Wednesday Night Wargaming (WNW)
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
or It's All About Me And The Glaze.
Wednesday Night Wargaming was established by myself and the esteemed Doktor Glaze in reaction to the despair we felt in seeing so many unplayed games in our collection, especially two-player wargames playable in a single session. This shall not pass unhindered! We resolved to do something about it.
The Rules: (meant to be broken, 'natch)
1) We alternate hosting on a weekly basis.
2) The Home Player provides a selection of games, from which the Visitor Player chooses, at least a week in advance.
3) The Home Player furnishes the Visitor with a copy of the rules and other information required for play, again a week in advance.
4) Each player is responsible for their own knowledge of the rules - learning time at the table is strongly discouraged.
5) There is NO!!! rule number five.
6) No multi-session games.
7) >>NEW!!<< The host gets to pick the music.
This has led to a renewed vitality in our gaming life, with a growing desire to apply this is some way to multi-player "big game" play, perhaps monthly. But that is a subject for another list...
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
All your WNW needs in one tidy package. Stay up-to-date!
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
30 November 2005 -- Flatbush
Our first entry for WNW would be the very freshly-purchased Crusader Rex by Jerry Taylor and Columbia Games. I love all the Columbia block games I've played, and this is no exception. Herr Doktor is a veteran of Hammer of the Scots, so we eagerly anticipated a fun match. We played with the 1.2a edition of the rules; the current set were not yet released.
The Outremers were no match for the Saracens, who pretty much rolled right over the Crusaders, ending the game in only a handful of years. We agree that there is much less room for error on the Crusader side with the original rules, but I for one would like to try again with the new set.
Comments
Me: (8) Taylor does it again. Somehow he's taken all the tension and elegance of Hammer of the Scots and fashioned it into a whole new game. Sure, there might be some balance questions but they'll have those fixed in a jiffy. I still had a good time.
Doktor Glaze: (7) Play balance aside, this is a great little wargame. Despite having a lot of mechanics in common with Hammer of the Scots, the game situation is wildly different, probably having a more replayability too. Where HotS has chesslike strategy punctuated by bold strategems, Crusader Rex feels like a desparate knife fight in a phone booth, with all the chaos and randomness that entails. I look forward to further playings and rules revisions to see if this may improve with time. The newly revised rules are at: http://www.columbiagames.com/resources/3226/3226-crusaderrul... and I hope to try them out soon!
MVP: "Desperate knife fight in a phone booth"... Hells yeh!!
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
7 December 2005 -- Park Slope
On the other end of the WNW spectrum, we prepared for a constructed-deck match of Richard Garfield's CCG tour-de-force Netrunner, originally published by Wizards of the Coast. I had taught the game to Herr Doktor fairly recently, and he took to it immediately.
We both went with R&D attack decks, although his was somewhat less focused. IIRC, both runners were victorious, but my corp was indecisive and weak and Glaze Inc. ran away with the match victory.
Comments
Me: (9) Possibly the best two-player CCG ever. Somebody should put together a playkit to make excellent random decks, and sell it as a unit. (Strokes beard thoughtfully...)
Doktor Glaze: (9) Spectacular asymmetrical game of hacking into corporate systems and exposing their agendas. Brilliant mechanisms and balanced design. The best CCG around.
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
7 December 2005 -- Park Slope
Netrunner wrapped up early, so I demonstrated Dan Verssen's Down in Flames WW2 air combat card game series from GMT, Zero! in particular.
I think we just played a couple of quick dogfights so Herr Doktor could get familiar with the system. My luck at this game always sucks, proving the prophetic title of the series.
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
14 December 2005 -- Flatbush
Time to get back to wargaming, with what I consider to be an overlooked classic: Games Workshop's Battle For Armageddon. I think it's criminal that Jervis Johnson is not recognized for the great and prolific designer he is - nearly everything good that has ever come out of GW is his work.
Herr Doktor's Imperial Guard "hole up in the forts" strategy was unable to hold back the Ork Hordes, which rolled right across the planet, locking up the victory around the halfway point of the game.
Comments
Me: (6) A terrific introductory wargame with all the flavor and fun you'd expect from the oft-maligned WH40K universe. Thinly disguised reworking of the classic German invasion of Russia in WW2, the unexpectedly fresh cardplay sequence method works wonders on this well-trammelled ground. Both players should be well aware of the special cards though, since strategy often revolves around them.
