|
|
Games Scheduled to Play (2)
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Wow...my list of scheduling the games to play become overflow as the number of games in my collection went up like skyrocket. The 25 slots have all been filled up and I need opening up another list to schedule all the more games! You can check out my first list here :http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist.php3?action=view&listid=4317 before you go forward. Or, you can check my third list for more: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist.php3?action=view&listi...
|
|
|
Posted Thu Dec 7, 2006 4:56 pm
|
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 3 Sep,05
Finally gotta have a look at this Randy Heller's classical look at the Battle of the Bulge. I would try out the 8-turn tournament scenario. I can see a lot of thoughtful thoughts have been put into this game and system. Its potential can't be fully explored without repeated plays. A lot of special rules and dieroll modifiers. Let's see how they happen.
AAR:
Simon and I played the 6-turn scenario today and we had a great fun with it, although we could only play 4 turns to completion because we are new to the game and we punched the counters on the spot. So it gets to use a little bit more time in setting up the game. Otherwise, we could have well finished it.
By the end of turn 4, the Germans managed to attain 5 objectives (the scenario require 3 for a German win) and the American reinforcements were about to arrive from north of the Meuse river. He five German objectives are Noville, Stavelot, Neufchateau, Bastogne and loosing fewer than 3 non-infantry class units. As the scenario was not ended, it could be very likely that the Americans could retake some of the victory points. We find this game is very well balanced and often in many circumstances the victory would be determined on the last turn or next-to-the-last turn based upon the throw of the dice as a result of skilled play by both players. Very good feel about this battle. A very intense game with clean game mechanics. The tricky point is to maximize the best use of the road net and river defense. The Allied has to defend every possible road intersection to prevent German from breaking through using the road (advance after combat gets to 1.5 times the movement allowance of the units).
The battle played out as it did very much historically. The Germans were generally stuck in both the north and the south. In the center, however, the Germans were able to break through via Hoisengen village without much difficulty and Clervaux was not a hideout at all to the U.S. 110th Infantry Regiment. Soon, the road to Bastogne was open and the German Lehr Recon and 901st Regiments dashed like a mad dog to it. They captured it on 17th Dec p.m. while defeating the retreating unit 109th Infantry regiment from Vianden.
While the combat results table is a standard stuff, there are many special features in the game. More defender retreat results would happen and the chance for the victorious armies advance through would be more likely. The suppression result would make both sides remain in place, while firefight result would cost both sides a unit step as blood drops. So the variety of the combat results would ensure the game fluid and movement through the broken and forest hexes become more possible. Since the map research is detailed enough for the units to find the right place and roads to traverse, the game is much more enjoyable than the older AH’s Battle of the Bulge (?1 edition) game.
This edition comes with an enlarged mapboard and counters, making gameplay real easy. A maximum of 3 counters can stack together so the map is not too cluttered. The map, while using standard terrain symbols, does indicate results of extensive topography research. The counters are professionally rendered with 'tanks' silhouettes of every type. The use of tanks and mechanized units is more emphasized as there are many special rules to account for them. The combined arms doctrine is also simulated by shifting a column in favour of the attacker if the attack is coordinated with infantry and arty. Leaders are also featured on the counters, with "influence" rating on their combat units. The leaders are finally given their credit due on the battle. This game contains all the classic units, from infantry to Panzergrenadier, from artillery to armor, from glider to paratroopers. All are here like a standard textbook.
The use of reserve is particular important for exploiting the potential hole punched through the enemy. Otherwise, its sequence of play is the standard I-go-U-go. I like the classic feel in here, plus a wealth of historical information with which you can compare against with while you play. The rules are top-notch in a high clarity fashion. The endurance rating comparison is a unique touch on both sides' troop quality, whereas a DRM would be given to the side with a higher endurance rating of the units participating in the combat. Very effective modeling. Flanking attack is encouraged as another DRM would be added.
There are many optional and variant rules. They are largely expansions on the core rules and be sure to check them often during play. The only minus is that they spread among different rule sections and apply to specific turn or turns only. So you have to remember them quite well to maximize them to your side advantages at the right time. In our game, I rolled a random event of launching Operation Bodenplatte, where the German Luftwaffe were called in to neturalize the Allied airpower. As a result of the dieroll, the German airpower were virtually none on both the 16th and 17th Dec. The infamous Fraulein, a Belgian local, encounter is included as a random event, which may slow down the movement allowance of Lehr for a turn on 17 a.m. As to Pieper, he showed a flair for boldness and tactical initiative second to none in the 6th Panzer Army. He had some moment on the northern sector and reached Stavelot after hacking a knock on the Yanks at Elsenborn.
We can foresee that once the Allied player gains a little more experience, it won't be as easy for the Germans. Counterattacking by the U.S. early in the game is difficult, but not impossible for a localized ones. When the German is bolder in his advance after combat or exploitation movement, the U.S. player may sneak in and stick the German’s neck out and leave themselves vulnerable on both sides. Remember that the length of advance is the number of hexes the defending unit retreated. Units retreating may exceed their MA to satisfy retreat combat results. Thus, units often had the tendency to move faster in retreat than in advance. If the German is too attempting to a immediate advance without proper plan-B to cover up their back, the chance would be there for the Yanks to do something, e.g. encircling the advance units, cutting off their supply.
Overall, this game is really a labor of love that is designed with every intention that it is meant to be played and not just for looking. The battle of the Bulge military situation is here to tell. The game could be determined on the last turn or next-to-the-last turn based upon the throw of the dice, resulting from skilled play on both sides. Given also the physical components of this game, I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in looking for a fine wargame.
Scheduled play: 3 Dec ,05
To play the 8-turn tournament scenario in the month of the "Bulge". Watch back here in December.
AAR:
Simon took the revenge this time by playing German and crossing the river Our. He took the engineer units to build the bridge and attmpted breakthoughs in the center. The Allied line was broken in many places, mostly around the St. Vith - Clevaux area. The German went as far as Stavelot, Stoumont, Trois Ponts and Bostogne. Good work to Simon's KG Peiper. A German victory in this 6-turns tournament scenario.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 17 Sep,05
Home before the leaves fall. Want to try some WW1 game, a gene normally I wouldn't like to game. The battle of Tennaberg and Marne were fought in Aug/ Sep 1914. It's nowhere more appropriate than to revisit the war in the same months 90 years later. 2 standard maps with extra coating, 8 pages of rules. Counters are simple and effective. Combat resolution is simple too. I have a good first impression with this game. A lot of goodies inside the box for a "play-me" effect. Ted Racier's game, let's see if this game can bring out the WW1 flavour.
AAR:
Finished the Marne campaign scenario by turn 8 when the German captured Paris. I am surprised how careless French careless play could result in an instant victory to the German.
Cavalry is less effective a unit in the WW1 battlefield than I had expected. We are also amazed how easy for the German to crack the French defense and race to the Mane river. The French appears to be having trouble in choosing to defend at the front at demoralized TER (Tactical Efficiency Rating) level, or fall back to defend at the river starting on turn 5 at full efficiency. It's a kind of dilemma for the French.
We think that the map should have been extended further to the west of Paris so that the German is much more possible to encircle Paris from the right. That way the French would have been more on guard about the imminent German attack crossing the river.
Several things out of our curious mind because of our past readings about WW1: 1) The WW1 Cavalry couldn't charge against the infantry, perhaps, because of their lance weaponry not effective at all coming to WW1. 2) The French 8th Army reinforcement would appear at the back of the German Army from the north. 3) The railroad net has no effect on movement at all, even when crossing the main river. 4) There is no artillery in the game at all. 5) The movement allowance would only be determined at the operational phase, and a unit wanting to get replacement has to have a "done" marker during the reinforcement and replacement phase. In Marne, however, a unit can only receive replacement when the Army's movement allowance is determined by a roll of 2 in the operational phase. How can a unit know in advance of its movement allowance?
The BEF units cannot enter into "FCP", Fortified Camp of Paris, even when the Germans are at the gate of Paris. In our game, the BEF would prohibited from entering Paris when the Germans advanced under their eyes. It appears that the Allied would be hurt from this scripted rule and would be obliged by this rule ahistorically.
Despite the above, the game has many subtleties with suprisingly a small number of effective rules. I particularly like the combat system. Odds are determined to obtain DRMs. Roll a die for each unit, modified by DRM and compare it to TER. A less than TER would result in a step loss and a number of hexes to retreat equal to the difference between the TER and the dieroll result. Replacement rate is assimilated into the TER and the movement allowance of the Army. A slower army would receive replacement for the young boys to catch up the trains to the front. Command problem is simulated by the pulling of chits from the cup for activation of an army at a time, and army boundaries that can't be crossed by another army until 5 days into battle. The lack of a rigid and locking ZOC (no penalty to enter or leave ZOC.) resulted in a fluid game. Once the German breaks the initial line, the French plain is just wide open for the German crossing. Command problems are simulated by a number of ways in a streamlined fashion, e.g. picking up chits to activate, rolling on the command table to determine movement allowance of your army, command restriction between 2 Russian amries, and the stacking prohibition between the French and the British.
Overall, a very good gaming and we like to give it a spin more and plan to play the Tenneberg scenario next time.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 8 Oct,05
Prelude and part of the Thirty Years War. It's a game about the birth of modern day Holland. I have high hope on this one as it claimed to be designed for over 15 years! Let's hope that it means the research effort, and not the game mechanics. The Dutch Revolt has an affect on the development of Thrity Years War in Europe, which is a gaming subject I am so attracted to. Great art on map and box, just like Age of Napoleon and the upcoming First World War. This is a multiplayer game and so it is good for a party game.
AAR:
Great art on map, rulebook and box art, just like Age of Napoleon and the upcoming First World War. Nowadays wargaming is a lot about packaging and branding. This is a multiplayer game for 2 - 5.
Don't let the packaging fools you any. It looks like a Euro but it's not. A lot of complex interaction inside the gaming systems and mechanics. Sometimes we get lost with the counting and the next phase we are going to do. A close look at the playing aid downloaded from the internet might help. We checked a lot with the rulebook. Even though it lasts 5 turns only, 6 if you count the turn 0, there are up to a dozen phases inside a turn.
Each faction in the game has its own agenda and thus victory points. The furtherance of your faction's objectives, while cooperating with others, or competing at the right time, is essential to your winning.
The concept of town and city plays a very subtle part in the game. Surely you would have known a lot better about the Dutch geography and its surroundings. It's better you recognize many city names to save you play time and focus on your strategy. Controlling cities and provinces awards you points. The Noble could gain points by expanding its resources also. They are a kind of balancing force in a 3-player game.
The Catholics was on the lead the first 2 turns as the bishoprics remain intact and largely untouched. Some treasures were "shipped" to the Reformers as they used Houegemonts to catch the Spanish treasure fleets. So the Catholics stopped doing that not long after.
The Reformers mainly went for the northern part of Holland, where majority are neturals. You can convert a netrual into one of your resource points, as long as the resource limit is not exceeded. You gain resources mainly through expanding your influencing towns and the rurals, which have your faction support already, support boxes,cities under your control etc. The Reformers gain VPs through controlling the unitversities, the center of spreading the news of God.
Our game see that the Reformer coming up from behind and won the game. The Catholics couldn't hold onto a victory if he is going to focus on a retaining strategy only. He has to go after the Reformers to seek out the weak parts and turned the universities back into "Catholics".
Overall, a good game system and mechanic in simulating the Eighty Years War. A little bit abstract. But the overall result is quite close to that of history. We plan to have another game with 5 people, as we believe there would be a lot more interactions among the factions and a much tenser game.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 22 Oct,05
An unusual game from Roger Nord on the battle of Somme in July to November 1916. The map has squares to regulate troop movement. The counters and map arts are well done. This game focues on the big offensive by the Allied on the battle of Somme. Having just watched the excellent movie "A Very Long Engagement" by the French, I am very much inspired to try this game.
