Game: Rommel in the Desert

Thread: Re: Difficulty in Relation to CR? Suitability as an alt to Eastfront?

NeonElephant — 2008-09-05T19:55:17+00:00

It seems like your questions have been adequately answered, but I can't resist adding my own thoughts...

Legionary312AD wrote:
Is this too much of a step up from CR?
Is it difficult to teach to a newb?
Can you suggest scenarios for first time play?
I've never played CR, although I've read a fair bit about it. Rommel might be a bit more complex, but shouldn't be overwhelming.

Supply is really the most involved bit of the rules, as well it might be considering the game revolves around it. Aside from that, everything else should be straightforward coming from a CR background. Just keep in mind that, because there's only one round of combat between each move, combat may be less lethal than you're expecting.

I prefer the 1940 scenario as an introduction, since the number of units is low, the deployment options are few enough to prevent headaches before the game begins, and as the allies you don't have the additional headache of the Rommel bonus to worry about. Also, when somebody's entire force gets put out of supply in month three, you only feel like you're wasting half the scenario, rather than 70% of it

If you typically prefer to start from the deeper portions of the pool, the 1941 game isn't bad either, although setting up the Commonwealth forces requires some consideration. The number of units you have available is still pretty limited (to begin with), and more are introduced gradually.

I (still) find the prospect of setting up the 20-30 blocks involved in a Crusader or Battleaxe scenario rather daunting, but then I haven't played all that many wargames. If you're looking for something shorter and the thought of that doesn't scare you, either of those might be worth a try.

Thread: Re: Difficulty in Relation to CR? Suitability as an alt to Eastfront?

Legionary312AD — 2008-08-30T22:07:08+00:00

Thanks for the replies chaps.

It looks like RitD would serve as a good alternative to EFII then.

Jan, I will see how quickly my friend picks up CR and make an informed decision from there. I am currently reading through the rules to RitD and it seems great but the sticking point will be the concept of zones of control. Thanks for the 1940 scenario suggestion btw.

Either we will go straight on to RitD or we will try Liberty first as another stepping stone. I don't doubt Liberty is a good game, but the subject matter doesn't really get us fired up.

Michael, Corps Command: Totensonntag looks very interesting and seems to fit with our level of wargaming well. I shall bear it in mind as a future possibility, I will need to look into replayability etc... though I noticed my friend had a copy of some really old D&D boardgame on his shelf so I am tempted to make a foray into something totally off the wall like Descent or Arkham Horror.

Dan, you really need to try CR. I mean your salvation depends upon it, take up your sword Sir!

Diolch eto,
Thanks again,

Rob.

Thread: Re: Difficulty in Relation to CR? Suitability as an alt to Eastfront?

voynix — 2008-08-30T13:43:23+00:00

If Crusader Rex is anything like Hammer of the Scots, I would say Rommel is a step up. It is certainally more complex but in my opinion, but not as complex as East Front (I have the original, not EF II).

RitD takes a little getting used to and at first the rules may seem a little much. The first scenario is a rather small one which makes it easier to understand the mechanics. Furthermore there is a nice extended play example which illustrates some of the rules concepts. Personally I love RitD. It is my favorite block game, moreso than HotS (again I never played CR). Alas, my wife won't play it with me. She like war games, including HotS, but for some reason she has not taken a liking to RitD.

Thread: What Next? Re: Difficulty in Relation to CR? Suitability as an alt to Eastfront?

Galileo — 2008-08-30T13:34:10+00:00

I'm not familiar enough with CR to compare it to Rommel in the Desert.

After Rommel in the Desert you might consider Corps Command: Totensonntag: The First Battle of Sidi Rezegh.

It has 4 pages of rules, ZOCs (zones of control and just remember that artillery can not move into an enemy zone of control), 88 counters, a hex-based map that is 17 x 22 inches. Combat is fairly simple, roll a die, add in the units modifiers and see if the die roll is greater than defending units protection factor (defense strength), if it is then the defending unit takes a hit (step loss).

CC:T is playable in 2-4 hours depending upon how fast and how familiar one is with the rules.

