Stripped Down for Parts: Warsaw 1920

 

 

Regular readers will probably know by now that I live in an apartment with a wife and a cat, and very limited space for collection growth. So, it’s understandable that in the last couple of years I’ve become much more open to the idea of games without boxes. I feel like an idiot for not leaning into these kinds of games before; they often have a smaller table presence (though, as we’ll see, not in every case), lower counter densities, and play out in a shorter time than something that comes in a box on the same subject might.

It's in the bag. Um. I'll see myself out....

To wit, let’s look at Warsaw 1920 (Revolution Games, 2022). Originally published in 2020 by BonSai Games, and subsequently re-published for the Chinese market by Banner of war and Kilovolt Designs, Warsaw 1920 was designed by BonSai’s publisher, Yasushi Nakaguro, who also produced the map and counter art. The Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1921 isn’t a particularly well-known conflict. There are a handful of games on the subject (the best known in the English-speaking world is probably Red Star/White Eagle (GDW, 1979), which was reprinted more recently in a Designer Signature Edition (Compass Games, 2019). The war is a crucial piece of European history for one significant reason, as indicated in Warsaw 1920’s sub-title, “Lenin’s Failed Conquest of Europe.” Poland was only ever meant to be the first stage of a greater expansion of Soviet influence. That the Soviet Army was thwarted in this ambition by the Polish Army, then the protectors of a country that had only become an independent nation once more after a declaration by the Central Powers, on whose side the Polish Legions had fought against their hereto oppressors, the Tsarist Russians, in November 1916. The fact that the Communist Red Army was kept at bay by the Poles may have informed Hitler’s reasoning in choosing to invade Russia in ’41.

Cover sheet. Spoiler alert: there's a sneaky PAC on the hiding out back.

Warsaw 1920 consists of a cover sheet that doubles as a Player’s Aid Card, a rulebook, one full-sized sheet of counters, and a full-sized map. It’s not exactly a tiny game, but the counter density is still fairly low, and so is the rules overhead.

The game’s cover sheet offers a portrait of Józef Piłsudski, who lead the Polish Legions in the Great War, and subsequently became the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the newly-established Regency Kingdom of Poland – which would soon become the Second Republic of Poland – leading the country’s military forces through no less than six wars between 1919 and 1922.

The game focuses on the Battle of Warsaw, covering the time leading up to the battle to its historical conclusion (in game terms, from July through August). The Polish forces were on the ropes until Piłsudski planned and executed a tactical retreat to defensible positions west of the Vistula River, and organised a flanking strike that took the Soviet forces off guard. Each turn represents a week, and the hexes are roughly 30km across.

Rulebook. Not as shiny as the cover sheet.

The full-colour rulebook is printed on a nice weight (around 90gsm) matte-finish paper and runs to twelve pages. Of those, the actual rules only take up about eight and a half pages, along with the cover page (a match for the image on the cover sheet – it doesn’t even mention “rulebook” on the front), an image of each side of the counter sheet, and a quick-setup  Order of Battle on the back cover, grouping the unit counters into their respective armies (for the Poles) or Fronts (for the Soviets).

Sample rules-spread. Well illustrated and easy to read.

The rules themselves are very well laid out in a crisp sans-serif font with which aficionados of Revolution games will be familiar. The section headings are highlighted, and the while rules-set is well illustrated. The print is a tad on the small side, but for just nine pages of reading, that can be forgiven. The rules are helpfully illustrated and, if you have any hex-and-counter wargame experience, quite clear and understandable. That’s a good start for any game.

The CRT.  Just one, but most of it is on the map anyway.

There is a Player’s Aid Card printed on the verso of the Cover sheet. It’s printed on a light card but still sturdy enough for the job. The PAC offers a magnified Combat Results Table and Terrain Effects Chart, and a list explaining the abbreviations used in the CRT.

Warsaw 1920 is built on a pleasantly uncomplicated system. That won’t translate to a simple game. I can see myself having to take the Soviets in any teaching games, although it won’t be a simple task for the understrength Poles either.

The map. Nicer than I could capture with my inadequate lighting.

The game’s 22” by 34“ map covers an area reaching from Kraków in the west to Smolensk in the east and represents a goodly portion of 1920s Poland, a slice of Soviet Russia and an intrusion of southern East Prussia and Lithuania in the north-west. The art is simple and elegant – not at all cluttered – and will be nice to play on. It’s designed for two players to play facing the two short ends (the natural east/west positions of the antagonists). To this end, nearly all the charts and tracks for the game, already helpfully printed on the map-sheet, are oriented to the appropriate end. Only the Terrain Effects Chart and the Turn Track are oriented to the southern map-edge, to facilitate easier – or at least equally difficult – reading for both players. Each end has its own Combat Results Table, and the Polish end hosts the Victory Point Track, while the Russian end presents two Supply tracks, a longer one for the larger West Front units and a shorter one for the smaller South-West Front formation.

The counter-sheet. Also much nicer than it appears here.

The counters are nicely presented in a 5/8” die-cut, 176 in all, though not all are printed. The unit counters are clear and readable, and there are only about 90 of the across the two forces. Other counters serve various administrative roles, including Control markers, Supply source and Supply Status markers, and tokens for indicating isolated units.

