Seem to play a lot of Vae Victis games these days. They are a bit of a mixed bag but there is some good stuff in there. Always worked on the principle that with any magazine/game subscription of six editions a year that you would get; two good games, two reasonable games and two turkeys. The mix for Vae Victis is somewhat distorted by the fact that for about two games a year the rules don't get translated. All in all I reckon to get at least one good and one reasonable game a year.
Still at least that's better than Command who seem to have gone to a ratio of; one reasonable game, three turkeys and two games way behind schedule! Thinking about what they had produced I went through the last 8 issues; hypothetical future conflicts - 3 games, hypothetical historical conflicts - 3 games, chess - 3 games and historical - 4 games. Not bad for a history magazine! The depressing realisation was that I haven't played one of those games. Look at them, read the rules and stuff them in the cupboard. Keep on meaning to try Tomorrow the World but that's about it.
It's clear the games market has fallen off in the last few years. Is that the only reason for the drop in Command magazines sales? Could part of the problem be that they are not releasing games that the public are interested in? How reflective of the buying market is the feedback system that votes on games? I find it hard to believe for example that buyers really want so many hypothetical games. Even when Command does produce a historical game it hasn't been worth playing, in my opinion at least. A great shame, Command started out with such promise and has produced some good stuff at times.
Vae Victis and the DTP groups show, to my mind, that there are still plenty of interesting historical subjects that are worthy of attention. Even on topics that have been done before they produce some innovative new systems and pleasant games. The rules are the biggest drawback. The translations are OK (grovel, grovel), the problem lies in the original rules. Maps and counters are excellent. A bit of a nuisance making up the counters. No doubt it will put some people off but I don't mind. The price difference is remarkable with VV coming in at about one third of the price of Command. One big attraction about VV is that you can generally pick up the rules fairly quickly and play a decent game in an evening. The Kharkov game looks interesting.
Rivoli This was quite good, a tough game for both sides. Still can't get the Austrians right. Actually I think I've lost all four games of this no matter which side I play! We like the system and thought it worked quite well on that level. Wish somebody would translate the rules for the Pyramids game. (CHV: Finished long ago matey)
Meuse Tried this a couple of times but the Germans had a problem even getting across the river, let alone winning! The set up and river crossing rules looked somewhat flawed. Another problem I remember was the ability of the French to counterattack. Divisional integrity didn't matter so they just threw a hotch potch of units into any breakthrough the Germans achieved. There were a couple of French Divisions with very high cohesion values (these matter for combat). All the French had to do was spread these two divisions around and send one unit to influence each combat. The rest of the French units might be garbage but all they needed was just one high cohesion value unit per battle to give them a big combat bonus.
Loire This one has been a surprisingly enjoyable game. Perhaps I'm biased having won all three games! An interesting campaign. Like many people I knew very little about it. The usual reaction of people who see the game is blank disbelief. They all think that after the initial frontier battles the Prussians besieged Paris and that was the end of the war.
My initial reaction was that the game was hopelessly pro Prussian. My solution was to simply shift all the victory conditions by one level ie a (Historical) Strategic Prussian victory became only a (Game) Tactical Prussian victory. In the subsequent games I played that turned out to be unnecessary but I need to have another game, this time with my friend Tim, to get a better feel for the balance.
The first game had me playing the Prussians and Lawrence playing the French. Lawrence's philosophy can be summed up as 'if in doubt, attack', which is what he did. In the process he wrecked the French army and the Prussians were left with minimal opposition for the second half of the game. The second game pitted me as the French against a much more cautious Murray playing the Prussians. A much tougher game that ended in a draw with the Prussians struggling to keep their supply lines open. For the third game Lawrence and I switched sides. He pushed forward aggressively from the start as the Prussians, took some heavy losses and left his flanks weak. A large French force drove into his flank, which he did not reinforce and which quickly collapsed. Half way through the game the Prussians surrendered with most of their remaining army out of supply.
The franc tireur can be very effective. One of those included with a stack of dummy counters is a remarkably effective blocking force. Seeing the stack the Prussians can be unsure if it's a real stack or not. If they send in a cavalry scout then you soak up some of their recon capacity. If they assume that it's a dummy and try to advance through it then the presence of the franc trieur is enough to block movement. As the French basically get the franc trieur back for free every turn these units can be thrown away with a callous disregard for their loss. I found the dummy and concealed counters very useful. A fiddle to use perhaps but quite effective in confusing the enemy or forcing them to divert resources for reconnaissance.
Another effective technique is the Gareth Simon one of holding down enemy forces with separate forces of your own so that the enemy can't do 'a march to the sound of the guns' and reinforce a threatened hex. Marching to reinforce a defending stack can ruin an enemy offensive.
