This is a very enjoyable block game that I would recommend even to those getting started in wargaming. After trying Wizard Kings I had just about given up on the block games until my buddy bought this over. One game is all it took to get hooked.

Very interesting game- Victory conditions are wonderful with control of noble households being the key. I think the map is wonderful and the way it plays out very historically correct. Jerry Taylor did a great job on this one.

This a nice light colourful game, and would be very suitable as a first block game for Euro fans.

I bought this game as a intro to block games last month. This has some of the worst-written rules I have ever read. Things that have a huge impact on the game are written in an ambiguous manner that makes me want to pull my hair out. I've cleared up a few points by checking out BGG and Columbia forums, but it's still a mess. There are also several versions of the rules, so certain topics on the internet are now out-of-date or misleading.

The map is an ugly, flimsy cardboard. A sticker on an Avery label has to be cut out and applied to make up for an omission on the board. The stickers smudge.

That being said, it is a good game and requires some truly unique strategy and tactics. I recommend checking out the online version at http://www.f2fgaming.com/ in order to help with the rules. I haven't been able to do this yet as it's for Windows only, but I expect this will really help explain the rules.

Daniel, you only have 18-20 games in listed in your profile, but just from those examples, I would argue that Blackbeard has far more confusing and convoluted rules. Extending to the vast spectrum of complex games and wargames listed on BGG, one can easily find many more extreme examples of terrible rules.

Hammer's rules are not perfect, but I would argue in general that Columbia Games do a pretty good job with this game and the vast majority of their products.

Just to clarify, these are some of the "worst-written rules," not the worst rules. It would be more accurate to say that the manual is poorly written. The rules themselves are quick and intuative- I have no complaints here. With someone explaining how to play, I think it would be a great entry block game.

Blackbeard, on the other hand, has a decent manual and convoluted rules. This is one reason why I haven't rated either of these games. I recognize their merits and don't feel that I could fairly rate them in light of some of the problems.

Since my buddy already owned Hammer, I've picked this one up. We have yet to get a chance to take it for a spin, but from reading the ruleset, it appears to be another winner. While they are close in complexity, this one appears to be just a bit more streamlined than Hammer and as such may be an even better place for the newbie wargamer to start (especially if the crusades interest you).

This was a great game as published. It was hard on the Franks to be sure... I was vocal in stating both these points. On BGG and CSW there was a lot of talk about the game being broken (in favor of the Saracens) and Jerry Taylor responded by making many changes to the original rules. I think he went WAY overboard in those changes... the game didn't need that type of overhaul. Though, it's his game.

One problem with the new rules (as pointed out by a current opponent of mine) is the wintering maxes. Before, a city could winter a number of blocks equal to it's rating- 1, 2, or 3 (Egypt being the lone 4 on the map). Now, however, a city of your color can now hold 3 times it's town rating. So, before Antioch could hold 3 Frank blocks... now it can sustain 9 Frank blocks.... how is the Saracen supposed to siege that??? Especially when you have road limits and storming limits...

Andy

You dont siege that, you besiege places that are stripped of defenders and harry the super army. Fun game, but hopeless for the Franks with best play by the Saracens.

You may have to besiege a city like that if it's a victory city.... Obviously, you whistle around Ascalon or Beirut if they have 6 Frank blocks... but, you need to take victory cities to win.

I'm in the middle of my first campaign of this one. I can see why most people use the '41 start, as the crushing of Poland and France seemed almost mechanical.

There are some clever elements to this system, although my impression is that there are about 2 pages of "core rules" (included on a separate "quick-start" sheet) and about 22 pages of special rules and exceptions.

These are first impressions only and I should emphasise that I am actually enjoying the game.

This game is awesome. It is epic, however, and takes some time- not necessarily to learn the rules but to learn the way to play.

Learn it online by playing some of the smaller scenarios that build up with more units but also with rules.

This one looks great, but if I already own Pacific Victory, do I need this?

Im pretty hyped about this one and Asia Engulfed.

Jesse and others, I'm currently working on a series of detailed "examples of play". The first one is focused on the fundamentals of the combat mechanics. I have about five or six of these "examples" focusing on different aspects of the design and I'll build up to a comprehensive example later on (running through an entire turn). There are a number of layers to peel back, so I want to do it one delicious bit at a time.

I've drafted the first full example, have to redo some of it for pixel resolution quality, and then it will be posted by GMT. I'll do it just as fast as I can.

Thanks all for your great support!

this one looks cool

and apparently plays quickly

We played it 3x and didn't find the key to that game. Nice bits (194 blocks) but very complex (as a defensive-to-play game you can't hit'n'run, no straight foreward). The limitted orders you can give to your units makes it hard to find a good and working strategy. There should be a step-by-step introduction how to handle that game. Or does anybody know such a step-by-step help on the net?

Brian,

As a civil war enthusiast you may also be interested in trying out two other Columbia block games on the subject. "Bobby Lee" covers the war in east while "Sam Grant" covers the war in the west using similar rules. My understanding is that there is also a ruleset available to combine the two games and cover the whole war. While I haven't actually played either, I had "Bobby Lee" for awhile and it looked good from a reading of the ruleset. Included in the rules was a full campaign game as well as smaller scenarios only covering one or two years. It just was more complicated than my buddies are interested in playing.

People tend to stay away from this one.. not sure why but I guess it's because of what was said above: complexity. Bobby Lee and Sam Grant are easier systems.

I prefer this one over Bobby Lee. I used to own Bobby Lee but didn't like it that much. When I picked up a copy of A House Divided I saw no reason to own Bobby Lee any longer and traded it away since they're roughly the same type game (strategic level entire Civil War). Gettysburg however I do enjoy quite a bit. The puzzle of trying to figure out how to best use your leaders and keep an attack going to wear down your opponents leaders is very interesting. The leadership rules in this game really make the game for me. If this was just a move and shoot type game I think I'd get rid of it in a second. The addition of the leadership rules really makes it interesting.

