Edward Denley
Vae Victis has rekindled my enthusiasm for historical games and it is refreshing to see some new subjects. I particularly enjoyed Rivoli, which inspired me to visit the battlefield while holidaying on Lake Garda last summer. It is easy to underestimate how big it is. Walking from Affi to Rivoli took me over an hour at a very brisk pace. The wooded ridge, which was the central point of the battle, appears much steeper and more prominent on the ground than you would expect from the game map. Rivoli has a small museum, which also contains some exhibits relating to the Risorgimento as the battle of Solferino was fought near the south shore of the lake. It would be good to see one of the 1859 campaign battles covered in a future issue of Vae Victis.
CHV: Indeed it would, the uniforms ravish the eyes, watching Le Hussard sur le Toit over the holidays reminded me of the "full" style of the period (which set in by the 1830s and held fair until beyond 1870).
Ellis Simpson
I would not want to miss the forthcoming 100th issue. Anything special planned? A game in the magazine? A PA look back in anger and mirth? Or just more of the same? Any would be very welcome. I enjoy reading PA even if, as with 97, I have not played any of the games. The articles often make me interested enough to consider taking the plunge into new areas that otherwise would not tempt me. With the virtual absence of a UK retail presence, things like PA are essential.
CHV: Planning is not my strong point, indeed had I planned matters it is unlikely we would have come this far. My only hope for the next few issues is to continue to receive the support of those outside reviews, like David Fox, to permit PA to access games I would not play.
David Fox
PA99, is this really number 99? An impressive achievement, indeed. I've only been reading since the past ten issues or so; I hope that the long-promised CD-ROM collection will be released soon, to allow everyone to catch up on what they've been missing. (CHV: I rather hoped it would remain missing!)
I can't tell you how happy I was to finally see La Bataille De Lutzen. Despite its shaky rulebook I love this series (having long since invented my own rules to fill the gaps) and dearly wish that Ed Wimble would fall into a schedule of publishing one La Bataille per year. Clash of Arms must learn to lead with its strongest punch; The Gamers and GMT (finally) have learned how to build a successful series and publish at least one volume from it every year. Hopefully Ed W. will do the same.
Like you I was less than enthused by the computer Great Battles games. Without the boardgames' trumping mechanism, the computer battles seem to be missing that little spark. What annoys me the most are the frequent double routs, where both attacker and defender rout after combat. What are they doing, square dancing? As computer wargames, I found them much inferior to both Talonsoft's ACW/Napoleonic battle games and Microsoft's Close Combat series.
If you are looking for a great computer game, and you ever loved Advanced Dungeons & Dragons back in the old days, look no further than Interplay's Baldur's Gate. As one reviewer wrote, "For over 100 hours of good old-fashioned tomb-robbing, undead-turning, gnoll-stomping Fun it can't be beat." I'm working on my second play-through and loving every minute of it.
Played Blue vs. Gray and loved it (even though Richard and I had to make up a couple of our own rules and got 'em wrong). Evan Jones should be congratulated for stuffing so much depth, creativity, and subtle detail into such a modest package. I eagerly await his planned Napoleon or WWI or WWII sequel.
What are the two reasons why the latest issue of COMMAND is like giving birth to an elephant?
Giving birth to an elephant is sure to kill you, and this issue with its endless delays and distribution chain collapse-forced revision of COMMAND's game schedule just about finished the Duke of Belluno;
Even if you survive the birth, you're still stuck with a baby elephant. Which is what the two games are-- Back To Iraq II, a game so lopsided that the Iraqis earn VP's whenever a unit survives any combat vs. the Coalition forces. The Fire Next Time, India vs. Pakistan with a nuclear option, untried by us since Richard Berg's copy arrived without any rules. (CHV: the kindness of strangers…)
And there was also the Duke's macho idiot column cheering the re-appearance of Paper Wars, since until now BROG has been the only game review publication available and we all know how bad THAT is. Perfidious Albion, edited by a bunch of snooty furriners, obviously doesn't count.
CHV: Well Ty hopes it doesn't count anyway! Perhaps he defines us in such a way that leads to exclusion. But we have not withdrawn our love from Tyrone-Marie and await his return.