Thread: Re: Difficulty in Relation to CR? Suitability as an alt to Eastfront?

Jan van der Laan — 2008-08-30T13:01:01+00:00

Legionary312AD wrote:
Is this too much of a step up from CR?

Imho this is indeed a step up, but rather a small step. CR uses a point-to-point movement system where RitD uses the old fashioned hex system. The way in which units fire at each other is completely different but in many other aspects they are comparable (step loss, die rolling and to-hit numbers and fog-of-war). RitD also uses a simple yet elegant supply system. The basic mechanics are imho not too different.

Legionary312AD wrote:
If so, what are the alternatives?
Somewhere in between CR and RitD is Liberty. Some map size, same low block density, uses the same fire order but introduces the hex system.

Legionary312AD wrote:
Is it difficult to teach to a newb?
Supposing that "newb" has already mastered the CR rules it shouldn't be too difficult.

Legionary312AD wrote:
Can you suggest scenarios for first time play?
The 1940 scenario is a perfect starting scenario. Just a few units on both sides, using a small area of the map but all game mechanics are present.

Legionary312AD wrote:
What next?
EastFront and WestFront are basically the same games as EastFront II and WestFront II but the gamemaps are much smaller.

Thread: Difficulty in Relation to CR? Suitability as an alt to Eastfront?

Legionary312AD — 2008-08-30T12:07:51+00:00

Hello there,

I am currently leading a friend down the path to wargaming damnation (it must be a sin). We have gone from Commands & Colors: Ancients to Combat Commander: Europe and we are just getting round to Crusader Rex which is damn awesome.

I had envisioned EastFront II as our next step. Though I actually have a copy neither of us has room to play it and it remains on the shelf.

I was wondering if (and presume) Rommel in the Desert to be the next best thing for us owing to limited space and a 3-4 hour limit on time.

Is this too much of a step up from CR?
If so, what are the alternatives?
Is it difficult to teach to a newb?
Can you suggest scenarios for first time play?
What next?

I do realise that a similar question has been asked with regards to HOTS and EFII but I really wanted specific advice.

I must say (and have done so before), block games are a clumsy dyslexics best friend.

Diolch o'flaen law,
Thanks in advance,

Rob.

----------

*On a side note, I brought the rules downstairs with me and sat between my girlfriend and her father. They both made cooing and "ooh good old Rommel" noises as soon as they saw the cover. It is remarkable that the image of this man and the NA campaign holds such a lasting appeal in the general (British at least) consciousness.

Thread: Re: Made in 1984?

Mark_WH — 2008-08-24T11:17:18+00:00

The original Gamma 2 edition of Quebec 1759 is from the seventies.

Thread: Re: disappointed by component quality

drunkenKOALA — 2008-08-22T21:50:57+00:00

PS. Original poster, since you say this is your first wargame, I ask how you know so much about Simmons' Games. Your comments are well put and valid - how did you hear about Bowen's games?

Sorry didn't know the discussion had continued. I heard of Bowen's games on BGG, and checked thoughthammer for their games.

Thread: Re: Made in 1984?

sasquatchdjh — 2008-08-22T20:39:59+00:00

voynix wrote:
Its a killer game. If you are fence about getting it, I would definitely recommend it. 1812 came out in the early 70's, yet it is a very fun light block game.

I picked this up at GenCon this year as it was suggested as a better step between Hammer of the Scots and our disastrous attempt at Asia Engulfed.

I didnt realize it was such an "old" game. I thought the "Block system" was a new concept for wargames. (Im a wargame noob...the blocks get my interest unlike the chits so far)

Thread: Re: Made in 1984?

WalterLai — 2008-08-22T02:35:14+00:00

The box art of the current version is too nakedly bold for me. I prefer the abstract symbology in either the first or second edition. The game has indeed aged well. The judo metaphor comes to mind again. You can win by points or by a decisive maneuver ("ippon"). A mighty enemy can be defeated by catching him off balance and crushing him under his own weight. A headlong dash is only successful if it hits your center of gravity. Deny your enemy that leisure.

Thread: Re: Made in 1984?