Doktor Glaze: (7) Honestly, it is one of the best intro wargames out there. And if you're strapped for cash and have a good printer/cardstock, it is free to boot! Medium-density East Front WWII game is behind a thinly veiled GW veneer. The marshes and mountains and rivers have new names, but it's all there: Sevastopol, Moscow, Stalingrad, you name it. Uses classic attack/defense/movement ratings on each chit, and a not-too-forgiving CRT that has a lot of retreat results. Even has a basic supply system! Honestly, it has got to be the best intro to wargaming I've played yet.
-
-
6.
Board Game: Zero!
[Average Rating:6.95 Overall Rank:906]
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
29 December 2005 -- Flatbush
After a holiday-induced break, we decided to try out a full campaign from Zero!. I love the idea of carrier battles, so we trundled out the Solomon Sea scenario.
Herr Doktor's Americans dominated the early game with moderately successful runs against the Imperial Japanese invasion fleet. The tables turned when an IJN strike suddenly found the American carriers and sank them to a man.
Comments
Me: (7) A revolution in aerial combat gaming. This system is wide-open for exploitation in different genres.
Doktor Glaze: (8) Fun fun fast fast game of WWII dogfights. Underappreciated: the ratings are tarnished by folks who probably like long fiddly games instead of furious hand-management card duels. It is a simple, easy-to-learn card game that echoes Up Front but in the skies! Clever design in that diving and flying low earns you extra draws, and climbing into the thin air stalls you out with less draws. Dogfights are a blast, and the campaign game is fast-and-furious! Highly recommended.
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
4 January 2006 -- Park Slope
The first WNW of the new year would see us go back to the hallowed halls of revolutionary Avalon Hill, and the redoubtable Courtney Allen's Storm Over Arnhem.
My Germans were apparently led by the backup cook, rolling badly to add injury to the insult of poor planning. I just didn't know what I was doing, and Herr Doktor's limeys were far too accurate to leave any survivors.
Comments
Me: (4) Five minutes into my first turn of Storm Over Arnhem, and I had learned the following things:
1) SOA was very innovative for 1982.
2) Half those innovations don't really work that well.
3) There was no way we were going to finish in less than three hours.
4) Apparently, Rush is Teh Awsome.
editorial note: I might be persuaded to try again, knowing a little more about the preferred tactics of the game.
Doktor Glaze: (8) We finally punched this 24-year-old vintage and gave it a run. What an innovative little game! Rather than mass moving every unit on a side, players alternate activating areas. This really adds a feeling of gritty urban combat - little firefights erupting here and there, action and counteraction. Even the lower defense values after activation are clever, as holed-up platoons give their positions away by attacking. Really feels like desperate house-to-house fighting. The few downsides seem to be wonky side-effects from activation (are you really able to single out and target a HQ that called in artillery?) and the fact that the British have less strategic latitude than the Germans. But even given these constraints, the game seems to reward seat-of-the-pants decisionmaking over pedantic predetermined term-paper strategies. A real breakthrough in wargames from the legendary Courtney Allen.
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
11 January 2006 -- Flatbush
My response to the previous week's debacle was to introduce Herr Doktor to another innovative and influential turn-of-the-eighties Avalon Hill classic, War At Sea by John Edwards. Edwards is another one of those designers whose work is often overlooked, despite being seminal in so many ways (Russian Campaign, anyone?)
Herr Admiral Glaze led the Kriegsmarine in a very canny campaign against the Royal Navy, who resigned on the last turn when it was mathematically demonstrated they could not win. Three disabled convoys, a mid-game failure of the North Sea blockade, and a half-hearted attempt to take out the Italian Fleet are all good reasons why I lost...
Playing again has rekindled my love for this game; enough that I prepared new graphic updates to the map and counters. I think it's a true gem, unfairly slandered for not being slavishly realistic (inappropriate at this scale in any case). Has the additional virtue of being shorter than its sister game, Victory in the Pacific.
Comments
Me: (7) Slightly simple-minded ancestor to Victory in the Pacific (Uncle "WAS"?) Just played again for the first time in years, and it was tense and fun with wild swings and lots of laughter and trash talk. All wargames should be this fun. By all means, download and print up the deluxe counters, though.
Doktor Glaze: (7) Brilliant little wargame that can be taught and completed in a few short hours. There are a decent amount of strategic decisions, a little bit of min-maxing, and whole lot of fun in the game. Lots and lots of dice guarantee that both sides will have lucky shots and dry streaks every game. Furthermore, those lucky streaks are what make each game unique and downright fun; otherwise it would surely become a scripted excercise.