Simon Bracegirdle
Thank you for issue 98, up to the usual high standard. I will be sending a cheque to extend my subscription as soon as pay day comes (what a long month March is).
Alan Sharif expresses concern over play balance in Turning The Tables (MiH). He is spot on. In fact if his Soviets were able to sustain an offensive for four turns then he deserves the Order Of Lenin.
The problem lies in the combat system. The chit draw is a great idea to simplify things, but when played as written it overwhelmingly favours the German. Players draw a number of combat chits equal to their tactical rating. As German units are nearly always higher, then they draw more chits and achieve tactical superiority. Tactical superiority means they get to choose more of the chits drawn to play (which seems to negate the purpose of the dummy chits) - three chits to 1 chit.
What this means is that the Soviet dare not make his historical offensive. The historical notes say that the initial Russian onslaught put considerable pressure on the German positions, this will never be repeated. The best the Soviets can hope to do is nip over the start line, beat up some Rumanians then run away and use terrain to survive German attacks. This was not a great gaming experience.
I have tinkered with the combat rules to come up with a system that recognises German unit superiority, yet gives the Soviets a half-decent chance on the offensive. The Soviet has a chance of getting a good advantage from chits, especially early on when the German has a higher proportion of dummies in the mix, but still has to battle against the die roll modifier for the better German tactical values.
The suggested rule changes are;
- 11.3 - unchanged
11.31 Drawing Combat Chits - change text to The attacker draws randomly two combat chits from his container or cup. The defender draws one combat chit from his container or cup.
11.32 & note - delete
New Rule 11.65 Each player chooses any one of his units involved in the combat to be the lead unit. The tactical rating of the defender's lead unit is subtracted from the tactical rating of the attacker's lead unit. The result (+ or -) is a DRM applied to the combat. The side whose lead unit had the higher rating has tactical superiority (see 11.72). If both ratings are the same then neither side has tactical superiority.
11.7 - after the first sentence of the second paragraph insert
The lead unit of each side (as chosen in 11.65) takes the first step loss of that side. Thereafter all step losses .......
13.22 German dummy chits 17, 18 ,19 20 are not removed from play. They remain in play for the whole game. (N.B dummy chit 16 is removed according to the schedule)
I also tinkered with reducing the number of combat hits that could be converted into retreats from two to 1. This produced a very bloody game that did not seem right, so I could not really recommend doing this without more tweaking (or should that be development).
Like Alan, I believe that the basic system has merit but just needed a bit of work to make the game work. I do not know whether my changes make for a more historical game, but they certainly make it more fun for both players.
Uli Blenneman
Thank you for another very good PA issue!
I got B vs G at the Essen convention (they had a booth) and it looked very interesting. I haven´t played it so far but it recently moved to the "to-be-played-soon"-pile (FtP and Messines 1917 are sitting there, too). Right now I´m playing War without Mercy and I´m not sure yet if I like the game - I only played the Poland´39 scenario. The scope of the game is nice - no production rules, you are just the military commander. Complexity is surprisingly low.
Combat resolution has a nice touch: You can either (as usual) attack all units in a hex or attack all the units separately. This means, if there are three defending units I might attack one at 5:1 while I accept 1:2 odds for the other two units. At this ground scale, it might work.
Have you played Crimean War yet? Is it using the Franco-Prussian War system?
What does Murmansk (S&T) cover?
CHV: I had a quick play of Crimean War recently, but it looks like one of those that need a lot of solitaire play before you try to do anything. The area around Sevastopol is very small and the logistical limits need examining. I had assumed Murmansk was a Mike Bennighof "Lesser Known Axis allies" game based on his interest in the Eastern Front. It covers the German push on Murmansk in 1941.
Bob Kalinowski
Hi. I read your posts on Consim and recently noted comments on Rossbach and the Reichsarmee's uniforms. I've got a Battles of Frederick the Great quad for GMT in final development right now, and still have a few lingering counter/uniform/colour mix ambiguities. As you held forth on the same, thought I would ask your opinion on this.
