Andrezj Cierpicki
After time out for study (I foolishly decided I wanted to become a chartered arbitrator) I am back in circulation and playing wargames. After a nearly a year of no gaming (well hardly any) in the last month I have played Molotov's War (quite a subtle game, marred only by poorly executed rules), SS Panzer (well it looked pretty), Machiavelli (great fun), Eagles (a clever but nonetheless enjoyable way to make one part with one's money) plus a couple of games of DBM (I have at last managed to control my Poles sufficiently to successfully dick the Teutonic knights).
PA 91 had an article on Austerlitz 1805 (Vae Victis #2) for which I would be grateful for a copy of your translation (my school-boy French would be sorely taxed if I had to translate it). If there isn't enough in the kitty I'll send you a cheque to top it up. You can send it e-mail if that's convenient. In return I have English translations of Tunisie 1943 VV#1, Marignan 1515 VV#3, Belisaire VV#5 and Fontenoy 1745 VV#6, (picked up off the Internet and modified a bit) if you would like copies. I can also offer you translations of the Polish wargames by Dragon (dragoon to you) of Grunwald 1410 (aka Tannenberg) and Wieden 1683 (Jan Sobieski defending Christendom [CHV: Bleedin' Catholics - I hate 'em all] at the gates of Vienna). I bought them last year whilst on holiday in Krakow, I would have picked up a few more but for limited luggage space. Which of their games have you acquired?
Notwithstanding your luke warm review of Friedland (and with fond memories of the old Imperial Games version...which, if I am not mistaken, I bought from you) I got myself a copy at the local wargame store. I also couldn't resist parting with a fistfull of dollars for a copy of Los Arapiles - beautiful but will I (or anyone else) ever play it?
If you would like a copy of the translated rules for either of the Polish games, let me know...it will encourage me to sit down for an evening and translate them!
CHV: Watch out there's an enthusiast about! Well I purchased Grunwald, Weiden and Kircholm (the last of these because it demonstrates the all-conquering Swedes getting a good kicking). I found the Los Arapiles counters oddly unpleasant. Bit like the torsos of the troops after torture by guerrillas.
David "Fragil" Fox
Just got my copy of PA 92- thanks for the kind mention therein. Looks like my record is 1-1 in fanboy magazines- kudos from you vs. the usual acidic surliness from Command. Guess whose opinion I value higher ?
A very good issue, too, with plenty to chuckle over. 'Fraid that I agree with Mr. Thomas about The Legend Begins-- a good, solid game, which falls short of greatness due to a few lamentable lapses. If Mark Simonitch was able to spend any time with it, I think he could easily fix the glitches, but he's too busy raking in the dough in Baltimore. (CHV: Funny, I thought he was working for Avalon Hill) [ED: That joke was first heard on the Light Programme in 1953]
Some interesting stuff about The King's Bore which I did not know. Imagine my surprise when I see that it ain't an original game, but a third edition retread of a tired old design that's been hanging around for years (just kidding). As far as the map goes, I am afraid that Brother Wimble is at the mercy of his marketing-- the US audience is so accustomed to COA's fancy Rick Barber La Bataille maps, that anything less glitzy would pall before their eyes. A blanker white map might work better, but Ed just cannot get away with publishing anything like that any more. And you're right-- we yankees badly need a road map, as I had have to conceed a game to any Englishman just because I cannot find half of the villages on the map. [CHV: Truly, God loves a cheerful giver. If a man will not study the ground over which he fights then, by God sir! he may expect to be undone sir!].
One of the problems with The '45 here across the pond is that for most Americans, their only experience with the campaign is John Prebble's execrable book, Culloden, that volume-full of highland propaganda. I read myself as a wee lad, cheering the guys in skirts and thinking "what a great battle, why has not anyone done a game on it ?" then just read it again last year and thought it was awful, particularly after the excesses of Braveheart. So to most of us a game that favours the jocks seems right on target.
