Game: A Dark and Bloody Ground

Thread: Re: Fun & Fairly Accurate

Herr Dr — 2008-09-14T16:10:51+00:00

Finally read the rules to this one. Game looks very interesting - with innovative integrated military/political rules.

A PDF of version 2 http://grognard.com/info1/dbg2ed.pdf

Like many of the magazine games I receive, they go on to the "to be play pile", gather dust and I forget about them. But, had a gamer friend over the other night and we went thru the "to be played pile" and this one came to the top.

I also read some of the comments here (in the ratings section); some harsh words (although not unusual for a magazine game). Will be interested to see how rule version 2 plays. And, I'll report back.

Thread: Rule Version v2

Herr Dr — 2008-09-14T16:04:55+00:00

Link to updated proposed 2nd edition rules (August 2008) incorporating the errata:

http://www.atomagazine.com/errata/errata_dbg.pdf

...and Q&A

http://grognard.com/errata1/dbg.pdf

http://grognard.com/errata1/dbg.txt

Thread: Re: Fun & Fairly Accurate

toguopp — 2007-08-19T02:51:09+00:00

You write very well and entertainingly. First time I've been able to read such a long narrative without paragraphs and grasp every word.

Thanks for the review too. I'll have to take a second look at the game.

Thread: Re: What's the deal on rule 16.2?

kvezner — 2007-04-23T03:15:19+00:00

You can email your questions to support@atomagazine.com. They published the game, they should have to explain the internal inconsistencies. But in this case the answer is that there are also four Ohio militia units. This appears in the errata on the ATO website:

http://www.atomagazine.com/errata/errata_dbg.pdf

Image

Rince — 2006-09-26T20:28:28+00:00

Thread: Re: It needs saying...

waccoo — 2006-02-22T00:40:59+00:00

Pick it up??? You can use blue tac or post-it glue on the counters and mount the sucker on the wall! Quick and easy art!

WACCOO

Image

powwowdancer — 2006-02-19T01:13:04+00:00

The thick of things.

Image

powwowdancer — 2006-02-19T01:09:59+00:00

The reinforcements arrive... a bit too late.

Thread: Re: It needs saying...

cratex — 2006-02-16T02:44:49+00:00

Huh?

Well, first, a better option for your map woes is to run out to the local department store and buy a poster frame. I can get a 22x34 inch one for $10, less if I catch them on sell. Take the edging off, put the map on the cardboard backing and replace the plexiglass and frame edges. Now, not only have you flattened your map but you can pick the whole thing up and move it around if you have to.

As for the cost, I think given the rate of inflation the costs are about the same. Also, you have to consider that the market for these things is very limited and getting a GOOD printer to do a 2000 copy print run of all the different parts and pieces for a managable price is difficult. And, if you think they're expensive now, consider what they'd be if the designer was paid well for them and the developer and play-testers were paid at all...

But, don't take my word for it. If you don't like the price you don't have to buy them...

Anyway, what's all this have to do with A Dark and Bloody Ground? The least you could have done was give your opinion as to whether or not you liked the artwork.

Thread: It needs saying...

powwowdancer — 2006-02-15T13:09:43+00:00

These paper maps are a complete bummer. There, I said it. It's true, too! Look at the fine, stable, FLAT avalon hill map-BOARDS! You just can't beat 'em for playability. Don't get me wrong, I love these new war games and their vast, expansive maps, but how many times has this happened to you? You've counted yer beans, kept track of yer "phases," and yer ready to move a small stack of flat cardboard... you gingerly pick it up and POP! An inverted crease pops out, flinging little cardboard squares (scale) miles from where they were supposed to be. Grrr. Fear not, gentle reader, for I have a solution. Go to your local hardware store, and have 'em cut you a piece of plexiglass the size of your largest map. If you have tiny maps, (like Melee or Wizard), get a smaller one as well. The downside of Ogre/Avalon Hill board maps, is the limitation on size. But even then, I look at Wooden Ships & Iron Men and the enormity of that map and think to myself... "cheap 21st century bastards won't pony up for quality maps just so they can maximize their bottom line." I know games are almost prohibitively expensive as things are, but this begs the question, "yeah, but WHY?" Insert your own answer here... mine tends to be corporate greed and an almost insatiable consumer materialism. We don't more for our money anymore. We're merely content with more.

