My wife and I have this game in our collection, but have yet to place the stickers on the blocks. I did download the living rules, however, but have yet to read any of them.

I like this game quite a bit, but the very long play time (16-20 hours for the whole war) is a not something to be undertaken lightly. We've taken to playing the 41-45 campaign game, and even that we can't quite finish in a whole day of gaming with 3 players. That's not to say that EE isn't a great game (it made my top 20 list), but EastFront and Rommel in the Desert both win big in the playability department without giving up much, if anything, in terms of gaming satisfaction.

But if you're a fan of the higher-end block games, you're going to want all 3. EE has some good, shorter scenarios, and while they aren't as satisfying as the campaign game, they are good for getting up to speed.

Europe Engulfed is what got me thinking there may be something to this block game stuff afterall.

I really want to buy this game, but I read comments like the one quoted all the time. Is my idea, to start the "block experience" with this game, really such a bad one?

It depends... do you have any wargaming experience of any kind? Are you prepared to sit down and learn a few rules rather than just doing the "let's just play and figure it out as we go along" routine? Do you have an opponent who is willing to invest the same time?

If you answered yes to 2 of the 3 above questions, then I would say you might want to consider starting out your block gaming experience with EE.

By far the best way to play EE for the first time is to have an opponent who downloads the rules and reads them before the first game as well. You'll find your first game goes much more smoothly. If you don't have this dedicated opponent, perhaps it's best to draw them in with the shorter block games first, and then spring EE on them.

I just got this as a birthday gift from my wife two days ago! Read the rules last night and will be playing tonight (my actual birthday). Looks like fun!

With regards to getting your money's worth, the components and artwork of this game are abysmal.

"Abysmal" is a bit of an overstatement.

The blocks and labels are first rate. The game board could have been paper, but instead it is card stock. Granted, it doesn't stack up to the boards provided with the typical euro game (especially the boards produced by a Phalanx, which are fabulous), but it is better than most war games. The new edition has upgraded cards. The artwork is very well done.

This is the best block game I have played for one reason: the rules work in a way that emphasizes the biggest strength of block games: the fog of war.

Repeatedly throughout the game (in the winter of each year), the board is essentially "reset": units return to a pool. At the beginning of the next year reinforcements are randomly draw from that pool so the other player only has a vague idea of what he will face.

Additionally, each player randomly draws 5 cards that define his operational capability for the year: and neither player knows what the other has until they are played one-by-one over multiple turns.

These too features play to the strength of the block-game system. Other games (including the new Jerry Taylor / Columbia offering: Crusader Rex) do some of the same things, but not to the same extent.

That's why this one is best!

Kimball,

I for one have just about had enough of you savaging the CG components in Geeklist after Geeklist. Lucky for those of us with taste, we realize that Colombia games are not about the shiny new toys but about the gameplay. It's a novel concept, I know. CG are rightly lauded for the extraordinary gameplay they package in their games. You have been told by Geeks more patient than myself that the CG price is more than justified by the games themselves, but still you must press on in your ludicrous vendetta.

If it's bits that make you happy, wallow in TI3 or Samurai Swords or any one of the Eagle games. CG is not about that and never has been, and even so their bits are largely well-produced, classic, and tasteful. Most of the Geeks on here are about gameplay first, components second. I'm happy for you that you have other values, but give it a rest, will you? Much obliged!

Abysmal?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I just bought this one recently. It is my first block game. Haven't played yet, but from opening and glancing thru the rules it looks great!

Interesting, because while I like a bunch of the stuff he's done for the novelty, I can't bring myself to consider it elegant. The road movement rules are extremely tricky to track and hard to play. The various maneuver assaults are hard to get your head around. The terrain is not always clear.

I like BaM, and will probably buy the next game in the series. But my only real complaint about BaM is that I wish some of the pointy stuff had been cleaned up a bit.

Hmmm... these are rather strange comments to make about Bonaparte at Marengo.

The road rules actually make some of the most sense of any wargame covering that time period. I personally like the way it simulates the impossibility of having 3 battalions marching down the same road at the exact same moment. Forcing them to wait while the others pass is not just interesting; it's authentic.

As far as the terrain goes, there isn't any terrain to consider; it's all worked into the map. The penalties are all printed right on each border so you don't have to look up the effects of a hill, for example.