[CHV: The problem with Myth-as-Game is that one has to get the answer right or the gamer feels cheated. Italy winning World War Two excites universal criticism, and Italian surprise, for example. So while the Tartan Terrors may fan the flames of our Kiltie Krew they have to be capable of defeat at Culloden and thereby hangs the problem.]
As far as SPI goes, you'll notice that I really did not get many responses [CHV: Dave raised the question on AOL of why SPI failed as it seems to be put down to everything from Global Warming to lower sperm counts, although my money is on the latter]. It seems to me that people like Dean [Essig] and Tyrone-Marie pick one facet of their demise, say "A-ha, this is it !" and use it to justify a marketing decision which they've already made anyway.
Théophile Monnier
I just received the latest Perfidious Albion and I must say that I was very pleased with your comments on Fontenoy. Regarding the play balance of the game, you are entirely right about everything. In fact, we had a very short time to test this game because the whole design was a mess and the editorial staff (in this case Stratigos and me) had to rewrite and redesign the whole game in a very short time. Producing a game every two months is a lot of work and whenever the author is not top quality, we have to go through a painful process of doing everything by ourselves, and too often at the last moment.
Nearly all readers of Vae Victis were quickly aware of this balance problem but, amazingly, Fontenoy is probably our most successful game: it is widely played in conventions and tournaments. I received a lot of letters to congratulate us and also to propose many additions to the game system and, also, issue No 6 is our best seller! By the way issue 7 presents a page of additional rules for Fontenoy, which make the game more balanced. Once again, it shows that a simple but ingenious game, very well presented, easy to set up and play, is the key to success....
CHV: Well Fontenoy is all of those things but it is also wonderfully true to its topic. Even if one knows one will not break the French line this does not stop one trying. The symmetry of the period, and its delightful uniforms all contribute to a willingness to consider the game. Richard Berg and Ulrich Blennemann have argued against this triumph of atmosphere arguing it costs too much. Hah! What is great cooking without fresh ingredients, and only the best ingredients! [Ed: look out readers he's been at the sauce again.....]. And let us be very honest. Confronted with playing a Fontenoy version of Oudenarde rather than the Wristage Wrampage from El Bergo how many people are going to play the latter? Play, Richard, not buy.
Lord Arthur Saville
Actually, the best line from Origins was at 1:30 am Saturday morning, with Mark Herman playing Ted Raicer in Fateful Lightning. Ted is the Rebs, and he puts down two blank counters way up in the north-east corner of the map.
Mark, working on his fourth vodka & tonic, asks "What're thoshe ?"
And Ted says, "One's a brigade of cavalry, and one's a dummy. You guess which one." At that point I realised that my night was truly complete and went to bed.
CHV: Drinking tonic with vodka, gad sir the man's a blister! Never would have happened in my time.
Benedict Wilkins
In addition to the Great Question of "If the Spanish were so bad, how come they won at Nordlingen" what about "If tercios were so awful how did Great Captains such as Alba and Parma become.......Great". I certainly get the impression that tercios are largely ignored by the wargaming community in Britain, maybe it is something to do with our "thin red line" heritage. There is also the attitude that tercios and reiters were swept away by young, sexy trendies like Maurice, Gustavus and Rupert so they must have been ineffective.
This conveniently overlooks not only Nordlingen but a century of dominance that these weapons system had. The sometimes encountered belief that this was because nobody was bright enough to see that they were inherently duff is I think best ignored. Mind you, I would still like to find out how a tercio really operated on the battlefield and what degree of tactical articulation it had. I find Delbruck's 16th century conclusions not as useful as some of his analysis of the battles of antiquity.
I noticed your comments on Lion of the North. This title promised much but is pretty horrible to play (although it does look good) and a sad disappointment after Alexander and SPQR. There are also a set of miniatures rules by Neil Danskin called Lion of the North. Although a little mechanical for my taste they are refreshing with their concentration on command control, doctrine and morale rather than the ironmongery the figure is carrying.
