Image

dander53 — 2008-11-11T18:32:50+00:00

A more typical collage shot from a Cyberboard game.

Image

dander53 — 2008-11-11T18:32:10+00:00

Very busy "collage" shot showing details of Cyberboard gamebox elements.

Image

dander53 — 2008-11-11T03:16:49+00:00

Player Aid for Tracking Stacks for ENT Player

Image

dander53 — 2008-11-11T03:16:18+00:00

Player Aid for Tracking Stacks for CP Player

Image

dander53 — 2008-11-11T02:42:26+00:00

Campaign Scenario: setup from my Cyberboard gamebox

Thread: Re: Storm of Steel – Out of the Box Review

Gunner Joe — 2007-11-16T02:01:38+00:00

Nicely detailed comments but the fact remains that cards DO drive this game and I find that unacceptable in a historical simulation. cards are for folks who don't want to (or can't) figure out their own strategies. Keep them for beer and pretzels stuff, but not for a complex $100 + serious treatment. I tried to play this thing twice but got mad at the limitations imposed by the silly cards and it's now BACK in the box!

Gunner joe

Image

sikeospi — 2007-10-12T08:31:17+00:00

"Storm of Steel" at ConquestSF 2007

Image

sikeospi — 2007-09-10T20:12:47+00:00

Storm of Steel as displayed at ConquestSF 2007

Thread: Storm of Steel – Out of the Box Review

wryone — 2007-08-23T01:36:49+00:00

Storm of Steel – Out of the Box Review

A few years ago I pledged Storm of Steel (SoS) from Decision Games. I have to admit, I was a bit stunned when I got the price tag for this pledge. After a couple of reminders I reluctantly bit the bullet and sent in my $119 check for this beastie. I see Boulder Games already has if for $108, so if you get it, at least you will pay less than I did by “supporting” Storm of Steel. Anyway, you are not interested in my tale of misplaced blind faith in Decision Games. Should you buy this baby?

I have not been able to play SoS, hence the “out of the box” designation. However, I have read the rules and goofed off with it quite a bit. I’ll talk about some of the game’s mechanics as I go through the components. I hope you find these comments helpful in thinking about purchasing the game.

I have to say that despite my reservations at the price, Storm of Steel (SoS) has a lot to recommend it as a simulation of the First World War.

Most of the images that have been posted so far are blow ups of the back of the box. These really don’t do the game justice. I’ve submitted a few additional images with this review and if they are approved I’ll integrate them into this post.

Maps. As promised the maps stretch from London to Basra. Pretty impressive. It’s important to remember that most units have a movement rating of only 2, motorization upgrades them to a whopping 3, so while some objectives may not seem many hexes apart, they are. There are also a couple of strategic move options including rail and “force march” which allows you to triple your units movement rating. Very clever.

Probably the best thing about the map is that in order to help with counter density they provided an additional enlarged map for use on the western front. The picture below compares the two maps, note the larger hexes on the one on the right.

]]>

In a nod towards the World in WWI the game includes a global map (see below) as well for colonial battles and commerce raiding. While this is impressive, I’m not sure how much it really adds to the game and it does require a fair number of additional rules. Still, points for trying.

]]>

Counters. Nothing especially visually appealing here. I took pictures of each of the three counter sheets. You get a lot of counters with pretty standard NATO symbols on them. However, the counters representing land units embody three of the game’s most interesting aspects.

]]> ]]>

• First is that the game uses the reverse of the counter to indicate if its entrenched. This doubles most units on defense but, naturally, immobilizes them. Interestingly, shock units, e.g. Stross Struppen, only get a 50% increase when entrenched. However, for you Ottoman fans, you get triple defense when entrenched!

• Second, the values on the counters are its combat value, followed by a cadre rating, then its movement. The cadre rating is very important to indicate the quality of the unit. More importantly, units that have higher cadres can move from one enemy zone of control to another allowing some infiltration if there’s not an enemy unit in every hex. Germans and western Allies sport cadre ratings of 3, Russians and Austrian-Hungarians sport mostly 2s, though all nations have some elite units with higher values, e.g. “3”.

• Finally, borrowing some from Europa, the counters in the upper right corner sport a “divisional equivalent” number. This is how many divisions, from two to six, that each corps sized counter represents. More divisions means more combat strength. Again, the Germans and western Allies rate about 4 combat points per division while the “minor majors” sport three points. What makes this important is that as time goes on, you can build corps with more divisions in them. In Winter 1915 four division corps can be created and in Winter 1916 you get six division corps units. Since the game’s stacking limits are counter based (two corps per hex, plus a few other sundries) this allows for considerable massing of firepower as time goes on.

Headquarters units also play an important role in allowing units to move in additional impulses as well as enabling strategic force marches.

Also, in an interesting twist, you cannot paw through your opponent's stacks to see what they have. Rather the game features an interesting fog of war set of rules that allows HQs to conduct "strategic intelligence" using that HQs cadre value.