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
18 January 2006 -- Park Slope
And now to the polar opposite naval game, the "streamlined" Star Fleet Battles, Federation Commander, from Task Force Games.
I'd played SFB a couple of times in the late 80s, and despite claims to the contrary, very little has changed.
I took the classic Klingon D7, Herr Doktor captaining the corresponding Feddie cruiser. After a couple of long turns warming up the "saber dance", I got bored and turned head-on. Now they call me Captain SpaceDust.
I was very disappointed with how little actual changes there were to the gameplay. It's still a grind, and play is still rigidly stereotyped by the matchup.
Comments
Me: (4) Not SFB-lite or Euro-SFB - said descriptions are a bit insulting, in fact. Sure the decision-tree has been pruned back a bit, but a whole re-planting would have been better. Why have 8 firing opportunities, but 32 movement pulses? This does not shorten the game. And how sad is it that we had unanswered questions about a ruleset that has been tweaked for thirty+ years? The only successful innovation is the dismissal of the EAF. Now SFB is up to 1989 standards! Hooray! Nobody will want this unless they used to play SFB in college, and want some nostalgia game time for a couple hours every few weekends.
Doktor Glaze: (8.5) Federation Commander has all the right elements to make it the premier space game: asymmetrical fleets, impulse movement, shields that add another tactical consideration, and a fairly fast play sequence. It dethrones Silent Death as my favorite space game. They suceeded in streamlining the old convoluted SFB into a relativley straightforward game, keeping the strategic decisions and losing the trivial obscurities from the rules. Overall gamers seem to have overlooked what a great, fun game this is and focused on their personal expectations or technical gripes about the product. The fact is that this release is the best news in ages for anyone who has ever overloaded a photon torpedo.
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
25 January 2006 -- Flatbush
After waiting over a year for this game to finally come out, it was time for GMT's Twilight Struggle. I had actually played a warmup game the weekend before as the Soviets, so I sat on the capitalist side of the table for this matchup.
This game does not disappoint, although the chaos-phobic may want to look elsewhere. Some poor luck early on put the Russians in a hole which they never escaped from, but the game never seemed totally hopeless, at least not from the perspective of the winners - not fair, I know. I was especially pleased that we finished the entire game in just over four hours, about what I expected.
Comments
Me: (8) Tense in the best possible way. The sense of narrative and the balance between tactical reaction and strategic setup are superb. One could quibble with some of the historicity or topography, but why bother? The game works as is and hits pretty much all the sweet spots asked of it. My first two plays were knocked off in a little over 4 hours each, so it meets the "single sitting" requirement. Definitely not a Euro, but not a wargame either - more of a "historical" game. It pretty much does everything I expected of it when I pre-ordered it lo these many moons ago. Can't ask for more than that.
Doktor Glaze: (8) This is a great game of cold-war intrigue and manipulation. The game has many clever additions to the popular card-driven genre (aka 'We The People' series games). It plays more like a two-player majority game than a GMT wargame. I am a little concerned about how much of the game could hinge on burying opponents good cards and cycling yours, but it will take a lot a fun games before the jury comes back with that verdict. Exciting to see new designers create such an instant classic! On a side note, the typos and blatant errors in this game are apalling. No part of the game got printed without mistakes; the map, the game cards, the play aids, and even the rulebook all have errors. Was there a single editor, developer, or even a proofreader? 'Replublic of China'? Different scoring rules on the play aid versus the rule book? I'm patient enough to play a friend's copy for three years and buy the inevitable reprint rather than pay $60 for an error-riddled production.
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
8 February 2006 -- Park Slope
Hey, I remember this game. It's Assault On Hoth from West End Games' series of Star Wars releases. Should be quick and fun.
Later that night...
Well, it was quick.
Nah, it was OK, I guess. Just waaay too luck dependent. As the rebels, I didn't get a single harpoon opportunity because of the way the turn order deck broke out ("walkers move" ALWAYS came out right before "speeders harpoon".) Wish the game was a little tighter and decisions were more than trivial, but not a horrible game by any means.
Comments
Me: (5) Rating based on memories of playing in high school. Not a lot of room for strategy, although there are some tactics to think about. I like the ticking clock of the "transports away" cards - that was a stroke of minor genius.
editorial note: high school rating largely confirmed.
afternote: I can't help but think about what a modern version of this would play like.