Settlers of Cataan After abandoning Loire Lawrence and I had a game of Settlers of Cataan with his wife. Cataan is rather fun and I find an excellent game for people who don't want to play wargames. It's fast, fun, easy to learn and non-violent. Somebody suggested that the game favoured whoever got to pick the first set up and therefore the best position. I disagree, as the setup procedure, to a large extent, cancels that out. I've got off to an abysmal start in a poor location and still jumped through to win the game.
Gettysburg Another game we tried a couple of times. Keep on meaning to go back to it. There was a lot we liked about it. The victory conditions were a bit odd I thought. The Confederates could only win if they fought and won a major victory. Would have thought that the Confederates should be able to win at least a partial victory if they can occupy enough Federal cities. Tim felt the cavalry rules in general were too simplistic and he has a point there.
Crete Tried this. While the idea appealed to us our enthusiasm had faded by the end of the game. Some of the systems are radically different from most games. The difficulty of adapting to this is compounded by some rather vague rules, vague even by VV standards. It took us several readings to decided on the exact sequence for moving units.
We think you are meant to conduct operations for all the units in one area and then do the same for units in another area. One problem though is that units from say area A can move into area B which has not been activated. What happens to the first group of units when area B is activated? (CHV: Nothing they had their turn already)
Artillery is enormously powerful in this game, perhaps excessively so. This 'artillery' incidentally seems to be more light field guns, mortars and machine guns rather than medium or heavy field pieces. Surprisingly the Germans seem to have almost as much artillery as the British. While most of the British artillery cannot move through the game the Germans is extremely mobile. I admit to not knowing the relative strengths in this regard but bearing in mind that this was an airborne assault I am unclear how the Germans could have so much artillery.
There are a few quirks about artillery that I still find hard to accept. They can do combat support as many times as they want during a turn, both on attack and defence. Artillery can bombard a hex to try to inflict casualties on the defenders but they can only do one bombardment attack per turn. Defending artillery can fire in support of the hex being bombarded. The attacker however can never suffer any losses, even where there is considerable counter-battery fire. Thus there is no reason not to do a bombardment, the attacker can never suffer a loss and can possibly cause a casualty.
The game we played ended in a crushing German victory and was far too easy for them. They did get the 5th Mountain Division ashore but that wasn't actually much help. By that stage the game was already won! I used most of them to chase (OK, it wasn't the best use of them I know) down one infuriating little British HQ that managed to survive despite repeated attacks by vastly superior forces. Seemed to us that the probability of the 5th arriving was too high. Overall I suspect we won't play it again.
Krieg Our regular group of WIF players decided to try something else for a change, partly because we were down to three players for several months. We played two games of Krieg. Don't think we'd bother again. It was interesting but doesn't really have the same challenge of WIF. The rules are hopeless and for a game on that scale the systems are rather fiddling and frustrating. Most of all though the whole game is just too restrictive. All your options are dictated by a very limited range of cards; reinforcements, strategic options, political options, opportunities to launch major offensives etc.
The weather system is absurd and far too rigid. Having the same weather right across the board and to a specified schedule doesn't seem right. Overall it seemed to lead to a number of odd situations where we felt the game system had taken over to an unacceptable extent. An example is a German attack on Belgium in Spring 1940. If the Germans play an Ultimatum but it fails then they can do nothing for that clear weather turn. At the end of the turn they can declare war but the next turn is Mud so they can't get a Blitz turn. Not that it matters because they effectively can't get a Blitz turn unless they play the card again and declare war on some one else!
It may be all right for two players who just want a 'quick' game but even there it doesn't gel. The rules are too complex and it's still a fairly long game. Can't see it as a serious rival to WIF.
A couple of us looked at War without Mercy as an alternative. Nigel was put off by what he saw as the absence of some fairly important terrain, particularly between Moscow and Leningrad. The combat table didn't appeal to me. It seemed to consist of AE, AR, EX, DR and DE results. I think wargaming has moved onto expect a somewhat more sophisticated set of results.
Overall we were left with an impression of a basic game where players represented the generals rather than the political leadership that is like Krieg your political options were fairly limited.
After that we went back to playing WIF. Had a couple of games of the 3rd edition. Interestingly we found it very enjoyable and in many ways a far more satisfying game that the later editions. Now we are back to playing 6th Edition, it's not bad but we've always found it heavily pro Axis. Russia and China in particular are far too weak. Thinking about it WIF does have some interesting contradictions with political options. Taking Paris for example means Germany can automatically declare Vichy, surely there should be some kind of uncertainty about this?
