Game: Hunt for Red October, The

Thread: Stacking limit question

vallu751 — 2008-10-22T18:12:18+00:00

Hi,

According to the rules, three counters can occupy a space. Only one of them can be a taskforce and taskforce can't end movement in a space with friendly subs.

What if:

A space has two enemy and two friendly subs. The friendly subs have already moved. I move a taskforce through the area. The enemy tries to detect my taskforce, succeeds and damages a ship in the ensuing battle. According to the rules, my taskforce has to end movement in the same space with my subs.

What happens?

Thread: Re: Game Manual

rbwphx — 2008-09-16T21:10:10+00:00

I have it in pdf format (I scanned my copy)... just send me a private message through this site (geekmail - click on the "envelope" under my name) with your real email address and I'll send it to you.

Regards,
Brent

Thread: Game Manual

wader — 2008-09-16T19:57:59+00:00

So, I picked up a copy of this game recently at a yard sale, and it appears to be complete except for the rules. Is there anywhere online where I could find these? Or did I waste my 75 cents...

Thread: Re: Now this is a nice very light Naval Wargame.

whac3 — 2008-06-26T19:18:29+00:00

That's because that was not the assertion. As clarified privately with the reviewer, the issue was that esoecially in the opening paragraph the reviewer SEEMS to be embarking on one of the usual anti-war-game tirades that unfortunately some euro-gamers seem compelled to make. No one says any game should get a free pass but ONLY that a review should be as fair and objective as possible. If one decides beforehand one dislikes the game due to its genre, then such a review is worthless due to bias. That APPEARED to be what the reviewer was saying until the clarification.

As I say, I privately clarified with the reviewer himself and so feel enough has been said.

UnluckyNumber wrote:
Rastak wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Sean:

As I said, I've not encountered the game myself-- although I enjoy the novel from which it derives-- but your exposition seemed to say, "I hate wargames but I'll deisgn to revew this one although of course we all know war games cannot be good games REALLY."

I'm glad that impression is mistaken but that is very much how it came across.

With the clarification of what you meant, it's a good review.

Even without it, and it wasn't necessary, it was a good review.

I agree. It appears that most of the audience understood the review just fine without a clarification. Personally, I'm more confused by the assertion that someone who prefers better production values and component quality can't really like wargames.

Thread: Re: Now this is a nice very light Naval Wargame.

UnluckyNumber — 2008-06-26T14:32:37+00:00

Rastak wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Sean:

As I said, I've not encountered the game myself-- although I enjoy the novel from which it derives-- but your exposition seemed to say, "I hate wargames but I'll deisgn to revew this one although of course we all know war games cannot be good games REALLY."

I'm glad that impression is mistaken but that is very much how it came across.

With the clarification of what you meant, it's a good review.

Even without it, and it wasn't necessary, it was a good review.

I agree. It appears that most of the audience understood the review just fine without a clarification. Personally, I'm more confused by the assertion that someone who prefers better production values and component quality can't really like wargames.

Thread: Re: Now this is a nice very light Naval Wargame.

Rastak — 2008-06-24T21:51:22+00:00

whac3 wrote:
Sean:

As I said, I've not encountered the game myself-- although I enjoy the novel from which it derives-- but your exposition seemed to say, "I hate wargames but I'll deisgn to revew this one although of course we all know war games cannot be good games REALLY."

I'm glad that impression is mistaken but that is very much how it came across.

With the clarification of what you meant, it's a good review.

Even without it, and it wasn't necessary, it was a good review.

Thread: Re: Now this is a nice very light Naval Wargame.

whac3 — 2008-06-24T21:45:39+00:00

Sean:

As I said, I've not encountered the game myself-- although I enjoy the novel from which it derives-- but your exposition seemed to say, "I hate wargames but I'll deisgn to revew this one although of course we all know war games cannot be good games REALLY."

I'm glad that impression is mistaken but that is very much how it came across.

With the clarification of what you meant, it's a good review.

Thread: Re: Now this is a nice very light Naval Wargame.

GreyLord — 2008-06-24T19:29:59+00:00

_Kael_ wrote:
GreyLord wrote:
[..]One can't expect phalanx materials out of a game like this from that era...but then...[..]
?
Like the cardboard army units in Phalanx's House Divided?
]]>

Personally I prefer a cardboard chit with a silhouette/pic and the needed info printed on it over a small metal puppet which forces you to look at your paper army roster sheet every single minute. And where the price of 2 'tournament armies' (needed to play) equals something like 30 wargames with chits and blocks. And the chits and blocks come in the right colors, the metal thingies you have to paint yourself, meaning everyone always plays with half a grey army, cause by the time you're done painting, your army book is outdated, half your army didn't cut it in the next version and you have to go back to the shop buying new unpainted units.

But then, that's my opinion.

I catch your drift. In Warhammer 40K I actually prefer Plastic if I can get it. I can put together a battlegroup in a day, but I suppose I have some practice. WH40K however, since it comes with NO materials other than a rule book would probably rate a 0, A House Divided ranks about average for a game, with a 5 by contrast. That's pretty good for a game that uses chits. Much superior to other materials, though with their chits, they could have learned a thing or two from the hits system used in tHfRO and some other games. In my opinion of course.