The combat unit counters are simple and attractive, and easy enough to read. NATO unit type symbology is central to the counter, with the unit size above. The two sides are easily identifiable; red on white for the Poles, white on red for the Soviets. The units only have two factors to deal with Combat Strength and Movement. These are the large numbers below the centre symbol. The values on the left and right indicate the formation and unit number respectively.

-----

Warsaw 1920 has the makings of a neat little game playable in an evening. It fits the ethos of A Fast Game perfectly, and I think it will be a great and returned-to addition to the collection. As mentioned, this isn’t a mechanically complex game, but it reflects combat from a simpler time, and the simpler approach allows the player to concentrate on what should play out to be a tactically and logistically complex situation.

 

Blog note: A long absence and another milestone

 

 

 

It’s been a week – strike that; it’s been ten days since I last posted. I try to get something up at least weekly (I aim for six or seven posts a month – anything extra is gravy), and I hate letting A Fast Game fall into disrepair through inattention, but sometimes life will get in the way. This isn’t the longest I’ve gone without posting – I think the record is fifteen days without a post. It’s still not a good look. I feel like I have a responsibility to my handful of regular readers to have something fresh when they drop by, but at the same time, I don’t want to post something half-baked so as to not waste the reader’s time and burn through any good will I’ve built up.

The gap isn’t because I don’t have anything to say. I have two AARs in varying states I’m working on, one unboxing (and a couple of others waiting in the wings), and a multi-part examination of a beloved game. I’m also doing the background for my annual-ish statistical review of the collection, and a Quarterly Report due at the end of the month – now just a week away (yikes!). But I am also in the midst of some basic home maintenance stuff that’s been eating into my writing time, so there’s that. More posts will be forthcoming and sooner rather than later.

We've been playing a lot of Continental Commands & Colors: Napoleonics lately at
T's place, and Claude has been my Aide de Camp for most of the battles (he's pretty
good at not knocking over blocks, but soaks up a lot of attention).

So, this note is part-apology (see above) and a thank-you to the readers of A Fast Game. I guess I could be accused of burying the lead, but in the early hours of the morning (Adelaide-time), the page-view count for A Fast Game tipped over into six digits. At time of writing, the view-count for the blog sits at 100,264(?!). It was about this time in October that A Fast Game hit 50,000 views. It took two years and nine months to reach that figure, and just eight months to double that figure. I’m shocked. Pleasantly shocked, but it still doesn’t feel quite real. I work hard at every post that appears here, and I’m confident I’ve gotten better at conveying what I’m trying to say than I did at the beginning – and in less words, though it may not seem like it with some posts – but to me it doesn’t seem the blog warrants this kind of audience.

Here is where I need to point out that I couldn’t have reached such lofty heights without the help and support of a bunch of people pointing new readers to A Fast Game; Rachel and the good folks at GMT Games, Brant, who’s responsible for the weekly Tuesday Newsday post for the Armchair Dragoons, Yasushi Nakaguro at Bonsai Games, Grant at Pushing Cardboard, Jerry at Cardboard Commander, Brian Train for the shoutouts whenever I write about a Brian Train game, and everyone else who have given their time and effort for interviews or surveys. 

And, of course, everyone that checks in and reads the blog. Y’all make it worth the effort. Thank you.

 

 

Stripped Down for Parts: Purgatorio: Battles of the Guelfs and Ghibellines, 1176-1325

  

 

I’ve come late to Purgatorio: Battles of the Guelfs and Ghibellines, 1076-1325 (GMT Games, 2026), the sixth game in the Men of Iron series and designer Ralph Shelton’s second contribution. There is a long story involving missing order components that meant my delivery – along with a handful of other folks’ P500 orders – had been put on ice until the missing bits arrived. Lucky for me, I live in the same city that the distribution centre is based, and so I was able to negotiate getting the rest of the order released while the missing part will be sent along with whichever order they come in with (I’ve got two more orders on the way, so hopefully they’ll show up with one of those).

I also came late to the Men of Iron system. I stumbled across a copy of Arquebus: the Battles for Northern Italy 1495-1544 (GMT Games, 2017) when it had been out of print for a couple of years (a reprint is available for pre-order on GMT's P500 page), and caught up when the Men of Iron Tri-Pack (GMT Games, 2020) was first released.

This will be a brief look at Purgatorio; to be honest, there isn’t that much to the game. That’s not a criticism – the relative simplicity of the Men of Iron system is one of the game’s strengths. I was able to introduce my brother-in-law to the game in a single session of play, and he beat me in our second match.

 

The cover art is striking. Daringly dark, it captures the intimacy of near-fraternal violence of the age. The illustration was commissioned from Kurt Miller, a digital artist who GMT has been leaning on for some of their most striking covers of late, including Pendragon: the Fall of Roman Britain (GMT Games, 2017), A Time for Trumpets (GMT Games, 2020), Norman Conquests: MoIVol. V (GMT Games, 2023), and even rail games like 1846: Race for the Midwest (GMT Games, 2016) and 1848: Australia (GMT Games, 2021). Mr Millers work is dynamic and thematically rich, and – to my mind – really sets the tone of the game.

