As much as any other company, XTR is highly aware of which way the consumer winds are blowing …at least in terms of their consumers. For the past 2 or 3 years, XTR, through its popular magazine, “Command”, has been serving up a fairly steady diet of competition-oriented games that used similar mechanics to both allow players to get started quickly and to allow XTR to maintain a high level of quality control. As readers of BROG you know that we viewed this approach as one where overview, rather than insight, reigned, a homogenization of systems geared to playability as opposed to curiosity. We also noted that some of the games were quite successful at what they did, as well as being aware that such as Cortés, et al., drifted away somewhat from the Krim-like mainstream. XTR’s own magazine game survey appears to reflect this, as the top-rated games, with one or two exceptions, are those that allowed familiarity to achieve accessibility. The more experimental systems, such as Kadesh (which fared much better the second time it was rated), Like Lions, et al., fared less well. Tangentially, we see that of the 28 games listed, only six improved their Overall ratings the second time subscribers voted (not an unusual phenomenon), and, of those six, only Kadesh showed a gain that could be called dramatic. (It jumped from 28th - last - place - to 7th!!) On the downslide, though, was the rather depressing Port Arthur, which lost more than 20% of its popularity. Someone must have actually tried to play it. All this information, however, appears to have been given an interesting interpretive slant in the Halls of St. Luis Obispo. A look at their upcoming schedule for the next 12 issues shows a remarkable preponderance of two-map, 1000 counter monster games. These are not for retail sale, XTR having dropped their zip-lock line, but for their subscribers. And the games that retain the basic magazine-size format appear to be somewhat more experimental than previously seen, each SS Panzer balanced by a Yarmuk. (Nice to see someone paying attention to the Rise of Islam.) Even more interesting is the news that the non-gaming portion of “Command” is hitting the Info Hiway and will be available through the Internet… a great idea that could help widen our rather tenuous grasp on the populace’s attention span. It appears as if the last corporate board meeting must have been a real humdinger!! Nowhere is this abrupt tack to the starboard more evident than in the latest issue of Command (#31) and its accompanying game on Bunker Hill. Boy, I bet the Cult of Krim is unpacking that nerve gas even as we speak, because this is a game so unlike what one usually gets in “Command” that the reactions to it have run the gamut from “Attaboy and Viva!!” to “Anathema, Anathema … heat the faggots and let’s burn some heretics.” I, for one, think it’s great stuff, and, if the game is ultimately frustrating, it’s not for lack of creativity. If you’ve been holding back dipping into the Obispo Pool because the idea of playing yet another game that looks just like the previous one brings on an attack of hives, I think this is one issue of Command you should definitely try. The Battle of Bunker Hill is not one of the highpoints in American Military History, despite the best efforts of the Adams Family Spin Doctors to turn bad news into good. True, Howe’s army took a beating, but this could possibly have been the worst bunch of bozos ever disguised as an American military force. About the only training film these neo-Americans ever saw was the scene from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”, where the attacking troops are exhorted to “Run Away!!” as a battlefield command, because the only thing that the rebels do well is to Retreat. And that, fellow gamers, makes for one difficult design process. Has anyone noticed the recent slippage in “Command’s” graphics? The last three issues, including the present one, look like nothing less than throwbacks to the ‘70s, although none of the recent issues even approaches the minimalist aberrations plaguing the maps for Fateful Lightning. I am a big fan of Beth Queman; unfortunately, that enthusiasm does not fully extend to her maps. Yes, the BH map is clear and readable… but so is “Run Spot Run”. Lacking any graphic sophistication, it is devoid of any evocation of either period or place, resembling nothing so much as a rather quickly done playtest version. The counters are more interesting, with unusual fonts. However, the soft, chalk-like colors chosen would appear more apropos to an upscale bistro than to a war game. Yes, the Brits icons are red, but that is counter-balanced by the rebel icon that appears to show some local Minuteman preparing to shoot himself in the foot. Luckily, it’s all quite serviceable in terms of playability. But I do think the XTR Triad should take a closer look at what they’ve been flashing lately. As for the game itself, one has only to compare this Bunker Hill to the sorry specimen in DG’s Rebels & Redcoats (discussed herein) to understand the workings and ramifications of creativity. Designer William Marsh, who appears to have traversed the battlefield far more times than the actual participants, is fully intent on doing something rarely seen in “Command” games: he wants to let you see “Why”. And, given the course of the actual battle, succeeding in that area is no mean feat. Even within a fairly basic Igo-Hugo play sequence, Mr. Marsh is intent on giving us more, much more. With the map scale at 35 yards, turns covering 10 minutes, and unit Stacking Points at 25 men per, we’re heavily into tactics here. Add to that microscope slide the fact that the two “armies” are