Well Charles, I picked up a copy of Gettysberg 1863 from Six Angles and see why you spoke so highly of it. This is an excellent game that is worth every penny. A 'keeper' for sure. Now all I need to find is a copy of Hohenlinden 1800. Here are a few comments on the games that I have played in the last few months. It includes quite a bit of WW2 East Front stuff, sorry.
Caseros 1852 (Simulations Workshop).
A game on a little known, indeed one might even say obscure, battle from the Civil War in Argentina. The counters are excellent and similar in style to those one might find between the pages of Vae Victis. Sadly the map resembles the type of thing Excalibre Games were doing in the late seventies through this does not prohibit play. These components actually look as if they are from two different games. The rules are nicely done and feature an historical background to. They are well organised and quite short, as this is a simple game. The system used has elements from both Fontenoy 1745 (Vae Victis) and Ivy Street Games Cedar Mountain / Williamsburg titles which are very good indeed. I must confess I was quite looking forward to playing this game.
The sequence of play starts with artillery fire potentially inflicting disruption results on enemy units within range. Both players artillery units resolve fire in this phase via a die roll. The operations phase follows and chits are drawn allowing the relevant formation to move and resolve combat. The last chit remaining in the pool is not played. There is no CRT; combat is resolved via a die roll with modifiers. Retreats, disruptions and routs may result with two disruptions equalling a rout. The Operations Phase does give the game an enjoyable element of chaos. A game turn finishes with the Rally Phase. A die roll with modifiers also resolves this. As you may already have guessed, there is a modest degree of computer looping involved.
Simulations Workshop has produced some interesting and innovative games but I do not feel this is one of them. Each side pushes his opponents units backwards and forwards across the map. Eventually losses mount up and a sides morale cracks leading to victory for the other player. I found it quite dull after no more than two games. I applaud the idea of producing games on new, as yet ignored, subjects. This particular title, however, was a disappointment.
Triumphant Return (Kiev 1943) / Clash Of Titans (Kursk) MIH.
Speaking of disappointments the follow-ups to MIH's excellent Ring of Fire have been so. Eastwall was a disaster that appears to have been sent to the printers for play testing. What little errata followed did nothing to change that view. Triumphant Return suffers in a similar way. Units can race about the map getting up to all sorts of mischief in a very unrealistic manner. This displays a lack of development in my opinion. I am toying with new supply rules to try and improve things but would rather MIH had sorted this out prior to the games release. The campaign game seems highly unbalanced in favour of the Soviets. The Kursk title is much better but obviously there is little room for manoeuvre and it is not a game for Jessies afraid of a good slugfest. The constant combat resolution may deter some but I have not found it a problem. That said Ring of Fire is still far and away the best game in the series.
Turning the Tables (MIH)
As part of my one-man crusade to keep MIH in business I purchased this title to. I have heard mixed views on this game. It uses a simple system that gives players C3I points that are spent to enable units to move and have combat. This prevents players from taking advantage of all the opportunities present at any one time. A player can also choose if he wants to take his movement or combat phase first, a technique that is used in some Command issue games. When combat is resolved chits are drawn accounting for elements such as air support, anti tank guns, surprise etc. This means you can never calculate an attacks odds and modifiers in advance and can lead to some nasty, or pleasant, surprises.
I think the system used for this game is excellent but the game situation disappoints many, a more balanced situation should perhaps have been found. The Soviet player is on the offensive for no more a maximum of four turns and even that is going some leaving the player over stretched. Two turns might be better. After this the boot is firmly on the Axis player's foot leaving the Soviet player to try and hold onto the victory hexes he has so recently liberated. The Soviet player can win on points but it may not feel like a victory by games end.
Siege Of Hong Kong (Microgame Co-Op)
The best-looking DTP game I have ever seen. Sadly the positives end there. I found the game quite bland and the situation very one sided. Comprising of little more than movement and combat, I suspect this particular campaign would benefit from a more tactical level treatment. As presented it has the feel of an XTR game right down to the column shift for concentric assault. Each game follows the pattern of Japs land and allied units make under strength counter attack against bridgehead. This fails and Japs overrun island. The allied player can win on points but the birds eye view of the map will tell a different story.
Messines 1917 (Rob Markham)
Whilst the map and unit counters are acceptable for a DTP, the game markers resemble the aftermath of an explosion at a paint factory. That said this is a very clever game with a lot of nice touches. Allied mines buried under the German trenches start the game off by blowing a gap in German lines big enough to march an army through. Unfortunately the terrain is very hard going and allied artillery barrages make it even worse. This slows the Allied advance down as the cost of terrain rises and as their path to supply units are calculated in movement points this handicaps them further. However, to attack without artillery support leads to heavy losses and likewise prevents a speedy exploitation of the opportunity provided by the mines. It's a catch 22 situation. Combat is of the disruption/elimination mould, yes computer looping, but not excessively. The first turn, with all the mine detonations to resolve, is also a bit buckets of dice and may put off the unprepared. Players should note that this is a siege game not a battle game. It plots a slow allied crawl over a small geographical area. If you don't like siege games you won't like this title. I don't like siege games but that was my failing not Rob Markham's. Worthy of a closer looks but not to everyone's taste.
Saratoga (GMT)
This game covers the fighting at Freemans Farm but not the assault on Bemis Heights, a fact easily over looked by a potential purchaser. This is odd as the map would allow the game to cover both it appears, but for a few additional units and a page or two more of rules. Both players spend the first half of the game moving towards one another across the map. I think a shorter scenario could have dispensed this phase by starting later in the game. I would have welcomed it.
The map and unit counters are excellent, the rules short, sweet and user friendly. Player aid cards hold all the charts and tables necessary for play. These aspects of the game have clearly benefited from a lot of thought.
The sequence of play sees units moving and attempting to rally before being subjected to the non-phasing players defensive artillery fire and resolving rifle fire. Movement is standard fare. It is worth noting there is no zone of control into forest hexes and these cover a lot of the map. Consequently, units in forest need to form a solid line in defence or attacking units may waltz right past them. Artillery fire is not that frequent as the forest hexes already mentioned block the line of site required. Only a couple of units are rifle armed so this phase also is soon resolved. All fire combat is resolved via a die roll with modifiers for terrain and the type of target unit.
Assault is then resolved and is odds based. A variety of modifiers apply, again for unit type and terrain. In addition each player can also play a tactical chit. These are for such manoeuvres as stand fast, frontal assault, turn flank, and the combination of the two leads to an additional positive or negative modifier, unforeseen by either player. This particular touch is very welcome but is lost during solo play. Combat results are disruptions, retreats and step losses. Occasionally some enemy troops may be captured.
Each army's morale is recorded on a chart. As a result of combat morale rises and falls, generally the latter. The state of morale also acts as a modifier on combat. Morale is high, fatigued or wavering. Once it starts to waver this can signal the start of a vicious circle, more lost combats, and more falling morale.
I found this game to be worthy of a couple of plays. But after that I seemed to have exhausted all the options open to the British player that might win the game. Not a game I shall be retaining but future titles in the series might be worth investigating.
Back to Perfidious Albion #98 Table of Contents
Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1999 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