Doktor Glaze: (7) So I may be crazy here, but I found this to be an incredibly fun game for the level of simplicity. Certainly an overlooked gem. When I say easy, I mean easy. Much simpler than M'44 for sure. You don't actually manage a hand, you just draw off a common deck for activation. There is no need for LOS rules on the snowy plains of Hoth. The two sides are unique: hulking AT-AT's, zippy speeders, rebel troops that pop in and out of underground tunnels, laser towers, the whole bit. The game also has a built-in clock, where you draw twice from the event deck until the fifth transport ecapes the Rebel base. Brilliant design choices all around. Despite its simplicity, you do make some decisions, though not as many as I'd like. There's the hitch I guess: if you can handle the fact that it uses "chit-pull" activation then this game will be great. If not then you will find it a random waste of time. Overall I'm in the camp that finds this a superb mini-game in a big box, and recommend it to everyone who can be talked into piloting a snow speeder.
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
8 February 2006 -- Park Slope
Assault On Hoth wrapped up before 9, so we moved on to Hasbro's Battleball.
My Iron Wolves stompified the namby-pamby "opposition".
Comments
Me: (5) Some good ideas that work better than they ought - and I have to admit we had a decently fun time playing it. But I can't help but think (and complain out loud) that I'd rather be playing Blood Bowl.
Doktor Glaze: (6) Probably one of the best efforts from the new Hasbro, and certainly the best value in a boardgame ever. Be warned: every time two players move next to one another, one is leaving the field on a stretcher! Attrition builds up real fast and games whiz by in no time flat.
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
15 February 2006 -- Flatbush
Next item up for bids... Wizkids revamp of their old FASA property, Crimson Skies.
I really really really wanted to like this the first time I played it, and I almost did, but the initative and movements systems were terrible. We will be playing with an untested variant of mine on hexes and with a different maneuver-card system. Here's to hoping it works - the insanely cool planes and clickwheels deserve it.
Later that night...
Glaze and I decided to test out my new maneuver system with full squadron action: four on four. He took the Black Swans, I went for the Fortune Hunters.
Apparently they are still hunting, 'cos I never found any fortune. First round of engagement and one of my fighters is down in flames... apparently all four Black Swans have rockets which gives them a lot of extra firepower, and they were able to concentrate it on my planes, one by one. My "agile" interceptors went down first, and my lumbering gunships took only marginally longer. I did score some hits on him, but with all his planes rolling double dice I didn't stand much of a chance.
Still, it was indeed fun, and the new maneuver system worked pretty well, with minor on-the-fly adjustments. It should work even better if you only control one or two planes per person. I will probably upload the full variant here pretty soon.
Me: (6) Classic FASA-style game: some great ideas that are not fully developed. In particular, the minis and click base are fine, but the initiative system and choice of maneuvers is far too limiting. I've done some work on a new maneuver system, and so far it's working. Once it's fully-tested, I'll probably up my rating to 7.
Doktor Glaze: (4) Even using variants to improve the maneuver system, I'm not convinced this is a huge upgrade frm Wings of War. I realy think that what it gains in factions, special abilities, and unique units is kind of lost in the additional downtime. Which is odd, because I should love this sort of thing but I don't feel any mojo happening here.
-
-
14.
Board Game: Sumo!
[Average Rating:5.91 Overall Rank:3398]
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
15 February 2006 -- Flatbush
Crimson Skies wrapped up pretty quick, so we brought out Sumo!, a surprisingly fun and thematic little title that was apparently never released in the US.
We played best-of-three. My White Fuji jumped to an early lead in the first match, but was ground down by the wily Blue Lotus to lose the next two.
We played with my variant cards, and I realized that what some posters have said was true - I screwed up the priority numbers on the new cards. They're fixed now, and in the upload queue.
Me: (7) I will be honest, I got this game solely for research into other sumo designs. Turns out there's a lot of fun packed into this little design. Surprisingly true to its theme.
Doktor Glaze: (6) Sumo is the greatest little five-minute game of hand management ever. Games like Slapshot or Epic Duels are just too chaotic their own good, but Sumo! succeeds with simultaneous actions because of its robust simplicity. Do you dare charge if he has a sidestep? I'm tempted to buy four boards and hold a double-elimnation tournament someday, just for the wacky fun. Oh, the pieces are crazy cool: the raised sumo ring, the comical rubber wrestelers, even the art direction for Blue Lotus and White Fuji on the action cards is superb.
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
1 March 2006 -- Park Slope
After skipping a week due to time constraints, WNW returns with GDW's Imperium, 2nd edition.
I've played this one a few times, even solitaire, but Herr Doktor never has. It's best when you can run a series of war/peace cycles to get a "big picture" sort of history going, but one-off wars aren't bad. Anybody ever play Dark Nebula?