AAR:
We played the 4-turns scenario "Over the Top" as a learning exercise. It took some time to get used to the game system at the first place. So we just barely able to finish 3 turns in 5 hours. A bit slower than I thought. Primarily because, I think, of Roger Nord's usual approach taking as many variables as possible into his integrated design. A lot of different dieroll modifiers should be aware of and calculated at the time of resolving combats. Otherwise, we are pretty much happy about the game's neat treatment of command resources, whereas the British have more options than the German at the Corp strategic planning level.
One thing we try to figure out initially is the use of the HQ for both movement and combat. It is because an HQ in command range and in command mode should be there for assault commitments. At the same time, they should be in supply mode when actual combat takes place to avoid that nasty +2 DRM. Soon, naturally we know that the Brits have the advantage in the number of HQs available! One HQ would allow the Tommies to get close to assault. Another HQ should supply them in combat.
Speaking of assaults, we are confused by assault, which is a normal one, and close assault. In the later, defensive fire get to fire first before the attackers. While close assault has a +1 DRM for EACH close assaulting unit to inflict greater damage, we forgot to apply this one. We had all defenders getting to fire first in a normal assault... I would hope that the rules in assault should have clearly stated this, not only just a DRM description on the Assault Results Table. The Brits could have pushed the German more aback. At the same time, since we played it wrong on the close assault rule, there was no point for the German to go over the top for a close assault, given the fairly bloody combat results for the attacker. Occasionally, there are Counterattack result. It means the defenders are mandated to attack immediately, with often suicidal results. But it does keep both sides sit glued to the chair.
So the result is a false victory to the German...as the Allied could not clear all the German units from the starting trench line. Actually despite rain-clear-drizzle weather, the Brits had done well in the center part of Somme river, breaking through the German line with the cavalry advancing into the trench upon hex vacated by the defenders. The process of Artillery bombardment is more efficient than that found in To the Green Fields Beyond, with lifting and creeping barrages being the command resources for the Allied to use.
There are no tanks in this scenario. So we don't get to see the tank breakdown. Replacement is calculated by counting the number of assault, steps lost and disordered units. Most Allied units have 4-steps and the Germans have 3. Victory points would go to the opposing side for each replaced. Since the Allied victory conditions hinge on territorial objectives and not VPs, it is almost a wild spree for the German to get the replacements up running and send'em to the front via roads as soon as possible.
Overall, we like the game system. The number of units and low stacking limit on the one map is very manageable. We get used to move on the squares map (a very nice one by Craig Grando) without problem. The treatment of counterbattery fire is also fun. There are 4 shorter scenarios (4 to 7 turns each) to choose from dissecting each segment in the campaign very well. Along with the 21-turns campaign game, definitely we would give it another spin sometime soon.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 5 Nov,05
The game borrows heavily some of the concepts in Great Battles of History series. The Hungarians vs. Ottomans in the battle of Mohacs, where the Hungarians were heavily defeated leading to the fall of the kingdom for over 400 years.
AAR:
I (Hungarian) took on the battle of Mohacs against Simon (Ottoman). Contrary to our thinking, although the Ottoman is on an initiative to attack in this battle, it is actually the Hungarian who strikes first. It is because the Ottoman has a slower buildup initially with reinforcements. The Hungarians are generally on the defensive. They have a smaller force and outnumbered on a 1-2. The availability of the reinforcement is also variable, posing an uncertainty as to what and where they would show up (about 50% chance they wouldn't show up). So the Hugarians have to make a pre-emptive strike first against the generally disordered Rumelian's wing of light cavalry and artillery.
I moved the Hungarian left wing Penrenyi calvary first down the Ottoman's right as a "phony" attack to attract Simon's initial attention. He brought on the reinforcement and did not rally the opening disordered Rumelians (they were encamped and unprepared for the coming attack historically). There were some successes and several artillery units were wiped out before they got a chance to fire. The artillery is not an effective weapon at this age where the horses are still the kings on the battlefield. The 4 Bali medium cavalry near the village Majs, crossing the stream south, came to the rescue and a big encirclement and counter-encirclement happened, as horses chasing the back of other horses continually.
In the center, the Janissaries infantry and Akinci light cavalry stay put on the ridge without advance. They felt safe in the ridge as opposing them are some Hungarian artillery. Simon relied on the buildup of the Suleiman main force at the back and he was too concentrated on his Rumelian's wing. A collapse on the left would threaten his center at the ridge.
Suleiman's forces are more in numbers and better in quality. They came to the left wing and pushed back the Bathyani cavalry, forcing them backward to form a line barely for a hold. A lot of blood was shed here. At one time, the Suleiman main center force regular and levy infantry reached the front of the center ridge and sent a signal of warning to Prince Zalkan.
Zalkan performed charges against the infantry, which were equipped with some muskets on hand and fired them at the cavalry. Both sides took heavy casualties as a result. The final tally of the Flight level is Hungarian 44 (52 to flee as the mixed contingents were brought in) to Ottoman 23 (65 to flee). Seeing that they had lost the initiative to attack to cause more casualties, the Hungarians conceded.
The game mechanics is very fluid, with back-and-forth activation between both sides. A free activation is given to each side in the beginning and to continue you must roll a die to check against the leader's activation rating. A smaller than the number would let you continue, subject to the opposing side's seizing of the initiative. If the opponent failed to seize the initiative, the penalty would be a free activation back to you moving any of the command units, even the one you just finished before. So decision to take the seizure is a very delicate thing - to do the right thing at the right timing, without triggering a series of collapse. Tension is high in this game. I think the initiative (the seizure) system is more elegant than that of the Great Battles of History series. This system would be used in the designer's Men of Iron series for the medieval era battles.
Special features of the game include continuous activation, flight (a.k.a. rout) level and the unit interactions (weapon effectiveness comparison against each other) among infantry and cavalry types and arty units. Positional advantage is emphasised in charge/ shock combat as facing counts. Flank and rear attacks could be brutal.
There is no scenario to choose from. But the campaign game is the soul of the whole subject - to see it through all the way until a side takes a flight. It takes about 6 to 7 hours to finish a game. We are delighted that the game works with a rulebook without any clarifications or errata. It is easy to absorb and few special rules are written, as opposed to Richard Berg's usual ridden-for-historical-effects approach to game design.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 19 Nov,05
A Cold War invasion by the Soviets into Germany hinterland. This game is actually a remake (says complete overhaul) of the 1973 SPI "NATO" game mechanics. I bought the flat tray box SPI old game from an old games online shop. So it is kind of interesting to see how they are compared. Ty Bomba's streamlined appraoch to games design philosophy ("make no needless rule"...) makes this game certainly as smooth as possible. The ability for players to choose the move and fight sequence of play is a key feature of this game too.
AAR:
As a growing child under the Cold War, I am always fascinated by the subject "what-if the Soviets attack us?". I played NATO against Simon's Soviets as a remembrance of this possible initial outbreak of WW3 in Europe. The Soviets advanced, with the 8th as vanguard, through the central West Germany along a wide front, from Czechoslovakia mountains to Fulda Gap and Wesser in the center, to the city of Bremen, Luneburg Heath region, in the north.
The British Army of the Rhine took most of the blunt, with Belgium and Netherlands forces rushing in from behind the back to stop the pouring in of the Soviets. The Soviets seized the initial 3 turns of air superiority (the first turn being automatic). Coupled with the initial NATO forces dispositions, you just couldn't imagine how bad the situation is for the NATO commander. The initial disposition was just like the Soviets in the wake of German's attack in WW2. This time is just the reverse.
The Combat Table Result is a bit less than bloody than I would have thought. Attackers suffer almost no result unless in an exchange, losing the same number of steps the defenders had. In an exchange result, although the defenders have to loose one step for the full-strength unit, and eliminate the one-stepper, the stacking rule of 2 divisions per hex in effect limits the combat losses significantly. Other combat results mostly call for a defender retreat result, and in a game where ZOC is virtually non-existent, they get to withdraw everywhere, including towards enemy line.
You would see the slower Soviets, while unified at a movement allowance of 6, struggle to find space for the forward ahead. The NATO forces were able to stop the Soviet onslaught generally along the Wesser river. Several battles ensued along the river and we saw the seesaw action going on as a result of the retreat results and mandatory advance after combat.
Simon had to find another attack spur either from the north or the south, as the center encountered a "one-hex-forward-and-one-hex-backward" situation. In the south, however, the Soviets were bogged down in the cityfights of Munich. The French are the main force came to the rescue while they draw supply and reinforcements back from Strasbourg. Munich fell after 4 turns eventually.
The U.S. 82nd and 101st airborne units saw the day, of course, as they can get picked up anywhere on map to a new place, except for the impassable and adjacent to the enemy units. So they are particularly useful to surround the enemy from the back, if the remaining hex is the only way for the enemy units to exit.
Electronic warfare is also featured but the impact is less than expected of what we had perceived. Special forces (partisan renamed) can also dragged both sides movement by adding 1 MP cost to enter any hex within 6 hexes of the special force unit. Airpower is neatly simulated and it is the most interesting rule in the game. Combat losses from air bombing are much higher than the ground war.
Our game went for 7 out of the 15 turns only as we were not able to complete the whole campaign (there is no shorter scenario). We guess that the Soviet would not be able to reach the Rhine or Rhur area for the remaining of the game. Partly, I think, it is because the Soviet's attention would get off-tracked by the victory condition of capturing a total of 32 city hexes - neutralization of West Germany. Obviously it is something Simon wanted to achieve!
The counters are flimsy but they are easily punched out. The reduced-step side has the same attack-defense-movement as on the front. The designer said it was on purpose because modern military units strength stay about the same because of the technology. I guess the relatively less loss ratio in modern warfare would also have something to do with it. The map is road-less but it is clean and functional. As to nuke, guess what. The Soviet player gets to set aside a certain amount of money. If he chooses to use nuke, he lost the game and gives the money to the NATO player. Nice rules.
Overall, it is a game for enjoyment. Certainly there are a lot of assumptions in it. I am less comfortable by the relatively minimal treatment on combat losses and a road-less map, when the highway system is so sophisticated all over Europe. I am sure I would have a different strategy next time though if I were the Soviets: To the Rhine.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 17 Dec ,05
I decided to make this a month of the "Bulge". Check item 1 here also for Deluxe Bitter Woods. Nathan Kilgore's "Iron Tide" would be the game perfect for a day's session. I am interested in how he approaches the battle.
AAR:
Simon (Allied) and I (German) gave a spin to Nathan Kilgore's design on the Battle of the Bulge, which uses the old SPI's "Typhoon" system Simon had experiences with. We really like the picking up of the morale chits, determining the actual strength according to the class of the units. The classes are A, B and C, based on designer's assessment of the training and equipment level of the units received during the battle. The chits did cause some problems of piling up the counters on the hexes, especially there is a combat around. But we could manage that most of the time as stacking rule allows up to 3 units of any size only in a single hex. The chit strength can be as high as 16 or as low as 2. They are drawn from the cup and revelaed only until the units are engaged in the combat. So you can figure that out you can't always depend on specific units with adequate strength to defend the area you would most want to. Bear in mind the red and blue colors of the chits do not correspond to a particular side but the size of the unit, indicated by the color inside the unit's morale square: red - large, blue - medium. The small units have no chits to draw but a fixed strength. On the other hand, some elite units can draw 2 chits and player gets to decide to use which one, the higher one of course.
Combat system is straight forward with odd ratio calculated for different terrain. Simon took many advantage out of the rough and heavy woods dominated in the Bulge area. The map is, while functional and appealing, difficult to read the hex number. So setting up the game took quite a while for us. The colorful OOBs helps a lot though. It is one of the most beautiful OOBs for play I ever encounter.
There are many other factors affecting outcome of a battle. For example, the most powerful in the game tactic is the use of "Combined Arms", whereas EACH attacking combined arms stack contributes to one shift to the attacker or defender's favour, if the other side doesn't have a combined arms stack involved in the combat. We find this fun and make use of every single armor unit possible in the game. The German has a latitude to deploy many of its Artillery asset along the front. So initial deployment of these units is crucial, as artillery can provide up to 2 shifts per combat. I didn't deploy them well enough so they were too concentrated in a particular sector, whereas they were slow in movement rate to be reassigned to another areas you might want.