Clash for the Continent and the next entry, For Honor and Glory, aren't really block games in the same sense as the Columbia, GMT, and other Worthington games on this list. They don't use thicker standing blocks for fog of war. Instead, they use thin (but very nice) wooden counters with stickers on both sides which are made to lay flat on the board. They rotate 180 degrees once to show a step loss, you flip them over for the second step loss, and you rotate them 180 degrees to show the next step loss. (for units with 4 morale).

However, whether they are "true" block games or not doesn't matter. I enjoyed my single opportunity to play "Clash" very much and would gladly play again. My understanding is that For Honor and Glory is more of the same, except it adds naval scenarios as well.

"Clash" is a cousin of Battle Cry and Memoir 44. It doesn't use the blocks for fog of War.

These are not really block, the same way C&C Ancients aren't blocks. The blocks are used as an alternative to counters. (And they are quite to play with.) But, they don't even stand up.

The game itself is simple wargame on the scale/complexity of Battle Cry/Memoir '44/C&C Ancients, except no card deck used. The players get a semi-random number (die roll + a number based on the number/quality of leaders) of action points per turn.

Worthington plans another in this series (Wars for America): "The Mexican-American War." Also planned using the same system: "For Queen and Country: The Zulu Wars."

I just did a solo run through of this one last night to get the rules down. I liked it a lot and didn't see any balance problems (yet.. and it was a solo game).

Due to the nature of the board layout on movement and the zulu ability to swap strength points (SP) between units (british can't), I can already see the potential for this to be a great bluffing game, more so than any other block game I've ever played.

Because the Zulu's rely on masses to make an impact in melee, they're at the mercy of needing to roll a 6 to hit. I had a 26 SP force melee with some British wall defenders and came up with zero hits. Since it was a solo game for fun I re-rolled that about 13 times, never getting more than several hits. I then said 'screw it, I'll count 1s instead' and as soon as I rolled next I got nearly all sixes. Right after that the poltergeist theme song kicked in on my playlist. Talk about creepy. The game did include a combat chart which cuts down on the dice needed to roll as an option.

Zulu! is one of my favorite war movies and playing this game really captured the feeling that the british were up against a sea of Zulu with no hope in sight.

"Mr. Bromhead asked how many? I told him 4 - 6,000. A voice from below then shouted 'is that all, we can manage that lot very well for a few seconds!'" - Private Hitch

The balance issues are driven by inexperience. If you want to win with the British, you've got to play with an eye on the victory conditions and concentrate your firepower, rather than dispersing it around the perimeter.

Ah! I did notice that. In fact, that's why the Zulu won in my solo game. I started the British spread out and the Zulu quickly dominated the hospital and drove the British to rally around the Final Redoubt, leaving the water cart exposed and the Kraal. It also didn't help that I only skimmed the victory conditions prior to starting and then upon reading mid-way through the game the Zulu were already in the perfect winning position. Otherwise I would have had the British staged much differently. But still, the way I played the Zulu I can see how they can bluff with their numbers to make the British think a very large force is coming up on one side when it's really just 10 1SP blocks. I can't wait to play F2F!

jeff

*inserts high praise*

reiterates high praise

*hosannah!*

Hallelujah amen!

Quite a lot of fun. Yes, it can play multiplayer very well, but is also a blast with just two. Fun to get all the different armies and play with their strengths and weaknesses.

We didn't enjoy this one much straight out of the box, and I ended up trading it away. However, I have been told by many, many people that the game improves considerably using many of the assymetrical scenarios available online. However, many of them use maps and/or armies not included with the base game.

Unlike most of the other Columbia games on this list which model specific historical scenarios, Wizard Kings (fantasy units) and its related brother Victory: The Blocks of War (generic 40s era military units) are kit games with additional armies and maps available to allow the end user to design their own scenarios.

This is a great game- sadly, under played and respected.

If I had to get rid of all my other block games, this is the one I would keep. Yes, it would be very painful to say good-bye to the others, especially HotS, but this is a very fine game about a period of history that strongly interests me.

It never got the attention it deserved due to its release during the time in which Columbia pulled out of retail environments. Liberty needs to be played a few times before it really starts to shine.

I agree Ben. This one is a great game.

Yes, originally published in 1974, this game is one of the granddaddies of block wargaming. I'm a bit surprised that this game didn't appear earlier in the list. It was innovative for its time--and it still is--with combat resolution handled on a separate 'battle board'. The battle board is divided into two halves (one for each player) with 4 sections in each half: left, center, right, and reserve. This method of combat resolution reflects the Napoleonic combat style of that particular historical era quite well.

This is a really great block game for 2 or 3 players.

My favorite "blockie". Not only is there step reduction and fog of war, but movement is simultaneous by writing orders on paper. (don't let that scare you, as there are not that many units or destinations to keep track of). Or better yet, view the listing here at BGG, go to the link for the dvgc game kit, which contains cards to generate movement orders (instead of pencil and paper). Also included are optional battle cards and an off map battle board, adding a tactical element to what was an already great strategic game. And the kit is free. I can't say enough about my new and improved Quebec 1759.

And oh, once you've played to learn the rules, following games only take about an hour...a real plus vs other war games.

Cool avatar!

Thanks!

Great game.

This old classic is the game I recommend to introduce people to block games. We still play it a few times every year and it stands the test of time for fun and replayability.

Very well done. The fog of war, particularly in the carrier battles, has a very intense impact in this game.

Played this as the British against my son, he kicked my butt. Next time we played I was the Americans...he kicked my butt.

I think the game is broken

Oops, my comment was supposed to be on War of 1812.