Oh, I agree they make sense. They're just very hard to actually play. Did this guy cross that boarder on MP1 or MP2? Have I used this border yet? If guys get intermixed on the road it can be a real mess. For the Austrians in the middle game, after the extreme congestion of the beginning (which limits your options) but before the opening up of the endgame, it can make your head spin unless you do everything in a very precise order, but then you get this mix of units that have or haven't moved that you have to track.

It's not bad; I think it works fine. But it's certainly not elegant except in explaining it.



Except that those effects are often obscured, or hard to read even if they aren't. And a blanket rule of "all infantry attacks at -1" would have been cleaner than printing an infantry symbol on every border in the game and making us look it up.

This is actually a comparatively minor complaint compared to the maneuver attacks and road rules, but the graphics for terrain could have been made a lot clearer.

Again, I like BaM, and I think it does have some very good elements. But great design elegance anyway is not one of its top features IMHO.

Chris, next time you play BaM, try these ideas I posted on ConsimWorld:

Like many people, we use dice to mark road movement. We have a handful of small white dice with black dots, with a red arrow drawn pointing at one side of the 1, 2, and 3 faces. The arrow shows the allowed direction of movement. Before I added the arrows I think we were occasionally (accidentally) moving in two directions on the same road/approach. I also use a bigger and different color die to mark the number of command limit actions taken in the current turn. Finally, at the start of French turns we move the round marker to the line between the current and next hour spaces on the Time Track, which seems to help us keep the marker in the right place on the Time Track (i.e. without skipped or repeated hours).

This was the other game I got for my birthday. I opened it but haven't placed the stickers on the blocks or read the rules.

Got mine the other day and out the stickers on and read the rules. One problem, no one to play against.

Aha, if this is easier than HotS I'll start with it to get my friend involved.

Definitely easier that Hammer of the Scots for one reason: fewer unit-based exceptions. The only two unit-based exceptions are handled as special rules (one is for Richard the Lion-hearted!).

I've had it for a few days and have read the rules a few times and set it up and looked it over (no play yet, but SOON!). It has some of the strengths of HoTS, but not to the same extent (see my comments above). There is no repeated annual "reset" of your on-board forces.

However, it does have different (and very cool!) strategic twist: a mechanism that varies the arrival time of the Crusader forces from Europe, which are not present at the beginning of the game.

At the end of each turn, you draw on block from reserve. If it is a block belonging to one of the three Crusader forces ("sub-groups": the French, English and Germans - 3 of each) then you place it in a "waiting area". It stays in the waiting area until the other two of its partners are there, and then can deploy to the board. The time of arrival and which forces will arrive (and where) will change from game to game - thus increasing variability and replayability.

It looks like Jerry Taylor has once again selected a situation that involves both attack and defense for both sides. My guess is that the Saracen player will attack during the first part of the game, before the Crusaders arrive, and then the Frank player will attack during the second half after his European reinforcements arrive.

This looks like another winner.

Well, I know you can play HotS online... maybe, CR will be online as well. I may try it online if I can't find anyone to play BUT one of the obvious reasons to play a block game is the blocks themselves.... looks cool! not sure how it looks online.

I agree with Kevin's assessment. What I like about this game is

1. There always seems to be too few units to cover so much terrority. This means one has to develop a strategy early where one will concentrate in some areas while virtually conceding in others.

2. The control of lakes --- while abstract --- is critical, and it's difficult for a player to control all three. Control of a lake can expose a lot of towns to ampibious attack that might otherwise have been safe in the enemy's rear. If you thought it was already tough to cover the terrority you started with, wait until your opponent takes control of a lake or two.

The rules are very basic, and the situation is very challenging. I think War Of 1812 is one of the better, and certainly simpler, block games.

I've heard some negative things about this title. The Union forces can simply fall back, that the double turn can allow Confederates to cross open ground without being fired at, etc. Have you played a lot of games?

We didn't experience any problems with this retreat strategy occuring. I think the latest edition of rules even help repair that problem but I am not 100% certain on that.

There has been some debate about this, and I have been one of those arguing that the game is somewhat broken. IMO, it is triviailly easy for a Union player to slow down the CSA player without risk or even the need to engage due to the fire then move mechanic combined with the fact that your blocks generally only have a 1 hex range. Basically, the Confederates move up to 1 hex to attack, the Union moves back 1 hex, repeat until the Union gets reninforcements and can move over to the attack.

IMO, the game plays fine if the Union player plays "historically"" and trys to hold the ridges. But I cannot see why they would do that.