SFB I still use metal, but those put together quicker, and can get to painting faster. Overall, I need less models than WH40K.

Mini games aren't for everyone though, that's why they have other games which have a chit/plastic mix which aren't quite as rule intense such as the excellent War of the Ring which is a game that I really like (but haven't actually gone through the numbers on it for a review yet, I suppose I should).

I still have my stuff from Rogue Trader though, and they've held up really well over the years.

For Wargames overall, Phalanx has much superior materials than many other wargames. However, to tell the truth, since it still is mainly chits, and chits are HIGHLY suspect to the elements, beer spills, soft drink spills, greasy fingers, and other items, they tend to be less durable than other better materials, and of course, it also comes down to how they are implemented. Are the chits really useful and needed in the game, or could have other materials been used just as effectively? Is the cost of the game worth what you pay for the materials in comparison to what other games provide in quality. Obviously with the prices WH40K, though a game I like, fails in that to a great extent, especially due to cost.

Thus far I think the highest I've rated a Phalanx game in materials is above average with a 7. I'm pretty hard on my reviews however, and normally mine are reviews written for those who are actually looking into what a game is like rather than those who are already fans of the game. I write them so they fill in the areas which I would be looking for when looking to see if I want to buy a game or not.

Many (other reviews) cover gameplay and personal Tilt, which I cover in all my reviews, but very few seem to cover the other aspects which can make it tougher to decide whether one wants a game or not. Materials can make a difference, as can how the rulebook is written and how easy it is to understand. Replayability is one that's also useful, and of course one that always pertains to me, is whether I can use a game I'm looking at for a game night at home, or whether it's just going to be me and another person on during the day playing it.

All important stuff, but normally I have to pore over review after review and then look through all the images to get most of this information.

But yes, the chits in a House Divided, though implemented in the game more poorly than those in tHfRO (in my opinion of course), are of superior materials than those found in tHfRO.

Thread: Re: Now this is a nice very light Naval Wargame.

_Kael_ — 2008-06-24T10:18:00+00:00

GreyLord wrote:
[..]One can't expect phalanx materials out of a game like this from that era...but then...[..]
?
Like the cardboard army units in Phalanx's House Divided?
]]>

Personally I prefer a cardboard chit with a silhouette/pic and the needed info printed on it over a small metal puppet which forces you to look at your paper army roster sheet every single minute. And where the price of 2 'tournament armies' (needed to play) equals something like 30 wargames with chits and blocks. And the chits and blocks come in the right colors, the metal thingies you have to paint yourself, meaning everyone always plays with half a grey army, cause by the time you're done painting, your army book is outdated, half your army didn't cut it in the next version and you have to go back to the shop buying new unpainted units.

But then, that's my opinion.

Thread: Re: Now this is a nice very light Naval Wargame.

XanderF — 2008-06-24T04:56:45+00:00

Indeed, review seems fine to me. It's clearly a "likes it, but doesn't love it", which is certainly fine. I see a fair share of criticisms, but they are well explained and hardly seem like a case of 'reviewer bias'.

And I'd hardly say someone who likes SFB 'hates wargames'.

Thread: Re: Now this is a nice very light Naval Wargame.

GreyLord — 2008-06-24T04:54:56+00:00

whac3 wrote:
Pardon but if you so dislike wargames, why do you play them, let alone review them? Your review comes across as biased and distorted even though, having never heard of the game before, I have no idea whether the review is accurate or not.

To be blunt, what purpose does such a review serve?

In truth I LOVE wargames. Normally I discuss the heavy ones else where. However, most of them would score a 1 or 0 on componenets. The reason is suppose you have a gamer who is used to other components, when they get a wargame, they are in for a SHOCK!

In fact, if they aren't expecting it, that could be their first and last wargame simply due to that (I know because years ago, someone introduced me to these games...and I thought the game was terrible...NOT because it was...but because of the components. Some things change, in that now I enjoy wargames for the game aspect, but I still love toys). I'm not going to let someone be in for that type of surprise.

They should know what to expect when getting the game, that way they can concentrate on what is good about the game, rather than thinking how they got jipped on the components.

I really like Sci-Fi wargames, such as SFB, Federation and Empire, and Warhammer 40K, but 40K doesn't (rating 0 on components with the game, though you can increase that to a 10 if you spend enough money) even have any thing come with the rulebook, unless you get a Box set such as MaCragge, whilst SFB (at least awhile ago) came (probably would score a 0-1 unless you spend a ton of money as well) with some really cheap chits (cheap as per my opinion). Originally I hated SFB, but now I think it's a GREAT game.

However, there are other places I can use to discuss it in depth.