There are a lot of counters-flipping combat result on the CRT. In addition, you can always trade step loss for number of retreat hexes called for by the CRT, on a one-for-one basis. So there are a lot of decisions to be made during the game, as you continue to assess the situation what best route to take. In our game, the Allied took the retreat to the next defending roadblock very well. So the majority of the German advance were slowed down.
I did manage the Germans arriving at the town of Bastogne, intercepting the Allied reinforcement from the south via Martalange. On the other area, the German didn't advance very far enough to take hold of the other objectives. So the German conceded the game by turn 4.
This is certainly a good game here. And I suspect the campaign game is even better, if you get the time and table space to play it out.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 7 Jan,06
This one on the Russian offensive into the Chechen's capital city of Grozny on 31 Dec 1995, 10 years ago. The hexes are a little hard to distinguish. But the counters are colorful enough to draw anybody's attention. The system also looks right, with the low intensity conflict characteristics well modeled. I expect this to be an exciting game.
AAR:
In memory of the young Russians who obeyed their orders and Chechen fighters who died for freedom on their own soils, we played the game "Into the Bear Trap" simulating the 2-days bloody city fighting.
The game system exceeds our expectation in that the rules are not that long and complex to model an intense conflict in a small and narrow city. There are a lot of DRMs for sure, to account for all factors which could affect the outcome of a combat. For example, there are 10 types of DR addition modifiers and 10 DR deduction modifiers on 1 10-sided die, to account for facing in combat, firing after movement, elevation advantage, sniper specialty in taking out the infantry and heavy weapon units, T-80 constricted abilities in city road and built up areas, firing units' status (suppressed, pinned, disrupted, inactive) etc. Another 6 DRMs for close assault combat, i.e. melee. Fortunately, they are neatly summarized in one page. A second 6-sided DR is required to determine results of the fire attack. This is the bloody part as the unit would likely to get eliminated by heavy weapons with 50% of the chance (the Russians are 60%).
So with this large amount of DRMs, it is almost as real as in a true alley fighting yourselves - you just can't simply calculate a lot in advance for a perfect planning. Instead, the rule would become one running to the rooftop and hit, then run to another block to do the same again. This is easier for the Chechens to do that. The Russians are mainly restricted to the 2 streets in the north (Pervomalkoja and Rosa Luxemburgh streets), advancing towards Presidential Palace. A simple roadblock or wreck from destroyed tanks would cause the delay of the advance significantly.
There are tough decisions for Russians to make for the most part. Leaders are required very much to spot the enemies with a clear LOS to conduct indirect fire attacks on the city, i.e. artillery barrages (what else?) This is generally an effective tactics but most LOS is blocked by the built up area along the road. If you put the leaders up front on the convoy, they would be subject to the Chechen snipers and direct fire attacks by the Chechen PRG heavy weapons. Mind you, anyone loaded in the vehicles suffered the same combat results. In our game, 3 Russian leaders got killed.
There is no ZOC in the game. So if the Chechens don't place units on the cross road junction, the Russian tanks and BMP vehicles could go straight forward to the city center and some of the Landmark buildings (e.g. State Security Building).
Center to the game is the activation system. While the Russian are activated on formations, the no. of Chechens fighters arrive would depend on a 10-sided DR. It appears random at first but in our game, several good roll bring them all on over the place by turn 4. The Russians did have one reinforcement group on turn 11 but we didn't get that far.
It is a long game, with 15-turns to complete the whole game (no shorter scenario available). The VPs are awarded to the Russians mainly by capturing the Landmark buildings, while the Chechen would do by killing many Russians. So if you don't play the game that far, the initial bloodshed by the Russians (4 VPs each vs. Chechens 3 VPs each) would haunt you thinking that the Russians would loose the game. Our game ended on turn 4 after the Russians reached Presidential Palace with too much blood on the ground. It's more like it's the Russians who entered into a bear trap though...
Overall, Into a Bear Trap is a very decent simulation on such tactical level. We are satisfied with the gameplay after getting used to the DRMs. This is the first game simulating the city/ urban fighting with a solid game engine. It is also perfectly suitable for solitaire gameplay in 2 days. Another hat off to ATO magazine games.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 21 Jan,06
Moved this item up the schedule as I can't wait to play this Russian Civil War game with such a rich history. It is about the Revolution. It is about the struggle of ideologies in a country. It is about heroes. The most wanted game in 2005. The map and counters are simply gorgeous, and the cards are also packed with historical detail, as well as having contemporary artwork/photos. The cards alone worth more than the price already.
AAR:
Overall, a really cool game. The game really offers tons of historical flavour and strategic options available to both sides. The counting of VPs at the end of "every" turn is very exciting. The factions control could be a take or break since there are so many interested parties in the stake of Russia. I am happy to tell wargamers that the FCM simulates the interaction of relationship with the Red and the White in the most elegant way I have not expected.
Bear in mind to read the political phase rule in the separate supplement book well before starting the game. It is essential to get the full flavour of how the political game system works. It is very simple at its core, comparing influence points garnered on a particular side by reading the political cards horizontally in a line up. It is the faction specific rules that gave us some eye-strain problem...
To start with, Triumph of Chaos is a good story-teller, with all the main cast of heroes. Lenin, Trostsky, and Stalin and all the brutal White generals. At the core of it, there is an Action Cards system whereby Operation Points on the above right of the card are spent on either movement or combat, or else the events take place instead of the operations. There are quite a few Action cards with a little white line saying that Take 1 Activation, Take 2 Activations, Take 3 Activations, etc. It means that if the event was played instead of taking the number of operations on the right corner of the card, take the number of specified operations instead. Apart from movement and combat, they can also be used to bring replacement and reinforcements into the game.
Simon took the White and activated the powerful Czech Legions in the Russia East victory city of Kazan and green peasant troops surrounding the city of Moskva, putting Lenin under direct threat. Believe it or not, Lenin is not allowed to move outside Moskva so he is kind of like a sitting duck waiting to be hit. Undaunted by the threats, Lenin directed Trotsky to coordinate with Stalin to conduct a southern strategy of offensives into Don, planning to a meeting engagement in the city of Rostov.
The leadership in the game appears to be less than any significant impact from my historical impression about the war. There is no direct influence by the leaders on a particular battle, but merely the ability to coordinate combat much better from different spaces to a single target city. I can see that how the leadership can influence the game in a subtle way in a number of aspects. I guess there is a deliberate design decision to downplay the inciteful Stalin, Trotsky and Lenin on their military role. Since the game does not have the concept of unit morale, there appears to be a less direct leader influence on a the outcome of a particular battle - the sort of direct DRMs on the battle by the leader ratings. The "passion of revolution" as both Lenin and Trotsky repeatedly showing to their armies and mobilizing the masses would be largely overshadowed by the military action on a grand strategic scale. Besides, it is understandable because the game designer thought of Trotsky a mere "decent" leader.
However, on maneuvering side, leaders are used to reinforce, withdraw, or pursuit etc. These capabilities ?often tying to a die roll, can have a huge impact on the general development of the course of military conflicts. Additionally, some leaders have special capabilities, like Makhno and his cavalry surprise attacks.
The White player should take note of his activation restrictions. He couldn’t activate multiple spaces in a region, except for one specifically designated. So the White player should basically do one region at a time, limited by the lack of general coordination of the White forces for war efforts. Regardless, White player should still have a leader presence in the region to have multiple attacks from adjacent spaces to a target.
Infighting among a White or Red side is common. The game utilizes a chit-drawing system to determine which factions counters are restricted somewhat as to the combat and movement capabilities. One thing to note is that the counter drawn would be put back into the cup again for another drawing. There are 3 camps among the Red and 5 camps among the White. Accusation of treason would happen to Red leaders and they could be removed from the game! (except for Stalin and Trotsky, not even Lenin? Other things happen like “One Russia?policy whereby the factions would be more united to the Red or the amount of losses inflicted would be reduced. Defeatism would have a 50% chance of no-fighting. Desertion could also happen to both sides. A violation of the infighting restrictions would bring penalties in Victory points to the side.
Another thing crucial to the game is the gaining of the numerous factions to a side. There are more than a dozen factions in the game, swinging in the political mood of the Russian people, joining to a particular side by political moves. This adds another layer of depth to the game. So the better player would coordinate the military efforts along with the political ones, striking a big blow to a particular front at the right moment and grabbing the most out of it.
The use of Influence Points during the political phase by playing action cards on the political box, one for each and a neutral box, in an attempt to bid the factions control. There are 2 basic cards to do this, Influence and bluff cards. They could not be used in the normal activation rounds. So if you don’t use them, they are lost. Obviously, if you want to bid higher, you can always use an Action card in your hand to do so, sacrificing the use of it later on in the action rounds of course. In our game, both sides played cautiously on the political front. Astrakhan joined Red thus scratching the back of the White.
At the end of the political phase, however, there should be no IPs remaining on any Faction. But there are other IP 'bonuses' from action cards (mostly by an events) in action phase or purchased in logistical phase, which are "AFTER" the political phase. They help to "boost-up" the control over the faction on the faction control table. The IPs can be carried forward to the next turn until Political Phase. Moreover, it is harder for any faction to turn back to the other side because 2 IPs are required to move in but 3 IPs to move out of a side’s control box.
As someone new to the game, we played the 3-turns introductory scenario in 4 hours, excluding the one hour set up time. By turn 3, we were 'clicked', suddenly finding the gameplay very easy, except for the time-to-time reference checking to the faction specific rules. Our game concluded with a White winning the most VPs as the Red inflicted on himself violating the infighting rules and the White retained most of the Victory Cities. Simon and I are greatly satisfied by the game and decided to give it another spin the next meeting.
Scheduled play: 4 Feb,06
The smell of the rotten flesh was flowing in the air to the arriving troops in Viipuri...Mannerhiem received the orders to push forward to Petrograd from the north. The White had to capture a victory city in the severe winter, 1918. Damn the weather...Mannerhiem thought, how can I attack the Reds under such a harsh condition? In the south, Krasnov's Don armies set Tsaritsyn as objective. The in-fighting between Mannerhiem and Krasnov made them rival, competing with each other as to who could get the first city for the White.
Simon took the White again and I took the Red, trying the 1919 tourney scenario. This scenario would have an uncertain end turn, starting with turn 10. The player who had the higher action card value gets to choose a DRM (+1, 0, -1), ending the game by rolling a modified 2 (3 in turn 11 and 4 in turn 12). Game ends anyway at the completion of turn 12.
But the White didn't want to drag on the war that far. By spring,1919 we had to finish them all...Mannerheim thought. The Red had a mutiny. But the White didn't switch any Red force by playing card #4 "Switch Sides". The Red had an unstable political situation and was in turmoil...Mannerhiem stopped at Viipuri because of the winter, slowing them 1 space at a time.
Lennin was indeed worrying about the new republic. The Reds were beginning to take control in many major cities by setting up the Soviets. The committee...Lenin knew if Mannerhiem marched into Petrograd, seizing the political headquarter of the Red, it would be all finished. Lenin was thinking about the Petrograd garrison, a tiny Latvia Rifle corps...how could it hold the city if Mannerheim defeated the Red Finish troop at Viipuri? He received numerous reports there were many insurgents active in the area. Finland was not stable. But should he deal with the situation in the south first? Stalin's army was under Krasnov's severe attacks...
"No army could attack in the comming muddy Sping...Petrograd must be safe." Lenin was more concerned about the situation in the Don region. An accusation trial began in the Spring. No leader would be spare for the military situation. Anyone could be removed for treason except the beloved Stalin and Trotsky. No, they wouldn't betray their people.....Mannerheim heard the news of the Red internal fightings. He spread the news and incite the Finns to revolt. An insurgent Karelia (3-2-1)/(Attack factor-loss factor-Movement factor) Army was raised in Karelia by calling "Buntarstvo" (peasant movement), wanting an independent Repubilc of Karelia. They attacked Petrograd immediately. The tiny Latvia corps retreated. The insurgents advanced into the city. Petrograd fell and so was the entire Soviet organization and cause of the war. The nearest 4th Peoples' Army at Pskov was too far to come to rescue the city, as the mud stalled them to a complete stop.
