargaming</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The
relative obscurity of the battle and the useless Bombardment rule are
the only downsides to this system. Those are trivial issues, and as a
hex-and-counter to introduce a new player to, this is an attractive
proposition. It does many of the things which the subgenre ought to
do, and it does them well – from the tactile illusion of moving
markers in a battlefield war-room to immersing the player in the
nuances of the conflict through the big movement and combat rules and
the little historical add-ons. It does them with simple and readable
rules, running the same length as or shorter than some popular
Eurogame rules (12 pages to Catan's 16 or Pandemic's 8). It can even
play to more or less its stated length – 2 hours. No good wargame
is, I think, going to be strictly “light”, but the clarity of the
rules and the surprising depth of the simulation mean this feels to
me like a great primer for people who might be interested in wargames
but find them intimidating or inaccessible. There are other very good
primers to wargames in other subgenres, but this is my favourite so
far in hex-and-counter. Decision Games' Mini Series may be even
better; I'll be playing some entries in that soon.
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Conclusion</b></div>
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Aside
from one rules niggle, and the general issues of sourcing non-GMT
wargames outside the USA (Esdevium Games do have Decision in their
catalogue, but it's a very spotty selection), this is a solid game,
and potentially a very good primer for hex-and-counter wargames.</div>
Owen Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02033345001593862263noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606110578153730227.post-46136095316881673302017-06-15T19:33:00.003-07:002017-08-10T10:28:12.027-07:00REVIEW: Battles of the American Revolution Volume V: Monmouth – by Mark Miklos (GMT Games)<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I've
played this once electronically on VASSAL (it's out of print), and I
want to play it again. It was my successful test run for whether I
wanted to preorder GMT's American Revolution Tri-Pack, a reprint of
three early games in the same series. Suffice to say, I enjoyed it,
and that's the essential conclusion here.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Let's
dig deeper. This is a “hex and counter” wargame of a battle in
1778 during the American Revolution, with each side controlling
armies of counters representing leaders, regiments/brigades of
infantry and cavalry, and batteries of artillery, fighting on a map
made up of hexagons. It's a pretty traditional game in that genre in
most respects – units project a “zone of control”, making it
harder for their enemy to do stuff near them; ranged and close combat
are resolved by cross-referencing a chart based on the strength of
the attack and the result of a ten-sided die; and so forth. There are
lots of games essentially like this, so why is this worth playing?</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Four
essential components, which marry together well: mechanics, weight,
decisions, and aesthetics.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Mechanics</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This
is a pretty old-fashioned hex-and-counter game, down to I-go-U-go
turns and mandatory close combat<i>.</i>
However, whilst pretending to be a staid design, this is actually
quite an inventive series as a whole, with some clever twists to the
specific iteration (the series has a unified core rulebook, with
exclusive rules accompanying each game). Army morale, which decreases
and increases over the course of the game based on combat results and
special cases, affects initiative rolls at the start of each turn and
modifies combat die rolls. Though players take turns moving and
attacking with all their units at once – with no push-pull within
the turn as in <i>Great
Battles of History</i>
with its Momentum and Trump rolls, for instance – the “passive”
player is always engaged. Only the passive player's artillery fires
each turn, followed by both sides having their rifle-armed units
fire. This gives a sense of agency throughout, especially as
successful defensive fire can be devastating to finely-tuned attacks.
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Close
combat is determined on an odds basis (e.g. if the attackers have a
strength of 4 vs a defensive strength of 1, the odds are 4:1 and you
check the 4:1 column on the Combat Results Table or CRT), but the die
roll is modified by the net difference between the modifiers of the
two sides – which includes leader quality, troop quality, terrain,
and troop type. The CRT has a wide range of results, with a big
middle ground of non-destructive effects which models the relatively
bloodless field warfare of the era. For comparison, both sides
combined suffered under 1000 casualties at Monmouth, which was the
longest battle of the American Revolution, whilst at Pea Ridge in
1862 in the American Civil War, fought between very similarly sized
armies, nearly 3500 men were killed, wounded, or missing. But
Disruptions, Retreats, and Pins can all lead to counter-attacks,
damage, and unit captures in future turns, as well as damage to Army
Morale – and the relative bloodlessness makes the rare
damage/capture results all the more important, as those give you
Victory Points, which will very often determine the winner at the
end, unless sudden death conditions are fulfilled first. An
additional somewhat clever mechanic for close combat, which I didn't
use playing solitaire, is the Tactical Matrix, where each player
selects a manoeuvre in secret, and the two are compared – there's a
rock-paper-scissors element to this, with certain options being good
against other options, but boardstate and the presence of leaders
permitting or barring some options from being chosen. This isn't
actually, from what I can see, much more than a coat of paint over
the creation of hidden information and a bluff microphase, but that's
not a problem for me.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Finally,
there are Momentum Chits, gained from outlandish results on the CRT.