Robrob — 2008-08-22T02:10:27+00:00

Rindis wrote:
It's a little prettier now,

Beauty must truely be in the eye of the beholder, I'm not much of a fan of the current illustration.

Thread: Re: Made in 1984?

Ramito — 2008-08-22T01:07:08+00:00

A superb game in any case. To me it does not feel aged at all.

Thread: Re: Made in 1984?

Rindis — 2008-08-21T23:40:08+00:00

It's a little prettier now,
]]>
but still the same game from everything I've seen.

Thread: Re: Made in 1984?

voynix — 2008-08-21T22:18:07+00:00

Its a killer game. If you are fence about getting it, I would definitely recommend it. 1812 came out in the early 70's, yet it is a very fun light block game.

Thread: Re: Made in 1984?

tool — 2008-08-21T22:01:55+00:00

It was re-released recently, but it originally came out in 1982 (I will fix the entry). And it was always a block game.

Thread: Made in 1984?

sasquatchdjh — 2008-08-21T21:56:31+00:00

Was this game really made in 1984? I thought it was more recent. at least since Hammer of the Scots. Or is the block game a reprint of a chit-counter game?

Thread: Re: Any errata for the 1.02 rulebook?

WalterLai — 2008-07-21T23:27:25+00:00

Even if there are any, it would be typos and not game-breaking ones. RitD does not have a great number of rules and has been developed for over twenty years. I am pretty certain that version 1.02 covered everything.

Thread: Re: disappointed by component quality

presence — 2008-07-16T03:24:43+00:00

Damnit, I really want to try a worthington or simmons game, but they just cover an interesting era for me. I want to check out the "value" with them, but I won't do it just to check, I need to want to play them too.

There are no ww2 games by these guys? Why not?

The closest I might be interested in is "For Honor and Glory", and it looks like it has a paper map, labels for the blocks, and matches up pretty close to RitD component wise. Are the naval battles here worthy of Age of Sail era stuff? I would love a good age of sail block game.

Thread: Re: Need German advice in '41 scenario

kuhrusty — 2008-07-14T09:49:22+00:00

Hey, I almost lost this as the Allies again last night. At the end of the third month, I was down to two units:

]]>

We were both pretty sure the game was over, but we kept playing anyway just to see what would happen.

(By the way, to get to this point, all twelve of the supply cards the Axis player had drawn were good! Of course I didn't know that until he threw down #12, dooming almost everyone on the map.)

So, that's my strategy advice for the Axis, ha ha ha:
- draw one more good supply card than the Allied player thinks you did.
- when the Allied player makes a mistake, cut off & eliminate all of his units.
- DO NOT repeat the mistake of throwing all of your units into Tobruk!

Image

kuhrusty — 2008-07-14T08:24:08+00:00

End of June '41: "Mistakes have been made"

Thread: Re: Any errata for the 1.02 rulebook?

kuhrusty — 2008-07-07T12:37:08+00:00

jonnylawless wrote:
I heard that there were some errors in the 1.02 rules?
I hope not; that's what I've been using!

Thread: Any errata for the 1.02 rulebook?

jonnylawless — 2008-07-07T06:13:59+00:00

I heard that there were some errors in the 1.02 rules? Can anyone confirm/deny this and let me know where to find fixes if there are any?

Many thanks in advance.

Thread: Re: Recommend me a study to read

Ossessione — 2008-06-30T08:33:47+00:00

I finally got to play Rommel in the Desert. This, however, was a solo game of the Crusader scenario but I enjoyed it a lot. I can’t wait to play with an opponent. I am halfway through my copy of War without Hate (aka. The Battle of Alamein). What I have learned so far has given a nice flavour to the game. War without Hate is not a hardcore study but it does give a good overview of the events that took place in North Africa. I guess I need to read something with more footnotes next; that is if I am not moving on to East Front sooner than planed.

Thread: Re: Were all the German tanks in this Theatre Elite units?

JackFlash — 2008-06-30T03:28:52+00:00

WalterLai wrote:
German tank superiority is a myth.

It was the German concept of Blitzkrieg that was revolutionary!