The game ended abruptly by the White declaring an automatic victory...
Scheduled play: 18 Feb,06
For the thrid consecutive game, and undefeated by the revolutionary spirit, I took the Reds again in Triumph of Chaos against Simon's Whites in yet another challenge after loosing 2 games in a row. The game hooked us both by the depth and uncertainties surrounding the historical development of the Russian Revolution back in 1919, a 6- turns tourney scenario. Hopefully this time the Red can win the battle by remembering the lessons learned from the past: Remember Petrograd!
I reinforced the Soviet garrison at Petrograd by moving the 4th Peoples' Army to there. In the south, Mankho was activated and thursted into Don region, with a plan to a north-south sandwich attack on the Whites together with Stalin. Several political movements were behind the back manouvering the smaller Republics like Khiva, Transcaucasia and Astrakhan. They swinged like a pendulum. Mankho captured Rostov with a big army. The White called for a treachery on him. So I used him to attack agressively to burn his troops.
The Whites counter the pressures in the south by taking several coordinated grand and initiative suprise attacks. In Urals North, Siberian Army, without a White leader, defeated Bonch at Perm, drove towards Moskva in the central region. In the west, von der Goltz' and Yudenich's massive Amries landed on Helsinki as "Vanguard of Nazism". In the north, Mr. Churchill sent in the British Expeditionary Forces at Archangel. Simon hoped that by playing pressures from all sides on the fragile Soviet Republic, the Red would yield to the tremedous forces.
The Siberian Army was only 2 spaces away from Moskov, and was on the way to capture the thinly defended Red capital. The Red concentrated various forces in the North, pulling back Kem forces at Vologda to halt the Siberian advance. In Finland, the Red Army defeated several White forces along the road to Helsinki but was pushed back by the reinforcements. In the south, several bloody combats occured, almost resulting in a "Lack of Men" on Red forces (no further reinforcements to Red would be available). Fortunately, Red played an intelligence coup against the White hand and stripped that "horrible" card.
We were only able to complete turn 8 round 2 because of a lack of time. The Red led by 7VPs with 14 victory cities against the White's 11. Another gratifying evening. We explored the game much deeper and are satisfied with what we had been through. It is really an intense game, with uncertainties hooving around everywhere. I thought the Red wouldn't win this game had the "Lack of Men" card been played. We are sure to find another occasion to play this game again.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 4 Mar,06
All right, all right. Finally, we come to this master World War 1 strategic game which Ted started it all. Taking Mark Herman's concept of Card-Driven Games, Ted tinkered them into smaller systems here and there. Rules are much less complex. I just hope that I still retain interests in WW1 after all these games!
AAR:
We take a break from Triumph of Chaos finally and move back the time 4 years earlier to the beginning of World War I, playing Ted Racier's very popular WW1 point-to-point Card-driven game. We had a whole new experience about WW1, if not quite as different from what we experienced from other strategic WW1 game or from reading books about the war.
The game seems to offer a more "mobile" view about the war. It is largely because the scale chosen to depict by the game designer. The movement system over a point map of key battle cities simplify a lot about the clumsy movement rules (e.g. locking ZOC). It also encourages flanking attacks by an elegant rule of changing the simultaneous combat losses to one of sequential, i.e. the successful flanking attack could inflict losses on the defender first before he can cause the attacker's harm.
I took a lot of advantage with this flanking rule and used Russians to crush the Austro-Hungarian armies into pieces. On turn 1, with the help of Pleva combat tactic card, the Russian 4th Army captured one of the two Austro-Hungarian Empire's capital city of Budapest. Had the German not come to the rescue from the west, Vienna could have been fallen by turn 3 also.
On the western front, Verdun fell on turn 1 to the German with the "Guns of August" card. French 5th Army retreated back next to Paris. Lodz fell on turn 2 too but some counterattacks made by the French repulsed the German momentarily. Warsaw was beseiged. Some effective AH's attacks with reinforcement raised in Vienna recaptured Budapest on Turn 3. 2nd and 5th French Army were destroyed on turn 3, while Serbia Army on the southern front became active and captured Sarajevo, again from Austro-Hungarian. We completed the 3 turns introductory scenario and the Central Entente won with 6 VPs, an Allied victory (10 or fewer is required).
Trench warfare is simulated by 2 level of trenches, offering column shifts to both the attacker's and defender's fire in defender's favour. An army can attempt to entrench by rolling a dice lower than the unit's loss factor. After taking combat losses, the loser is reuired to retreat up to 2 hexes for the differences in combat losses and the victorious army advances.
There is really a strong relation between Paths of Glory and Triumph of Chaos. We learned the game quite easily as we had gone though 3 gameplays of the latter already. But I feel that Paths of Glory would have more constricted rules where mandated offensive rule might be a bit too random to force a nation to attack with a dieroll. The cards events are also sometimes too forceful on certain historical events to happen. e.g. there is no way you could prevent a Guns of August card effect...On the other hand, I think the supply rule is done nicely with tracing supply to a supply source and OOS units would be elimiated not for long. I have a minor quibble about the importance of the role of capital city in the game, whereas a nation wouldn't capitulate once the capital city falls but continues to fight. The number of forces would significantly dwindle as reinforcement could only arrive at the capital. But it didn't give me a much sense of urgency to defend the capital in face of the enemies.
All in all, we would play the limited war scenario next time as we want to further explore the game system. This is definitely a good game, if not too good a simulation of strategic WW1 warfare.
Scheduled play: 18 Mar,06
What another experience we had. We saw back and forth encirlements between Russians adn Austrians on the eastern front, for cutting off the supply to the enemy units deep penetrating behind the front line along the mountainous border.
Simon took the Central Power and I took the Allies again. With more experience, we took our cards to the best advantages and timing. We escalated the war status to Limited War, thus releasing more cards for play in a 10-turns tournament. At times we played the event, a turn could be completed in half an hour. Allied Gas card was played thus adding +1 DRM to attack. Flamethrower also set its stage in the hands of the Germans. Air superiority, however, rested in the Allied's.
Simon played Austro-Hungarian more carefully this time. Several Russians' flank attempts failed and the AH's armies now took nice tactical withdrawal from the front and looked for opportunity to cut the Russians advance deep into the territories. Both Belgium and Serbia were overrun and conquered this time. What an opposite development as compared to the last. Italy, Bulgaria and Romania went into war. Bulgaria joined the Central Power and went on to capture Odessa when the garrison Russian unit came to relief the fellow units encircled by Austro-Hungarians.
On the western front, the usual see-saw battle occured. I found it odd that a level-2 trench would be reduced to the enemy's level 1 if captured. Perhaps I should pay an additional step loss to ignore the call for a retreat.
In the end, the victory came to the last turn when Czernowitz fell to a siege by the Allies. Finaly tally is 12 VP, an Allied victory 1 VP short of a draw result. This shows how intense the game could be.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 18 Mar,06
Yes, more games from Reiner Knizia! I've played his Ivanhoe, Atlanteon, Lord of the Rings, Battle Line...how can I miss this one then? The is really the one Reiner Knizia really earned his fame back in 1992. Kremlin in ancient Senator of the Roman Republic. Political infighting in a brtual race of a seat in the various senate committees. Political skills are very much required in this game as the decision to let a faction member to go in a committee is decided by a majority of votes! No better place to find democracy...An easy game mechanics with deep strategy and tactics. And, realistic too!
AAR:
We had a blast with this game and it didn't let us down at all. Simon, William, Sam and I played this multiplayer game with the time remaining at the club and we can complete 2 games from learning the rules to finishing the game. So you can count on this is a fairly simple game and after all, it is fun.
The objective of the game is to get the most money out of the Senate, by collecting money along the promotion routes. There are 4 differet routes at the basic committee level and they all pointed ultimately to a single committee, the inner cicle, or Inner Sanctum. Along the routes there are different number of members comprising the committee, from a single one to 3 to 5. Obviously, those having a single member committe would block those senators underneath for promotion...
A majority of the votes from a committee are needed for promotion to the next level. For those votes in support of the promotion, the player would earn 1 laurel for each vote he gave support. In addition, players can negotiate among themselves for further "contribution", i.e. bribe, in giving support to another. Of course, it is up to the question wich player can calculate a bargain deal most accurately. No alliance is for sure as any deal is only binding for the current round of play. In our game, no one could give a future promoise in exchange for the laurels, nor did anyone ask.
Sam won the first game and Simon wond the second one. We had a great time with it and even not yet trying the special action token, whereas a player can use it to his advantage. Caesar can be moved from one laurel space to another, giving a special permission to advance without a majority vote and without collecting the laurels along the promotion route (unless the token had Caesar head on it). However, moving Caesar counts as a player's move and so the permission may not benefit the player if the committee composition shakes up later on.
While we played, we kept on saying "well, this is an awful world...!"
Scheduled play: 6 May,06
AAR:
Quo Vadis is the game we all had our cheers and "talks" about, as bribes to promises and trades for politics kept going on every moment. Each player control a faction for moving up in the Roman senate political cabinets, with the ultimate objective to collect most money along the progress. Once the central cabinet (5 position slots) is filled up with all the senates, the game ends and money counted. For route from a cabinet in which more than one position is available, a money token is collected by the faction who controls the senator who made the move. A new token is taken randomly so that everyone could see the new amount of money available along that route and plan whether it is worthy to place more senator into the cabinet (obviously, higher collection would attract more players to that cabinet route). To move up to the higher cabinet, one has to get the majority support from the existing cabinet members, with each giving support vote receiving one token from the bank each supporting vote is cast. The game is fun and intense, with none idle time at all. We played 2 games and William and I won once each.
The only problem is that I find I lost 1 in 6 gray color pawn token faction in Quo Vadis. I guess I got to get a whole set from the publisher but I am not sure whether they sell the tokens alone separately.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 1 Apr,06
Our club organized a tournament annually for members to join together and compete against each other for the promotion of the fellowship in the club. This year, Memoir'44 is again selected as the game for the tourney, with the eastern front expansion thrown in for extra scenario (Stalingrad, of course). A biggest advantage for this game is the short playing time each scenario (half to an hour each) and simple to teach with a few player aid cards. The variety of the scenrios also presents all sorts of challenges from airborne to meeting engagement to tank duels. One of the many reasons why this game could be so popular.
AAR:
Horrible experience as I won 2 games in a row and then beaten in another 3 in a row. The game appears to be more than anything but luck-driven by your drawing and sometime when one forgot to draw a card from the pile the fate could have taken another direction. I played 1 game on the Eastern Front, a module on Memoir'44. The special rules on Rostov scenario are interesting: Russian Political Commissar and German Blitz rules. The former would handicap the Russian player a turn when he got to chose the next round action card before he can see the development the current turn. The Blitz rule offers bonus to German tank combats. Other scenarios I played include St. Lo, Gothic Line etc.(can't remember them all.) Overall a good experience as you can meet all sort of different guys you won't have a chance to play against when I play 2-player games most of the time.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 17 Apr,06
I played it twice in 05 already. Everytime the experience is new and refreshing as the game always gives you some new perspectives.
AAR:
I don't remember quite well about the gameplay in details. But as the Roman, I lost heavily both in terms of men and territories. I believe it is one of the greatest defeat of the Romans. Anthony's Greece made progress with a low key, building many colonies on the southern shore, ending in an easy victory. Simon's Gauls earned an unexpectedly good results too. Thunder's E-S were busy on both ends, dealing with the Romans and Greeks simultaneously. Anyway, another enjoyable gaming experiences.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 22 Apr,06
Very nice game components. A pure card game is usually luck-dependent. But Greek classical period is always my favourite gaming period. The movie "Troy" just fueled my interest in this game more.
AAR:
As to the game system, it truly conveys a sense of luck and fate, alternating to manipulate the heros. Homer writings become alive.
As I came late to the club's meeting, we cancelled the originally scheduled Grand Illusion session and play this game instead. Initially the rules are a bit confusing to read. But once the game gets going, everything went on smoothly.