totally different. The British, except for their Grenadiers and Lights, are highly Frederickian in their linear approach, while, with the Americans, it’s typically every man for himself. The latter factor is represented by some interesting, albeit understandable, stacking rules, while the morale ratings - those of the Brits run about double that of the Americans - pretty much separates the professionals from the amateurs. Thrown in that the British are fairly well led, as compared to an almost useless bunch of capos for the rebels, and it’s not hard to tell which side you’re playing here. Some of the Americans are so “bad” that, for the most part, the only movement they will make in the entire game will be retrograde. Interestingly enough, that’s when they turn dangerous. The basic system will be pretty familiar to anyone who has played musket-era tactical games: move-and-fire, taking return fire while you approach, and then, if you so wish, the Grand Old Melee. The twisty hook that Marsh applies, though, is with the extensive Reaction rules. Command has decided to make the Reaction rules “optional”; our suggestion is that you make them sine qua non, for, without them, the gamer is dumber than a Jim Carrey film festival. On the other hand, this is where Command’s Krim Corps is going to start howling in pain. Each unit has a six-hex Reaction Range. Any unit moves within any of those (rather wide spread of) hexes can React, and that means the phasing player stops while the non-phasing player goes … unit by individual unit. I think we first saw this sort of thing in the old GDW game, Torgau, which everyone professed to be fascinated by but no one could bring themselves to play. Here, there are far less counters, and the Reaction system is not quite the free-for-all we saw in Torgau. Reaction may consist of fire or movement, and, for the rebels, Reaction is about the only way they get to move their units. Each stationary unit can react only once, but, while there are some limits and restrictions therein, virtually all American movement is going to be during the British turn! This is not as “weird” as it would initially appear, as it reflects the very amateurish American leadership, giving us an army that Reacts, rather than Acts. It also gives the rebel player many difficult decisions to make, as he must decide whether he should stick around and take advantage of all the walls and fences … and his deadly “whites of their eyes” fire capability, or move rearward, delaying the King’s Inexorable Fighting Machine from reaching its appointed victory conditions. Throw into this mix a rather neat rule that not only provides the American player with even more interesting decisions, but forces him to play the game with a rather pervasive “Great Cooga Mooga Gemme Outa Here” mentality: the General Retreat. At some point in the game - and deciding just when is not only most important but a great tension-inducing moment - the American may declare a General Retreat. What this does is remove the lack-of-command restrictions hamstringing virtually all their troops. allowing them to move at will. Then again, they can only move back towards Boston; they cannot conduct any form of offensive. But because they have the capability to Fire and Move Away as part of Reaction, a General Retreat gives them a fluidity far greater they had at the start of the battle. The problem is you can’t do it too soon, as it gives the Brits too much time to regroup - “eliminated” units, as well as units out of ammo, can be brought back into play, albeit with some difficulty … a nice touch here. Aside from the difficulty of undertaking a fighting withdrawal, it can be a very frustrating position to play. Add to this the fact that the Reaction rules produce their own share of frustration - the turn is very herky jerky, and there is no reaction to melee, which creates some highly anomalous situations wherein 1 or 2 British units can shock their way down, and through, an American line like demented Pac Men - and you have a game where the system is probably superior to the situation. For me, that was not that much of a problem, although I did have a nagging feeling that some of the game mechanics could have been done a bit more elegantly, and many of the rules were jury-rigged to ensure that the battle followed its historical flow. That’s piddling stuff, though, compared to the overall effect of what is really a very nice, small-battle tactical system, a much more dignified and learned descendant of that used in Hougoumont. As we all agreed, we’d really like to see this system pop up for one of the more “normal”, small battles of the Revolution, such as Cowpens or Eutaw Springs. Capsule Description Graphic Presentation: We’ve seen better. Playability: Somewhat unusual system and interwoven reaction mechanics make for some frustration, although nothing is overly difficult. Replayability. Too channeled to bear repeated playings. Creativity: Lots, and well applied. Historicity: Very high - perhaps too much so - although most of it insightful.. Wristage: Acceptable. Comparisons: Very little at this scale, but easily the most insightful of pure linear musket-era tactical games. Overall: Most intriguing, most insightful, but rather frustrating in pure “play” terms. Still and all, worth a good look. from XTR/Command One 22” x 34” map; 178 diecut counters; rulesbook. Supplement to Command #32. For subscriber info, call 1-800-488-2249. Tell ‘em BROG sent ya. Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 17 Table of Contents Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1993 by Richard Berg This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com