Solomon Sea Some time ago I made a comment on Consim about the Command game Midway. An excellent little carrier warfare game I always enjoy playing. Markus Stumptner, of PA fame, contacted me on this and mentioned that he had done a game on the Eastern Solomons battles using the same system. He sent me a copy and I put quite a lot of time into doing some playtesting of that. Markus is hoping to get it released in a DTP format soon. Anyone who likes carrier warfare should seriously consider getting a copy.
The map, counters and rules are excellent. The maps really do look like maps from a good quality atlas. The counters use quite detailed pictures of ships and planes. Hopefully the DTP version will live up to the same standard. In my version the counters were double sided but the DTP version will use step reduction markers instead. That should work well and avoids the inconvenience of making up double-sided counters. There are several supporting schedules for aircraft handling and task forces, all very practical and well thought out.
The games uses a double blind system, with each player having their own map. Searching is done by each player announcing which map hexes are being searched and the other stating whether they have units in the hex. Normally this doesn't really work in a naval game using surface ships as it immediately tells your opponent where your own forces are. Because most of the searching is done by air in the Midway system this is not a problem.
Each side has counters representing individual aircraft carriers, battleships and groups of cruisers, destroyers and submarines. Planes counters represent groups of about 8 planes. Plane counters represent a specific type of plane ie F4F fighters, SBD's and TBF's for the Americans. They have; an air to air combat strength, air to surface attack strength and range. Each hex represents 185 kilometres and each turn three and a half hours.
Each carrier can hold from 3 to 11 plane counters depending on its historical capacity. Each carrier has three plane boxes; Ready, Unready and CAP. Thus planes prepared for a mission go into the Ready box. When they return from a mission they have to spend a turn in the Unready box before they can be put back into the Ready box. Fighters can also be put on CAP so they are always available to meet any air attack. Midway had virtually no land based air units. In Solomon Sea however there are numerous airfields around the area. These also have the three plane boxes plus an anti aircraft factor.
The map covers the northern Queensland coast, New Guinea, Truk and New Caledonia. That means it can include a number of different situations and there are four separate scenarios; Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz and the naval battle of Guadalcanal. Each scenario has; historical set up, free set up and several variations regarding units available. We used the free set ups to give some sense of the unpredictability and uncertainty that there should be in a game like this.
Searching in Midway was done by a combination of ship and air search. Ship based searches are only done in the hex the ship occupies. Using surface ships for searches obviously discloses your own presence. Subs can do ship searches and avoid being seen but are too limited in terms of movement. Air searches cover the hex the plane occupies and all six hexes surrounding it. Carrier planes could search out to two hexes and land based planes up to ten. In Midway the American had a limited land based air search from Midway plus that from their carriers. The Japanese had slightly better carrier based search. It meant the Japanese did suffer because even air searches disclosed the general location of their carriers.
Solomon Seas pretty much does away with the latter problem because there is extensive land based air search and the carrier search rules have been improved. Land based air searches can last several turns. Using numbered markers you plot the staging points of you search path in advance. Each turn the plane moves onto the next marker and does a search there. If the plane spots something then it can shadow the ships it has seen but otherwise it must fly the pre-plotted path. There are some neat and easy rules to cover things like communication breakdowns and poor weather. Carriers now have to actually send a plane out on search missions, which reduces their strike capability of course. Carrier based planes are short ranged and each search mission lasts only one turn. The Japanese also have some cruiser-based seaplane and seaplane tender based search capacity.
The combat system takes into account quite a few factors. A side can launch air strikes against enemy ships but those strikes may not actually find their targets. Weather and range influence this. Actual combat involves air to air combat between CAP, escorts and bombers. Then there is anti aircraft fire by the defending ships and then the glorious moment when you try to 'scratch one flat top'. Carriers really are the key to the game and all attacking forces have to concentrate on any defending carriers present.
The combat system is fairly broad brush, for example all the attacking forces fight as a single group despite the fact that they may have been sent off as separate waves. Similarly with air to air combat and anti aircraft fire the system may be a bit too general for some people. It did concern me a bit for a time. In the end though I realised that while some aspects may not be entirely accurate, the overall result was about right. In the context of the scale of the game and playability it hits the right overall balance. Combat does tend to slow things down a bit as there is a fair bit of dice rolling. Generally however the game rolls along fairly quickly.
The heart of the game system lies in the pre combat manoeuvring rather than in the fine detail of the combat system. Getting an advantageous position is half the battle. Catch the enemy unaware, deliver a first strike, knock out one of their carriers and you probably have won the game. I don't confess to being an expert on carrier battles but to me this game has the right feel for carrier warfare. For me those carrier battles involved a delicate and skilful hunt. Both sides were trying to second guess their opponent. There is a sense of delicate probing, trying to work out where your opponent is, what their goals are, trying to get into a position where you can launch a strike, keeping just the right number of planes in readiness and on CAP. Even when you spot something you can never be sure it's the main target and whether the strikes you send off will find the target. For me the game captures the nature of carrier warfare very well.