I was the Imperials, Herr Doktor commanded the Terran forces. We only got through two turns, but it was enough to remind me (a) why you should build small ships and (b) how much I hate the Terran MBs. Cheap bastards.
I complained a lot, but we both agreed it's a good good game that is almost great.
Me: (6) Hard to believe this goes back all the way to 1977. Still gets right what so many other games get wrong, but the edges have gotten really rough over the ages. A more interactive move system, better balanced ships/costs, etc. would be welcome but are not really necessary to enjoy this classic.
If you feel the need to get the 3rd edition though, be prepared to throw out half the rules and frankenstein some of the 2nd edition rules back in. Some ideas are great, others terrible, and it's up to you to sort them out.
Doktor Glaze: (8) Thirty years old and still better than every space empire game on the market today.
This is an overlooked classic, a masterpiece to while away a rainy day with a friend. And what better way to spend quality time than to vaporize them and invade their homeworlds? There are two factors that really really make this game stand out: its focused design and its campaign system.
The design does not try to throw in every possible thing a space game could have, and it is better for this. The keys are the fleets and the economic differences. [A House Divided benefitted from a similar design choice, to focus on terrain and unit types and ignore generals, events, and other fiddly details]. By streamlining jump range, ship damage, politics, industrial production, and other factors you get to worry over the important stuff. This makes the game faster and more enjoyable all around.
The other triumph is the amazing built-in campaign system. A single war lasts a few hours of playing, and you are encouraged to note the final state of the board. From this, you figure out the duration of peace and what ships are decommissioned, then use that as setup for the next war. Genius.
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
9 March 2006 -- Flatbush
I know it's early, but chances are this will be next to hit the table: Command magazine's double-blind Victory At Midway
And as it turns out, chances were right. (Special Thursday edition of WNW!)
I commanded the IJN against Herr Doktor's American task forces. My plan was to use the cover of the fog to approach Midway from the northwest, with the Akagi and Kaga in one force and the Hiryu and Soryu in another. The Zuiho would act as mid-game decoy by cruising south of Midway's search range for the couple days.
Unfortunately, the fog lifted mid-day on 3 June, and Kaga and Akagi split to try to confuse the Midway patrols. This actually worked, with Akagi dodging patrols as it moved south, while Kaga headed east, with Hiryu/Soryu scouting along the northern edge of the map.
I was placing my searches in such a way as to mask where my fleets where (i.e. making it look like they could have come from several sources - if one is found, he may not consider the existence of another). Even so, I was unable to find the American carriers until the afternoon of 4 June, when Yorktown and Kaga spotted each other. Kaga was disabled in the ensuing strikes, but by adding planes from the hidden Hiryu and Soryu, I was able to send a decent strike against the Yorktown - alas, they were unable to sink the carrier. At least I had it pinpointed with some bombers to spare for next round.
Meanwhile, Akagi snuck up on Midway's western approaches, and sent a strike in to soften up defense and hit the airfields - this was dangerous without knowing the location of Hornet or Enterprise, but I felt it was warranted. I was rewarded with three hits on Midway, pretty much wiping out its search capability. For the rest of the game, the Amis had to rely on spare bombers for broad air searching.
American "carriers" were spotted around sunset, and the retreating Akagi sent a strike force right into the combined CAP of Enterprise and Hornet. The strike force got away with relatively light losses, but no damage to the Ami fleet. By this time, Hiryu/Soryu had sunk Yorktown off to the northeast of Midway, but would take some time to get back into the action.
With night falling, Ami subs and Japanese destroyers fanned out to try to keep the opposing fleets spotted. Enterprise and Hornet managed to slip through the net, while the diverged Japanese fleets bore down on Midway itself.
Dawn on 5 June found the Ami task force right on top of the Japanese invasion force, now joined by Akagi. The Japanese held back from striking (Hiryu/Soryu still out of range), and the CAP fought off the American strike with minimal losses. A surface action ensued with Japanese BBs sinking Enterprise and most of the quality Ami air forces.
Having played for three hours, we agreed the Amis were pretty much toast, with Hornet vulnerable to strikes next turn and nowhere to run. The invasion would doubtless be a cakewalk, and American power in the Central Pacific would be broken. Maybe the Emperor gives me a shiny sword!!!1!@!
Just for laughs, I showed the good Doktor my copy of Seven Seas to Victory . Shyeah right.
Me: (7) More than just a 'roided up Battleship, Ben Knight's focused and fun treatment of carrier warfare is full of gutwrenches and opportunities for disaster (in the best way). The only reason this isn't an 8 is I'm not sure how great the replayability is, given that the forces involved are always known.