Both sides take up 5 troop cards and 1 leader card and deploy them one by one, with leader card going on top of one of the troop already deployed. The number on each card represents the strength of the card it gives to a battle. A battle is divided into 5 rounds as a result, with the one who won the previous battle as the attacker. The attacker goes first to deploy the cards and the side with the higher number of the troop strength gets the superiority (a.k.a. initiative to many wargamers). He who got the initiative could determine whether to turn the randomly selected square 90 degree, in order to turn the color to match to your deployed troop color (each card has a color). At the end of the 5th round, it is the final color just turned to each side gets to select the relevant troop cards for winning the battle.
Each deck (Acahean vs. Trojan) is shuffled into 4 decks, representing the right, left, center and home decks. The looser in a battle would lose all the cards to the deadpile while the winner retains the cards and put them back for another shuffle of the deck. The loser could save the day by a retreat, whereas a shame marker would be marked on the player board. Each shame marker costs an additional troop strength lost if you loose the next battle. It can't be removed in any way though. When a flank is drawn out, i.e. less than 5 cards in a deck, the remaining cards (or none) would be put back to the home deck. The deck to use in a battle is determined randomly by the number of the first troop card.
So the game is quite luck dependent in determing a winner, i.e. the fate, with occasional the heroic effort to help boost the troop strength. Although the leader can be used to boost a lot sometimes, it can be used to add 1 to another troop card not the leader is on. I think this casts a minor effect only on the overall situation.
The game is colorful indeed. After we played one game, I was able to ask Max, a 11 old Irish boy to play the game. He learnt the game very quickly and went on to beat Simon, with the last home deck on the board.
Scheduled play: 6 May,06
Simon is in a meeting this afternoon so we have to hold up our long-overdue WW1 Grand Illusion game yet again. I brought some card games for the immediate cause and John was about to leave when I arrived at the club. So we two got together for another play of this Hector and Achilles card game on the ancient myth battle, whereas heroes play their part in the fate of God.
Random selection of troop cards conveys the sense of fate while deploy of your heroes to boost the troop strength, both on the one the hero is on and those other with a divine marker. Having the highest strength total in a roll-out of 5 troop cards, matching the final colors (yeah, this is the trick!) to your deployed soldier cards' color tally the final strength win the battle. The loser would loose all the cards and thus reducing his army in total. The one who loses out the home deck first loses the entire game. I won twice and John won one in a 3-match game, costing 2 to 3 hours in total. The rulebook is a little bit confusing at some places mainly because of relatively loose definition of some terms. But once it gets going, it goes smoothly. I won 2 and John pulled 1 back in the last game.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 22 Apr,06
Flight combat using cards. David and his son invited us for a game after Hector and Achilles.
AAR:
Wings of War is another card game on WW1 aircraft combat. If not using the optional rules (note: critical hit is not an optional rule), it is a very simple card game where planes manouver according to a set of cards resembling the plane engine's capabilities of taking certain loop size and directions, tight turns the plane can make etc. Altitude is not a matter at all, though the 360 degree turning is there with the only restriction that the plane must go straight first before turning. Movement is just following what the card says and the final arrow on the third card determines the final position of the plane. Hits are taken from random drawing of the hits cards, with different no. of hits when you picked them up for within the enemy's sight. Sometimes you are luck to pick a zero. The line of sight is measured by a ruler, from center red dot of the plane to another. Being fired at short distance gives you 2 hits, while the longer one gives you 1. Not a meaty game to any wargamer but surely it is a time-filler. It is, owever, a simple game enough for little 11-old Max to get his attention to and beat me and Simon for his own great enjoyment. You know, when you are a kid, it's always a pleasure to beat the big man...
AAR: 6 May, 06
James brought us the Watch Your Back edition to fill out the spare time while we wait for the Quo Vadis game. My Fokker was done soon enoguh after taking 13 hits. A quick game.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 20 May,06
Hoping to get to this Ted Racier's games at last. I find it more satisfying if we can play games form the same designer, series or theme in a row. One of the best box cover for years from GMT and Roger MacGowan. The game relates me to the movie Grand Illusion. It focuses on the western campaign in WW1.
AAR:
The balck and white movie "Grand Illusion" is a favourite movie of mine. Directed by Jean Renoir, it constructed a love story with WW1 at the backdrop. The movie is great. The feeling is true. The passion, French style, is full.
This is somewhat in line with Joffre's blind optimism. It is demonstrated by the game box cover, showing a French soldier forward with a great smile and joy. It is a French conscript poster at the opening of the war. Joffre ordered the French to keep on attacking, at whatever the cost along the barbed wire death zone. Thousands of lives were lost. Thus, the mandated attacks, the "elan".
This is a game on the German's opening attack on the western front, driving towards Paris, whereas Schlieffen Plan was laid out with great confidence on the Germans' side too. At first, we are a bit daunted by the rulebook, with so many special rules, at least appearing so. So it is a bit rough initially. However, the execution is rather easy once you get started.
A special feature is the combat resolution takes place in a battle board, where both sides deploy the troops along a 4 boxes front. The excess units (those exceeds 4) in a combat hex can be deployed in the reserve, the second line, for getting an extra shot and hits on the enemies opposite. Quite an unusal but nevertheless an interesting simulation of the WW1 warfare. It is quite a clever mechanism to resolve an otherwise complex calculation of combat odds like those numerous DRMs being overburdened in other WW1 games. The game plays fairly quickly, with an afternoon to finish the short 7-turns campaign scenario.
There is a lot of decision on the German side too, whether he should revert to the otherwise cancelled Schlieffen Plan by reinforcing the right flank attack into Belgium. Simon chose to stay put at the center. However, I picked up the 2VP at the south along the Verges mountain (hex 103 Colmar) and won the game.
We wondered whether it is historically valid by winning the 7 game turn scenario with this small town and mountain ridge. The Schlieffen Plan could not happen until game turn 7 (a restriction rule) and so no reinforce the right. Naturally, there is no German attack to the Marne river. On the contrary, I managed to take a French army to Trier, deep at the back of the German in the center. The advance was made after successful French repulse attacks at the Namur-Mesue river-Liege area, forcing the German to retreat back into Aachen. the Belgian fought bravely too. Antwerp did not fall. The corps in Paris did not rise as Paris is not in danger anymore.
The hexes are extra large, with the option to use Napoleonic-like force marker representing the units on the board. Both sides can stack up to 8 corps in a hex. When they do stack together, a battle ensues. It is then resolved on the battle board as mentioned above.
At the heart of the game is the Command Administrative Points (CAPS) phase, where a player is allowed to perform 2 consecutive action, whether to move or combat, to entrench or to undisrupt combat units. CAP is expended for these actions (though there is no big difference among them in terms of the cost). CAPS is obtained by rolling on the commanders' (Joffre I and II for the French; Moltke and Falkenhayn when the German Schlieffen Plan executes on turn 7) column. A German general withdrawal signifies a step-up mobolizations on the German side and thus both sides begin to roll to obtain more CAPS.
Another interesting stuff is the Fortune of War. It conveys a sense how the fate sets in in a WW1 campaign. A table is rolled on before the battle begins. The result could be an added benefits to any one side, e.g. Suprise attacks, Skirmish, Offensive to the Limit, Counterattack etc.
We can get the subtle decisions on the both sides that we should make. It is a good game, with more repeated plays to warrant a full enjoyment. I suspect the best meat is in the whole 15-turns full historical campaign scenario, which would probably take about 2 afternoons to finish. Overall, a good effort from the game designer to simulate some of the dramatic nature of this campaign.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 24 June,06
We have a special multiplayer session this week. Anthony, Jack, Simon and I get together to play this highly acclaimed grand stategic si-fi game with plastic miniatures on randomnly made-up universe. There must be something in this si-fi game as a number of my geekbuddies recommend this game highly.
AAR:
Twilight Imperium is a complex, multiplayer grand strategic si-fi game, although it is disguised as a simple Euro-like systems game. But it is not. The complexity mainly stems from the numerous interations of all the elements in the game. It could definitely not to be played solo as each faction has their own secret objective as well as random public objectives to meet to gain VPs. The secret objective has a direct impact on the course of strategy a player would take, and they do clash across the objectives. The game is barely manageable to be finished in a long afternoon if you got 4 players or more (up to 6).
I find it quite difficult to get start with, especially with the planet activation system, whereas you place your activation marker to the destination planet instead of from the planet where the units came from. There are also quite a number of new terms and gaming concepts, like production system, technology cards and units' capabilities for the players to absorb first.
On the other hand, combat is a matter of fighting to the last man, with combat die-roll of equal or greater than the units' combat rating. It is fairly straightforward and bloody.
One of the strongest game feature is the randomness of this game, from the creation of the universe to the selection of public objectives, to the political and action cards with varying demands on the players. So no two games would be the same or predictable.
The resources points on the planets are the "money" used to pay for everything, from building colony to fighting wings, cruisers, ground forces, destroyers and above all the War Sun (more on below). The influence points are used for casting votes in political cards. Most of the time in our game we saw the agenda got voted down. They are almost always not welcome by at least one of the player. The planets used to provide the resource or influence points for a particular action would be "exhausted" (by flipping the planet card to the back). So managing your planet systems well is very crucial.
The interaction among players and the races they represent is also intense and fun. Many special race capabilities have a subtle impacts on the development strategy for the race. You can always opt for a different strategy not in the race-specific fashion though, depending on the public objectives on the table.
As a newbie to the game, I picked up, however, by chance the aggressive Yssaril tribe. The tribe has a strong combat tactical fighting advantage as it could have unlimited no. of action cards on hand, while the others can only have a maximum of 7. However, the tribe is slowed in technology advancement toward the constrution of the "War Sun", the most powerful weapon (3 combat dices vs. others 1) in the entire universe. The technology required to build this is not on the right path with Yassaril's initial technology cards and buying them outright cost 8 resources points (which means very expensive). I also started with poorer planets with fewer resources. However, my secret objective is to conquer another player entirely.....
I built a "natural" barriers (nebula, asteroids etc.) on my right to prevent cunning Jack's , hoping to prevent him from sneaking in my territory or delay him. So I got to expand to my left Simon's Mentak Coalition. While he was busying to trade goods most of the time, I captured a planet system just outside his territory next to the center Mecatol Rex. The system had 2 planets with just 1 resource point each. But Simon felt threatened and he rushed to build a War Sun and attempted to "retake" the system back. After several round of combat, however, the invasion to the planets themselves failed as my ground forces remained, despite all my ships were destroyed in the sky.
Jack left early in the game so his side became dormant. Seeing Simon and me disputing the control of a planet system, Anthony's became agressive with 3 War Suns to go into the center Mecatol Rex. It would have been difficult to repel him but by then we had to finish the game. When the game finished, Anthony led the game at 4 VPs as he accomplished several other public objectives, mostly about technology (the objectives are selected randomly though).
In the end, we had fun with the game. It is certainly epic to see several dozens ships flowing along the universe. It is an intense game too, with players contesting with other eventually as the universe become more populated. To me, this is a fairly good game but I am not sure how to win the game. Maybe the second time would be better.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 8 July,06
Great gaming system on WW2 tactical level. 4 pages of rules (and they are very easy to absorb) and 4 scenarios come with a small map. For some reason, I really am into it becuase of its historicity right from the beginning, as opposed to the abstract ASL system. Let's see how does it work.
AAR:
When the smoke came out of the German captured French-made 35R-731 light AFV on the road to Carentan, Captain Simon thought this was going to be a very good start for the 101st Airborne. Things, however, would have gone the other way by the end of the day 13 June, 1944…
506th Parachute Regiment was just dropped into the small town. Captain Simon established his units into position well in the wood houses with bazooka and some light machine guns. A motor was hiding in the southern grain field. He was quite sure the German noticed them coming in, as he heard the sounds of the wheel tracks made along the dirt road by the German AFVs. “There are 4 of them! 2 from the north and 2 from the south. We are surrounded, Sir!” “We have to hold the town, Sergeant! General Taylor is sending in the amour. We’ll have reinforcement soon enough. All we have to do is just to hold the town!” Captain Simon believed he could do it. After all, there are only 10 houses in this small town. However, the German foes are no small feast. They came from the elite von der Heydte’s 6th Fallschirmjager Regiement……
Simon and I played the Green Devils 7-turns game in this little ATS Basic Game 1a. With 4 pages of rules only, we get the game going very fast, although with some minor glitches encountered initially, we managed to find the answers to most of our questions. The game is a highly abridged version of the complete ATS game, a system which is derived from ASL heavily on tactical WW2 tactical level. Yet, the basic interactive sequence of play, with I-fire-U-fire, I-go-U-go etc. keeps us both tightly to the sit every minute. We managed to complete the scenario in 5 hours, including the set-up time and learning the system as the game goes, probably much less if we play the game second time.