There was an extensive debate on this on CSW, with plenty of people providing arguments for why I was incorrect. I remain unconvinced, and sold my copy of the game.

However, it is a block game about Gettysburg. One of my favorite wargame genres combined with my favorite battle. I hope that I am wrong.

Jeff,

Are you playing with the optional strictly alternating turns instead of random initiative? It seems to me this Union strategy is non-viable if you play with random initiative, since the Confederates can get a double-turn and wipe out your rearguards if you're not careful. The games where I've seen the Union get really killed were when they tried to delay too much and lost too many block.

While it's not a top pick for me, I like Gettysburg. The updated rules (which give the Union some cover on the ridgelines, and slow down the artillery) help a lot.

Chris,

Yes, I've only ever played with the random initiative. I don't think it makes much difference. The double move is simply not that dangerous - all it does is allow the Confederates to mount a single attack, get a single turn of firing, when they should be firing almost constantly, as long as the UNion is not willing to abandon territory.

If the CSA player gets to move second, and hence have a chance to get the double move, they ahve to move extremely agresively on the first move, which, depending on the Union player, could have devastating consequences if they do not get that double move.

The double move just means that the CSA player might actually get to fire 25% of the time. It doesn't really change the dynamic enough.

Oddly enough, it could be that this scenario is almost uniquely suited to show this flaw - the first day is a relatively unusual tactical problem for both sides. The Union needs to just slow down the CSA and hold them back from the dominating ground, and the CSA needs to make hay while the sun is shining. The general ability of the Union player to slow the CSA player down to what amounts to a 1 hex/turn advance without risk of engagement is the problem. It is simply grossly unrealistic. The Union cavalry and Reynolds Corps fought a nasty fight to hold the Rebels outside of Gettysburg. That is a foolish thing to do in this game.

Again, I agree with Kevin's assessment.

I'd like to add that one major difference between Quebec 1759 and War Of 1812, is that Q-1759 features simultaneous movement, vice I-go-you-go sequential movement found in other block games. This adds another dimension to a relatively simple block game as you try to guess your opponents likely moves, while trying to surprise him with your own. Blank blocks facilitate bluffing and decoying, and the low number of blocks makes the plotting and resolution of simultaneuos movmement fairly quick and easy.

I own both games, and I wouldn't part with either.

I would call this "light filler" because the rules are very simple and it plays very quickly (well less than an hour!).

It is probably the best entry-level block game and is a lot of fun. Just don't expect infinite replayability.

I very much want to check this game out, but I worry that there may not be much replay value to this particular battle. I could be very wrong, of course. Has anyone played enough to know if that's an issue?

Mark, I've played quite a bit of Victoria Cross (10 games). Because there are a couple different ways for the Zulus to acquire enough points for a victory, experienced play takes on a sense of bluff and counterbluff - is he pursuing the 'standard' opening or is that feint against the kraal & final redoubt actually a strike for the game. The fog of war becomes much more important once you're familiar with how to play.

Thank you, Peter! That's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.

Hmmm...been thinking about getting WestFront for awhile now. Are you suggesting I shouldn't?

Hilary,

I wouldn't suggest you shouldn't. West Front is not my favorite West Front game. I do own West Front too.

The west front of WWII doesn't appeal to me at this scale. I would rather play a game that covers a particular action like the Bulge, Normandy, etc. I can easily get my West Front fix by playing "The Bridge at Cheneux" ASL Campaign Game.

In fact, some people play East Front with the expanded rules from West Front. These expanded rules are necessary to handle the seaborne landings and extra naval movement found on the western front. In East Front these rules are more abstract simply because there were not as many seaborne invasions, and quite frankly were more flanking maneuvers than full blown invasions historicaly.

So, if the West Front at that scale interests you, then by all means get it. However, if you are interested n WWII at all and want a very fluid dynamic game, get East Front.

I've not played Europe Engulfed so I can't compare.

However I will assume that Europe Engulfed, as an area movement game, has a different scale than East Front.

How long is a turn in EE? I believe EF is 1 month a turn. This allows for many scenarios inside the box, not just a single "East Front" scenario.

East Front is a classic in the block wargame community. Europe Engulfed is newer and not as tried and true.

If you are interested in a representation of the ebb and flow on the east front during WWII and the trials and tribulations by the entities involved, East Front is your game.