Thread: Fun & Fairly Accurate

powwowdancer — 2006-02-11T03:24:54+00:00

At first I was a bit intimidated about getting into a wargame that involved my ancestors, as it somehow seemed disrespectful. But, curiosity got the better of me and I obtained a copy of the game. When I read through the rules I realised that, as with most games of this type, it's all about strategy and tactics, not about making judgements. The "Atrocity" markers kind of made my skin crawl, but after reading how they were fairly distributed, (not just us savages, but whites too, commit them in this game, as did really happen here in the dark and bloody ground of KY), I relaxed enough to actually play the game. I tried a beginners scenario, (St Claire's Surprise, cf my "session report"),and can honestly say that the combat mechanics are superb. I own several black powder weapons, and know exactly how big of a pain they can be. There was a time when an "assault rifle" was fired by banging a rock against a piece of rough steel. Needless to say, you'd best make that shot count, because it's all you're going to get before the fighting gets up close and personal. I like the melee combat tables as well... The sequence of battle goes something like, defensive fire, offensive fire, then melee combat. That's right, when you are charging an enemy, they're going to get a defensive volley off before you are able to stop, sight acquire and fire. Then, like I said, it gets personal. You shoulder your flintlock, draw your knives, tomahawks and/or clubs and go to it. The melee tables are set up in such a way that the attacker is actually a bit more likely to get bloody than the defender, and this too, is just about how it should be. This kind of combat was incredibly violent and costly in both men and materiel. Now, factor in the fact that not all native "units" had firearms, and you get a good idea about just how messy this kind of warfare got, (if you don't have guns and the bad guys do, you learn the efficacy of ambuscade or you tend to die a lot.) The macro or strategic part of the game seems likewise to be very enjoyable, though it wasn't part of the introductory scenario which I played. In it, the white (American) player tries to "settle" the dark and bloody ground, whilst the Native player tries to maintain their lands in tact. This usually involves "unsettling" the dark and bloody ground. There is a complicated series of turn events, which seem to be very true to historic realities, and whenever individual battles or skirmishes are called for, you move to one of the three "micro" or tactical maps with the units and leaders involved and hash it out. That's another element of battle mechanics that I thoroughly enjoyed; some leaders add to the efficacy of their units, while others add nothing. This can take the form of more than just a +whatever to a battle die roll, though those are certainly always welcome. This is the way things are, and it is reflected accurately in this game. All in all, I'm looking forward to a long and enjoyable relationship with this game, and would highly recommend it to grognards and budding wargamers alike. Don't let the voluminous rules booklet throw you; it's all set up quite logically, and as such it's very easy to refer to when questions invariably arise. The only beef that I can think of might be the lack of "quick reference" cards, but that's picking a seriously tiny nit. Give this one a go. It's definitely worth it.

Thread: Played the St. Clair's Surprise scenario...