Carentan is surrounded by a wall (small brick wall, not those concrete high one) on the outside in the center of the map. There is only one road into the center part of the village and it turns west on the northern part, where the U.S. and German exchange heavy fire between the 2 small houses. In our game, the battle is very intense as both sides got to fire at each other and movement is swift on the road. The German 35R-731 light AF and the U.S. Bazooka are less than powerful as we would have thought. The former must be accompanied by infantry to protect them from melee attacks. The latter is only effective when in close range. From the south, the German moved in the house R5 where the Bazookas are located and captured them (Yes! They can be picked up by spending one movement point!) I moved them to the wall next to the house P11 and blasted the Yankees out of the house…
Opportunity fire can be made to unit moving. My initial deployment of the medium machine gun in the K6 forest proved to be the effective deterrent to the U.S. moving in the south. So a good placement of MG in the key position has a controlling effect. We played the game a little wrong as we count the casualty marker as one step to recover during the rally phase, whereas casualties should be permanent and could not be recovered. A casualty unit should check morale every time they are fired upon. Fail to pass the morale check would result in a broken units. A broken unit is very vulnerable to enemy units closing in – they surrender and are removed from play immediately.
The mortars fire similar to the AFVs in that they have to use the Hit Probability Table to determine whether a hit is made on the target. The closer to the target to the firing unit, the higher chance to hit and vice versa. A “Burst of Target” marker would be “locked” on the target and receives a –3DRM on the Casualty Table on the subsequent turn, assuming the firing unit doesn’t move or switch the target, causing more damages to the target. Personnel units in different “cover state”, i.e. movement status, also confers benefits to the firing unit, with more casualties likely if they run, assault than stationary/ crawl. When personnel units fire their gun using the Gun Factor, the Casualty Table is checked, as long as there is a clear Line-of-Sight (LOS) between the two sides. Melee is made in the same hex with the enemy units by moving 1 hex into them in the close assault segment following the movement phase. Melee is bloody as they have to fight until to the last man to win.
Final result: German captured 7 houses and 1 hill (level 10) with 14 casualties (stacking points of the units) while the U.S. lost the game with 3 houses to hold in the end with 16 casualties. There is only one “turret” counter for the AFVs to turn the gun to the direction it wants to fire without moving the tank to the direction. Although it served out game adequately (as you can see in the above my AFVs run away to avoid being captured.), I wonder if others would play the game with more turret counters needed. Despite this, we are satisfied with the game with just 4 pages of rules and yet there are no major problems. Everything went smoothly once we caught the rhythm of the game. You might be very surprised a lot is crammed in here already and almost everything key to the tactical level combat is included. Rub you hand for the ATS full games.
Remember this is a ziplock game only and so no dice is provided. Always bring your 2 ten-sided dices on!
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 15 July,06
The initial stage of Axis onslaught in 1941 is a good subject of gaming to me because of the fluidity of the war, operational situation and the sense of Russia's fate hanging in your own hands, truly the beginning of WW2. The situation is hard to game for the Russia for sure. They are almost defenseless given my experience in 3W's Army Group Center. This is another entry to that initial stage of war and the designer's first major effort in the Avanlanche's new series of beginner level games. The map is 17x22 inches, and fits easily on a small table. There are 140 playing pieces, and it comes in a small box that's easy to store. The game plays very quickly, concluding in about 90 minutes, with a minimum of charts and tables to consult. What a good game it could introduce newbies to the hobby, as did the Russian Campaign to me 30 years ago.
AAR:
The first impression of Defiant Russia is very positive when we open the box and lay the map. The counters are crispy enough to tear from the sheet with my fingers. And I don't trim counters, yet they don't have teeth at the edge after detach.
The rules are short and concise, with a few minor misses for what would a veteran wargamer have noted instantly (e.g. the first turn no-retreat-into-Hungary rule: it didn't say whether the unit would be eliminated if forced to retreat into). The counter art is nicely done too, with the red star and black cross vividly portrayed at the background of the tank icons.
There is even a Spanish Blue Division I haven’t heard of before. In the game, the Spanish Blue Division is a cannon fodder with a mere 1-4 with no reduced side. It doesn't count toward stacking too 'cos they are too "light". But they fought bravely in the war, didn't they?
All things smell good. The map is small but covers everything, ready for the German onslaught. The setup is also a blast as each counter has a setup code of the "military districts", something I learnt of and fond of when I played Russian Campaign back in my school days. They just help me to learn Russia geography instantly. Amazing.
Some minor Hungarian quibbles here. There is a no nationality on the Hungarian unit, just the no. of turn (2) it arrives as reinforcement. We kinda guess it should be the one from its appearance. The rule doesn't say whether the non-exploitable Axis units can perform minimal exploitation as well, though one should naturally assumes it is no. When a unit retreat into Hungary, though it didn't happen, would it get eliminated because it can't retreat into Hungary?
Despite all of the above, the game is all the more surpassingly enjoyable experience. When the counters are set up, the Soviets formed a line in front of the Axis units. By turn 2, they almost get wiped away completely. I pushed my German Panzers to Moscow, both from the Army Group Center and South, crossing the Pripet Marsh (strangely in this game, the name is not given to it on the map). The swamp terrain largely channeled the German forces, via Smolensk to a restricted area in front of Moscow, when Zhukov is able to deploy his Siberian armies in time to defend the Motherland.
My only goal to capture Moscow left my right flank unchecked of the Soviet-controlled Odessa garrison, losing Kiev in the end. Finnish forces are also annihilated because of my aggressive push toward Lenningrad. We played the game with variable weather and so the Soviets began their "Winter Offensive" in Nov '41, one month earlier than historical weather, as the snow began to fall. The Soviet hits on a 5 or 6 on snow turn while the German attack at half strength! The chance to reach Moscow suburbs is actually lost if you rolled a snow turn.
In the end, Simon won the game with 7-3 VPs, adding the VP of Stalin alive and the blood shed less than the German (The German Panzer worth triple point and other German and Finish units double though). At hindsight, the Finnish push cost me the game.
One odd thing is that you can always retreat to satisfy the step losses, after the first mandatory step loss. So our game sees units retreating back up to 6 or 7 hexes, when there are numerous die-roll of sixes. I guess the regroup of the troop outfits must have been counted into such an extended-length retreat result.
The game can be completed under 6 hours. And when you think of a year of war has been accomplished in one-day session, there is a rich sense of satisfaction achieved.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 5 Aug,06
This game is an instant hit among both Eurogamers and wargamers. So I moved this up along the schedule. It's important to see how this game handles the victory conditions for both sides. As a child growing up in the Cold War, I really want this could recreate the same atmosphere of the 80's that we all experienced with. Card mechanics give this a simpler approach handling the complex politics. Let's see how it is doing.
AAR:
When we unfolded the game map, wow, here it is a whole world map in which we play our Cold War game on. It is truly global in scope. All countries on the map are grouped into one of the regions: Europe (of course, that's what the Cold War about), Middle East (where the Arab-Israeli War continues today), Central America (Cuba, who else?), South America (remember Chile and Argentina the military dictators), Asia, and Southeast Asia (Vietnam, surprisingly not a battleground coutnry).
A control of Europe means an automatic victory. Control means the controlling more countries and all of the battleground countries in the region by a player. It is difficult to do so in Europe as Soviet Union is the superpower to many of the eastern European satellite sites. So the war fronts extended to global regions, and that's how you see the superpowers flexing their muscles. Otherwise, a player may gain dominance, where he controls more countries and battleground countries than his opponent, or he may gain presence, where he controls at least one country in the region (it is easier to do than the other two). Scoring victory points is calculated according to the region's respective level of VPs with the above three degree of control. Some score more than the others. Additional VPs are scored for controlling battleground countries each, and for controlling country adjacent to the superpower.
The game is divided into 3 major periods, Early, Mid and Late War. Each period has its own deck when their turns come. The deck would be shuffled into the existing cards. Some event cards are permanently removed if the event is played out instead of using the card as operation.
You can perform an operation to make coup, realignment, placing influence over a country, or "shooting" the "useless" cards to the Space Race. You control a country when you have an influence marker value at least equal to the country's "Stability Index" and greater than that of your opponent's with the no. of the index at the same time. Making coup and realignment can change your relative influences in the country. However, coup is an act of war and so the Defcon level would be decreased for each coup made. Realignment is less harmful as this would have no impact on Defcon level but you won't increase your own influence, just to remove or decrease your opponent's. When a card event is associated with your opponent, you have to carry it out when you play the card as operation. So people would spend the card to the Space Race if it is a particularly "harmful" card. The Space Race confers VPs or some game benefits to the one who first reaches a stage in the race.
Timing to keep the "scoring cards", where they call for a VP calculation when the card is played, therefore becomes crucial. Surely you want to score when the region is under your significant influence and control. On those region where you are not ready, you certainly want to delay the play of the scoring card as long as possible. This sounds basic enough and that's what drives player strategy and tactics throughout the game.
China is a sideshow in this war, mainly because of her own internal chaos reigning during the Cold War. She leaned on the Soviets for everything initially but later turned to a more neutural stance as pragmatism rises. In the game, the China card is vested with the Soviet first and confers a +1 operation point in Asia. When it is played, it would be passed to the U.S. In our game, the U.S. score one more VP at the end of turn 10.
The cards are acting like a history scripts for the development of the major events occuring during the Cold War. Many local wars are conducted. Political movements, crises and leaders come and go. No less, Thatcher, Gorbachev, Reagan, Pope John Paul II, Khrushchev and numerous spies are featured on stage.
In the Early game, the U.S. played well with the cards to score direct VPs, e.g. Olympic games, Nuclear Test Ban etc. In the Mid game, the pendulum swung to the Soviet with several Muslim revolts, VPs scored in the Mid East, De Galle turning France to the left in Europe and South Afirca being sourrounded by several red states. I catched up in the late game with control over Central and South America coutnries like Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela and even removing Castro from Cuba! As a decoy, I played several Ops card on Poland so that Simon concentrated on defending his Soviet Union which has a direct link to Poland. As a result, Poland switched a lot of the time between East and West. NATO is formed but I shoot "Warsaw Pact" to the space everytime I drew it...
The game ends in a U.S. victory when turn 10 comes. I played the scoring cards in Central and South America capitalizing the majority of the countries under my control. The game is more exciting than we would have thought. Playability is high as there is always a room to improve your strategy: the timing to play the card and the priority. It is easy to play too. The rules are short and easy to grasp. The historical flavour is rich. All in all, an excellent game from GMT. I am sure this pure Card-driven game design could be extended to other periods, where political unrests are the days. We believe we would revisit this game soon.
Scheduled play: 2 Sep,06
As we defer the Here I stand game because of a lack of people to fill the six to play, we turned to this game for a quick fix. And we did, as we completed 2 games in a row under 5 hours. Setting up the game is a blast. Two games both ended in a Soviet Victory.
AAR:
I took the U.S. on the first game and Simon beat me on my several mistaken card use and combo. This game really requires good pre-planning when you hold the cards in your hand. The game began where the headline news were as some of the lasting effects on the whole game turn would make a huge subtle but huge impact. Most typical is the reduction of your opponent’s operation value by 1 for whole of the turn and the event taken. Another one is when you get a full hand of your opponent’s event cards with, at times, small operation point to your own while the event has to be taken to your opponent’s advantage. So you have to plan how to minimize the impact by either shooting the card to the space race, as resources diverted to the moon, not on earth. Or you can delay the card to play as late as possible when the situation or condition on the map makes its effect to no avail.