My only criticism of the box-front would be that the red title gets a little lost in the twilight aspect of the cover illustration, but it something like that would put a punter off buying it, they probably wouldn’t be in the market for this kind of game in the first place. The edge faces all feature a bold white “Purgatorio” against a vermillion background, which is how most people would likely come to the game initially, slipped into a gap in a bookshelf. The title alone might be enough to elicit some initial interest.

Box back.

The box back offers a brief introduction to the Men of Iron system, how it plays and its two-handed solitaire suitability, and a paragraph outlining the historical background against which the battles featured in the game are set, including the origins of the terms Guelf and Ghibelline, referring to supporters of the Pope or the Holy Roman Empire respectively. No map images are featured, but a selection of unit counters and markers  are presented at their regular 5/8” size, along with a list of the game’s contents, the personnel responsible for its coming being brought to market, and some details about the scale of the game (unit sizes, map and time scales). We also learn Purgatorio is recommended for two players, aged 14 and up, that the difficulty rating is suggested to be Four out of Nine, and solitaire suitability Seven out Nine.

The MoI System Rules-set.

The Men of Iron Series Rules have benefitted from years of in-the-field playtesting over several versions of the game. As mentioned, Purgatorio is the sixth game using the system first featured in Men of Iron: Warfare in the Middle Ages (GMT Games, 2005). As mentioned earlier, the system is relatively simple and easy to assimilate, but it’s proven robust enough to handle (with only minor modifications on a case by case basis) to handle tactical warfare from the late 1000s to the late 1400s – four centuries of radical transformation in war-making.

The rules are clearly presented, but being a series rules-set, there are large swarths
of material that are irrelevant to the game to hand (still interesting reading, though).

The rulebook itself is printed on the familiar medium weight matt paper, and is well laid out and easy to read and navigate. Being a series rulebook, some of the material presented is of no consequence to Purgatorio. Of the twenty-five pages of standard rules, the content necessary to this game comes to about sixteen pages (and this count includes the space given to the components and unit descriptions). Another two pages present Optional Rules, and the twenty-eight page book is rounded out with a Cover page, Index and Credits (also a page), and an Extended Sequence of Play on the back cover.

The Battle Book, covering the scenarios and other details for this set.

The Battle Book is the heart of the game. This also comes to twenty-eight pages. These are comprised of a cover page and preface at the beginning, and at the back, a two-page Example of Play and another Extended Sequence of Play more specifically tuned to Purgatorio. The middle twenty-three pages cover the game’s seven scenarios.

Sample scenario (Battle of Cortenuova). Each scenario starts with a historical brief and
an estimated game length, then gets into the meat of the game, with set-up instructions
for each of the two armies, and a map placement map to hurry things along.

After the army set-up instructions come any special rules or scenario instructions (e.g., in
this scenario, the Guelfs may adopt a shield wall defence, the Ghibellines may not),
a note on game balance, and the Flight Levels for the two sides,

Each scenario is presented over three to four pages. Each has a historical introduction, a rough playing time and who sets up first. The two armies are listed by deployment. These are colour-coded by their Leader (another thing I really appreciate about the Men of Iron system), Then Who Goes First and any quirky scenario specific rules or chrome in play for the scenario, and lastly The Flight Levels for each army (in case you’re new to the Men of Iron system, I’ll swing back to the significance of the Flight Levels a bit later – bear with me).

In among all of this is a map, presented on a full age, indicating where each (colour-coded Battle (the term used throughout the age to describe all the troops under a particular leader) begin the action on the field. A lot of the time, this will be a rigid placement (hex numbers are offered in the Army deployment notes), but sometimes there will be the chance for free placement within certain confines, as illustrated on the set-up map.

Everything in the scenarios is really clearly presented and easy to comprehend and apply to the play map. The historical background pieces are very helpful for setting the context of the situation your about to play out. One could argue that successive designers have had two decades to get it right, except the presentation hasn’t changed much at all since the original set was released. All in all, it’s a lovely bit of information transfer design in a hobby not always known for effective user interfacing.

The three map sheets. All 22" by 34" in size, two are back printed to offer the three
full-sized battle maps and four 22" by 17" maps (two to a sheet).

Purgatorio comes with three standard sized map-sheets, two of them double-sided. These present the seven scenario battlefields that we’ve been introduced to in miniature in the Battle Book. Three of the battles – Montaperti, Benevento, and Zappolino – are played out on full sized 22” by 34” maps (unsurprisingly, these tend to play out over three hours and up), while the remaining four scenarios are played on half-sized maps. In these cases, two maps are presented on each side of one of the back-printed maps.

I took over a dozen photos of a couple of the maps and this was the best shot out of
the lot. I'm not going to embarrass myself by posting any of the others, but this, the
map for the Battle of Tagliacozzo, is a good representation of what you can
expect to find with all of the scenarios.

The maps are printed on heavy, low-gloss paper, and lean more into functionality than prettiness, but this is as much a product of the doctrines of warfare as any thoughts of production practicality. Battles throughout the middle-ages tended to be fought on clear, open spaces to facilitate manoeuvre and wide rank formations. My only criticism is that the opportunity was there to put the smaller maps on the obvers of the centre fold on two separate maps instead of printing them all on a single sheet. This would have allowed the map to be presented folded in half for all four smaller scenarios without having to back-fold the sheets centre fold (I complained about this in the Norman Conquests unboxing as well). That said, I’m looking forward to setting up and pushing some counters around on these maps.

