A Roundtable Discussion with MIKE SIGGINS, JOHN LEGGAT and CARL GRUBER Mod: In the interests of fair play … MS: Seems to be more like in the interests of finding someone to balance my negative opinion … Mod: Well, that may be, but, to continue … we’ve gathered together three of the more inquisitive gaming minds around today for a multi-dimensional look at GMT’s game on Japanese tactical warfare in the 16th century, Samurai. JL: The fifth volume in their “Great Battles of History” series, if I’m not mistaken. CG: And don’t forget it has six battles … MS: And six million dierolls, at least … Mod: Now, now, fellas, let’s hold on until we get the basics down pat. Ys, there are six battles: Okehazama, 4th Kawanakajima, Anegawa, Mikata-ga-hara, Nagashino, and the big one, Sekigahara. CG: And I can pronounce all of them without blinking. JL: Well, at least that’s something to put on your resumé. CG: Don’t worry, it already is. Along with my Arabic, Russian, Polish … MS: Look, folks, before we go any further, I want it clear I’m not a big GBoH fan. I enjoyed the shorter scenarios from Alexander when it first came out, but I feel the system has gone rapidly downhill ever since. With some prompting from the designer, though, I was willing to give it another chance, mostly because I like Samurai's subject matter. Mod: Well, why don’t you give us your basic position here, Mike? MS: OK. By now, you’ve either played a GBoH game and fallen in love, doomed to buy expansions, ASL-fashion forever more, or you will have sold them all to those nice people at the flea market. Samurai is, I am assured, standard GBoH with some minor tweaks, one of which I couldn't honestly discern because of the intricacies of the activation rules, and the other which sometimes takes over the action in the shape of individual combats. Thankfully, there are none of the battle line rules from SPQR which, all things considered, is a godsend. JL: Actually, the rules for Samurai are the simplest in the series, with a smoother and less complex command and combat system. Plenty of charts and tables are included to facilitate playing without endless reference to the rules book, which is always a good thing. CG: Yes, GMT is very good at that sort of thing. JL: And, there’s also a Table of Contents to help find points for clarification. Mod: I, for one, loved the boxcover. CG: I felt sorry for the poor horse. Mod: How’d you all feel about the graphic treatment of medieval Japan? MS: I don't know in how high a regard Rodger MacGowan is held these days; to me he is doing much the same formulaic stuff he was years ago … and still getting away with it. I have nothing against his style, which can certainly be, but what I question is his approach. JL: Well, I found MacGowan’s counters beautiful to look at, although they do appear to have too much information on them. I mean, look at the Busho counters … CG: Ah, Leggat-san, by Busho, of course, you mean “leaders” … JL: Yes … well, as I was saying, each Busho counter includes clan name, given name, clan ID#, initiative, combat value, stamina, and charisma ratings. That does take some getting used to. MS: Most assuredly. The counters are a mishmash of numbers, colors, codes and factors that frankly are anything but intuitive. JL: To be honest, Mike, we found that players could, eventually, remember what each of the numbers meant without looking it up. MS: Well, I thought the secret of good design was that it convey the message and the information clearly. These counters achieve neither. Granted, the designers have dictated that these figures be present, and familiarity with GBoH will greatly improve the situation, but there has to be a better way. We spent a lot of time just looking up what all the factors were, especially on the commanders. Mod. What about the game itself? Lots of people were waiting a long time for this … CG: You can say that again; there was a move to rename the game Great Battles of Godot. MS: Not me. As you can see, I’m not a great fan of the GBoH system. CG: Oh? And why not? MS: Before I answer that, let me tell you what I do like. Firstly, I think in the right situation … JL: Right situation? Is there such a thing as a right situation? MS: What I mean is a small-sized scenario, and preferably a well known battle … in that sort of situation it does a creditable job of conveying the flow of the battle, unit and weapon differentiation and no little period atmosphere. This is largely the product of some good OrBat research, but still, it’s there. This is what drew me to play and replay Alexander, with its phalanxes and skirmishers, and to give Samurai a chance. CG: Ya know, you’re right about “unit and weapon differentiation”. That’s also one of the reasons I play a lot of GBoH, and one of the reasons that I wasn’t that enamored with Samurai. All the units are the same, and the tactical match-ups are too much like those in Caesar, which I also felt had that same “same old” feeling. However, I do feel that there are some interesting