Doktor Glaze: (8) This is my first swing at a double-blind wargame, and I had a total blast. I don't know when I've had this much fun and anxiety in a game. The tense sub, ship, and air searches are what makes this game a winner, and being found adds fear and tension until night gives you a chance to escape. There's nothing like the dread of seeing dive bombers swarming at you when you have no clue where they came from! The Japanese player has to ferry four slow transports towards Midway, and has six carriers to lure the US into combat. The Americans have little room for error and few assets to work with, but if concentrated they can go toe-to-toe with nearly any group in the theater. Highly recommended!
As a side note, this game has some of the best-written rules I've had the pleasure to read ever. Simple, clear, and occasionally even amusing. For the love of god, how did Command Magazine do it so well whilst full-fledged outfits like GMT and Fantasy Flight can't manage a single page without errata?? (ed. note: templating and more templating!! Bomba and Perello were very big on their house style. Also, GMT and Command are/were comparable in outfit size, although that doesn't get FFG off the hook.)
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
15 March 2006 -- Park Slope
We're going to try something new, sort of. We're coming straight back to Imperium, but this time Avalanche's 3rd edition. We plan to throw out the space and ground combat systems and use the simple ones available by download from Avalanche's website, but otherwise will keep the game intact. It will be interesting to compare the editions (almost) back-to-back.
Ow. Playing the equivalent scenario to the opening campaign from the 2nd edition, my Imperials, thanks to a visit by the Emperor (!) and some good intiative rolls, were able to conquer Alpha Centauri and end the war on the second segment of the first turn (!!)
Me: (4) Let me explain that rating a bit. The experience was about a '2'. I think the game has the potential to be a '6'.
The Gooder: The activation system is not all-or-nothing, although one side can definitely get screwed out of moves (4-1, 4-1 -- right, Doktor?). The simple-version combat system is chartless and cleaner. Ships mostly seem more interesting and better balanced. Blue-star systems stop you for the turn, abstracting out the tankers. Getting free maintenance is cool. The counters look pretty great.
The Badder: The rules are fairly incomplete, especially the scenario guide. The map has all sorts of secondary planetary systems, which go completely unmentioned in the rules -- are you telling me Mars does not start with a Terran outpost?? The retreat rules are self-contradicting. The rules for controlling/conquering worlds and outposts are very vague -- they sound as if you need a garrison on every world/outpost or it goes uncontrolled. It is as easy to conquer a world as an outpost. The map is far larger than it needs to be, and we didn't even crack open the two subsidiary maps.
The Uglier: Boy howdy is the map nearly unusable. Planet boxes are sorta near the stars, but the stars are not near their own hexes -- and the jump routes run to the stars, not the hexes they are in. Why even include the hexgrid at this point? We ended up just ignoring the hexes altogether, which helped a little. The map is too cluttered and busy besides.
The Rundown: There's stuff to like here, and I could see someday playing a hybrid version of 2nd and 3rd edition. Keep the activation system and counters from 3rd; use the screening, world/outpost, and peacetime rules from 2nd. And for godsake, redo that map.
Doktor Glaze: (2) This game is one of the real tragedies of game publication. Somehow far, far worse then its predecessors and there's no shortage of reasons why: maps that are confusing to read, rules omissions, outright contradictions, questionable activation rules, poor unit counts, incomplete set-up instructions, lack of rules for screening non-combat ships, peacetime rules that work contrary to intentions... and that's just for starters. And that's already looking past the fatally flawed rules for space and ground combat, for which Avalanche published an official fix.
I can find virtually no redeeming characteristics about this game. My heart goes out to the original designer of Imperium, and pray that this example will evermore be used to point out why designers should never permit the re-design of perfectly good titles.
So, it's unanimous - our worst WNW yet, redeemed only by a halfway decent game of Samurai[/i] afterwards with Mrs. Glaze.[/i]
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
23 March 2006 -- Flatbush
Wednesday Night Wargaming is on a Louis XIV- and Blue Moon-induced hiatus. WNW will return next week with more person-killing wargaming action!
In the meantime here are our top five combined-rated games:
18 - NetRunner
16 - Twilight Struggle
15 - Crusader Rex
15 - Down in Flames
15 - Victory at Midway
There's a good chance we'll come back to NetRunner and Twilight Struggle in the near future. I'm also campaigning for another round of War At Sea, while the good Doktor would like another crack at Imperium (2E, natch.)