This was never meant to be a detailed review of the game. Let my enthusiasm ramble on a bit. I thought it was an excellent game and would strongly recommend it to any one who likes carrier games or who wants a fun, quick and challenging game.
For the People Had my first two games of For the People recently. It was very disappointing. I've played We the People and had a pretty good idea of how to play FtP. My opponent is an extremely experienced player.
The basic concept is great and it has the potential to be a good game. The problem we had, as PA 98 mentioned, is that the game basically comes down to a struggle for the boxes of Washington and Manassas and a slugging match between two armies.
Since that he's come up with an alternative strategy for the Union. This involves building a second Army and threatening the Confederate flanks. This forces the Confederates to pull back and go more on the defensive. Read a few comments on the internet discussion groups that advocate much the same strategy. It seems viable although I wonder whether the Confederates can't deal with this by turning on the flanking forces and destroying them. It also seems somewhat luck dependant for the Union, they have to get enough 2 and 3 cards in the first few turns to make it work.
I was somewhat disappointed in Mark Herman's reply to your review. He didn't really address this issue of what to do about Washington. It is clearly a problem that has perplexed many players and put quite a few off. Why were there no player notes or strategy tips in the game that address this issue?
There may well be ways round this 'problem' that mean it turns out not to be an issue. Nevertheless it seems to be something that is giving a number of people difficulties and turning them off the game. I can see Mark Herman's point about the importance of Washington. Unfortunately his method of emphasising this importance is as bad as those systems which may have underestimated its importance. A case of the cure being as bad as the disease.
Even if you fix this it still leaves a problem in that there seems to me to be a couple of fundamental flaws in the game. There is too much certainty about leader arrival dates and combat values. This stands in marked contrast to a game, which with its card system, is highly unpredictable and random in other respects.
One of the reasons the Confederates can do so well is that they can build up these virtually unbeatable killer stacks. Surely this kind of guaranteed victory is wrong in almost any game, let alone one like FtheP. As I see it the point of the cards is to generate a random pattern of events where players are required to think fast as they go along to cope with the chaos of a war where many of the events were beyond their control.
That works OK with the cards but in terms of leader arrivals and combat abilities the game gives us a rigid schedule where you can plan certain actions several turns in advance. In reality the performance of most leaders was unpredictable until they had been in battle. Look at the image that McClellan had compared to the reality. Grant and Sherman were nonentities until they proved themselves in battle. Lee got off to a fairly quiet start and even he had his off days, notably at Gettysburg.
I'd be inclined to draw the leaders at random from a cup each turn. Perhaps roll a dice, halve the result (rounding down) and draw that many leaders (face down until they have been in combat) that turn.
As for the leader combat ratings a quick solution would be to have a maximum limit (perhaps 5) on the number that any side can have. An alternative would be to have a separate table where you roll to obtain a final modified leader rating. A bit slower perhaps but it would give some degree of uncertainty.
Overall I liked the concept. Clearly it is a game that many people enjoy and respect. We the People was great fun and I really wanted FtheP to work. Regrettably it just didn't work for me and I find the contradictions of the game system frustrating. Perhaps I'll give it another go but it's a case of once bitten twice shy
Blue v Grey This looks as if it may a very likely alternative civil War game. Tried it once but it's a game we will definitely play again.
The rules are a struggle. Easy enough, just poorly written and difficult to pick up what the designers intend you to do. Even the 'rewritten' rules on the web site are still pretty poor. Elementary stuff isn't really made clear, like the fact that you don't really have anything on the map itself other than a few city control markers, cards deployed are face up but you can keep a reserve concealed in your hand. You can work it out, but in game presumably aimed partly at people who have never played a war game before, this is likely to put people off.
It seems to work very well. The combat system is quite reasonable. We thought it didn't seem to place much emphasis on leadership. The Leaders have a combat value but the effect is minor and the only time leader rating really matter is if you get a Generals Battle. Rather thought that the Leader with the highest combat value should get a modifier to the red dice roll that tells you who won.
My opponent was a bit put out when I twice managed to sack his leader, even though he had won the battle. On both occasions we got a double result on the battle dice. I then rolled and got to sack one of his leaders. Perhaps the rule should be that the if you win the battle the winner gets to choose which leader to sack. If you lose the other side gets to choose the sacked leader.
Back to Perfidious Albion #99 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