This (tHfRO), and some others are light boardgames, that actually come with mounted boards and possibly could be games that many who are looking at some of the lighter games could play and enjoy for a lot more than just those looking for a much more in depth experience (though I suppose there are some that say WH40K and SFB, each of those aren't just a game, it's not just a hobby, it is the ONLY hobby! I play both though but my wife doesn't as much, so my entire boardgame hobby is inclusive of her and those others that hang out with us as a couple instead of my other gaming buds).

Thread: Re: Now this is a nice very light Naval Wargame.

blockhead — 2008-06-24T01:51:28+00:00

I've played Hunt for Red October several times, including a joint game with Red Storm Rising and I'd say the review is pretty accurate as to overall fun and playability. You can make the game a bit deeper with the additional combat rules, which basically means ships and planes launch individual missles (we use matchsticks), then there is a chance of interception, then surviving missles hit the target(s).

Disagree on the components, the folded carboard ships in their little stands are actually kinda advanced, and they allow for a certain amount of fog of war (like Columbia's blocks) as well as providing a place to put the casaulty strips (flags that slip into the ship counters), so there is no need for seperate rosters. Don't know about the copy you played, but mine still looks fine.

As an introductory, lite, wargame this is a good choice. And it may well appeal to the Clancy fans. (Bet you like Red Storm Rising too. The Air campaign in that game is well done, the ground war seems a little off, but it is finely balanced, it frequently goes to the last turn)

Thread: Re: Now this is a nice very light Naval Wargame.

Rastak — 2008-06-24T00:58:53+00:00

Thread: Re: Now this is a nice very light Naval Wargame.

whac3 — 2008-06-23T22:37:08+00:00

Pardon but if you so dislike wargames, why do you play them, let alone review them? Your review comes across as biased and distorted even though, having never heard of the game before, I have no idea whether the review is accurate or not.

To be blunt, what purpose does such a review serve?

Thread: Now this is a nice very light Naval Wargame.

GreyLord — 2008-06-23T18:32:54+00:00

This is a review for The Hunt for Red October by TSR.

It scores summary is

Materials - 2
Rulebook - 7
Gameplay - 6
Personal Tilt - 8
Replayability - 7
Useability - 6

Final Score - 6

Materials - Very Rarely do I prefer to review Boardgames due to this one factor, in comparison to materials of other games, Wargames really rarely hold up. It's like magazines when they review budget games vs. Full fledged games, the budget games with a lower cost of materials and staff many times don't hold up. Wargames are hardly budget games of Board Games, but in materials, they typically are made of much cheaper and lighter materials. Unfortunately I don't give them a pass.

So, it's already a given that this is one area that the game will falter in, however, since it's only one category of 6, if it's a good game, it will still remain a good game afterwards, plus, that's what all the other categories are for as well, so one can look at each category as an individual review of the game as well.

So onto the materials of this game. Hunt for Red October has a LOT of cardboard chits. When I played this game today, it reminded me exactly WHY I don't like paper, cardboard, and similar materials over plastic in games. The chits were all faded. This game had gotten a lot of love over the years, probably a lot of use, but that reflected that over time the pieces had faded. Who knows what it will be like in another 10 to 20 years, maybe we won't even be able to see the pieces.

At least it is more durable than paper, which is another thing that I've had with Wargames. It had decent stands however, to hold up the chits, and the chits for the ships were folded over to make a double thick cardboard chit, but they still were made out of rather thin cardstock. This isn't unusual for games made during the period of time Red October was produced, and as I said, it beats out paper any day of the week.

One can't expect phalanx materials out of a game like this from that era...but then...this game was made by TSR, the same game that made Buck Rogers Battle for the 25th century. That had a lot of good materials in it. The chits really brought the game down.

On the nicer scale, the game had a really nice mounted map. The map had plenty of room, and was useful in the game.

Still, looking at how the game has held up, the materials are not going to be as durable as plastics, or even thicker cardboard.

It ranks a 2.

Rulebook - This is one cool rulebook. It eeks atmosphere. On the sides of the rules, you have information on ships and aircraft for no other reason than to add to that atmosphere. This has to be one of the coolest rulebooks that I've read in a while. It wasn't just enjoyable, it was a blast (aka, that means fun). In fact, it was well on it's way to scoring a 10, but unfortunately, the actual way the rules are written brings it down several notches. The rules try to be clear, but to many questions arose amongst us that were not sufficiently clarified in the rules. Because of this, the rulebook is not a perfect book, but it was fun to read. The book is a LOT thinner than most wargame rulebooks, but this isn't really a hardcore gamers wargame, in my opinion.

The rules are easy to understand on a basic level, but when implementing them in the game, we turned back to the rulebook several times, and in some circumstances eventually houseruled (which actually isn't that unusual in some wargames) on it. That's a weakness in how the rules, and hence the rulebook, are written.

It still scores above average for having examples that help understand, overall being able to play the game from the get go, and simply the cool feel and atmosphere the book gives out.

It scores a 7.