Thread: Re: Need German advice in '41 scenario

kostek — 2008-06-29T23:23:44+00:00

We included the 2 cards for Benghazi, and those are critical, IMO.

We both ignored the oases. I'll have to take another look at the south side of the map.

My guess is the historical outcome depended on two things:

1. Rommel was a genius
2. Rommel had a better supply situation than the allies.

I assume that in most games, neither of these are true. In the notes it says that Rommel got to Egypt in a "fortnight," in other words, less than a game month. In game terms, I doubt this is possible against any reasonable allied play. It takes like 3 or 4 cards to just move units there, forget about fighting.

IIRC, BattleAxe picks up after Rommel already has Tobruk under siege. Maybe that's the better scenario. Sort of like how many Pacific theater games start post Pearl Harbor.

Thread: Re: Need German advice in '41 scenario

kuhrusty — 2008-06-29T21:45:18+00:00

I agree that this one seems really tough for the Axis. However, I did manage to lose this one as the Allies the other night.*

I usually like to start someone in one of the oases, but I didn't this time, so early in the game, the Axis drove someone out to Jarabub Oasis. That took two supply cards (the move to Jalo Oasis was part of his initial group move out of El Agheila), but it meant that I had to use a supply card & three or four units from Tobruk to defend the highway back there, which left me pretty thin on the western part of the map, which made it easier for him to tear me up.

He wasn't able to take Benghazi right away; I thought that was funny, so I reinforced it; by the third or fourth month, I was pretty heavily committed at that end of the map--with several guys in the mountains, etc.--and he was able to drive around the south and cut them off.

After that, his superior numbers meant I couldn't concentrate anyone anywhere--I had to stay spread out to keep him from just driving around me--so pretty much every time he played a supply card, he'd vaporize a unit and make a hole; then I'd have to play a supply card to patch things up. Then he'd vaporize another unit, and so on.

I think you're right that the Axis has to hit hard early in the game, and get far enough ahead that the Allies can't recover later in the game. (That's what happened here, but the biggest Axis gain came from cutting guys off, not from battle.)

(Now, you guys are remembering that the Allies start with Benghazi, and the Axis gets two supply cards for capturing it, right? That helps, at least...)

----------
* Well, it "would have been" an Axis victory, but it goes in the record books as two Allied victories, ha ha ha. When the Axis cut off everyone west of Gazala, they left a hole; a supplied Allied unit was able to forced-march around and park on their supply line. It survived the forced march, and the Axis was unable to respond, so a pile of their best units were eliminated, and they conceded.

We decided to keep playing as if I had failed the forced march roll. In the last month of the game, the Axis had a big advantage in numbers, and had completely encircled Tobruk with an impenetrable wall of units. But rather than playing defensively and taking the attrition victory, the Axis attacked Tobruk. As the Axis piled more and more units in to the battle, I began edging around them, and finally used my last two cards for an assault on the unit securing the highway in Gazala. I broke through; he used his last card to try to reestablish supply with his few unengaged units, but failed, so pretty much every Axis unit was eliminated. Phew!

Image

kostek — 2008-06-29T15:44:36+00:00

Midway through the "Crusader" scenario

Thread: Need German advice in '41 scenario

kostek — 2008-06-29T15:35:56+00:00

Yesterday I played the '41 scenario with a friend. We are learning the game, and we played this twice swapping sides.

The allies are winning at the start, and the axis has the burden of the attack. They have to at least get Tobruk under siege.

We found this burden was too heavy for the Germans. Both times we played, the allies gave ground, building up supply and forces. Meanwhile the Germans were hard pressed to maintain an offensive, partially due to low supply.

The strategic situation gives the Germans an initial force advantage, but the allies have more space and are winning. Over time the allies get stronger. It seems the axis has to act quickly before the allies build up too much strength.

Here's the problem: the Germans don't seem to have enough supply to really pull this off. If the allies are low on supply, the can withdraw an build up more cards. On the other hand, the allies are not going to chase the axis. If the axis doesn't advance, the allies are content to sit around: waiting plays right into their strength.

Any advice or insight is welcome.

Thread: Re: Were all the German tanks in this Theatre Elite units?

ratbulogg — 2008-06-29T12:10:16+00:00

Don't fixate on which units had which tanks and when.