There's also a whole passel of Joe Miranda S&T goodness coming my way, not to mention all the other stuff we haven't gotten to yet.
What's next for our WNW heroes? We shall see...
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
29 March 2006 -- Park Slope
Herr Doktor and I both enjoy Memoir '44, but neither of us had played with the new expansions: the Russian Front and Terrain Pack.
We played two scenarios,
Breakout at Klin (AAR: http://www.memoir44.com/index.php?t=battles&id=1433)
and
Suomussalmi (AAR: http://www.memoir44.com/index.php?t=battles&id=1409)
Short version: The Doktor's fire dice were hot, but I had plenty of fun anyway.
Me: (8) Wow, and I thought Battle Cry was pretty good, but this is superior in almost every way. The Overlord scenarios kick serious C-in-C booty. Shoots to the top of the list. Even better and more flexible with the expansions.
Doktor Glaze: (8) I like it more than Battle Cry. Fun, easy to learn, and it includes super play aids for a quick start with new players. It's a highly replayable 'system game' with tons of variable scenarios just like ASL, but is magnitudes simpler. So far the best intro wargame I've seen. A luck factor does exist, but the design certainly rewards good play. Exposing units when you don't have more cards for that area will get you punished, so you do that at your peril! Expansions add more and more chromey details, but the complexity is still minimal. Finnish ski troops, Russian commissars, minefields are all handled with ease. All are recommended for fleshing out the possibilities of the system. High payoff for these extras, lots of challenge and lots more mileage.
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
5 April 2006 -- Flatbush
Twilight Struggle: Round Two!
I recorded all our moves in the game, and I'm writing a narrative history turn-by-turn for posting here at BGG. Look for it in the Session Reports section.
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
26 April 2006 -- Flatbush
Stonewall in the Valley
We played Scenario Four, which has Fremont's and Shields' forces converging on Port Republic, Stonewall Jackson's base camp.
After covorting around learning the rules (Shields' troops way overmarched because we misunderstood how fatigue was applied; the Rebs spent way too much time dithering when they should have been making blocking moves) by the second day, we had a better grip on how to make the system do what we wanted.
Jackson's division deployed east of the river to block Shields, who holed up to rest after their extended march.
Ewell's division deployed in a line across the likely roads to Port Republic. Fremont committed has troops in a scattered fashion, with 3 brigades in contact with the enemy. Stonewall himself quickly arrived to take command at the end of the second day, as Ewell pushed his men into position for an assault. An initial attack on a lone Union brigade ended in a rout, and allowed Ewell's forces to achieve a better position against Fremont's advance forces.
At dawn on the third day, Jackson ordered his main assault -- another Union rout, and Fremont calls it a day.
I have to say, the good Doktor's move rolls were generally above average, but it didn't matter when he chowed the main battle rolls (a 1 each time).
I tried to use cavalry as a delaying force, and pretty much destroyed my cavalry. Not sure if the tradeoff was worth it. I think the Union ends up having to take its time anyway - while Jackson has to use his central position to overwhelm first one side then the other.
I like the game system quite a bit, but could care less about the ACW at this scale. And while I understand the need for the tight granularity of the system, does it really need a Fatigue scale, plus Exhaustion, Disorganization, and Demoralization?
Me: (5) Played the shortest scenario in this series (#4 of volume 4) for three game days, and it was enough to know that while I respect the system and consider it to be interesting and well thought-out, in the end it's a lot of fiddle and bluster in an era I care almost nothing about. Streamline it a little and stick Napoleon or Frederick the Great in there and now yer talkin'. Very hard to rate - I think the basic concepts are worth at least an 8, but the setting and baroque presentation drag it back down. And it's very hard for me to take a pre-20th century operational system seriously if it doesn't have any limited intelligence mechanics.
Doktor Glaze: (7) Rating based on trial run. This game covers the middle ground of 'operational level' campaigns. The scope is larger than tactical (Battle Cry) but smaller than grand strategy (A House Divided). I tried the low-density 6-day scenario and was impressed at how clean the system really was despite bulk of rules. Battles are decisive and chancy, but you can sure stack up a lot of factors to influence that luck. One of the late-era products from Avalon Hill that is really a clever, clean, and puzzling diversion.
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
3 May 2006 -- Park Slope
Victory in Normandy
This ol' Ben Knight chestnut from the defunct (but not forgotten) XTR is still eye-poppingly distinctive after 14 years.