CHV: Well, Alba and Parma seldom had to command a tercio in battle, but mainly because their opponents (who had not had the "advantage" of reading Oman or Roberts) wisely kept a strong earth bank between themselves and the Black Legions.
Tim Cockitt
I had an amazing weekend trip to the Continent with Paddy Griffith. We met with Peter Hofschroer at Valmy. (CHV: I bet you did not miss the chance to say "Hier schlagen wir nicht" in the finest traditions of the House of Brunswick). Had a full day at Verdun, then moved on to Sedan. Verdun is a extraordinary (and deeply tragic) place to visit. As well as the classic locations - Fort Douamont, Fort Vaux, Driant's command post, Paddy had the bright idea of visiting one of the forts on the West bank of the Meuse, we looked at Bois Bourrus. The West Bank forts were shelled, but not assaulted, so you get a clear idea of what the forts were like before several tons of ordnance were directed upon them.
CHV: ...never mind about the military stuff, what of the fine wines? the food? Sounds bitching Tim, I have never visited any of the Great War sites (unless you count Scarborough and Hartlepool oik oik) but Verdun was such a key place that I must do so. For here France ceased (but we knew it not then) to be a great military power. The Somme for all its unmanning of our generals did not affect Britain (as a naval power) in the same way. It has also benefited from Alistair Horne's mixture of history and reportage. I remember the words of a mother to her son killed at Verdun - "Since your eyes closed my son, mine have never ceased to fill with tears".
Ian Drury
I ran a revised version of FOE at COW (that's enough acronyms -- ED) (CHV: hang on, he's bleedin' editing his own letters!) which incorporated a number of changes. Tweaked breakthrough rules permitting more fluidity on western front in 1914 saw the Germans storm their way to the gates of Paris (at an appalling cost).
COW thoroughly useful tho' numbers spiralling downwards. Mike Siggins' ears may have been burning Friday night when his yellow journalism was discussed in robust terms. (Note to self: remember to actually play any game I propose to savage in the press).
CHV: What a vision of horror - the Men In Beards stamping their little feet and convincing themselves (who know this to be true) that they are men more sinned against than sinning. What has the Sumoid done to raise the wrath of The Bearded Ones? In one of the figure magazines he pointed out the futility of matrix games. Sadly for the Hirsute Horde the yokuzuna has played matrix games and played them with Wargames Developments elite convention team (Liebstandarte Arfur Harmann) so that's an apology due I think, and write "I must not talk to people who read the Nogget" two thousand times.
David Heath
Even before I read M. Monnier's riposte I felt, then, that the reviews gave a good idea of what is in the game box with rather strange opinions and conclusions. I think of The King's War game review as it seemed to illustrate this point quite well. This is, I suppose NOT straight reviewing at all, more an inventory such as one finds on the back of the game box. I have always imagined that gamers judge new releases by continual comparison of what is said and written and who or what magazine is touting such an opinion. As I believe I stated before, French tastes,(as expressed in Vae Victis) are not in line with my ideas on gaming, and perhaps not with many other readers either. Let's just remember that in issue Nr.2 the review team, given the chance to chose two games to take onto a desert island, would chose GMT's Deluxe Alexander and, "ASL of course". (CHV: Whereas the elite PA team chose Francoise Dorleac and Catherine Deneuve).
I taught English as a foreign language for nearly ten years, and I tried to find some misused idiom, or common errors in writing to excuse the fellow, but I am afraid I was unsuccessful, and M. Monnier's reply to four simple questions was garbled and contradictory. If he likes the games he says he likes, (para 2), and thinks that your game is a good simulation by these criteria, (beginning para 3), then he should state clearly that he thinks the rules are badly written. I have not seen the CoA edition and could have accepted this type of criticism.
I also felt that his comment on the need for diplomatic rules -EVEN IF IT'S NON HISTORICAL, was pretty sad coming from the editor of a magazine that claims to be the journal of historical gaming. I do understand his point on the French culture theme, I had the pleasure of living in France for a year, and I can fully appreciate that his public may genuinely prefer topics with a Gallic interest. (CHV: Like Gettysburg for example). I would suggest, however, that a nations wargaming culture is not tied to the nations involved in the wargames we play. The Eastern front in WWII seems quite popular in America without any US present, and many British figure gamers seem quite content with ancient wargames with no Anglo-Saxon content.