I have to say that having played World in Flames I was really disappointed with the naval and air counters. Air counters have NATO symbol while the naval ones have letters designating the ship type, e.g. BB for battleship, PB for pre-dreadnaught battleship, etc. I’ve had a hard time wrapping my mind around the naval system. I get the movement and such but the game would benefit from a comprehensive example of play for things like how the Allies set up and maintain the blockade.

Cards. The game includes a large number of cards but unlike Paths of Glory they are not the central driver of the game. However, they are used to allow a lot of the “excitement” that the game offers. Campaign cards allow for multiple impulses (see Play below) as well as things like combat shifts. In addition, many cards are contingent in nature and you hold them back to play. While I hate the idea of card being included for cards being included sake, I think here they appear to be well used.

Player Aids. The game has a small stack of player aid cards that help manage the game's considerable “chrome.” There is psychological warfare, a comprehensive production system, turn track, an air combat table along with air doctrine levels allowing you to do more things as your doctrine improves, (e.g. level 1 = reconnaissance, level 2= level 1 + ground support, level 3 = level 2 + interception, you get the idea), naval combat tables for contact, combat, bombardment, raiding, and merchant shipping losses, as well as the common combat and terrain tables.

While the game uses a traditional odds based system, land combat is interesting because it uses three different types of combat – Probe, Assault, and Infiltration. Conditions and unit types (as well as cards!) influence which table you use. As you would expect for WWI there are some brutal results, my personal favorite is BB – blood bath, which thankfully only occurs on the assault table.

Production. While the game features a pretty impressive production system, you are pretty hemmed in by the counter mix. You wont be able to build a huge High Seas Fleet to break the blockade. Oil does play a role in production of advanced units such as tank brigades and air units. Fortunately for the Central Powers, Austria-Hungary has some.

Winning the Game. The game makes the simplification that all the powers are in it together and has only one morale track for each coalition. This does not particularly appeal to me, I would have preferred surrender rules for each nation, but my guess is that it works well enough in practice. The Allies survived several of their nations being lost but still managed to field units from those nations, e.g. Belgium and Serbia.

Play. Units can move up to four impulses in a turn. What makes the game very interesting is how this is handled in conjunction with the play of campaign cards. The number of cards you draw is driven by your coalition's morale level. So you can get ebbs and flows in the action, just as you would expect in such a grand scale game.

What’s really key is that you are NOT guaranteed to have the same number of impulses as your opponent. Everybody gets their first impulse, but if you do not have a card that allows you to take additional impulses, you’ve got to plan accordingly. It sounds great on paper, unfortunately, I have not played it against another human yet.

The Bottom Line. My first impression of this game was fairly accurate, it reminded me of Advanced European Theater of Operations also by Decision Games. It is the most complicated WWI war game I have encountered by a considerable margin. It is several steps above Paths of Glory and even Great War in Europe in complexity and I would expect, time required to play. It reminded me as well of the Fatal Alliances expansion kit for World in Flames, though that game has a better naval system and more visually appealing air counters – you gotta love aces! Still, SoS has considerably more chrome than any of those games. I like how it handles entrenchments, much better than say Guns of August. I’d love to compare it to La Grande Guerre 14-18, but I have not seen that one!

In short, I’m glad I have a copy of this game. If you are interested in the Great War and exploring a lot of interesting subsystems, I think SoS may be worth your time and money. If you are NOT interested in a very complex simulation effort then pass. I hope you’ve found this helpful, post or message any questions and I’ll try and help!

Thanks for reading this review!

Thread: Re: New Weapons Rule 22.2 Question

PAYDIRT — 2007-08-21T23:36:51+00:00

I do "B" because too much of "A" kills the balance, IMHO.

Image

wryone — 2007-08-21T23:25:00+00:00

This is the main Allied powers counter sheet. Standard NATO symbols, reverse of the counters has them "entrenched", no movement but doubled defense. The number in the middle is the key "cadre" value that indicates how good your troops are.

Image

wryone — 2007-08-21T23:19:26+00:00

This is the Central Powers counter sheet. Standard NATO symbols, reverse of the counters has them "entrenched", no movement but doubled defense.

Image

wryone — 2007-08-21T23:11:33+00:00

One of the best things about Storm of Steel is this very handy large size map you get of the western front. Here it's compared to the actual map covering the same area.

Thread: New Weapons Rule 22.2 Question

CGKolenda — 2007-07-23T04:32:37+00:00

I received this game a few weeks ago and have a rules question.

Rule 22.2 - Weapons and Tactics rule.

Does this rule mean:

A. A player may roll for all W&T cards he has undeveloped each turn, or,

B. A player may only roll for one W&T card each turn - either a new one he just flipped up or an old one which had a failed DR in a previous turn.

Thanks

- Chris Kolenda

Game: Storm of Steel

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Thread: Re: Storm of Steel – Out of the Box Review

Image

Image

Thread: Storm of Steel – Out of the Box Review

Thread: Re: New Weapons Rule 22.2 Question

Image

Image

Image

Thread: New Weapons Rule 22.2 Question