compensations. MS: Perhaps. And Samurai still uses, although somewhat differently, one of the better mechanics in the system: Trumping. As a gamer in many other fields, I rather like the idea of trumping and its effect on the game. Note I do not say this is a historical benefit, just a gaming one. It keeps the game ticking over, and adds uncertainty; however, I think the same effect might be achieved in a less involved and more historical fashion. JL: Speaking of historical fashions, we found the battles we played to be most historical in outcome. We started with Fourth Kawanakajima, one of the smaller battles, and found it to be both enjoyable and balanced. CG: That’s the one in the movie “Heaven and Earth”, right? JL: I think so. Anyway, in Kawanakajima, Takeda Shingen and Uesugi Kenshin faced each other across a flat and open plain. Initially, Takeda is restricted and on the defensive as all of Uesugi’s contingents are active and in position to close with Takeda. But, Uesugi must act quickly before Takeda's help arrives. I took Takeda's forces and waited for Uesugi to make his move. It didn't take long for him to resort to one-on-one Samurai combat, but my samurai was better and I collected the first head. As the battle developed, Uesugi overextended his left flank, giving Takeda the opportunity to attack on Uesugi's left flank and send two clans packing. This is very bad for the loser as the victory points are doubled if a clan chooses to leave the battlefield. Uesugi's day went downhill from there and, after about six turns, it was clear that his army would rout before Takeda. It took us about 4 hours to play the battle, and we felt it had a high level of replayability. MS: Well, our experiences, in terms of playing time, were about the same. We played Okehazama and Mikata-ga-Hara, each taking around 45 minutes to set up and almost four hours to resolve. We each won one game, but the second battle is so unbalanced as to make this an invalid comparison. In fairness the rules clearly point this out, it was just that we were looking for the shorter games in preference. If you want to play Sekigahara, which is effectively the biggest in the box and the one most of us know, I guess you would be looking at 7 or 8 hours of play, perhaps more. Mod. 45 minutes to set up Okehazama? There are only a handful of counters on the map! MS: That may be. But the entire set-up methodology took me back to the bad old days. Popping loads of counters, scanning for factors, squinting at hex references, stacking, the time taken. As they say round these parts, purple faced, “I can't be having this". These days, it is not unusual for me to learn, teach, setup and play some boardgames in 45 minutes. Even in the historical field quick play games show where, to my mind, we have to move. Whether that is in the short, medium or longer term for the market, I really don't know, but I am there already. And waiting. CG: I don’t think anyone getting into GBoH is looking for a game that plays in 45 minutes; that’s not where GBoH is at. What they seem to want from the game is almost diametrically opposed to what you want. MS: The question I have is whether the detail “benefits” are either required or balanced by all the fuss. Doubtless this is down to personal taste, and I can see why the detail appeals, but the same could be tackled differently, using fewer counters, quicker systems and introducing the detail in compensating mechanics. All that said, my opponent for both battles enjoyed the combat more than I did. While he too hates long set up times and hundreds of counters, he is more used to miniature gaming systems, where lengthy and intricate calculations and casualty marking are common. But even he said the games were far too long for the benefit derived and questioned the realism of the command and activation systems. Mod: Essentially, then, what you’re saying is that it’s not so much Samurai that you didn’t enjoy, it’s the GBoH system, itself, that turns you off. CG: I can’t understand that … this is one of the most popular gaming systems around, and, with Samurai, you have a system that is a great deal simpler than its GBoH parents. For example, there is no defender/attacker superiority matrix, although, to be blunt, I found that very increase in simplicity one of the things that lead to the feeling of tactical “sameness” I mentioned above. MS: If you could come up with a more artificial and strained system to simulate command, I'd really like to see it. Ironically, it works as a game, but it fails to recreate period command procedures and their impact on the battle process. This, to me, feels nothing like commanding an army, and, perhaps more to the point, it rarely acts like a Samurai army being commanded. JL: What makes you say that? MS: Well, it is too flexible by half, allowing for battlefield feats that must be considered unlikely and, as a by product, spawns some of the stodgiest and incomprehensible rules I've yet had the necessity to read. CG: It does