I ahve played both of these games (EE and EF).

I like EE more, but that is because I like the scale better. EF is a great game, and deals with the war in a very different way than EE. Playing the Eastern Front scenario of EE is not at all similar to playing EF.

And the scale of EF is 2 week turns.

I've played both EE and EF. EF is, I think, ultimately the better and more highly replayable game. But I think if you own one, you'll want to end up owning the other.

WestFront is underrated as a game, I think. EastFront is the classic of course, the no-brainer 10/10, but WestFront has a lot of appeal too and is a bit more playable because it's a bit more constrained despite the slightly greater rules overhead; and in WestFront, you can play the Brits/Americans. Maybe it's a 9/10, and a nice change of pace from EastFront. I'd happily play either. I can't imagine being a fan of EastFront and not ultimately owning WestFront as well, unless you just don't get to play that much.

This one is my fave. Just played two games recently - lost 'em both, but had a blast both times. Definitely sign of a great game!

As an experience out of the box, Wizard Kings is not the best. The basic scenario is bland.

But with good third-party scenarios, such as Chris Farrell's, Wizard Kings becomes a very good game. This particular blockset needs asymmetric scenarios to shine, which doesn't mean that the scenarios are unbalanced---just that two sides have markedly different advantages and disadvantages, a la Hammer of the Scots.

Once you have a kit of scenarios, the large variety of the army units keeps things lively.

This and Victory below are both "kit" games, rather than out of the box games. To enjoy them you need to tap into scenarios which are't available from Columbia. Fortunately other people have made very good WK scenarios.

In fact, this is true for any of the block games---it's just that in, say, Hammer of the Scots, the game already comes embellished with multiple scenarios and scenario rules.

The interested should probably read my article on starting Wizard Kings on a budget for an idea of a minimal set to work with various third-party scenarios that have proven themselves good.

http://boardgamegeek.com/geekforum.php3?action=viewthread&th...

Now, there's one thing I dislike about Wizard Kings... and that's the rules changes going on right now. (Use 1.5 rules. The 1.6 rules are suspected by some after play to not have been playtested as thoroughly.) And I don't like the way WK has been treated by Columbia Games in general, especially with the failure to provide real scenarios in the box for years and years now.

But all in all, I have enjoyed Wizard Kings quite a lot. It comes closer to a "board-game-ization" of Warcraft than many other games, particularly in the area of army variety. In fact, Wizard Kings has more terrain effects, modular maps, and army unit variety (including mercenary units), making it pretty much a replacement to me for both Warcraft II and III.

I have heard of more happy people than I expected who have decided to take the plunge after my little article (or when I persuaded them to before my article ). I haven't really run into as many people who regretted it.

I agree with Ava. Wizard Kings seems to get a bad rap around here, but my wife and I found it very enjoyable.

We enjoy sending our armies against each other in what has turned out to be an extended campaign which first saw the Orcs and the Elves facing off against each other, followed by an even bigger war which was joined by the Amazons (and Elves) and Barbarians (with the Orcs). Toss in a couple of house rules--presto!--great game.

I tend to believe some people have trouble wrapping their mind's around the fantasy setting, because this really is the only difference between this game and the other block games based on "realistic" or "historical" conflicts. Thus, it gets shrugged away as an "okay" or "sub-par" block wargame.

That's not to say that Ava is wrong in suggesting the rules problem (used your advice, Ava, and picked 1.5 version), or the lack of commitment from Columbia on what is truly an innovative concept for a block game.

I recently played a guy in an ASL scenario- he said he had been a WK slut for many many years. He thought that the beauty of the system was in its 3rd party scenarios- MUCH like ASL.

Yeah, unfortunately, WK does get a bad rap, and the support is not what it should be. But, just like any game with a truly great engine, the community has stepped up and really made this game shine.

I splurged last year and bought the game with everything. I played the base scenario twice, only because the other players didn't want to try a third party scenario. With the next group of players, I just pulled out a scenario (rather than asking) and we played. Now, I get requests every week or at most every other week, to pull this gem out.

It really is a shame that Columbia does not support this game better, because I feel it really does fit a niche.

This is good to hear. I bought the entire WK bundle as well..

This is not terrible, if you use the variant rules you can find on this site. But it's definitely the weakest of Columbia's boardgames, and it's not close.

Which is a shame. I love all the maps. But I'm still looking for the one, minor tweak that'll take it to something I can play occasionally.