Background colour for Reichsarmee Units: The counters will be icon/background colour; Prussians medium blue background, Austrians white, Russians green etc as expected. Got any ideas of an "official" background colour for the Reichsarmee? I've got them, for lack of better, using grey now. But black might be a nice visual impact against the cream white French around them. I've got the actual units' uniform colours for the icons, but would appreciate if you know of any official "Kreis" flag or banner colour, etc that might serve as a more "accurate" background colour.
Same applies for Saxony; I've got the uniforms, but what might be the best background colour? Using blah grey for now too.
P.S: Charles opines -- "Oh Gawd, why Rossbach?" I agree with you, but if the French had stayed in their entrenched camp, it would have been quite a fun match. But the overweight, muddle-brained yellow belts came out from the locked room and tried to spar with the Prussian Bruce Lee, with resultant near instantaneous multiple fractures ensuing. "When he woke up, he was dead."
As a historical game, Rossbach sucks -- among the most one-sided battles in modern European history. But I wanted to include a French army scenario, and this was it -- we cannot have too much uniform variety, say I.
(CHV: Let's try though!)
Said Suckyness admitted, we both know there'd be plenty of grognards who'd bitch "Hey, where's the sucky total rout historical Scenario" if I left it out, so I put one in. Four turns, no surprises here, victory conditions set on how many Prussian step losses the French can manage before they get KO'ed. (After all, Leuthen looms just a month away, and if Fred had taken 5,000 casualties at Rossbach, he'd have a much harder time going 1 to 2 and taking 33.4% more of his 33K vs. Charles at Leuthen, right?)
Not to Worry -- The game's expanded scenario (all 4 have them) takes us back to that fateful morning with the French behind their entrenchments and the Prussians east of the Leiha brook. The French can try to stay put and outwait the Prussians, who, if nothing happens, lose by default, and so must attack. But both sides are subject to possible Army morale drops each turn they don't fight (the operational/logistics clock is ticking in both armies); the French are much more prone. So they may want to march to the attack instead, so induced by a morale bonus pump-up they earn for it as long as they end up attacking a Prussian unit, or moving adjacent to a town that would flank the Prussian position.
The idea is we can see how the French might have fared if a) they took a Prussian attack while still in Fortress Muhlenberg, or b) made a decent flank march, or at least got half-way deployed before Prussian Bruce Lee leapt on them. Total time -- 10 turns, 2 to 2.5 hours.
So you can have a very fun game of wits between Bruce and the Yellow Belts as well as historical suckyness, okay? That's why a Rossbach (and the uniforms, oh, the uniforms... French, Swiss, the Blue Wurzburgers...)
CHV Steady lad, steady drink this tumbler of brandy and you'll soon be OK! On second thoughts I'll have a bottle myself.
Martin James
Agree with you about Blue vs Grey. It is the one non-computer game I have played in the last five years – bought on the strength of your review. This ability to move markets (which you share with Alan Greenspan) is an awesome gift.
CHV: Next time Alan and I will swap markets! (Swap markets, gedditt, am I being too derivative for you, well you've the option of taking no notice but I'll warrant you won't share the actions) (ED: you're fired).
Chris Janiec
Have greatly enjoyed the last two issues of PA (#97 and 98), and wasted no time in getting Blue vs Gray based on your review. I agree with you on most particulars; it's a neat, relatively inexpensive, enjoyable game with some elegant features. The system may prove applicable to other periods, as well.
I was, however, dissapointed that you included Ray Freeman's article on Tigers in the Mist. I look to PA for unbiased reviews of games and books and commentary on the hobby, but this "preview" by the designer can hardly be considered objective. It is, in fact, straight from the GMT web site, and can best be construed as an advertisement--a plea for enough people to order the game in advance to get it printed.
CHV: So? There was nothing about the piece that in any way suggested it was anything but a "puff" but it equally dealt with a number of design issues which I thought interesting since he posed the problem and then proposed his solution. So while you may look for unbiased reviews of games and books and commentary on the hobby I like to stick in another category or so, and this was one. In was not, "in fact" straight from the GMT website, I took it from my AOL chat area and you'll find the english has been improved (ho ho ho). I can assure you no-one has been misled by this, and in this issue I do exactly the same again for a set of Napoleonic books. And what's more I shall continue to do whenever and however I want.......! You have (as they say) been warned.