seem different from other games in the system, I’ll admit that. Each clan seems to function like its own army. You tend to fight each clan at a time and then move on to the next. Then again, with no line commands, because there are no “lines”, the battles are very chaotic. But that, to me, is what medieval Japanese warfare was like. MS: I can't be alone in finding this a nightmare of terms and play sequencing. I think the impact of the system is reduced in Alexander because of the simple linear battles, fewer units and factions and the relative unanimity of the armies. Certainly I didn't find it as onerous as in SPQR, LotN … and Samurai. Barring poor dierolls, the commanders have it way too easy. The result is battles that are driven by mainly the whim of commanders, rather than fate. JL: I disagree. I think Samurai rewards patience and maintaining formation and reaction capability as the battle progresses. This is what command is to me. Keeping a clan in reserve is essential to preventing the possible collapse of a flank, as we saw in our replay. And then there’s the game’s “X” Factor, the samurai, themselves. A good samurai can wreak havoc on an opponent, dusting a few leaders in the process. CG: Most true. The individual samurai add a totally new element to the game. When we played Kawanakajima, I, as Takeda, was having my flank driven in by one of Uesugi’s clans, so I activated a samurai, who challenged that clan’s busho … and took his head off. My Uesugi opponent was not happy, and, in retaliation, he activated one of his own samurai, drawing that Japanese seven-foot golem, Magara. Magara killed the offending samurai and, then, like Odd-Job, stomped up and down the field growling challenges to everyone within range. Things were pretty glum until I was lucky enough to draw Musashi, so it was “Sayanara Magara.” Not only do these individual samurai provide a most Homeric touch to these battles, but, as far as I know, this sort of thing happened quite regularly at that time. MS: I thought the samurai challenge rule were a mixed blessing. Good, because it generated enough interest for me to remember it above the profusion of dice rolls and factors, and because it was flavorsome. Bad because it seems to be another artificial command mechanism often used to slow troublesome units, and because this is a battle level game at heart, not a series of individual combats. Granted, they were important events but surely not to the extent, and the time, they take in the game. Mod. I must stand away from my impartial roll as facilitator here to point out that descriptions of the battles contradict that position, Mike. I suggest you take a look at both Kawanakajima and Anegawa, which contain individual samurai combats that did stop the battle right in its tracks. At least they did if you believe the Japanese narratives on these events. MS: But doesn’t that warp the focus of the game? Look at all the comment on the Internet. There is no talk of how the battles went, or how long they took, or whether the results were historical. It’s mostly how many severed heads were taken. JL: Maybe that’s what the gamers want. We found it to be highly replayable, as I said above. Mod. We seem to be running out of time, folks. Perhaps a one-line summation from each of you would help us to turn the page, as it were? How ‘bout you first, Carl? CG: Well, if you cornered me I’d say it was fun, but not as much fun as SPQR, Alex or even Lion. Great individual samurai, but too much tactical sameness. JL: I had fun playing with it, and much of what Mike said didn’t bother me as much as it did him. I think his problem is with the system, not the game itself. MS: If you insist. There is a challenge to this game system that makes me want to play it, analyze it and try to get inside the heads of the designers and fans. Why? Because as with many fields, one must know one’s enemy. Samurai is a somber game representing a unique and exciting period. With six distinct battles, Samurai delivers a good selection of commanders, troop mixes and situations. Indeed, if one were choosing the important, and interesting, combats and characters from a history book, these would be the ones selected. Sadly, it depresses me that a game system this fiddly, inelegant and archaic seems to have established itself as something of a tactical standard, yet it could be so much better. And while it is better than (Berg’s own) Command effort, if asked to play it again I'd rather have a prostate inspection. Mod. Well, there you are, folks. Someone want to hand Berg-san a wakizashi so he can proceed with his seppuku? MS: Well-earned, if you ask me. from GMT Two 22” x 34” maps (backprinted), one 17” x 22” map (backprinted); 850 counters; Rules Book, Scenario Book; Play Aid Charts; boxed. GMT Games, POB 1308, Hanford CA 93232. $42 Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 23 Table of Contents Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1995 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