Counter sheet 1: the Ghibelline battles and leaders.

Counter sheet 2: the Guelf battles and leaders.

Counter sheet 3:markers various and divers.

 The counters are presented on three card sheets, two full-sized sheets and one quarter sized. These are printed on a good weight of brown-core cardstock that seems to be the standard these days for GMT games, and are die-cut, but can be removed quite cleanly. The counters themselves are 5/8” (which is a nice upgrade from the half-inch counters offered in the Tri-Pack). The units look very nice and should prove to be quite readable on the table.

Player Aid Card (PAC), Back panel (left) and Front panel. The Front panel features the
Weapons Matrix, one of my favourite features of the MoI system.

The inside spread of the PAC offers a set of terrain modifier tables for each of the
included scenarios. You shouldn't need to refer to this too often during play, so you
can treat your 11" by 17" PAC like an 11" by 8,5" card for most of the game.   .

The game includes two bi-fold Player Aid Cards (PACs) which present pretty much everything you will need to refer to during a game, arranged sensibly into combat-related charts and tables on the front and back of the PAC, and a list of short Terrain Effects Charts for each scenario map inside the fold. A key feature of the system is the ability of some units to perform Shock or Charge attacks. The front of the PAC features a Shock/Charge Matrix, an illustrated table that defines which units are capable of the tactic in this particular game, cross-referencing the modifier applicable to each kind of potential target unit. Combat is relatively simple but takes a few steps. A lot can happen in in melee including the loss of a leader. The tables for Defenders attempting a retreat before a Shock attack ae also located here. Combat results tables covering close combat and missile attacks (in the case of Purgatorio, exclusively archers and crossbowmen) are located on the reverse side of the folded card, along with tables covering Charge Reluctance, Counter-Charge vs. Charge, and Counter-Charge vs. Shock/Fire, as well as a handy list of modifiers that may influence a roll for Charge or Shock attacks.

The Flight Track (top) with the starting points for both sides, each battle, prefilled for
your convenience, and the General Track.

Medieval battles were usually attritional. The Men of Iron system reflects this through each side accruing Flight Points for units and leaders lost in battle. As mentioned, each scenario lists a number of Flight Points for each side. These threshold numbers are marked on the Flight Track (see above) for each side and each scenario. During the course of each round the position of each player’s Flight Marker is adjusted to reflect the accrual of Flight Points. At the end of each Free Activation (the first activation for the opposing player when the current player has lost the initiative), both players roll a die and add the result to their current Flight level. If one (or both) player’s resulting total exceeds their Flight threshold, the game is over with a loss to that player. If both players exceed their threshold in the same check, the battle is considered a draw (in this instance, for us at least, a rematch of the same scenario will be scheduled for the next available date).

The card also includes a General Track. this is used for the special Timed Battle rule, that sets a limit on how long the attacking side can galivant around looking for openings or advantages. Each battle has a declared Time Limit, The Defending player has the option to pass on their free activation, and that will shift the Time marker down one space. Then the Time marker reaches Zero, the attacking side immediately loses the game. This is a special rule, not an optional rule, but the way the introduction to the rule is phrased, it seems like it was initially intended as an optional rule. But don’t quote me on this – I’m probably wrong.

Box, dice and baggies (in situ).

It should come as no surprise that Purgatorio comes with ten-sided dice – one purple and one yellow for the two factions) and baggies. Actually, a big roll of baggies (I didn’t count them, but probably enough to separate out all the individual Battles). A cardstock insert is also included to create a trough for the dice and baggies, and to keep everything nice and flat during shipping.

I saw on one of the Facebook groups a fellow mentioning how he inverted the inserts of many of his games to better accommodate counters and other components. This was a lightbulb moment for me, and since then I’ve done this to quite a few games.

"Oh, strange new world; oh, inverted insert."

-----

The animosity between the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire that stretched from the end of the twelfth century to the beginning of the fourteenth is a slice of history of which I am particularly ignorant, so I‘m quite looking forward to getting some of these battles to the table. Realistically though, I don’t think this is likely in the short term, at least across the table from another opponent.

I’m on a bit of a project/mission at the moment with the various Army expansions for Commands and Colors: Napoleonics, so I may not get to Purgatorio very soon. I may be able to do an AAR or two now T has a copy of the Men of Iron Tri-Pack that came in the same delivery as this one (although we’ll have to wait for the Patch Kit* before we can play all of the scenarios from that set. This will arrive with Coast Watchers (GMT Games, 2026) which, by all reports should be charging soon and shipping by the end of June.

When I do get to Purgatorio, be assured I will report back on the experience. There will be AARs with the same insightful critique and poor-quality, under-lit phone-camera photos you have come to expect from A Fast Game.

 

* When the files for the Second Printing of the MoI Tri-Pack were sent to the printer, some older files for maps and scenario booklets were forwarded in error. To their credit, GMT notified customers through their following newsletter, but had already put the production of a replacement component package (Patch Kit) in motion.

 

State of Play: Commands & Colors: Napoleonics - Wagram, 5-6 July, 1809 (Part 2)

 

 

A rare instance of the Austrians forming Battalion Square.