The first game saw that at the end of the turn 4, the Soviet won. We juggled over the last 2 victory points and it really has some intense moment. We took a switch on our second game as I played Russian and Simon played the U.S. I determined to spread the communism to the world, not something I would have liked to do, by spending operation points on increasing the Soviet influences all over the world.
However, it comes to that there is a spare of scoring opportunities in the early stage and thus the U.S. is able to counteract my strategy by building up the same in the region. I got hold of most of the Middle East and Central America, with both Cuba and Mexico adjacent to the U.S., scoring a few extra VPs. When the game tilted in favour of the Soviet, with 2 more VPs to go, Simon played the “Cuban Missile Crisis” in an attempt to stem my coup activities. However, I removed 2 influences from Cuba to prevent the crisis, as did historically. Simon also wanted to make war in India-Parkistan to earn some VPs, however, the “Flower Power” event prevented any more war made by the Imperial Aggressor.
In the end of turn 6, the mid-War, the Soviet won very closely by making coups against the lower stability country and thus earning 2 VPs by the differences in the number of military operations between the Soviet and U.S. The U.S. almost could have salvaged the game if Simon could hold one more turn when he turned Argentina to the U.S. and thus had more controlled battleground country than me to decrease the VPs.
The system is very clever in simulating the Cold War course of development. U.S. could win the war had he held out for long. When things turned ugly, the Space Race is where the superpowers to swing back the overall situation in its own favour. We had some minor question about some of the card play, e.g. whether Taiwan still counted as non-battleground country in dominance determination, if the Formosa Resolution card event is played and turned Taiwan into a battleground country for scoring purpose. We are also not sure whether we can discard our unwanted cards in the end of every turn, but obviously, the Space Race confer such benefit only when you won the race. Overall, we enjoyed what we had in the game.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 19 Aug,06
A small scale Kevin Zucker's excellent Napoleonic operational level games. Several engagements along the road to Paris between Prussians and the French. The fog of war rules are especially easy to absorb and fit for 2 players play.
AAR:
We had this game at last for a long overdue play. The game does not let us down and it is right down to the best of Napoleonic operational level game. Fog-of-war are simulated with a covered counter on the force. Command problem is reflected in the command range and structure. Everything is moving at a certain ratio. And the elements are integrated well.
We played the introductory scenario first to get familiar with the system. It is a short scenario with 4 turns only, with 2 night turns. The territorial objective is to capture Champeubert (8VPs) and Baye (5VPs), the fortified town, by the French at the end of the scenario. Although gaining the most VPs is the victory condition, it is unlikely the Allied could have scored enough VPs by inflicting heavy losses on the French (1/2 VP for every strength point eliminated). At nights, combat is not allowed although you could still force march your forces (a nice rule it is). Second (the Allied) player also gets to resolve his turn first.
While garrisoned by Prussian Olsufief’s IX Corp at Champeubert, the Allied forces are dispersed with some independent Russian forces on the right in the woods near Le Oauit (Wassaitchikow Corp and Karpow 2 brigades) and Blucher on the right, both without a commander. As they are both outside the commander range who is in Champeubert, they have to market heir own initiative roll and luck determines whether they can move or not on their own (equal or less than the unit’s initiative rating). The French, led by Napoleon himself and Marshal Ney and Marmount, approached the towns from the south along the road Sezanne – St. Prix. With an initiative rating of 4 and 3, it is hardly for Wassaitchikow and Karpow to move as fast as Napoleon could who uses force march at night. Virtually, the Prussians are left alone. It was a tough decision for Simon to determine whether to reinforce the Baye garrison from Champeubert, hoping the Russian comrades arriving in time, or to take the advantage of a single unit defending a fortified town (all odds are treated as 1-1 and no Defender retreat result). Simon chose the later (because he thought that more than 1 combat unit would render the odds benefit useless but it is not per 11.64 C) and so all the Prussian could do was to sit out the siege until an exchange result occurred. The result is a French victory once Baye fell and the 5 VPs is earned. Even so, we still thought that the Allied couldn’t have had more than a slight chance in this introductory scenario.
So we set up our second game in no time and wanted to complete the campaign in the remaining 4 hours. We chose the variable campaign starting point at 10 Feb night (the latest to start the campaign and the Prussians are now automatically activated without the need to roll a dice) and should complete by 14 Feb p.m. (12 turns). The situation is very tense for Napoleon as, once again, he had the fewer forces and was about to be attacked from 2 flanks, Russians on the west and Prussian on the east and north. I made a mistake to push the French forces up north to meet the Prussian I Corp at Viffort as they were soon to be reinforced with the rest of I Corp from Chateau Thierry. I would have hoped to crush the Prussian first while the other French forces could play a delaying tactics. The French, once out of Napoleon the overall commander’s range, had lost the initiative and courage to move, resorting to their own initiative rating. Meanwhile, Russians under Sacken began to pile up the pressure moving from the town Busieres along the road, only to be stopped at the stream near the narrow gap between forest Morin and Nogent. On the east, the Prussian II Corp under Blucher and Kleist also closed in along the road from Champeubert to Vauchamps. I managed to inflict some losses, thus earning the VPs, to the Russians before the stream and then withdrew to defend behind the stream. The game ended as we called the day and a French “tactical” victory, although there is no such official victory per se.
Overall, a great game experience. The system, while incorporating fog-of-war mechanics, is eminently playable and it is very sound to simulate Napoleonic operational level battle. The 3 set-up charts are very convenient to setting up the game. The rules are clean and without any problems. We can always find the answers from the rules. A good sign nowadays for any wargame. I particularly like the command rules in which command range is determined by the overall commander’s range rating and can be extended along the roads or trails. So players have to maintain the forces in “group” movement, mimic the Napoleonic period movements very closely. The game is simple but not simplistic, with enough meat for the grognards. It has rules for team play too. Hats off to the game designer Kevin Zucker, who brings us such a fine Napoleonic game recreating Napoleonic warfare without all the hassles at otherwise regimental level. We are now very much turning our eyes on the next in the series 7 Days of 1809, the battle of Abensberg and Eckmühl in Austria. But wait, 4 Lost Battles has come out and we gotta try that first. Too many great games from Kevin, too little time.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 30 Sep,06
We played the Marne scenario a year before (see item 2 above) and I am interested in the battle of Tannenberg lately. As we don't have the time to spend on learning some new games, we get to play this relatively easy game and see how does it work on this clamatic battle between Russia and Germany, long before WW2 doing the same again.
AAR:
Simon chose to be Russian and was on the attack side (he is more like to be playing defensive in the past).
Our game sees that German seemed to be sitting out the game most of the time like a duck. They don't seems to have a slight chance to win if the Russian rolls the movement dice well. The Russian numbers simply overwhelms the German. They rehearshed a "Race to the Baltic Sea" on the eastern front.
There are also only a handful of German coutners on the map and it is easy to complete the movement phase for the German. They got to be on the defensive and retreat in an orderly fashion to find the best place to defend. Yet, it is still a tough call on the German if the Russian roll particularly well. The intercept communication rule, i.e. the German player determines the Russian's order of movement for the 2 armies next turn, would not help the German exceptionally in my view.
The German have 15 VPs in advance. As the player with most VPs a the end of a 15-tunrs game, the burden of attack roll is on the Russian. The 2 armies, one from the south and one from the east, strive towards Konigsberg, the capital of the Prussians.
In my game, I see the German were dispersed eventually like in a guerilla warfare. I don't see the German would much have a chance of moving swiftly between 2 fronts like Napoleon did, 'cos they too are subject to the God of fortune of dice rolling on the movement table. It would be a luxuary. By the time they could come back from the south, I believe the Russians would have arrived at the gate of Konigsberg.
The "first-blood" on the modified combat table happens no matter of the amount of Russian losses. As to the wireless intercept, I barely notice the differences would have been made to the German, because you too don't know the German movement rates. Even if they strike, they have to risk being surrounded the next turn.
The rules for Tennenberg are also something hair-scratching at times. The victory conditions don't spell out whether a side can earn another victory points once they were re-captured by the enemies. For example, if Allenburg was captured for the first time by the Russian for the 1 VP and later the German re-captured it by counterattack, can the Russian earn the VP again when they stage another fearful attack again and capture the town again? The rules (4.2) on Hex Control are terribly written.
In another note, railroad on terrain other than clear cost 1 MP (the railroad cost itself) or the cost of the other terrain in the hex? The terrain table and the rules just don't have the answer. So we presume that the railroad wouldn't have an effect on the terrain either, as in the case of supply and combat. The combat units are rarely unsupplied any time unless they are completely surrounded. Something not that familiar with my reading about WW1 so far.
The system ain't broken, but the gameplay did. Nontheless, I am now more interested in the battle and look forward to reading more about it. I am also wondering whether I should buy The Cossacks are Coming game from Bro Games too.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 14 Oct,06
This gotta be the one to watch for which could have been the "Wargame of the Year". Card-driven point-to-point movement for the Wars of the Reformation 1517-1555, a period loaded with myths, religious aura, and the ever political non-stop struggle. Plus the period sees the big change in European battlefield tactics. Designer Ed Beach is the one who continues developement of the series games Avalon Hill's Great Campaigns of the American Civil War. His writings and designs show how delicate they are. Excellent operational research and extensive game playtestings. If you are really looking for a good wargame, this is the one.
AAR:
A magnificient masterpiece from Ed Beach, although we didn't complete the game at the end of the 7th hour. We called for the day after completing 3 turns only. This is our first time trial so things might be slower.
At the time, the Ottoman led the way by 1 point as France played a significant constraint on the Hapsburgs, posing a two-fronts problem to the Hapsburgs player. Papacy and Protestant came second. France and England on the fourth. Hapsburgs the last.
Simon (England), Thunder (Papacy), Anthlny (Protestant), Sunshine (Ottoman), Angus (Hapsburgs) and me (France) had a special session with this multiplayers game. We are not familiar with this historical backdrop but we all found it exciting to look at both physically and to learn new things about the period. In fact, we discussed a lot about what Luther did and the causes of the wars in the Reformation period. The VP conditions are well-designed so that everyone knew what was going to do. In the course of gaining VPs, the courses clashed and war began.
As France, I played the game mainly to maintain the balance of power between Hapsburgs and Ottoman as the latter drove the way along the route to Vienna. Of course, some independent units in the city of Buda along the route posed some problem but Ottoman was determined to go, given his superb calvary and generalship, which could bring more than a dozen units to the war.
England played the game with a swing. Where there are interests, they would be there. I saw the England allied with my France first in the 1st turn but in the second turn, he swinged to the Hapsburg. In the meantime, he built a lot of the ships in the England Channel for blocking the French fleets from moving. He also was the first to find time and money to set sail on the high sea to explore but was sunk in the middle of the journey. In turn, I activated the Scots as a backdoor threat to the Englishmen.
The Hapsburgs posed a threat to France on turn 2 so I declined his offer for peace. Ottoman has done a lot of things on the political front by making peace with both France and the Protestant, with cards to play and up for exchange. I couldn't resist the offer so we went into peace in both turn 2 and 3.
Ottoman did successfully turn away the many Hapsburgs mercenaries with a card. It cost the Hapsburgs to burn more resources into building armies. However, he did manage to be the first one to reach South America and cross the Pacific Straits to establish the first European colony, thus earning some VPs other than defending most of the time.
Protestants were mostly busy in translating the bibles and hold several theological debates, countered by the Papal burning the books. Soon enough it seems that the Papacy didn't have many things to hold the ground and a almost all part of the German region was converted to Protestanism. Luther was on the ride...
The Papacy excommunicated the English ruler after he got divorced on her own on turn 2 and re-married on turn 3. His lovely wife gave him a healthy Edward the prince so there was no need to move along the marriage track. Apart from this, the Papacy seemed to have nothing to do but to raise armies on turn 3 in a final attempt to conquer Florence but to no avail.