We ended up playing through the end of D+33, equivalent to the second scenario. The Brits hadn't made any headway against Caen, and panzer counterattacks against Juno and Sword beaches also came to naught. The Amis, after a slow start, were able to bend the German line out and cut off Cherbourg. At the end of the scenario, Granville fell and Cherbourg was only a day or two away from the same fate. So... a close close victory for the Germans (me!)
Me: (7) Fairly innovative as wargames go. Mechanics are pretty closely tied to its subject, but they seem to work OK for its sister games (Sealion, etc.) Limited commands and daily turns provide a very atypical pace. For the Allies, the balance between buildup and bustout is key. For the Germans, it's careful positioning and preplanning. Still holds up after all these years. A nice bunch of scenarios for a variety of game lengths rounds out the package.
Doktor Glaze: (8) Another amazing design from Ben Knight. A simple low-density tactical game with a good simulation value that is also playable in one night. Complex factors like Allied air superiority are either abstracted [occasional bonuses to pre-planned attacks] and/or abstracted [low movement values for Germans reflect night movement]. The trade-offs for giving ground OR losing units makes for some great decisions on the part of the players. Highly recommended intro wargame that deserves a reprinting!
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
10 May 2006 -- Flatbush
Heavy Gear (LowLight)
Actually, we would play my fast-moving variant of the Silhouette Tactical system, called Lowlight.
Other than a general streamlining of the system the big "innovation" of LowLight is the "Shoot First" initiative system. Yes, it's Igo-Yugo except you fire first and move second. With a couple of Command Point twists, it really really works.
We only played a couple turns, enough to know that the new system works. The rules need fleshing out, but it's all there with a minimum of bookkeeping.
We wrapped up the night with two hands of Babel.
Me: (8) After years of trying different initiative systems, I think I've finally struck gold. Now if I just need to dig up more players...
Doktor Glaze: (6) Scott made a variant rules set for Heavy Gear, the tactical wargame for the HG Roleplaying game. Removal of multiple actions saves a lot of complexity, but the huge breakthough is reversing the turn sequence to 'Fire first, then Move units'. This leads to a lot of tension deciding what ground to take, as advancing is treacherous! Adding a few precious flexible command points (a la Space Hulk) adds just enough lubricant to make the whole system gel. Worth playing, and several steps above Battletech and its ilk.
editor's note: lubricant... gel... did we play the same game???!
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
17 May 2006 -- Park Slope
Space Hulk
I think we're playing second edition (I've only played first).
This was a game that I played to death back in the mid-80s. It's one of my few purges that I actually regret.
Me: (7) Still holds up after all these years. Not for the faint of heart. I refuse to play without a time limit on the Marines! Even though there is nothing about 2nd edition that I can point to and say, "This! This is broken!" I still feel 1st was a little better.
Doktor Glaze: (7) Time has been kind to this old standby. One player has a few high-quality units (armored marines with guns), the other gets innumerable fast aliens with claws. Fast simple fun, lots to do and not enough time or actions with which to do it! Lots of positioning and then a mad rush for the next safe spot. Every scenario feels like a bug hunt or a convoy.
-
-
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
-
24 May 2006 -- Flatbush
When Eagles Fight
Ah yes, World War One Eastern Front. This is as close to "classic" wargaming as Matt and I have gotten.
We only played through four turns. I'm not sure Herr Doktor is really up for the full-blown old skool wargaming hex 'n' counter experience. Too much factor-fudging and stack-shuffling. Me, I'm still able to backseat all that for the bigger picture, but I think the Good Doktor's minmax mind prefers something with a bit more fog and flavor (like block games or CDGs).
Me: (7) Ted Raicer's first design is a classic. No ZOCs means a different style of defense is required. The subtle differences in unit strengths makes a huge difference when trying to squeeze out that 3:1 against a fort. Like WW1 generals, you have to be willing to spend your men's lives to get anywhere. I'm glad I reacquired this bangup.
Doktor Glaze: (5) Ack... more like "When Bumper Cars Fight". How did anyone create such a low-attrition game about World War I ??? The combination of generous replacements, high defense values, and especially the ability to take a casualty as a retreat all mean that it's freaking impossible to chew up anyone. I doubt it deserves replay in my book. I am surely not worthy to critique this highly-researched design... but I really think that some tweaks would have done this game a world of good. More unavoidable mutual destruction on the CRT, lower defense values, etc.
Me Again: I think we should take into account that we weren't doing enough attacks in general -- you wouldn't attack at less than 4:1 odds, for the most part. I could've been more aggressive against the Austrians. We also only played four turns.
-
-
|
|