 

Over the last few weeks, my brother-in-law, T, and I have been revisiting The Austrian Army expansion (GMT Games, 2013) for Commands & Colors: Napoleonics (GMT Games, 2010), exploring the multi-scenario battles of Eggmühl (which I wrote about over five posts, collected in their proper sequence here), and Wagram. Aspects if Battle of Wagram is presented over three scenarios. I wrote about our experience playing the first two scenarios – each very different to anything else that had come before among the scenarios presented – in Part 1 of this exploration. In Part 2, we’ll look at the final part of the Wagram triptych, and the last scenario of the set.

 

Wagram – 6 July 1809 (Davout in Markgrafneusiedl)

The third battle of Wagram scenario, dealing with the action around Markgrafneusiedl, is one of the longest scenarios in the whole collection; with a twelve-banner victory threshold, a target it shares with the first Aspern-Essling scenario Day 1 Aspern), but fields 47 martial units across the two sides, as opposed to 38 in Aspern. It’s almost uncomfortably busy, limiting the capacity for manoeuvre, especially for the French.

T saw that neither side experienced supply shortages during the campaign.

Napoleon’s intent was for Davout’s III Corps to strike the Austrian Left and roll up the line. Charles recognised the danger in that quarter and ordered his IV Corps and Advance Guard (who we met in Gross-Enzersdorf) to strike before the attack could be readied. The French were surprised and pushed back, but soon their lines firmed up and the Austrians and lost their momentum. Davout ordered a fierce barrage, then at 10:00am he ordered his infantry forward to engage with the enemy. The French sustained considerable losses but managed to keep up the pressure on the line, and soon were fighting inside the town of Markgrafneusidl. By noon, the Austrian and French cavalry were engaging in massed formations, but this was a sideshow to the weight of French infantry slowly, then more speedily forcing the defenders to give up ground. Davout’s plan proved successful.

End round one.

The scenario starts roughly at the 10:00am mark, with the French lines formed and ready to advance. The French advantage of numbers is conspicuous; twenty-seven units on the board to the Austrians’ twenty-one, and six leaders to five. The French player also begins with a six-card hand, an advantage of two cards over the Austrian player. Generally, hand size isn’t a game-killer. It can cramp your style if you want to order something on the Left flank and you have three Right flank orders and a Leadership – Center. Two extra cards might give you more options, or it might just give you two more Right Sector orders. I’m also much more willing to order a unit to form Square if I’m not going to be reducing my options by 25%.

This is unfortunate, because one of the French player’s greatest strengths is the massed Cavalry far on his Right flank (six squadrons and a battery of Horse Artillery), to a thin horse defence on that flank. As it turned out, I could have been more careful on this flank, but all will be revealed indue course. In spite of the difference in numbers, the Austrians have a good defensive line; nearly all the front-facing units have some cover or the benefit of hilltops (all offering a to hit dice reduction). Overall, it’s a fairly even match.

Early advance on the French Right. T can be little cavalier with the tiles
and the opponent's blocks during set up.

The Austrians begin the match one temporary Banner up for holding the majority of the three Markgrafneusiedl hexes (the two town hexes in the Austrian Right, and the church in the Center) attack on the town. This made the town a target for the French.

T began with an attack Left Flank (my Right). I told him this was s bold move. In our table banter, “bold” falls somewhere between “brash” and ‘For the love of Mike, what were you thinking?!”. French Line are tenacious fighters in close combat (one was firing at range to try to soften the target before the main attack, but not the way T has been rolling lately, and they experienced a two-dice reduction on their attacks into town hexes. The French were pushed back at the cost of a block each from two of the three attacking brigades. I followed up my stout defence with a counterattack on the same flank using a Take Command Any Section. I chose to make good on my early gains, ordering four contiguous units on my right flank – three Infantry and an Artillery battery – for ranged fire. By the end of round one I’d thinned the ranks of three of the French Line units, but no decisive hits. This was going to be a slow churn.

End round four - still nothing to show for it.

In round two, the French ordered another unsuccessful attack on the town, but only succeeded in seizing the bridge running onto the town. I foolishly brought my Cavalry down off the high ground with an Assault Left Flank order. This handed T an opportunity; with a Counterattack order, he was able to use that order against me (and due to the card differential, with 50% higher effectiveness). Over the next two rounds, T’s Cavalry swept up and attacked the ranging Austrian horse with a ferocious charge that cost me three squadrons and reduced a forth, as well as leading to the (ahistorical) capture of the Cavalry division’s commander Nostitz-Rieneck, netting T four Victory Banners in total. Suddenly I was left feeling quite exposed on my Left flank.

End round five - the French eradicate the Austrian Cavalry.

Chipping at the flanks will only gain you so much, so the time had come for the French to make push in the Center. This they did with an Attack Center order, bringing up two Line and one Light unit. Firing for effect, the first Line halved the strength of the Austrian light at the base of the hills. The Light regiment attacked the church, reducing its defenders’ strength and amazingly taking no casualties of their own, but the Austrians would not be shifted.  In another show of martial bravado, the second Line came off their bridge to attack Markgrafneusiedl, causing some casualties, but losing all cohesion under the return fire and was wiped from the board (my first legitimate score). I replied with an Attack Right Flank order, and brought my reserve Cavalry to bear, and attacked the reduced French unit on the Markgrafneusiedl bridge, earning two more Banners and evening up the score.

End round five, Some lucky rolls even the scores.