My overall gut-reaction to his reply was also sadness. Sadness because I had hoped that this "fresh approach" to boardgaming could possibly overcome the trashy commercial side of the hobby as regards subjects for marketing. Sadness because Monnier either would not, (or worse still) was incapable of, admitting to having arrived at mistaken conclusions at the very least.
CHV: Ah but we forgive him because when all is said and done he is Achilles. (It's a Christopher Logue quote Siggins before you accost me).
Craig Ambler
I received the copy of Flowers of the Forest as ordered, I have played it several times already and found it very good. A good historical game, I always use Rule 13 i.e. with orders. As designed the game plays very quickly and there is no problem in playing two over a short evening.
I have made two slight alterations to the game. The first concerns morale and the second pikes. The morale rule is the biggest. As the initial rule plays I found that the dice played too big an influence, if a 8, 9 or 10 is thrown most of the column will become shaken only 1 or 2 may keep morale and this is not normally the case in combat as the higher morale troops may have been killed fighting in the front ranks. The way I have changed the rule is to thrown for each band in the column individually, this allows more units to stand (hopefully). The advantage with the rule is that unit morale fails less quickly and tension is raised (in my opinion) as units near the rout threshold. The disadvantages as I see them are the obvious need to thrown more dice, and game balance.
Throwing more dice is never a great idea, but at least in this context the result is very quickly found, no need to look up numerous modifiers. The matter of balance is not as easily dealt with though. As the initial rules stand the Scots are very brittle and tend to rout fairly quickly especially the smaller units. But with my change the Scotch stand longer, and so balance is altered as the Scotch have more chance of holding out until the end of the game and winning if they have equal units left. At the moment I have not done anything about this. The interesting rule concerning victory is that the Scots have to fight because at the start they have fewer units and need to defeat English units.
(CHV: This will have the effect you mention Craig but it will jigger the effect I was aiming for which is that large bodies of men break in an aperiodic fashion, not to mention making the time-kill ratios go out of whack. Reality is closer to my rough grained method - which is deliberate, whereas yours assumes a level of training that is wrong for the battle).
The other rule concerns pike in that I do not allow the Scots to discard them until after the first round of combat. In hindsight the best thing for the Scots to do is immediately throw down their pikes and get out their swords, as they have more chance against the English bills. I do not like this and make them see sense only after they have suffered a bit. I do not think this rule alters anything too much. (CHV: The reason the Scots would never throw away their pikes before combat - as long as they were moving - is that it would cost them a free Morale Test on the English via Pike Fright, if, however, they were caught at rest then Stuart Reid's evidence is that they would throw them away. So I would not restrict them in this fashion).
Unfortunately at the same time as I received Flowers of the Forest I also went and bought Hannibal. I am sorry to say that at the moment I feel this to be a waste of money and effort. The game is the sister to We The People, and uses the same basic card system. That is to say you have strategy cards which allow movement or the use of the event on it, and battle cards which are used in battles. The events include such things as reinforcements, Hannibal charming Italy, alliances, treachery, and campaigns for examples. As they stand the cards are very good, but I do not think this system works with this subject.
The main problem is play balance, in the six games I have played the Roman won them all easily. Whether they won them early or later was solely dependent on when Hannibal was defeated or lost too many men. I realise that some readers may stop reading now and think I am off my head, due to they having the opposite results, but I think not. I do not see how Carthage can win the game fairly often. I would love to get suggestions to show me I am wrong.
The problem for Carthage is that to win Hannibal must fight the Romans and defeat them heavily, that means cause more than 5 casualties, whereas the Romans only need to kill two Carthaginians in Italy. Why the respective figures, because this is the number of reinforcements both sides receive per turn, Hannibal's army becomes small very quickly if things go against him. Of course you can say this is very accurate, Hannibal could not afford to lose which is quite true, unfortunately he cannot really afford to win big victories in the game either. At the moment the loser of battles loses Political Control of areas to the number of half his battle losses, this is not enough.