I did something good for France in the final turn. After several un-fruitful attempts to sink the Hapsburgs naval fleets, the French sunk the Hapsburgs in the Gulf of Lyon finally. I had a devious plan to land military units on the Hapsburgs coast of the unguraded Sea of Biscan and dashed to the Hapsburgs' capital city. However, I found that I had no enough cards to carry out the plot...
The final scores are 16 for both Papacy and Ottoman; 14 for England, Protestant and France, while 13 for the Hapsburgs.
The game is richer than I would have thought. ALthough there is no declaration of war, some of them are at war in the beginning already. So the atmosphere is intense. All would have some plots underneath but they seldom not known to others. We had some very intense negotiations and we often talked during the game. It is how this game shows its beauty, not necessarily by how many wars had been waged but the undercurrents that drive everyone mad, and fun. We already booked another date in November to this campaign game. With 9 turns to go, there is definitely more long term deals and strategy to come in. Everyone is on the nerve to looking forward to that day to come.
Scheduled play: 12 Nov,06
We decided to give this game another spin with everyone playing the same side again. We considered given our previous experiences in the game, we would have better knowledge to play the game with the specific goals in mind. This is a very goal-oriented game. Anyone who is unchecked could come out in the end quite easily. There is also a very intricate political situation such that it is not easy to gang upon any one particular side early on.
We say the game England allied with Hapsburgs, a natural allied, early on turn 2. France remains the "meat" to be divided. On turn 1, France, England and Hapsburgs all set sails to the high seas for exploring the new world, hoping that the new wealth would bring in more cards later on. The Hapsburgs (Angus) is the most wealthy player in this game (he always had more than 6 cards). As France, I was excommunicated by the Papacy on turn 3, down one card in each turn. I didn't know why the Pope didn't like me, perhaps because he was intimidated by the French taking over of the independent cities of Metz and Liege. I also took Milan in the northern Italy. But I was at a time the Hapsburgs conquered the southern city of Bordeaux from Navarre. France and Hapsburgs were at war in the beginning and there was no negotiation to end the war.
So France was pretty much out of the game and sued for peace on turn 5. Hapsburgs made a deal with the Papacy and so Hapsburgs moved the armies in to take control of Metz and Liege from the French. Plus some succesful voyages from the New World, the Hapsburg looked good at this moment.
Protestant player (Anthony), however, slowly built up its sphere of influence in the whole Germany. Papacy (Thunder) had some of his moment when he was successful at burning the books and the heretics. However, it didn't help to prevent Protestant from setting up the first army at Trier and Augsburg, with minor peasant mutiny around.
Ottoman (Sunshine) worked the other way round this time. He went to the sea first and made several incursions into the Barbery coast and sometimes into the Adriatic Sea. He allied with the France as a means to counterbalance the Hapsburg forces in Vienna later on. On turn 4, he amassed a formidable force (as usual at 18 SPs) and marched on to Vienna after taking Buda as a staging city.
Simon the British was busying at giving birth to a healthy baby. Luck was not with him this time as several wives gone by without a boy, heir to the throne. He was also checked by the rebellious Scots, with several uprising cards in the French (me) hand for a real potential threat in the north. He was lagging behind in the BP race overall.
The final result is a tie between Ottoman and Protestant with a total 25 VPs at the end of turn 5. The rule said that the winner would go to the one who had the higher VPs in the previous turn. So the winner this time goes to Ottoman. Hats off to Sunshine for his brilliant strategy of bringing the Turks to Europe.
Overall, we had an enjoyable day to call it off. It is not a very complicated game and everyone has something to do. We already have talks about another go of the game in December Christmas time.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 4 Nov,06
Pax Romania! At last, a chance to track the history of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire in a Europa-format. Sounds good and exciting. Mighty Roman armies clashed with alien tribal skirmishers. Great leaders are included and add colours to the game. I particularly like the myriad of political and military actions, with the Roman Senate consistently influencing the military actions and provinces coming into rebellion state if not closely watched by the Roman legions. This is a one-mapper game, a big plus to me. Rise of the Roman Republic, the Richard Berg's ancient series to track the history of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire in a Europa-format. Sounds good and exciting. I am concerned about the balance of play though as Roman armies is a mighty force while the alien tribes are skirmishes at best. Another concern is the designer's usual push for hard, dry, "realistic" and tasteless historical recreation.
AAR:
This game is a hell lot of chromes!
Great leaders are included and add colours to the game. They are important both in political and military terms, having guile points for the former and mortality rating for the latter. This is a myriad of political and military actions, with the Roman Senate consistently influencing the military actions and provinces control by not allowing the Roman legions assigned to a Pro-Counsul leaving the province. No legion, of course, according to the Roman law, can go into Rome without the Senate permission. The penalty?
The attrition rules instead of movement costs are reminiscent to some of the Joseph Miranda's design on the ancient series. It makes the game more fluid and more strategic in nature at operational level maneuver.
Leaders can always continue action if he can pass the his campaign rating, a reflection of his command ability in the "campaign rating", something from Richard's own initiative rating of the individual leaders in GMT's GBoH series games.
Intricate interception rules are available and have great impact on how to deploy your troops and legions. We played the short scenario Thunderbolt so it is only a muscle to muscle affair whereas Hannibal brought his brute force to the Roman border shortly after crossing the Alps.
We had several engagements and the Roman lost all the battles 3 times. P.Sicipio decided to stand a fight at the border town Placentia but perhaps its his fisrt time to see the war elephants, the 4 double legions were shattered and forced back into the town. After unsuccessful siege and had to stand for the siege attrition, Simon the Carthage was about to move on along the road to the city of Pisae into Northern Etruria. I thought Sicipio is a fighting general but this appears to be not.
Rome became nervous. In the second year, 2 new Counsuls were elected and they were Flaminius and Varro. Together with the Urban Legion in Rome commanded by Hostilius, they formed the Roman garrison for the in-coming. The Senate granted the permission to Sicipio to prorouge in and allowed him and Longus to leave the province into Northern Eturia, hoping that the Hannibal's force had been attrited substantially already.
The Carthage proved once again their generalship with the no. of generals they had in the mixed contingent force. At the town near Cosa, they won a major victory the second time, after Placentia, and thus their required no. of provinces had been reduced down to 5. The Romans retreated back into Popolunium, suffering evem more with the African cavalry pursuits.
Simon decided to turn the force into Southern Etruria as there are a number of small towns to capture very easily, with an intrinsic defense value of 1 only. However, with limited time remaining, he agreed that it was simply not enough for the Carthage to control 5 contiguous provinces had he not been able to march into Rome. We haven't had a chance to see this happened but we wished we would.
Overall, the game is solid as it is on paper as well as on the playing board. You might find time and again that you would have forgotten some of the rules about the losses requirements after a battle, i.e. Roman as an overall percentage loss to the whole force while Carthagian should lose proportionately to each type of contingents. Or you would have forgotten to the last count when you are calculating the combat force ratio, while mixing it up with the rules on losses of attrition (where cavalry count 2 on the force value).
But after all, elephant is fun. They trampled enemies as well as friendly forces. The count in loss of Strenth Points in human life terms would be staggering: 10 elephants can kill 500 men in a die roll!
There are 14 types of DRMs on the Battle Results Table alone, not to say the least there are 29 tables on 2 separate player aids cards (and thanks God! GMT has them included in the game). You have to be alert all the time who's who commanding your force and whether they are inside or outside of the city (which have an effect on siege warfare and interception). And wait, I noted that I forgot the Romans moved at half the cost in Roman-controlled province. Had naval rules been used, another thick layer of complexity would be added.
It's really a busy system that calls for investment in time to learn. You are rewarded for its series games using the same system continuously. As to us, we are prepared to go for the next in the series: Carthage! Now, it's Roman turn.
|
|
|
Lawrence Hung
Hong-Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
|
Scheduled play: 18 Nov, 06
Carthage...an everlasting interesting subject in the ancient times. I do hope that this Vol.2 game from Richard Berg's Ancient game series system can get the rules more streamlined and readable. An epic struggle reached its climax between Rome and Carthage over the control of the Meditterean sea.
AAR:
We selected the shortest scenario where Romans do not present. The Mercenary War, 241B.C. saw a bunch of mercenaries, Libyans, Gauls, Ilberians mutined in the province of Numidia when they found that their job done did not get paid by the Carthaginians. Gisgo, the mutiny leader, gathered a force near the border of the province Carthage at the town of Sicca Veneria. Hanno the Great, led a force of mixed contingents, including war elephants, moved on to the desert border despite attirtion losses were high, thinking that the supression should be crushed as early as possible. Otherwise, more locals would be called on to join Gisgo to go to the city of Carthage.
Simon took the mercenary and noted that it was quite impossible to lay siege to Carthage with an Inheredent Defense Strength (IDS) of 8 (and the defense value is the strength points times the TDS). Knowing that on turn 3, Hamilcar Barca should return from overseas with even more infantry and elephants, the mercenaries acted quick and Matho moved to Musti (Zama is in the vincity). Hanno sent in the elephants first but was hurting his force more than the mercenary. Matho retreated to the town of Macteris and split the other two forces in an attempt to divert Hanno's attention.
On turn 2, the mercenary spread its forces into 3 directions. Matho laid siege to Materis and with only 1 IDS, the city was broken. The mercenary now had an outpost and could win the game if they hold out. Another force under Antaritus moved out with a small force from the hometown. However, he didn't move to Thugga for the sheer force of Hanno might have turned to him. Hanno also had to stop at Musti as a result because if he attacked, he might be subject to envelope attack from both Matho and Antaritus forces.
On turn 3, things changed and the mercenary was now going under. Numidian calvary recruited under Naravas appeared in Bulla Regia to assist Carthage to chase up Antaritus force back up north to Cirta. Antaritus was rolled back and was away. Spendius remained in Sicca Vereria as garrison force in preparation of the Carthage reinforcement led by Barca arriving at Carthage.
On turn 4, seeing the calvary victory, Hanno moved to siege Macteris garrison by Matho. We wrongly believed that Hanno should have double the infantry SP inside the city but in fact, he only needed one-half the infantry SP of the inside. Secondly, we thought siege attrition would occur but in fact the rules do not allow a siege operation (i.e. attrition) if in the first place there was not enough force to place the city under siege. Anyway, Hanno could lay siege and the city was captured on turn 4. Simon conceded the game as there was no hope for the mercenary to capture other small city inside Carthage province in view of the tremedous force under Barca coming to the gate of Sicca Vereria.
The game was great fun. The system is outstanding when we become more and more familiar with the rules. The political and naval rules are not in force in this short scenario given the time we had. But this 5-turn scenario is quick to play with a lot of movement and action on the board. Both sides have options to attack. It cost us only one afternoon to complete the game so it is a very good learning scenario. I myself look very much to play the 24-turns full campaign with all the political rules in effect on both sides (yes, now the Carthage have their own family problem). With 4 sheets of full color counters, beautifully illustrated icons on Rome and all the tribes available, this is truly a value for money game currently available for anyone having a slight interest in the ancient. The rules are upgraded with more clarity than the first one. Some areas see major changes too. So be sure to get the latest version from the internet before play.
Overall, we love this game and an epic "Europa"-style game on the ancient is born. I enjoy this game a lot. Remember to bring along your calculator. This would ease all the calculation required everywhere. But the end result is well worth it.
|
|
|
Posted Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:13 pm
Albuquerque
New Mexico
Louisville
Kentucky
Good to see another of your lists. You always make me aware of games I've missed somehow. And I may begin to schedule gaming sessions way in advance. My current impulsive play system is working very well right now.
Scrib
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
The BGG Geeklist function is a great way to share your experience with others. But for soem reason, the geeklist doesn't allow you to post duplicate game. A replay of a particular game cannot be listed therefore cannot be listed chronologically but in the same box as in the previous play.
Yes, we have so many games in our closet. The important thing is to play them and share the experience here in BGG. I think BGG is a great place to visit for some really independent advices, cos this is an open internet world. It is better than some discussion board where negative or unfavourable opinions get wiped out by the moderator. Guess who? The game designer himself.
Minnesota
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
Happy Valley
Hong Kong
The foruth one is coming soon. So many games, so little time...but let the dice fly!