These allow rerolls in close combat and the manipulation of the
Initiative roll at the start of each turn. A little like Tactics
Chits, this isn't a terribly integral mechanic – and is marked as
optional – but adds some swing and chance to the game. Chits
definitely affected my game, and in a way that increased enjoyment.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The
Monmouth-specific rules consist of two types: integral and historical
“chrome”, which is more properly an aesthetic concern. The most
important instances of the former concern the initial American
commander's performance, and the extraordinary heat of the day –
until George Washington relieves Charles Lee on the field, randomized
American brigades are prone to freezing or retreating each turn. As
the battle progresses and the day gets hotter, draws on the
Initiative roll will cause the entire turn to be skipped unless
someone spends a Momentum Chit, and Morale Checks are penalized. Both
of these, especially the former, can really inform the flow of the
game – Lee's poor-but-not-horrendous performance more or less kept
the Americans in the fight in my play.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Weight</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But despite all those complex things
above, this is a surprisingly easy game to learn, and will, I think,
be alright to teach. It's not an absolute beginner's game, but I'm
confident of teaching the Tri-Pack when it arrives from GMT to some
of my “lighter” gamer friends. The simple core of all
hex-and-counter games is here – move your Movement Points somewhere
you want to go, attack if that makes sense, use your artillery to
break up the enemy. But the rules “on top” of that never feel
onerous. Some flirt with beer-and-pretzels mechanics, such as
Momentum Chits, but that's frankly a selling point to someone wanting
a more lively game. Some are actually quite finely balanced and
designed without being too onerous, such as the CRT (especially the
delicate agony of the PIN result). The passive player is kept engaged
both via the Fire Phases and via the Tactical Chit mechanic in close
combat, and though both add complexity, neither is really heavy at
all.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The comparison to other modern
hex-and-counter games series is useful. This isn't as simple as
Decision Games' Folio Series, not by a margin; but it's equally
simpler by a good clip than any of the Great Battles of History
entries, and simpler even than Musket and Pike. Some of this is due
to elision of favoured concepts encountered elsewhere in the
particular design tradition, such as facing – but only a little
granularity is lost via this, replaced by a close combat penalty for
being Surrounded combined with the well-tried mechanic of not being
able to ignore multiple adjacent enemy stacks when attacking (i.e.
not being allowed to bully one stack in the face of the others!). The
rules are also genuinely well written, and the separation of series
rules from module rules has its advantages, keeping the core rules to
a svelte 13 pages including cover, sequence of play, and plenty of
example pictures.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Decisions</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The game has good mechanics without
being too heavy, and this allows the key element of any war<b>game</b>
to shine: interesting decisions. The battle can develop along
historic lines, or it can lead to entirely different conclusions.
Some of this is down to specific design elements of the module –
some reinforcements being luck-based (but manipulable by Momentum
Chits), Heat Turns, Charles Lee's Command and Control problems. Some
of it is down to the dynamic of an essentially meeting engagement
which can spread in multiple directions to multiple natural lines of
defence – between Monmouth and Overlook Hill, for instance,
stretching to the north-west and south-east in a curve; well to the
west where the historic denouement happened; or even distinctly north
or south of Monmouth, if either army manoeuvres in strength and with
determination. It's also down to a fine balance between the sides.
The constant flow of reinforcements for both sides and the
interesting terrain make it viable for either side to turn the tide
til the very end, which makes it different from that other classic
meeting engagement, Gettysburg.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Aesthetics</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Finally, these decisions seems to
matter all the more because the game is winsome. Its theme
communicates. This is not some interesting engine for calculating
moves on a hexagonal chess board. Nor is it even just a convincing
simulation of 18<sup>th</sup>
century civil war amongst English-speaking peoples. It is a beautiful
game, even on VASSAL – Mark Simonitch's map is right up there with
his best. The game itself pre-empts <i>Hamilton'</i>s
take on Lee's malign influence (“Attack! Retreat!”), there are
delightful touches thrown in that are nearly entirely thematic
(“Molly Pitcher” auto-rallying an American artillery unit once
per game, for instance), and the mechanics lend themselves to
storytelling, especially in the to-and-fro interspersed with decisive
moments. In my game Charles Lee became a casualty to artillery fire,
whilst the Hessian mounted riflemen dispersed Washington's Life Guard
in the very last breaths of the game – but not before Washington
had relieved Lee and stabilized the American line at Overlook Hill,
and not before a lot of the combatants had fought their last in the
shaded, humid woods north and west of Monmouth, where the bulk of the
fighting occurred.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Brief
Conclusion</b></div>
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I would love to play this again, and
would certainly buy it if reprinted. It's good at what it does; if
you like that sort of thing, you will like this.</div>
Owen Edwardshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02033345001593862263noreply@blogger.com0