powwowdancer — 2006-01-23T03:01:21+00:00

I must admit that at first I was a bit conflicted about even buying this game. I just knew that it would be insulting or disrespectful. It was with great trepidation that I finally broke down and bought a copy, since as a woodlands Native, I felt that it might be a bit, I don't know... wrong to enjoy a game based on battles in which so many wise old ones suffered. After having read the rules and actually playing a battle scenario, I can say that I've enjoyed it almost completely guilt free. After a couple of aborted starts, I was finally able to finish this short scenario. It lends itself to solo play rather adroitly. The thing that impressed me the most about the game is that it's actually two games; a macrocosm and microcosm of the conflict. The macrocosm is an aspect I've not yet had the opportunity to experience, (the "atrocity" markers made my skin crawl until I saw that BOTH sides use them, after which my spleen settled down a coupla notches), in that this sort of play really would be best with two players. The microcosm, or tactical, aspect of this game has a lot going for it. First, it really does try to replicate the awful bloodiness and the severe brutality of 18th century combat. There's the initial discharge of the flintlocks, (defensive fire first, followed by offensive fire) and then there's the messy melee that invariably follows. Repeat until no one's left. Melee combat in this game, (much like back in the day), is just as hazardous or even moreso for the attacker as it is for the attacked. My advice would be to keep track of every single dice modifier, whether it's a leader, terrain... whatever, and use them to their full advantage. After the rifles cease, it gets messy, and you're going to bleed, either from loss, or attrition through desertion (a routed unit) or from units being dispersed and or forced to retreat. A very common outcome of melee combat is for the attacker to lose a unit and the defender has one retreat disrupted. This is a good result for the attacker... (!) I've caught myself heaving a sigh of relief when the melee combat result was -- -- . (That'd be a big goose egg.) Rare indeed is the melee attack that hurts the enemy without hurting you. Another thing I liked was the rolls to become undisrupted, etc. This particular scenario if a gimme for the NA player, in that the US commitment level is a dismal 1. That means, (barring a negative dice modifier) disrupted US units must roll a one on a six sided die to turn back over. It just doesn't happen a lot. Add to that the fact that a rifle fire hit waxes a disrupted unit and a good enough melee hit routs it, and you get a recipe for counters limping off the board as fast as they can go! Surround 'em, and they can't fight; only defend... and that at a reduced rate. I like the thoughtful modifiers for the NA forces regarding terrain, leaders, etc. I can tell the player of US forces to FEAR the Tecumseh counter. Even at a young 20, his skills were such that he added to the native version of the commitment roll and acts as a force multiplier for any leader he's stacked with, and on and on! The biggest drawback for the NA side is Rifles. This scenario is uncommonly kind to the NA player, and I still only managed four rifle units out of all of 'em. (All US units have rifles.) All in all, it was great fun, despite a few rules ambiguities in this early version, and I can't wait to find a partner with whom to play a campaign scenario!!

powwowdancer out

Image

powwowdancer — 2006-01-23T00:18:29+00:00

At the end of the fourth combat impulse. Didn't need to go the whole ten impulses!

Image

powwowdancer — 2006-01-23T00:16:49+00:00

St. Clair beats a hasty retreat from the map board with some routed militia.

Thread: Rules CORRECTION, (Rule 16.2.3)

powwowdancer — 2006-01-19T00:08:51+00:00

Rule 16.2.3 states in part that, "Additionally, the NA player has won surprise, (see 6.5.1.1)"

THERE IS NO RULE 6.5.1.1. If you try to find it, you will presently join me in the chronic grognard wing of the ha-ha-hacienda for tea and crumpets with three or four lovely chaps named napoleon. The rule cited is in all actuality rule Number:

10.2 Battle Board Initiative and Setup, a). Surprise.

powwowdancer out

Thread: What's the deal on rule 16.2?

powwowdancer — 2006-01-19T00:01:26+00:00

In the section 16.2 scenario, subsection 16.2.1, US Player Set Up, there's a line which reads, "Twelve militia units, (four Kentucky, three Pennsylvania and one Virginia)."

I'm certainly not a math scholar, nor am I likely to sit down and pen a solution to Fermat's enigma for personal amusement in this lifetime, but I most assuredly can count. Is it twelve units, or merely the eight mentioned? Aaaargh. Thanks in advance.

powwowdancer out

Image

powwowdancer — 2006-01-17T01:54:36+00:00

Here's my attempt at setup for my first whack at St. Clairs Surprise.

Image

powwowdancer — 2006-01-17T01:51:37+00:00

My game box has a clear plastic lid (hard to see), and the rules are BW. What's the difference?

Image

powwowdancer — 2006-01-17T01:45:08+00:00

Image

Herr Niemand — 2005-11-26T14:09:33+00:00

Image

Mykeul — 2004-06-02T23:52:58+00:00

Setup attempt for St.Clair's "Surprise, November 4, 1791" scenario