By the seventh round we were again even, at six banners each. T’s sixth round Force March in the Center had been blunted by a combination of unfortunate dice rolls and steadfast resistance that cost the French as many blocks as they took from the defenders T managed to clear the Tower (Centre section, at the foot of the hills), but couldn’t take it. The Austrians replied with an order to Attack Right Flank that further reduced his frontline infantry threatening that sector, destroying the Line that had tried to punch through the Markgrafneusiedl defences from the Centre earlier in the round.

Things can escalate quickly.

At the top of the seventh round, T followed up with a Probe Right Flank, activating two of his Cavalry squadrons, the Light horse to try to see off my remaining Cavalry in my Left, and Heavy sent to harass the Line under the leadership of Mayer (whose troops had suffered under a two-pronged attack of Line and Light Infantry in the previous round. The Light horse unit was bested by my surviving Light Cavalry, and the Infantry saw off the attack against their high-ground position easily.

A Forced March order of my own allowed me to pull a collapsing Militia unit back to deny the French an easy Victory Banner, and to get some fresh troops back onto the defensive line on the hill. Some fights were engaged along the front, but nothing conclusive. The grind continued.

End round eight. Six-all.

With the French taking possession of the Church in turn eight, and the Austrians only holding one of the two Markgrafneusiedl town hexes, the Austrians lost their possession Banner, returning it to the diminished French banner pool. Technically, the French didn’t earn that right until the beginning of round nine, when their Line began their turn in the church, but I wasn’t going to be able to dislodge them with the cards I held. An Assault Center order allowed the French to move into the church, but being a Line unit, it couldn’t go on to attack the reduced Austrian Light adjacent – which slowed his roll. His attack up the hill on Mayer’s reduced line cost both sides but came to nothing. I managed to vanquish his Light Cavalry through a Probe Left Flank, using the (slightly) superior numbers of my own surviving Light in combined arms with the Foot Artillery battery I hadn’t yet been able to wheel up onto the hill-range.

By round ten, we were again neck-and-neck at nine Banners each. Meyer’s longsuffering brigade had finally succumbed to the onslaught of repeated attacks by French infantry, but Meyer’s command escaped capture and retreated to an adjacent Line unit. Here things got interesting. Twice the French attacked with their Heavy Cavalry, an twice they were thrown back after Meyer ordered the brigade into Battalion Square (not an ideal move when there are infantry within striking range, but needs must).

In round eleven, managed to eliminate another infantry unit on my extreme right with my reserve Cavalry, but at the cost of setting up an easy point for the French. By this point the scores were eleven for the Austrians, ten for the French. If I had instead moved an infantry unit into the vacant, I could have regained the Temporary Majority Banner for holding Markgrafneusiedl and ended the game, but that felt a bit gamey, so I declined.

End round eleven.

Round twelve saw no change on either side, although I didn’t realise at the time T was taking a chance setting up his end-dame gambit. In the end run, T just had a particularly good selection of cards to execute his intentions in detail.

With his thirteenth order, T delivered the final blow. Playing another Leadership card – the last of an exceptional run – he ordered all his units with an attached leader, attacking my remaining Cavalry, and decisively ending the game but picking up the last two Banners. He saved me the indignity of taking the tower, which would have been his right. Overall, a hard-fought game on both sides, but the French were victorious, and T finally seemed to have made his peace with the dice gods and broken the drought.

End state. A hard-won victory for the French.

In all, the game took thirteen full rounds to reach a conclusion (with the usual table banter and a couple of interruptions, this took the best part of two hours). A loss can still mean a satisfying game. I’m happy to have accomplished what I did with what I had to work with. Looking back on it, I don’t think there was anything I would have done significantly differently, except perhaps to roll better results.

 

French orders played.

Austrian orders played.

 

Line of Fire: a fast Interview with Lee Brimmicombe-Wood

 

 

 

Mr Brimmicome-Wood didn't send through a photograph, so here's
a still of Christopher Plummer from The Battle of Britain (1969)
wearing a RCAF flight jacket. I'm sure the resemblance is striking.

I asked at the end of a recent post for readers to mention which GMT games they would most like to see reprinted. Almost immediately upon publishing, Lee Brimmicome-Wood’s Downtown: Air War Over Hanoi, 1965-1972 (GMT Games, 2004) was mentioned. This led to some further discussion elsewhere, and I realised something; speculation about a possible – or hoped-for – reprint of Downtown comes up in online conversations roughly every six months or so by my reconning.  

Now, I’m trying to spend less time on social media, but I happen to follow Mr Brimmicome-Wood’s posts on Facebook. I appreciate his mix of insight and humour on any number of subjects. So, after literal years of listening to the undirected supplications of wargamers for a Downtown reprint, I’d try going to the source and messaged him. Mr Brimmicome-Wood answered quickly and graciously. This led to another question, then another. Eventually, I sent him a couple of extra questions and a promise to knock the whole conversation into something like an interview. So, what follows is – hopefully – a logical narrative pieced together from random questions. I’ve kept a light editorial hand, and I’d like to thank Mr Brimmicome-Wood for his time, attention, and candour.

 

-----

 

AFG: Designers generally begin as players. I have a couple of questions; what were your formative gaming experiences, and, what led you into game design in the first place?