Gameplay - This game runs hard and fast. In fact this is perhaps one of the fastest wargames I've ever played outside the very lite fare of Risk (actually I think Risk normally lasts longer) and other such games. There were some situations that were not exactly clarified in the rules that occasionally popped up, and certain portions that were harder to understand (such as with the second attack, if they are detected automatically or not, and then of course, if it really matters, what can one do about it anyways, unless one takes the optional rule of final attack). It came down to what our joint decision on the matter was and how we felt the rule book was actually saying.

The game moves quickly. We finished the first scenario in a matter of minutes. The Hunt for Red October, the second scenario lasted under a half hour. It wasn't until the fourth scenario that things started to get a lot meatier. Even then games flowed very quickly.

The mechanics of the game are not all that complex, and that is probably why it flows so quickly.

Basically you roll for detection chits, or initiative. In this area the NATO player gets a distinct advantage, being able to roll 1d10, whilst the Soviet player only gets to roll a d6. Then comes movement, with the first player moving, and the second player getting to decide if they wish to try to detect that player as they move through their sea space, and then the second move where postitions on who moves and who detects reversed.

Next, air movement comes in, and finally they each get to use up their remaining detection chits to try to detect as they desire.

Of course, any time a ship is detected, the one who detected the other ship can choose to do battle, or vice versa. Detection is done by rolling a 1d10, and if you score under that particular vessels detection rating, you then detect a ship.

With battle, you have ships that are dedicated to Anti-Submarine Warfare, those dedicated to Anti-Air, and those that are the main force which will engage other vessels. In a nutshell, each vessel has a battle rating as well, and to hit another ship you have to roll under this battle rating. Submarines can only take one hit, and they are destroyed, small surface ships can take two hits, and large surface vessels can take 3 hits.

Aircraft can be destroyed, but also get a chance to roll once hit to see if they just return to their airbase after being attacked and losing. Aircraft are also limited on range, and one always has to ensure they are within range of somewhere to land, or you will lose them. This normally isn't that much of a problem, unless you use the optional rule of tankers which can extend their range and hence the chance that you'd foolishly send them too far out to sea.

There are 8 scenarios in all, with the 8th scenario being the best, and most intense one strategically speaking. Each has different objectives, which presents a different style and type of game dependant on which scenario you play.

The game mechanics are very simple, and in fact the gameplay overall is simpler than a game such as Axis and Allies or Attack, perhaps even on par with a simple game such as Memoir. As such, it's a great game to introduce the uninitiated into wargames, but more of that later.

The downside is that the game is deep, but not as deep as some of the other more complex wargames out there. It's very light fare. The mechanics are also somewhat dated, and even older games which have had updates (such as Hannibal Rome vs. Carthage) shine in comparison to this one, mechanics wise. Actually far outshine this game.

That doesn't mean this game has bad gameplay, in fact it's quite fun. I just can't rate it really all that great, though it's not terrible by any means. It's on the higher end of average in my book.

It scores a 6.

Personal Tilt - I was given the choice today to spend the day playing The Hunt for Red October, or it's younger brother Red Storm Rising (which we'll probably play tonight or tomorrow). I chose to play Red October, and I wasn't disappointed. This game reeks of atmosphere, and that's awesome. I enjoy Tom Clancy books, and it brought on that feel in many ways, of that conflict and tenseness. On the downside, that tenseness didn't always last long because of how swiftly the game moves, but I still loved playing. In some ways the game isn't all as true to the book as I would have thought it was (I mean, only one scenario really deals with the book, the other ones, if we really did half of what I did in them, which was go ballistic blowing up enemy ships, it really would have brought around WW3), but it still was fun playing in that old Cold War era of time.

I did have a few problems in how they arranged their Task Forces and Naval groups, as well as ship restrictions in spaces, thinking that it wasn't as realistic, but then, that was okay, I still really enjoyed the game.

I completely enjoyed the game, despite any weaknesses it has. It scores a really good score in this.

It scores an 8.

Replayability - This game comes with 8 scenarios, that in and of itself means you should be able to play the game at least 8 times. Of course with how quickly the game plays, you might get through them all in a day (which we did). On the otherhand, many of the scenarios are worth playing over and over again. The first few are probably not all that worthy of this treatment, but the later ones, especially scenario 8 are ones that would give you a good investment of time to replay, with a lot of enjoyment.

It scores a 7.

Useability - This is one area where it's going to just be an average game in this time and age. There are several reasons for this. It scores much better than poor or fair because it really is an easy game to teach the novice player. It runs quickly so it won't become boring rapidly for those who have short attention spans, and for those who are avid Eurogamers rather than Wargamers, should be able to at least spend the few minutes to play one of the early scenarios if they need to. On the otherhand, the Eurogamer might prefer a game with meatier rules than this, and most Wargamers after having wetted their teeth will almost definately want something with far more weight and depth than this game. I could imagine a few would be like me that really get into the mood of it, many others would prefer a game with more complex mechanics than this, and that would last a little longer and perhaps require a little bit more thought.

On the other hand, whilst Land warfare has a great majority of all wargames devoted to it, in every age and form (even Sci-fi and Fantasy), naval warfare has far fewer games devoted to it (though one of my favorites, SFB, though technically not a Naval game at sea, basically seems like a Naval game in space), and so for one who is looking for any Naval game, this might catch their attention as well.

