Computer games, so runs the theory put about by the designers of failing boardgames, are replacing boardgames because gamers lack time and space to play the Real Thing and the kids of today (tsk tsk) are just not up to the intellectual requirements of a Wristage Wrampage. No, instead of playing loads of poorly designed barely historical snot that would kill a State Registered Bore the ignorant little toads are enjoying games that are just as inaccurate but faster, easier and capable of solitaire play. I ask you - the ungrateful wretches!

But Luddites aside computer wargaming is not the same hobby as boardgaming. It has numerous differences. Firstly, its essentially solitaire nature and its "save" capacity makes it what you play in small slabs of time, but not what you put aside a weekend for. Secondly, the designs are so bad in terms of History they might as well be an American boardgame, BUT here you can do nothing about it. At least with boardgames you can agree to fix the modifiers or play a houserule. The latter point will usually be with us in the future (though many boardgamers do not avail themselves of this freedom in practice).

With the arrival of Internet gaming the first point may weaken but I have my doubts concerning the loss of tactility. Even if the computer game does not offer the same as boardgaming it does offer much that is and will be popular and if only because of availability I must play five times more hours on a computer than on boardgames.

Solid Value

Age of Rifles demonstrates another one of the computer's strengths - solid value. This £25 game covers 48 scenarios from small Mexican-American battles to large scale divisional actions in Manchuria. Although some of the uniform and title detail is questionable much is not, AND you have a scenario design package that allows you to build (for example) Napoleonic battles as well as 1859 clashes (to name but two examples). [This is particularly useful as the uniform dollies are all there and so are normal smoke muskets]. While the ACW is represented strongly (with many battles available as separate days) the other periods that more naturally interest us are well represented. The Austro-Prussian War, colonial battles (yes Isandhlwana and Omdurman) and the Franco-Prussian War all get an appearance. Even if one or two please you will use Age of Rifles much more than most games.

The various scenarios come in three scales of Battalion, Brigade and Division level. The Mexican-American War and the Austro-Prussian have plenty of small actions, but so have other periods - the assault on Fort Wagner from Glory is an interesting experience in the Big Battle ACW. Once you have selected your scenario (there is no supporting documentation) the scrolling screen opens with you looking over the terrain (a small map in the corner orientates your area of vision to the battlefield). You can see your side but only some of the enemy. [Naughty gamers close the scenario off and check the enemy positions before restarting tsk tsk]. A master-map will shows you unit positions and Victory Points hexes (marked with Flags). Victory arises from taking Flags while optimising losses. You play your move, the computer will move your opponents pieces (although you can do two-player and e-mail versions) and then sorts out the mess. Combat and moving all occurs with jolly little animations as the units get shot, splatted and leg it for the frontier.

Movement

Movement is achieved by drag-and-drop with the cursor showing the cost of each move (in a yellow colour where the unit is tiring). Fire is achieved by targeting with the cursor and the colour of the icon shows the range. The units look like rather jolly stands of figures - they do not look like the real units at all, and their uniforms can be very effectively rendered on both the icon and on the larger view that appears on the unit layout. This layout allows facing and formation to be covered as well as checking status. The further a unit is from its commander the slower it gets and the less quickly it recovers from fatigue, but this aside they obey your every whim and never do any of the things real units do (although you get Balaklava you will not suffer a Charge). Although there are a few things to learn most of the play is intuitive and you set off learning which formations to use and not to trust empty woods (they aren't!).

The game teaches you not to hang about in open spaces, but given the length of its time frame - 1846 to 1905- the feel of combat can be very different. [Although Dave Fox questions whether it is different enough]. Musketry in the Sikh Wars is not very effective, and a good columnar attack is best. Units seem not to react to cavalry approaching and riding round a unit to attack its rear is possible. I have not quite grasped the Zen of forcing a line post-1870 but I suspect that unless your artillery can beat you a path you need columns still. To be frank there are too many questions as to underlying accuracy to get too excited.

The computer strengths of hidden movement and no calculations are evident, but so is the brainless quality of some of the design which owes a lot to very old game concepts. Because each unit/stack moves and fights before the next unit/stack you can chuck any number of assaults into one target providing they run out of the way for the next man in the queue.

There is no feel of real time. This permits the fast counter-punching on one spot to breach a line. This can favour the attack but fear not because the whole issue of morale is woefully unfinished. Units never retire because they are flanked or they colleagues have broken. Indeed combat is determined entirely in the realm of weight of fire on target. You winkle these babies one-by-one.

The "morale decision" when the French column confronts the English line is determined by fire, not by morale, in this game. While this is saddening it is really no different from many popular boardgames where the micro-elements of combat are used to give the result. We are still a long way from having games that reflect the behaviour of crowds, but I can hardly blame Age of Rifles for not noticing this.

Scenarios

The scenarios do not appear to me to be balanced, which is not in itself a problem. You can try each side and do so at increasing levels of skill for the computer player. And to really help you can run the whole thing as two computer players (bit of benchmarking possible here). The quality of the Artificial Intelligence looked spotty, but without grasping the whole position (which the excellent Fog of War prevents) one is always a bit careful about giving a harsh opinion. The Computer is no worse than many gamers I have played against. It is faster, but its conversation leaves much to be desired.

What alternatives exist for the subject matter of the game? Well the ACW is covered in depth (and width) but the others topics less so, and some (Peru vs Chile) by no-one. If your poison is Great Battles of the American Civil War I think you will find the game very presentable, if a little alarming as enemy divisions pop up as you breast the hill. If you like the rather more nerve-wracking games like Bloodiest Day where everything seems to be open to horrible die rolls leaving you in a permanent tizzwoss then you will find Age of Rifles more relaxing. In its sheer range it is quite astonishing and I think good value. Do, however, recognise its weaknesses and that you may not be able to take it for long if you are keen on the topic.

The scenario-design engine permits you to set up terrain, reinforcements, uniforms and weapons. Manly Dave Fox has been fiddling in the sprite boxes and produced some Sioux on Dope according to his last e-mail. This area may never be used by most of us but the temptation just to test the system on (say) Les Quatre-Bras would be strong. (And I must just check that book on Maiwand). One must recognise that this overcomes many of the physical limits to game design (though not the key one of total laziness)

Comparing the game to other computer stuff is less easy for me, but I found its range and general performance ahead of Fields of Glory (but the artillerymen still had their moments, like when unlimbering forgetting where to face). I have not played the Talonsoft games, but may try to lig a copy.

On the historical front there is a lot of rubbish, but some good moments too. Clearly the ACW work is better than the other - European - subjects but that is not to denigrate the latter. I greatly enjoyed the Austro-Prussian series. Mars-La-Tour is terribly bad as the real topic with no where near enough French and far too many Germans, but then simulating that battle is going to be beyond most designers ability, and certainly beyond this game. Froeschwiller though is very exciting indeed (but crashes with boring regularity).

As a good return for one's mazzoomah I recommend Age of Rifles, now that computer games have swapped places with boardgames in the cost league it represents good play value if indifferent historical value.