 

LBW: I guess I got into games at the arse-end of the 1970s. I loved board games in general, though the selection back then was fairly thin, along the lines of Formula 1 (Waddingtons, 1962), Risk (Parker Brothers, 1959), Admirals (Parker Brothers, 1972), and suchlike.

My brother subscribed to Airfix Magazine – the both of us having a love of plastic kits and soldiers and the like. I was already being pulled into the miniatures hobby by friends and schoolmates. However, the magazine ran intriguing adverts for SPI games, though I had no clue where to buy them. Then one day I ran into a selection of SPI titles in Hamley's toy store in London, and BANG! There went my pocket money for years to come.

Some of the appeal of the SPI titles was the graphic design and physical systems. Redmond Simonsen remains something of a god-like figure for me, and I'm still a sucker for that SPI 'look'. I mention this, as it was very influential for when I started to get into designing games.

Another huge influence on me was the Metagames titles for the late '70s, such as G.E.V. (Metagaming Concepts, 1978) or Olympica (Metagaming Concepts, 1978). There was something very punk about the DIY way they produced small game titles on a budget. Though their graphics were scrappier, I think that cheap-and-fast ethic inculcated the idea that anyone could do this. It set me up for later.

Later, in the early internet era, I gravitated into the circle of J.D. Webster, who had designed Air Superiority (Game Designers’ Workshop, 1987) for GDW in the '80s. Seeing him work further encouraged me to think about design. Particularly as we tinkered with and modded J.D.'s designs. Later, I was to work with Tony Valle on early iterations of the Birds of Prey (Ad Astra Games, 2008) air combat game.

I think the main hurdle to clear before my own design work was learning how to wrangle software graphics packages such as Freehand and Illustrator. Once I had those in hand, I was off to the races.

 

AFG: Your first published game was Downtown: Air War Over Hanoi, 1965-1972. The game went on to take the Charles S. Roberts Award for Best Modern Wargame, and the CSR Award for Best Graphics, and the James Dunnigan Award for Design Excellence. After that, you went on to design a string of highly regarded games; The Burning Blue: The Battle of Britain, 1940 (GMT Games, 2006 – built on the chassis of Downtown), Nightfighter: Air Warfare in the Night Skies of World War Two (GMT Games, 2011), and Bomber Command:The Night Raids (GMT Games, 2012), all flight-themed, but each bringing something new and different to the table. Can you discuss your design process; that is, how you approach each subject and how your design concepts evolve?

 

LBW: I often begin with imagining what the game looks like on the table, and then work back from there. Downtown was part-inspired by an old title named Rolling Thunder (Commando Wargames, 1979), which was truly an awful, near-unplayable game, but with intriguing components. What I designed was basically the game I wished Rolling Thunder had been.

Similarly, Wing Leader started with the side views (themselves inspired by a Mike Spick article back in a mid-'70s Airfix Magazine about wargaming air combat in side-view). Then I worked back to what the game would be.

The advantage of being a designer/artist is that I can keep the totality of the game in my head at all times - both rules and physical systems. So, a lot is about juggling those and trying to prove them out.

 

AFG: Anytime a conversation between wargamers turns to what games they’d like to see get a reprint, Downtown always comes up, at least in the conversations I’m privy to. Speculation is rife and fingers have often been pointed. Could you please set the record straight on where a Downtown reprint stands?

 

LBW: When GMT and I previously discussed a reprint of Downtown, some years ago, progress foundered on a small but knotty production issue. It's probably something we might have been able to overcome, but it put a temporary stop on things.

And then I got sick, in a way that permanently took a lot out of me. I ran out of puff just around the time we were finishing up Wing Leader and I had to walk away from board wargames for a while. Doing more work on Downtown, trying to tie it and all the expansion material up into a reprint edition, started to look like substantial effort.

Then add to this a feeling that this is not the game I'd design today. Honestly, the original game has some serious flaws. I'd prefer to strip a lot out and make some substantial changes. After surgery it wouldn't be quite the same game again.

Anyway, I'm left with a sense of a project that feels just a bit too large to take on, given my health, and that also I'm being tempted away from this by other projects that are more interesting than a plain ol' retread.

So, I find myself stalled on Downtown, and it's honestly all about me, not GMT. They have been stand-up guys. Won't hear a word said against them. If you or anyone else wants to curse anyone, feel free to curse me.

 

AFG: Fair enough, but would you consider working with a developer, or handing the project over to somebody else and remain in a consulting role to see the project move forward? Anecdotally, there seems to be a pretty eager market for the game.

 

LBW: Please don't ask me that. The problem for me is that I would not be able to keep my hands off it. The project would suck me in. It's all-or-nothing; there's no halfway house.

As for the market, that's very sweet of people, but wouldn't they rather play a better game than some now-ancient kitchen-sink design? I think there's a superior title to be made on the subject. If I was to ever revisit Vietnam I'd rather make something new, that reflects decades of thinking on the subject, than kick out a golden oldie from when I was a nugget designer. 

One of my all-time favourite game covers; Wing Leader: Victories.
Courtesy of Dimitry (BGG).