So it's not bad on the useability, but not great either. It scores about an average score.

It scores a 6.

So in ending, this game looks to be only an average game. Even if one discounts the material score, the score would be around a 6.6, in comparison to what it's final score below will be given. I find that this game has a GREAT atmosphere to it, and if one enjoys Naval Warfare, Tom Clancy, or just a novice wargamer, they should at least give this game a shot. Despite the score I'm going to give it, I enjoyed it enough that I'm thinking of finding a copy of it ASAP. I'll give it's younger brother a try, but from my quick searches already, it looks as though tHfRO is easily obtained, RSR might not be. Overall, I really enjoyed the game and the atmosphere, even if it is a VERY light wargame with light tactics and strategy. It's not a bad game, just in comparison to other games, not a great game either. It's an average game, but one that I really enjoyed playing.

It's final score is a 6.

(Edit: For reference, link to explanation of my game ratings http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/2426690#2426690 )

Thread: Re: Light weight epic battle for the Atlantic

Mantuanwar — 2008-04-04T15:24:07+00:00

I think you described this well. It is very playable, and does an excellent job with simple rules of capturing such a potentially complex subject. Scenario 1 is not the "Hunt" scenario. Its a skirmish of submarines in the Norwegian Sea, and although it favours the Soviets, it seems a good learning scenario, as is Scenario 3.

Thread: Re: Inventory of Contents?

Mantuanwar — 2008-04-04T14:04:05+00:00

Thanks very much. This very day I am playing this against my 12 year old son. We have played Scenario 1 twice (2 Soviet victories) and have nearly finished Scenario 3.

Thread: Re: Mainstreaming attempted

GROGnads — 2008-03-31T01:57:18+00:00

Great "perspective" on this particular 'one' here, as I hadn't seen the movie, nor "read" the 'book', before launching into it all. I've since then watched this in its movie form, while I had introduced it within our "Group" when it first was available, since I just knew that they wouldn't have been as willing with the likes of the "Fleet" series. It got US to try yet some others for these, of which I still have them because you can combine it with Red Storm Rising to have ALL of that taking place, with multiple "Commanders" on EACH 'side' then! When there are only '2' players with the MAXI-"game", you can count on every TURN taking a couple of hours to "resolve", yet it is well worth the efforts.

Thread: Mainstreaming attempted

wargamer55 — 2008-03-30T22:04:47+00:00

Wargamers sometime fantasize about their hobby gaining widespread acceptance. At the very least it would make opponents easier to find! It might also save a lot of explanation. Golfers, hunters, snowboarders, crocheters and birdwatchers don't have to explain their hobbies, after all.

If only the game companies would try, the thought goes, the great unwashed would discover this great hobby. Of course, the reality is that gaming is a fairly niche hobby and wargaming a very small niche within that niche. And the reality is that there have been some mainstreaming efforts.

20 years ago, for example, TSR, which had succeeded in mainstreaming role-playing games, took advantage of its marketing clout to provide wargaming for the masses. And here I mean "real" wargaming, not just war themed, but something rigorous enough in simulation authenticity to pass muster with grognards.

So Hunt For Red October appeared. While not burdened with esoteric wargame concepts and terms such as ZOCs, CRTs and Hexes, it clearly was a real attempt at simulating modern naval warfare.

But it also had a lot of features meant to appeal to folks who would never have been tempted by SPI fare. First off, even though TSR still held the SPI rights at this point, it was not styled an "SPI" game but was under the "TSR" name, much more widely known because of D&D.
The game was based on a blockbuster best-selling novel, Tom Clancy's The Hunt For Red October. While the game includes a scenario based on the novel, its scope was much wider than just a presentation of the book in game form or mere theming.

The featured a huge, flat box with the same art as the novel. It had a large mounted board and colorful units while not selling for a high price.

The game took advantage of TSRs extensive D&D-based distribution to appear in retail outlets. I bought my copy in the bookstore of my local mall.

And it was a pretty good game, too. It had a lavishly illustrated rulebook that explained the game well-enough for new players to pick up without difficulty.

The game was a success, by wargame standards. TSR followed up with at several other similar games, so sales seem to have been acceptable.
But the game didn't result in any particular mainstreaming. Wargaming is still, and seems destined to be, a hobby of very limited appeal, no matter how well-presented.

From my gaming blog: http://pawnderings.blogspot.com

Thread: Re: Inventory of Contents?

_Kael_ — 2008-03-20T23:05:23+00:00

Soviets:
21 detection markers, 5 captured airfield markers, 69 air squadrons,
5 big Task Force counters, 27 submarines, 5 capital ships (incl Red October), 43 small vessels

US/Allies:
25 detection markers, 56 air squadrons,
6 big Task Force counters, 21 submarines, 8 capital ships, 50 small vessels.

I hope you have it complete, else let me know in what department you're missing stuff.