After Trebbia and Trasimene men flocked to Hannibal army, after Cannae many towns switched sides including Capua, in the game this does not happen. Hannibal's problem is that his army is small and will probably always stay small, whereas Rome can risk battles and eventually get lucky and win. Of course Hannibal may received reinforcements from the events or from overseas, but in practice these means are very difficult.
Firstly the event cards may not be received at all, the Romans may get them. Secondly the Carthaginians reinforcements have to placed on a leader in specific provinces (unlike the Romans, who only need to control the province), unfortunately these areas are either in Northern or Southern Italy, and you may not be able to get there. Thirdly you may need to use the card to move, you cannot do both. Getting troops from overseas is also very risky. If they come by sea they may be sunk, depending on where you came from and are going to, and to whom you are allied to for example. If you come overland from Spain you will suffer attrition crossing the Alps, more if the army is to be of any use size wise. Unfortunately, or fortunately if you consider the above, armies are required in both Spain and Africa, and the Carthaginians need to keep armies in both countries to stop Roman incursions, and so are unable to send too many reinforcements across to Italy. By the way with Rome having control of the seas they can land anywhere quite safely, it's tough being Carthage.
I think the fundamental reason the game does not work is the card system. Whereas in We The People would could see the rationale behind the card system in Hannibal I cannot. The effect of the card system is that because Hannibal gets Celtic reinforcements in Italy it may mean that Hasdrubal will not move in Spain. In two fairly unconnected, in the sense of communication, theatres of campaign moves in one country directly affects what happens in another. It worked in We The People, but to my mind does not here. I could accept this if it resulted in a good close game, but I do not feel that it does.
After all this I have to accept that the components are up to the high standards of Avalon Hill, the cards are well designed and drawn, and the map is once again excellent. It also gives a quick game, in fact sometimes a bit too quick. Unfortunately the game seems not to be quite finished yet, and I think it needs more thought put into it.
I hope that my comments on both games are taken in good light, as they are offered. But I suppose I should stand ready for the reply from America.
I quite agree within your review of Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies by Brent Nosworthy it is an excellent book. I remember looking at it several weeks ago, and decided not to get it just yet, but upon seeing your review I went out and got it and was pleasantly surprised. The book is an excellent study of Napoleonic warfare, and is a good source of information for rule makers. In fact I am moving away from some of my quite rooted ideas of Napoleonic warfare. I have just recently acquired Firepower by B P Hughes, and these two books are giving me food for thought. I am quite well read in the Napoleonic Period but my impression of combat is being changed dramatically. The area of change is in the infantry charge to melee, I have always known that hand to hand was rare, now my ideas of why are changing. For years I accepted the rule of unit charges - defender runs or stands - defender fires stops column or not. Now I see that the attacking column may actually not charge home but neither may they be broken but it may join in a firefight that could in fact go on for quite a long period of time. This does not seem to be all to do with morale either. Very interesting. I will have to think of some rules for this.
CHV: I am holding my fire on Hannibal but I will note that the ability to use every card is not, in my view, an improvement on the We The People system but may be more popular with traditional gamers. But good bad or indifferent from the historical point it is a Hobby Good Thing.
Chris Janiec
While I do not always agree with your opinions, they are certainly thought-provoking. I confess I have a little trouble following your argot and inside jokes some times, but Berg loses me sometimes as well. (CHV: Because amateur magazines require their editor to work for peanuts he gets to monkey around Chris. What must be a very considerable culture shock for our American cousins is that PA does not believe in consensus. Like some latter day Sejm everyone (except Chris Russell) gets to have his say without any requirement that he "toe the Party line". How else would Andy Daglish ever get printed?)