AFG: You mentioned Wing Leader earlier. I was thinking about Jerry White talking about how Skies above the Reich (GMT Games, 2018) and Storm Above the Reich (GMT Games, 2021) were originally going to be a single game, but during development the game became just too large not to be broken into two titles. I suspected it might have come earlier with Wing Leader. Was Wing Leader conceived as a single game, then split into two parts, or were Wing Leader: Victories (GMT Games, 2015) and Wing Leader: Supremacy (GMT Games, 2016) developed as separate products from the get-go?

 

LBW: They were separate things from the start. When it became clear from a cursory spreadsheet of potential aircraft that a single product would not generate the scenarios I wanted, splitting the game into separate products by time period was the obvious step. That said, I had data cards on the full panoply of warplanes from an very early stage. I wish I'd just put more effort into testing the later era before shipping the first.

 

AFG: Your latest published game is Red Storm: The Air War Over Central Germany, 1987 (GMT Games, 2019). A reprint is currently available for preorder, along with a second expansion, Red Storm: Southern Flank (GMT Games, ~2027) (the first expansion, Red Storm: Baltic Approaches – The Air War Over the Baltic, 1987 (GMT Games, 2022) is still in print). Does Southern Flank mark the wrapping up of the series, or do you envisage visiting further contested zones?*

 

LBW: I have to correct you there. I've had nothing to do with the Red Storm series; that's the work of other hands. I don't even own a copy. I was involved in the very early stages of Elusive Victory (GMT Games, 2009), with Terry Simo, but then I disengaged to go do The Burning Blue. Since then other folks have carried that flame forward.

I think I'm on record as being concerned about these games. Downtown was very much conceived as a game of alpha strikes against an Integrated Air Defence System. The system was designed to do a very discrete job. When people tried to push it to show both sides launching strikes simultaneously, I had a bit of a 'whoa' response. I think that breaks the system somewhat and potentially leads to weirdness. I would not have designed that. I'd be interested to see what players think.

AFG: So, are you working on anything new at the moment?

LBW: "I thought I was out, but they dragged me back in for one last job."

Actually, it's more than one job. For some time now I've been involved with Bruce Maxwell's Air & Armor (Compass Games, 2024) operational WW3 game system. This is another of those classic games that I played a lot of in the '80s but has been given new life. My role here is somewhat reduced, mostly doing terrain analysis (i.e., the map layouts) for the expansion modules, along with a bunch of research and sundry design input. These include Air & Armor: V Corps (Compass Games, 2026) which has only just shipped, and covers the classic Fulda Gap scenario. Interestingly, it vividly shows the problems the infantry-light US 3rd Armored Division would have had in the dense terrain of the so-called gap. Another expansion, Air & Armor: BAOR (Compass Games, ~2028 - no link available at this point), covers (British) I Corps, and is fascinating, given that the British are a very infantry-heavy force in some very diverse terrain. There's yet a third 'Air & Armor' project in the works that's unannounced, but very exciting, and in its own way quite eye-opening.

In addition to this I have also been collaborating with Sapper Studio on a recently-announced Falklands game, titled Razor's Edge (Sapper Studio, ~2027). I'm doing the graphics and physical systems for this, but have also contributed to the design, notably of the air system. The air war over the Falklands has some notable features about it, and my contribution is to show how the Argentine air arms were very much a weapon where you needed to keep your powder dry until the right moment. Going off half-cocked before the landings were located was a recipe for failure.

Okay, you have my attention now.

AFG: Last question; do you have a game or maybe a couple of games – yours or somebody else’s – that you find that you find yourself coming back to again and again, not necessarily a masterpiece of design, but one you really enjoy, or that scratches a gaming itch?

 

LBW: Hmm. StarForce: Alpha Centauri (SPI, 1974) is not just one of my earliest wargame purchases, but remains a classic for me. It's a rare space game that discards all that 'Pacific carrier battles in space' nonsense beloved of too many SF games, and also naturally incentivises englobing tactics in three dimensions. It was also 'woke' in 1975, so annoys all the usual suspects, which I regard as an enormous plus.

Speaking of games warranting reprints... Photo courtesy Charles Picard (BGG).

Then there's SPI's CityFight (SPI, 1979), which is a clumsy and overcomplex design on a really important subject. However, it tackles it earnestly, and with some really great design ideas. I'm still waiting for the definitive urban warfare game to emerge (no, Urban Operations (NUTS! Publishing, 2017) is not it), but CityFight has some good things going for it with its double-blind play. It was also co-designed by the gay icon 'Donnie the Punk'. Go look him up, he's a legend.

Finally, I have to mention John Butterfield's RAF: the Battle of Britain, 1940 (Decision Games, 2009). Now John is easily twice the designer I'll ever be. He's now had three bites at the Battle of Britain cherry, to my one, and they all have something interesting to say. The second edition of RAF was particularly interesting, because I sold John on an idea regarding the Stabilization Scheme which he adopted, and it works like gangbusters. RAF remains an elegant, superbly engineered titled on a favourite subject. I wish I was as good a designer as John.

* This was a case of lazy research on my part; Mr Brimmicome-Wood gets design credits for Red Storm and its expansions on Boardgamegeek.com, and I took that at face value. The box covers present the game being designed by Douglas Bush, with a credit for the system design given to LBW. BGG is not a tool of finesse, and I don't have a valid excuse for not looking further than the front page. I would like to apologise to Mr Bush for screwing this up in such a big way and diminishing his notable accomplishment with Red Storm.