Matthijs

Thread: Re: Light weight epic battle for the Atlantic

miker42 — 2008-03-17T02:12:12+00:00

I've got both and hope to get some of my gaming buddies to take on WWIII. We're planning on two guys for the land war and two guys for the sea war. Should be quite fun. I'll definitely post an AAR once we get around to gaming it out.

Thread: Inventory of Contents?

Mantuanwar — 2008-03-16T00:29:24+00:00

Can anybody post here a full inventory of the counters (both stand up and regular)? The details on the back of the box seem to be wrong (I have more in the copy I just got on Ebay), and there is no proper list in the rulebook. There is no image here on the Geek showing the counters unpunched either. Just want to check I have everything I should. thanks in anticipation!

Thread: Re: Light weight epic battle for the Atlantic

ctcharger — 2008-03-12T01:50:12+00:00

I have to agree, I really liked this game. It was one of the few games I actually played especially on such a complex subject. Sure, other games were more realistic but the gameplay was tense and it inspired the old, let's do it again! I never did play the Red Storm Rising game with it although Red Storm did not interest me that much.

Thread: Light weight epic battle for the Atlantic

_Kael_ — 2008-03-10T16:12:05+00:00

With only one review it’s about time someone said something positive about this game. I will. But I will also say something negative: the title is wrong!

This game, Hunt for Red October, named after Tom Clancy’s book about the newest Russian nuclear submarine trying to defect to the USA in the middle of the Cold War, isn’t really about this best seller. It’s a game about one of his lesser known books: Red Storm Rising

This game isn’t about trying to sink a sub. It’s fighting World War III, on sea.

General doctrine was when Russian tanks would start pouring into West-Germany, the North Atlantic sea lane would once again become vital for the Allied war effort. In stead of Nazi U-boat wolf packs it would now be the Soviet submarines which would try and sink as many cargoships bringing new tanks, troops and supplies to the European Theatre of War. The NATO navy would have the dual goal of defending their vital convoys and also fighting of the Soviet surface fleet, which would not only be a fighting force to be respected on it’s own but which would also threaten to invade the nearest NATO bases (like Norway, Iceland) and from there start to launch fighters which would challenge air superiority and bombers which would increase the pressure on those vital sea lanes. General doctrine was, if the Soviet Union would succeed in choking those life lines, Western Europe would be doomed – probably a very realistic estimation.

The board: ]]>. The ships: ]]>. The planes: ]]>

Contents: The game consists of a gameboard picturing the Northern part of the Atlantic and surrounding waters, the part were the action was expected. Game pieces are standing up counters with ship silhouettes which create some sort of Stratego effect, and plane counters. The ships come in three sorts: big ones (like the US aircraft carriers) and the small ones which either have a submarine printed on their back or not. So your opponent can see which are the big ships, small ships and submarines. Also: both players have a few pieces with a submarine on one side and only “Decoy” printed on the other. Great diversions! All units have two ratings, one for their radar / sonar quality (detection rating) and one for their combat quality.

Gameplay: since the general description of this game is hardly ‘general’ (compared to other games on BGG), I have not much to add. Copied from the front page for reference:
The Hunt for Red October depicts "modern" naval combat in the North Atlantic, Soviets vs. Nato. The game contains 8 scenarios that place various combinations of aircraft, surface ships, and submarines at the players' disposal. The map is broken up into irregular "spaces" containing land, shallow or deep sea. Land spaces may contain airbases and/or ports; sea spaces may contain standing detection patrols (SOSUS, etc). Pieces are double sided cardboard of 3 different shapes (capital ships/task forces, small ships/submarines, and aircraft) with the back only giving the basic information (a formation of aircraft, a submarine silhouette or a Task Force symbol) to keep the specific information of the unit secret from the opponent. Each unit has a detection rating and an attack rating. Each side starts each turn with a random number of detection attempts (2+d10 for NATO, 2+d6 for Soviet). Pieces are moved on the board (ships/subs up to 3 spaces, aircraft up to 1, 4, or 8 depending on type). As opposing pieces are moved into the same spaces, detection attempts are spent trying to locate the enemy units in the space (usually d10 <= detection rating). Detected units are turned sideways so both sides can see it. Once units are found combat may be initiated. Combat is done in two attack phases. Dice are rolled vs. the attack rating of the attacking unit(s) (usually 1 d10 but there are exceptions) and hits are determined and resolved simultaneously. Ships that did not fire in the first phase conduct a second attack phase. Units can be in combat if not detected but upon firing become detected (which means undetected units almost invariably shoot in the second phase). Hits are again determined. 1, 2 or 3 hits (subs, small surface ships, large surface ships) are required to destroy a unit. Aircraft are destroyed only if the hit on them was a rolled 1 or 2. Victory is determined by scenario conditions. There are several optional rules, none of which appear to significantly increase the complexity of the game.