Instead, look at the EFFECT the double-step Germans has on the game:

The Italians melt away and the British have to attack with great superiority. This latter is realistic because, by all accounts, the British were not able, even by 1945, to attain a tactical competence of small unit support that the Germans had in 1941 ! It also forces one to be cautious on attack- just like Monty was historically.

Stu

Thread: Re: Vanity of applying math to war: a thought experiment

David Ells — 2008-06-23T16:16:47+00:00

Yes, the Deck of Dice is a cool item and a great idea to try for this game. The deck would so a lot of use, though ...

Thread: Re: Pre-"Front"

JackFlash — 2008-06-20T05:14:00+00:00

Thank you. That was good reading! It helps alot!

Thread: Re: Pre-"Front"

leroy43 — 2008-06-19T23:19:14+00:00

JackFlash wrote:
How does East Front II compare to East Front?

The master kuhrusty has it well described here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/116926

Thread: Re: Pre-"Front"

David Ells — 2008-06-19T22:47:28+00:00

I'm not sure how the commands worked - I think the prototype for EF used HQ units and activated combat units in a manner similar to the published edition, but I can't be sure. I do agree the EF as published in 1991 is a fine game, one of my favorites for many years. I also enjoy the Ed McGran variant for EF. I don't own EF2, I'll have to see how they compare.

Thread: Re: Pre-"Front"

JackFlash — 2008-06-19T22:17:15+00:00

How does East Front II compare to East Front?

Thread: Re: Pre-"Front"

Herr Niemand — 2008-06-19T17:54:56+00:00

You're right David, the original EastFront looked a whole lot like RitD. That 1988 Origins Wargamer magazine you're talking about featured an extensive preview of the soon-to-be-released EF.

Funny thing happened on the way to the forum...

Tom D., who calls the shots at Columbia, felt he could not publish the game as it then currently existed. Although it modelled the theatre well enough, Tom felt that that version of EF was a design cul-de-sac. It just didn't feel right.

Although it used HQs to move units just as EF now does, implementation was different. The biggest change in my mind was wrt German units. In proto-EF, German units were all double-stepped (requiring two hits to be reduced 1 step), and their strengths went up to 8! Movement speeds for all German units was one higher than current version (but only in good weather, in bad weather move was less).

I should mention that although I never participated in the playtesting of that earlier EF, I did converse with the designer, Craig B. at length about the differences between the two versions.

The way he put it was that after Tom's decision, Craig had to go back to the drawing board and virtually design the game all over again. At the time I'm sure this was disappointing, but in retrospect it was probably for the best.

Having to stalk and hunt down 8 step monster Panzerkorps with wimpy 3cv Soviet infantry armies is not something I'd look forward to...

Besides, I think the 1991 version of EastFront is quite superb!

TT

Thread: Re: Pre-"Front"

Calxx55 — 2008-06-19T17:36:12+00:00

Interesting.

Did the play test version of East Front use HQ units like now, or "group" and "regroup" moves like in Rommel?

Thread: Pre-"Front"

David Ells — 2008-06-19T14:55:08+00:00

"Rommel in the Desert is a pre-"Front" game touching on the conflict between the British and Germans in North Africa during WWII."

What most gamers don't know is that EastFront originally looked a _lot_ like RitD as it was being playtested and demo'd at Origins. I have a Wargamer magazine from the late 80's and the unit values are similar, much closer really, to RitD than they are in the 1991 and following editions. I'll have to track down this article, complete with photos, and post it here. It's somewhere in storage ...

Thread: Re: Best North African game ever

FlatWorm — 2008-06-17T01:09:52+00:00

WalterLai wrote:
If you own an older version, you could probably reproduce the new map legally. Get Cyberboard, get the RitD module, launch it, click "file", select "save image as". You will get a high resolution bmp file. Take it to Kinko or other print shop to have it printed.