I've followed with interest the discussions on the We the People vs. Hannibal card systems, and after several recent playings of both will weigh in on the side of the latter. For me, the essence of a good game is choices. The best games force you to make hard decisions, with the outcomes usually a matter of more uncertainty than provided by the roll of a die. Since the Hannibal system forces more decisions, it is more fun for me to play. Certainly the "choice" by a commander between an event or conducting an operation is unrealistic, but so is the "choice" between conducting an operation with Washington in South Carolina or gaining political control of Fort Ticonderoga, New York. You dislike the lesser frequency of event occurrence with the "triple-use" cards in For the People, and I can understand that, but the difference is one of degree: just last month we completed a game of We the People which ended in 1782, with the Declaration of Independence never happening! (Not sure what the rebels "won" in that one--taxation with representation?) Perhaps the ideal is a judicious mix of the two, where some cards are important events only (as FtP does with the Emancipation Proclamation) while the bulk are multiple-use.
It will be interesting to see if this concept has been carried too far in Ted Raicer's upcoming Paths of Glory WWI game, where each card has four potential uses in a combination of the Hannibal and Krieg systems. Each alliance will have its own deck divided into three chronologically separate parts. I'm looking forward to it, and will let you know what I think.
CHV: The Hannibal system is clearly winning game-wise, but I prefer games that make you follow historical choices and this is not what Hannibal achieves (in my view). My movement of the Army of the Ptomaine is not going to stop the Choctaws and Chickasaws whooping it up. But the example you give is at least a resource problem, do I send men to fight in South Carolina or to repress the local opposition in New York. Both missions require troops. Or such is my rationalisation of PC markers, low-level area control not the whole population suddenly getting Jesus and turning Patriot or Loyalist. Since the nature of the PC markers can be malleable you may hold a different view.I see that POG has four uses for each card; Event, operations, reinforcements and, er, a fourth one.
Chris Janiec (Part Two: He's Back and this Time He's laying PC!)
As to your response, I agree that PC markers have to represent some level of military force, since they mandate the elimination of an opposing army forced to retreat into them. Because they have no impact on CUs when they are formed, however, I interpret them as the local Tories or Rebels growing dominant enough in that vicinity to pose a meaningful threat to a disorganized force, rather than the impact of troops brought in from elsewhere cowing the opposition.
Clearly we are not talking about the assignment of regulars. In the 18th Century, there was insufficient span of control and communications to make the sort of resource allocations you postulate; neither the Crown nor the Continental Congress had the authority to move local militiamen around the thousand-mile breadth of the theatre like that. Thus I can't agree with their placement being a resource issue, except in the case of PCs placed (or flipped) beneath armies--and the Rebel ability to flip them beneath lone Generals suggests even this interpretation is suspect.
If all the armies are in the South, for example, a decision on whether to have them remain in garrison or actively campaign would not seem to have any impact on dominant loyalties in New England or along the Great Lakes, except perhaps as a delayed reflection of their success or failure. In the end, though, much depends on the nature of those PC markers—perhaps the Duke of Ragusa can weigh in?
Steve Thomas
Aubrey/Maturin I've been listening to these a fair bit recently. I can do a fair bit of driving both socially and going to clients. Several years ago I started getting audio books from the library to listen to while driving. The POB books are the right sort of thing for that, light weight stuff that you don't really have to concentrate too hard on.
I was always a bit of a Hornblower fan. O'Brian may know his naval stuff but I find the books rather long winded at times and far less exciting. Some of the sections are downright ludicrous. One of the worst was the episode where a wounded Maturin, without anaesthetic and using mirrors to see, performs a 20 minute operation on himself to cut a pistol ball out of his chest!
Like you I couldn't care less about the two leading characters. Aubrey might be a brilliant Captain but he's a buffoon on land and I can't feel any sympathy for him. As for Maturin, I am coming to strongly dislike the miserable, cantankerous blighter, who seems to have few redeeming qualities. It's hard to believe that he can be a first rate spy, excellent doctor, and leading botanist and yet so totally incompetent in every day matters. Sharpe may be his own worst enemy at times but at least the books were a bit more tongue in cheek. PO'B seems to take himself a bit too seriously.