How does this add up? In my opinion, this makes a good light wargame doing a proper job of depicting the problems fleet commanders face as described in Tom Clancy’s books. (And he IS an authority on the subject, as far as I know) In a modern war, not every radar will be default ‘on’ because that’s a dead give-away about where you are. And I mean ‘dead’! So it’s far more likely the use of radar would’ve been more restricted and a job handed to the specialists, like the AWACS. Further, the fact that both gamers can see the opposing ships, but can’t attack them because they’re not detected is easily translated in ‘intelligence reports and intercepted messages tell us those ships must be somewhere there, but we don’t know where exactly’ (and thus we can’t attack them [yet].) So each turn, players decide which units will do the number of limited searches; the 2d6 / 2d10 detection markers. Because you want success, you’ll automatically first use your AWACS and other radar planes, before using the lesser gods. NATO on average has more detection markers then the Soviet Union, meaning the then known fact that Soviet radar/sonar was inferior is accounted for. This means the well-known balance (quality vs. quantity) between the superior technology of the NATO (good radar quality, more searches each turn and planes with better combat factors) and the vast numbers of the Soviet Union is portrayed. Each turn the Soviet leader will try to find the convoys and lure the NATO leader in a big battle and each turn the NATO leader will try to evade the Russians, pick his battles and get as much commercial ships across as possible.

The game comes with 8 scenarios. The first is [BGCOLOR=#FFFF33]The Hunt For The Red October[/BGCOLOR], and frankly: it’s a dumb game. One player moves his Red October submarine on a small map (out of sight of his opponent) and the other player makes underwater sweeps with all his hunting ships. Game ends if the sub is sunk or reaches US waters. It’s a useless scenario, maybe good for teaching one of the basics of the game. But anyone who hasn’t looked further than this, has missed out on a great game.

One of the middle scenarios is about getting convoy ships across, while the other player only has submarines trying to sink as many as possible. This is one of the best scenarios, teaches you a lot about the game without already dragging in all the rules and really gives that feel of hunter-hunted, like the WW-II tales about crossing the Atlantic. It plays in an evening, explanation and everything included.

However, THE scenario why you (should have) bought this game, is the last one, all out World War 3. Everything is included (ironically: BESIDES the [BGCOLOR=#FFFF33]‘Red October’[/BGCOLOR] since that’s a fictional ship!) and this is good for hours of tension packed light wargaming.

WW-III the super game: For the ones with spare time, you can also combine this game with Red Storm Rising. That game does have the proper title, but only depicts the West European Front. With only a few rules added the reinforcement rules from RSR are striken, and the efforts of the N-Atlantic NATO admiral are cashed on the front by more or less reinforcements: if (too) many convoys are sunk (almost) no US-reinforcements appear on the battlefield. Additionally, there are rules which let you transfer air squadrons from the N-Atlantic to W-Europe and vice versa. The game can so be played by either 2 or 4 people (2 admirals, 2 generals). I regret to say, I’ve never found 3 other players willing to try this for a day or so.

In all, when this game appeared and the Cold War was still on it was a cool game. Regrettably for this game (and luckily for the rest of the world) the Berlin Wall fell relatively short after and this game became from a ‘what-if’ game a ‘alternate history’ game, a category which, I believe, by definition has fewer followers. Now, with Poetin and friends still in control in the Kremlin, it starts to shimmer once again as a ‘what-if’ and I believe that except for a few outdated models (esp. in the aircraft department) the game is still up to date.

My conclusion: I very much liked playing this game, but it seems on general I’m a sucker for light wargames. I regret I haven’t played this one more, but in the time when this subject was hot, opponents were hard to find for me. I might still play it, now that I spend more time wargaming. And when I do, I’m sure I’ll have as much fun as I had then.

Image

Orph — 2007-10-24T01:12:54+00:00

High Res Image of Cover

Image

Orph — 2007-10-24T01:12:02+00:00

High Res Scan of Back of Box

Image

chansen2794 — 2007-09-25T22:09:05+00:00

Cover of Rulebook

Thread: Re: User Review

Jaggeh — 2007-09-25T10:56:40+00:00

I used to really enjoy this when I had it at the age of about 12 or so.

I have fond memories of it back then but can't comment on how good it is almost 20 years later

I think though it may have been the game that got me into the more strategic/tactical boardgames as opposed to generic fun games.

I would play it again though I suspect it was a nostalgia thing judging by it's rating

Image

2007-06-13T14:33:26+00:00

Image

Forelle — 2007-04-20T08:20:14+00:00

Soviet task force card

Image

Forelle — 2007-04-20T08:19:53+00:00

Soviet task force markers

Image

Forelle — 2007-04-20T08:19:30+00:00

Soviet surface ships

Image

Forelle — 2007-04-20T08:19:09+00:00

Soviet subs

Image

Forelle — 2007-04-20T08:18:32+00:00

Soviet air squadrons #1

Image

Forelle — 2007-04-20T08:18:10+00:00

NATO task force card

Thread: Re: Could someone please clarify?

Miielz — 2006-12-28T16:26:42+00:00

miker42 wrote:
In the Red October Scenario the rule state that Red October movement is plotted and the sub can only move one space per turn. Is this correct? Because if it is, I see no way the Red October can rean a US port in 10 turns or less.