I certainly do not share your aversion to The Gamers Civil War Brigade Series. It recreates grand tactical action of the period reasonably well, and the games do not take too long to play if you roll all the dice for each attack at once as recommended. (CHV: Chris, what is "too long", Manly Dave Fox feels a good six hours is about right, that is a "session" in my argot, I prefer three hours. I submit that you could achieve all that the system does in that time if it were tighter, but then my experience of it comes from the awful Austerlitz which does not in my view simulate Napoleonic tactics.) The system is not that hard to learn; a half-dozen turns will suffice if it is new to both of you, less if your opponent is experienced. And once learned it carries over well to nine other games, with more in the pipeline! At least for me, the games are worthwhile investments of time and money.
I played The King's War in Hong Kong with my long-time gaming friend, and enjoyed it very much although it is much longer than three hours and we did not finish. True, it was our first play and my opponent is one who ponders long looking for the perfect move. It is a good system though (our thoughts run in parallel and I developed some of the same mechanisms in a Napoleonic game I am working on) and I look forward to more play in the future.
CHV: Playing times are personal of course but I can knock out scenarios in just over two hours, three if one is very slow. The dreamy types do need to have a chess clock inflicted on them though. Some folks have even played the campaign game which is toooooo much! But as I noted elsewhere this is my kinda game (Chicago is...) and I might be expected to better at it then bumbling my way through a Great Bergs of History game.
Daniel Thorpe
Just a note to let you know that Flowers of the Forest made it out to the Wet Coast of Canada safe and sound, for which many thanks. Also must congratulate you on what a nice job Vasey & Family did on the production values. With PCs and colour inkjet printers as common as they are, I was expecting a coloured map and nice printing, but not a stapled rules book, heavy stock charts and counters, and a tabloid sized mapsheet with no taping. A bargain at £10 - GMT and the Gamers had better watch out!
This system looks intriguing. Given the simplicity of medieval tactics, I think a low counter density approach (on the map, at least!) is the way to go, with the emphasis on weapons types and command where you put it. Speaking of the latter, Berg's (now very) venerable Hastings 1066 for S&T had some interesting command mechanics in that Medieval considerations of honour and impatience affected what commands your leaders actually adopted (not necessarily the ones you want). Did you consider something similar for Flowers, or were these leaders a bit more in control of themselves?
Canada's heritage (being settled by Scots) will come in handy when I have a chance to play this thing against an opponent, as a couple of friends who claim proud Celtic ancestries are ready to trounce me (so long as I take the Sassenach [non sheep-stealing] side). In the meantime, though, I am taking my rucksack and boarding a plane for Ireland where I should be spending the next couple of weeks tramping around the Kerry Peninsula. I'll bother you with my experiences when I have some two-sided games to report. In the meantime, best of luck with the rest of the series. (I assume there will be another - Bannockburn, Agincourt...?)
CHV: Glad you liked it, we are trying to demonstrate game-kits have just as good physical quality as the pro stuff. The tactics are simple at Flodden because the Scots had a new weapon system, and their armour had removed the advantage of the English bows. I had thought of subtitling it "A short game about killing"! Some of the different views of honour can be found in the Leader Order chart, Home is exactly the sort of cautious fellow that left him one of the few survivors and, from memory, he was strung up for cowardice (or surviving which might be the same but explains why there are no Scots' Vaseys). I find Richard's style a little too Hollywood for me, he manages to avoid Bravefart levels but these are not periods with which he is simpatico.
Your Celtic chums will find themselves notably underrepresented as the Scots are the real Norse-Saxon mixture that forms the better part of this small (but perfectly-formed) Kingdom (with due apologies to the Kingdom of Fife). I had not considered a follow-on although Mike Siggins is bullying me into the Italian Wars, and Gareth Simon suggested a Burgundian battle. The problem with Bannockburn is that we really do not know where it was fought, although it does have greater interest than, say, Falkirk. Whatever it is rest assured it will have banners (and lots of 'em).
Back to Perfidious Albion #93 Table of Contents
Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1996 by Charles and Teresa Vasey.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com