You mentioned the Flashman books. I read a few of those many years ago. Quite amusing, perhaps I might look at a few more. In the context of naval books it put me in mind a potential new alternative fiction book. William Bush was Hornblower's loyal, rather unimaginative Lieutenant, always awed by Hornblower's brilliance. Perhaps it's time for the secret diaries of W Bush to be discovered. These would reveal the truth; that Hornblower was really a rather cowardly but reckless bungler, perhaps even an earlier version of Flashman. It was really the rather innocent Bush who was constantly saving the day but having Hornblower steal all the glory.
Franz Hartmann
Though not a contributor to your magazine I am happy being able to obtain PA. May I say that I very much appreciate the ever-extending coverage of boardgames, miniature gaming, literature, computer and high-class leisure games and your sometimes keen comments on game design!
Furthermore as a non-native speaker I am always challenged by some expressions which cannot be found in dictionaries (but which are occasionally explained by grinning Englishmen).
CHV: I have expanded, but not, I fear, improved your English!
Benedict Wilkins
Having for procrastinated for too long over Flowers of the Forest I decided to order Deathride without delay. I must confess that I am hoping that I can nick the odd idea from this for use on the tabletop (has anyone found a good and playable set of Franco Prussian rules? I've tried many, including the much lauded Principles Of War but have yet to be inspired).
Have done very little in the way of boardgaming recently, what spare time I have is largely taken up with miniatures these days. I did finally yet around to build playing Rommel in the Desert and jolly good it is too. How does the eastern front version play? I did get The Great War at Sea II and whilst the campaign aspects are quite neat I am surprised that this series is so well regarded. Ho hum. I noticed OSG seem to have published some so end called Last Days Of The Grande Armee. I wonder what this is. (CHV: Waterloo etc with simpler Zucker system).
On the PC Close Combat 2 – the Russian Front I found to be a sad disappointment. Atomic seemed to ignored the old adage here of "if it isn't broken don't fix it". Infantry have been all but factored out of the game and the campaigns lack depth. It became rather easy and I ended up storming the Reichstag (huzzah!) with the loss of only one man. Still tankies might enjoy it. I would still heartily recommnd Close Combat 2 – a Bridge too far however. I agree with what was said about the PC versions of Great Battles in PA98, not too overly exciting and no real improvement over the board game.
One system which (I think) has translated very well onto the PC is Clash Of Arms' Over The Reich/Achtung Spitfire. I found the board games wonderfully detailed but pretty much impossible to play (and guaranteed to leave you with splitting headache), but on PC they work extremely well. You can concentrate on flying (using a very simple mouse control system) while the PC does all the maths. Fast, fun (if you like aeroplanes) and the AI is pretty sharp as well especially when patched.
Talonsoft's Battle of Britain and is a dry, well as a very dry thing really, with graphics which and good deal less than inspiring, an interesting attempt to do strategic air war sensibly. It plays not unlike the old Yaquinto game Bomber. There are some oddities in that it appears that strafing cannot destroyed parked aircraft which must be comfort from 1940 French and 1941 Russians, having said that I did not find it alarmingly easy to win as the Germans.
Even the book front seems quiet of late. Have I mentioned The Roman Army At War by Goldsworthy (OUP- a bargain now it is in paperback). Of the few books that skips over how the Roman army was organised and instead concentrates on it fought from the general to the legionary. Possibly a little too Keeganesque but on the whole excellent. Now if someone could just do the same for the Army of Flanders.
The King's Army by Wood is magnificent (already mentioning in your journal) and well worth every penny of its not inconsiderable price. Both in detail and insights and loads of data. If I was going to be picky I would say I found the chapter on Dreux a little light but this is only a minor blemish. Made me think once again of trying to put together a Wars of religion campaign.
I liked The Grand Strategy Of Philip II with every now and then I had the feeling as being a collection of essays rather than a coherent whole. Is in just me or has Parker's written style become lighter and more readable recently?
(CHV: I think he depends more on his researchers, which always relaxes matters)
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