Red October can move 3 spaces per turn, unless it is hit.

Once Red October is hit, the manual states:
"The first hit reduces its speed to one space per turn."

I have, however, seen manual errata that states that this should be one OR TWO spaces per turn.

Thread: Could someone please clarify?

miker42 — 2006-11-19T20:12:46+00:00

In the Red October Scenario the rule state that Red October movement is plotted and the sub can only move one space per turn. Is this correct? Because if it is, I see no way the Red October can rean a US port in 10 turns or less.

Thread: Re: User Review

ColdWarKid — 2006-08-01T13:11:02+00:00

I would like to add my two cents to this issue:

On the one hand, Craig is right with the detection problem not solved perfectly. You CAN see the pieces on the board, and you CAN adjust your strategic moves accordingly.

But on the other hand, Doug is also right with mentioning the difference between "know vaguely where they are" and "detect their exact position". He compared the relation ship-board space with the scale human-manhattan, and this is not wrong in my opinion.

Look at the board, and note the size of the sea spaces. Even the smallest are larger than Iceland (which is on the board and has 103,000 square km in real life) and the larger ones have a size comparable to Spain (which is also on the board and sizes 500,000 square km!). Now imagine searching a metallic cylinder of submarine size buried somewhere in Iceland or even Spain!

So I think Doug has the right argument: you may know where some enemy is, but to fight him you need his EXACT position, and so the detection thing is not wrong at all.

As Craig is, I also was not happy with the detection rule. In my case the primary letdown was the limitation it puts to your actions on the board. Hey, there are dozens of red submarines out there in the atlantic, and I want my US-based P3s and my hunter-killer units to go out and hunt for them, now! But I do not have enough detection chips. And then, commanding the powerful Soviet Air Forces, I want ALL my strategic bombers wreak havoc upon the NATO sea lines, and at the same time ALL my submarines should attack and ALL my surface forces go for the North Sea battle! But again, lacking detection chips put an end to this.

But I was "healed" from this attidude: we chose to play Scenario 8 without detection marker rule. Any unit may roll detection dice at any turn, without limitation by markers. So every turn, many dozens of battles evolved all over the board.

But then we found that this destroys the game mechanics. Specially air attacks get a real mess. So we returned to the detection rule. The game lasts longer, there is a little less action, but it is fun.

Thread: Re:User Review

dcooley — 2004-12-02T04:31:19+00:00

hyzer (#61856),

While I won't quibble with your overall review of the game, I do need to mention that there are other games that attempt to "simulate" (and do we really need to go down the simulation/game path? I thought not) the essential problem of naval warfare - finding your enemy.

Since the age of naval-based air, the real trick in naval combat is to find where the enemy is before he finds you. In most cases, you have a fairly good idea of the general *area* that an enemy is in, but since that area is rather large and doesn't have a lot of landmarks, figuring out precisely where the enemy is becomes a challenge. With subs, it's even a bigger challenge.

VG's Fleet series made detection a main feature of the game, as have most operational sims on battles from WWII on, although the latter tend to have double-blind maps as they recreate the smaller scale better. With strategic level games, knowing an enemy is in an area is like knowing your cousin is somewhere in Manhattan and doesn't have a cell phone.

Note that the Red October scenario really doesn't work well, as the hidden movement mechanics are bolted onto the system after the fact to tie the system into the book.

So, when you compare HfRO as more Stratego than naval war, perhaps you should think of naval war as more like Stratego...

Thread: User Review

hyzer — 2004-10-26T21:18:08+00:00

Its not surprising that I'm the first to write a review of this game that was made in 1988. I have met lots of people that own this game and have never played it.

The basic premise of the game is naval warfare, tied into the famous Tom Clancy book. You control either the NATO or Soviet side. There are large number of pieces including submarines, a variety of surface ships, airplanes and more. You even control the Red October in some scenarios. The pieces are nice enough, and the board is more creative than say, Candyland.

To play the game, you pick one of the 8 scenarios in the book. This determines what pieces are used, and the objectives for winning. Pieces are concealed from your opponent with a side that simply shows submarine, ship, etc. The idea is that they can't see your ship until they "detect" it with a roll. Upon detecting the ship, a battle can ensue which either damages, or eventually destroys a ship.

Now, for me as a kid when I got this game back in 1990, the pieces were awesome. However, the game play is trite in my opinion. The idea that you can't "see" the ships until you detect them is ludicrous. You can see them right there on the board. Just mover over there and roll. The only surprise is how strong a ship it is. Then of course, you know where Red October is, and can either avoid him like th plague and kill all the other ships, or gang up on him. Of course you have to detect him every time. This is more like stratego than naval war. Likewise, you can be detected by an enemy who commences blowing the heck out of you, but if you don't roll to detect them, you can't attack, as if you don't know where they are. Its just kind of silly.

Game takes about 1 to 1 1/2 hours to play. In the end, even if you win, you don't feel like you've really achevied anything. This game was a dud with my friends, and has just taken up space in my closet for years. A big thumbs down.