It might be cheaper to buy the new map as a part from Columbia, available on their Bits N Pieces page:

http://www.columbiagames.com/cgi-bin/query/cfg/bits.cfg

Thread: Re: Best North African game ever

FlatWorm — 2008-06-17T01:02:35+00:00

leroy43 wrote:
Ah, a real classic. Alas, it hasn't hit the table in over 15 years, not since the time my friend Craig played and every single supply card he drew had the fatal white circle on it. Every. Single. One.

He swore he'd never play again...

A simple House Rules fixes this "problem": allow players to treat 3 no-supply cards as an in-supply card.

Thread: Patton in (the) Tunisia

David Ells — 2008-06-16T16:18:05+00:00

Any word / update on the companion game to Rommel in the Desert? The Tunisia campaign would have a lot of interest, based on the popularity of RitD and its unique system.

Thread: Re: disappointed by component quality - what is Napoleon's email address?

David Ells — 2008-06-16T16:07:54+00:00

I know where this picture was taken - my friends & I will have to go there, with our copies of Rommel in the Desert, Napoleon's Triumph, Bonaparte @ Marengo (which is Napoleon's actual email address - how many of you actually knew this?) and Hammer of the Scots in tow to 're-enact' this shot for posterity / hilarity / sincerity / charity / parity / clarity / parody / inanity ...

David

Thread: Re: disappointed by component quality

David Ells — 2008-06-16T16:00:55+00:00

Wow, what a lively thread. And I found myself agreeing with many things said here, by each 'side' and poster.

Some things are in order: I do play Rommel in the Desert regularly. I do find it to be my favorite game of WW2 North Africa (still waiting for Patton in Tunisia companion game). I love the system (alternating activations, supply, combat matrix & dice, not odds CRT(able), etc. I think it is a good challenge to take on even if you are not interested in Western Desert warfare. I like the operational / grand tactical scale. I think it plays fast and has good replay value (as much the historical situation allows). I am very pleased Columbia brought RitD back into print after it was out of stock for many years.

I like Columbia Games and have been a faithful fan ever since the mid-1980's. I own EastFront, WestFront, Computer EastFront 1 & 2, VolgaFront, MedFront, and EuroFront. I do not own EF2, WF2 & Euro2; not sure if I will buy them yet since my old copies seem to work fine.

And yet ... I am a huge fan of Simmons Games, and play Napoleon's Triumph even more frequently than RitD. In fact, RitD, NT and also 1960: Making of the President are the 3 main (only) games I play right now. Bowen's games are amazing, and he is a talented researcher, graphics artist, designer, and publisher. I don't know how he does it, either, on the economic level, but he does it. I laugh when I think how much NT would cost if it were published by another company (twice as much, easily. Though I would still buy it ...)

My criticisms of CG's games is indeed in the rules and sometimes unfinished / insufficiently playtested quality of them. Some of their games have done better (Hammer of the Scots) than others (Pacific Victory, Napoleon). But I still think CG is a fine game company. When I play EastFront lately, I have been using the inspired and clever variant proposed by Ed McGran.

The lack of mounted boards is not a problem for me with Columbia Games; I find the thicker maps to be sufficient and never to be a problem. The artwork is good and up to standards. I do very much like the mounted maps in Simmons' Games, however.

Yes, Napoleon's Triumph is simply in a class of its own, a great game for its own sake and a fine, original, thoroughly clever game of Austerlitz. Fred Astaire (formerly Frederick Austerlitz) would be proud ... NT moves as gracefully as he ever did.

But RitD is a great game, too, and simulates the unique situation in the Western Desert better than any other game (even NT!!). I think that CG should be recognized for making 'block games' (hitherto dismissed as toys in pre-Euro days because they were 'different') popular, successful & fun. I am glad I own many CG games, and I would be poorer for never having played them. You may hereby consider me an apologist for both Columbia Games & Simmons' Games; I don't own any Worthington Games yet ...

PS. Original poster, since you say this is your first wargame, I ask how you know so much about Simmons' Games. Your comments are well put and valid - how did you hear about Bowen's games?

David

Image

Xookliba — 2008-06-11T19:32:33+00:00

cyberboard gamebox

Thread: Re: Best North African game ever

Sandy Petersen — 2008-05-23T16:09:53+00:00

Hmm... my designer badge IS pointing to the wrong place. I wonder how I fix that?

Thread: Re: Best North African game ever

WalterLai — 2008-05-20T02:31:51+00:00

Just get the map and download the latetest rules. Everything else is upward compatible: they won't crash your computer.

Thread: Re: Best North African game ever

Jagdtiger — 2008-05-19T21:10:24+00:00

Hi. I have the 2nd edition (unpunched!?). What would I need to completely upgrade to the 3rd edition? Just the map? Are the "blocks" the same, in # and strength? Do the rules have any major differences? Should not bother to get a upgrade and just get the 3rd edition? Does the 2nd edition play differently enought to keep it? Should I bother with the 3rd editon at all and just play the 2nd (does the 2nd edtion have better "game play"the the 3rd)? Well that's enough quesions for now. This really help me figure out what to do with a good game.
Thanks, Jagdtiger

Thread: Re: Best North African game ever

scribidinus — 2008-05-19T20:36:13+00:00

Ferkin Doyle of Columbia was at The National Block Party, a mini-con focusing on block games held in New Albany this year. He brought a bunch of Columbia games down for sale and I bought this.

Thread: Re: Best North African game ever

sbszine — 2008-05-19T04:29:08+00:00

Is Sandy's designer badge pointing to the right place? It should go to:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/designer/7522

Thread: Re: Best North African game ever

WalterLai — 2008-05-18T23:47:31+00:00

There are really three editions:

The first edition had blocks instead of cards. If your version is not the current one but has cards, you have the second edition. The first edition looks like this:

I like its abstract box art

The second edition, the version I own:

Love the stylized design

The third edition:

"Yuck!" was my first response when I saw the cover. But this version has a "debugged" map which eliminates all ambiguities. The roads in older maps are such that you could advance for free by interpreting a move as a "retreat". This is no longer true in the new map, I highly recommend it.

If you own an older version, you could probably reproduce the new map legally. Get Cyberboard, get the RitD module, launch it, click "file", select "save image as". You will get a high resolution bmp file. Take it to Kinko or other print shop to have it printed.

Thread: Re: Best North African game ever

leroy43 — 2008-05-18T19:48:58+00:00

Ah, a real classic. Alas, it hasn't hit the table in over 15 years, not since the time my friend Craig played and every single supply card he drew had the fatal white circle on it. Every. Single. One.

He swore he'd never play again...

Thread: Re: Best North African game ever

VA-Norm — 2008-05-17T19:07:24+00:00

Craig's original version was published by the Game Preserve in 1982. The orange map was hard to forget - let's call it, uh ... "functional".

Thread: Re: Best North African game ever

Sphere — 2008-05-17T17:32:38+00:00

flapjackmachine wrote:
I have both editions (the old one has supply blocks instead of cards). The older edition had a different (orange) map that was better designed for gameplay.

Now you're confusing me. I've got the old map and a deck of cards for supply. Copywrite in my rulebook is 1984.

Thread: Re: Best North African game ever

flapjackmachine — 2008-05-17T15:54:17+00:00

I have both editions (the old one has supply blocks instead of cards). The older edition had a different (orange) map that was better designed for gameplay. The current edition map has a standard distance scale per hexagon.

The desert air combat is factored into the supply rules.

Image

leroy43 — 2008-01-31T01:17:02+00:00

Map expansion from the Canadian Wargamers Journal

Image

Zopper-Alf — 2007-08-21T10:22:11+00:00

different components fromt the game

Image

Zopper-Alf — 2007-08-21T10:21:46+00:00

better shot of the front

Image

Zopper-Alf — 2007-08-21T10:21:34+00:00

better shot of the back

Image

Herr Niemand — 2005-11-26T14:10:32+00:00

Image

kuhrusty — 2005-11-13T21:18:38+00:00

After an Allied blitz east of Ben Gania, Axis units in Gazala are out of supply. (They were able to kill the Allied recon unit and regain supply, though. Nuts!)

Image

kuhrusty — 2005-11-13T21:18:35+00:00

Gazala scenario: committed! (Those are Icehouse pyramids marking hexside control.)