Tuesday 30 January 2024

By the Numbers: Further thoughts on Wargaming Goals for 2024

 

 

"I thought it was your turn to bring the ASLSK?"

A week ago, I posted about my desire and reasons for setting some goals for myself around wargaming in 2024. Since than I’ve spent some time thinking about over the last seven days, mostly because I wanted to be able to make a big announcement for the first anniversary of A Fast Game is a Good Game. I had hoped this would be the 100th post to the blog, rounding out the year nicely, but with other demands on my time, it wasn’t to be (this is actually the 96th post). But like most things to do with A Fast Game, 

I haven’t got all the details bedded down as yet, but I have settled on the structure of my goals. My first priority is to complete the outstanding 6x6 obligations that were left uncompleted last year. Playing six games six times each – thirty-six games in all – seemed like an achievable goal, but various circumstances conspired to make it impossible. Nonetheless, I am committed to finishing that goal. I have fifteen games outstanding, having knocked off two already in January and completing my run of Napoléon 1806 (Shakos, 2019), and played my first game of Great War Commander (Hexasim, 2018). My review of Napoléon 1806 can be found here). I won’t put completing the outstanding games ahead of everything else, but I’ll try to complete them in the first half of the year.

On to the new goals. Learning from last year, I’ve decided to have two ranks of goals; Primary goals – the ones I will strenuously try to complete in 2024, and Extra Credit goals – the ones that I would like to get to but won’t die in a ditch over. Any Extra Credit goals I don’t complete this year may become Primary goals in 2025.

The bottom of the fourth in Napoleon 1806.

As I said earlier, I haven’t squared away all of the details regarding these goals, but I can present the essential structure I’m setting for myself and fill in some of the details. So, without further ado:

Primary goals for 2024:

A 5x3 Challenge

I thought about increasing it to a 6x3 or 7x3, but with the outstanding 2023 6x6 games to be played, a big chunk of my gaming year is already spoken for. If I get to November having completed this, I may add another rank or two. I haven’t settled on all five games yet, but there are a couple that will almost certainly make the cut; Brothers at War: 1862 (Compass Games, 2022), and Napoléon 1807 (Shakos, 2020). As with the previous year’s program, only plays against another human opponent will count to the tally. I’ll post a session report for each game and a full review after completion of the three games for each title. This won’t be as thorough as the six-game regime of the past, but three games is still a good sample for appraisal (considering many reviewers seem to base their opinions on a single run-through*).

Twenty Game Reviews posted in 2024

In 2023 I posted twelve game reviews. Writing reviews is hard if you’re doing it right. Anyone can say, “This is the best thing ever!” or “I had to scrape this game off my Hushpuppy with a stick!” It may be a little easier for me because I only post reviews of game I like. That doesn’t mean I won’t point out their weak points or how they might be improved. But if I can’t be positive about a game, I’m not going to waste my time telling you why you should hate it (there are enough people doing that already). I’ll stick to my three-play minimum promise for games I review that I made last year; a game is a dynamic experience, and if it’s worth it’s salt, it might throw you under a bus your first time out. In my opinion, three bites of the cherry is a minimal requirement for beginning to get to know and understand a game. I wouldn’t trust myself to offer a considered opinion with less.

WWII Commander: Battle of the Bulge (Compass Games, 2020), one of the
games I'm planning on getting around to reviewing in 2024.

So, three more 6x6 reviews, another five from the proposed 5x3 challenge, and one down already. Eleven more reviews (minimum) to make my goal. Which leads me to my third Primary goal for 2024.

12 Solitaire or Solo-Friendly games, New or Revisited, in 2024 (with reviews)

One of the things that made the 6x6 out of reach for me last year was the stipulation of the games being played against a human opponent. A full half of the individual games I played last year were solitaire or two-handed learning games. These also made up about half of the reviews I posted in 2023. I own a handful of solitaire games that I either haven’t played yet or haven’t played in years (Skies Above Britain (GMT Games, 2022) and Beneath the Med (GMT Games 2020) spring to mind). If I still have them in my collection, it's because I enjoyed them and could see myself revisiting them, or I think I’ll enjoy them. It’s time I started getting some of them back to the table (and thinking more deeply about them for review purposes).

That’s all I’m committing myself to. Actually, that’s quite a bit. I hope I’m not over-extending myself. These are the things I’m going to focus my efforts on. My Extra Credit goals are more opportunistic in nature. If the situation avails itself, I’ll grab it, but I’m not going to flagellate myself if I don’t meet any or all of these. Well, maybe a little.

Extra Credit Goals for 2024:

Learn the GBACW system

After a long hunt, I’m the proud owner f a pre-loved (clipped and trayed) copy of Death Valley: the Battles for the Shenandoah (GMT Games, 2019). The hunt came about, in part, because I already had the confusingly titled Battles for the Shenandoah: a Death Valley Expansion (GMT Games, 2022), and Into the Woods: The Battle of Shiloh, April 6-7, 1862 (GMT Games, 2022) which several people said in no uncertain terms was an inappropriate game to try to learn the Great Battles of the American Civil War (GBACW) system. Hence the hunt for Death Valley. 

Now By Swords and Bayonets (GMT Games, ~2024) has made the cut on GMT's P500 and is likely to be released this year; covering smaller battles often overlooked in ACW series, probably will be the best game to learn the system. I’ve made a significant investment in time and cash sourcing these games, and I really want to sink my teeth into some wargaming rib-eye, but in the short term, I’m willing to wait for By Swords and Bayonets, which may drop as early as June. That date isn't carved in stone, however, so that's why this one has been relegated to an Extra Credit goal.

Teach myself to play Fields of Fire

Another GMT game, Fields of Fire (2008) is a company command solitaire game, covering three theatres of war, WWII Europe, Korea and Vietnam. The original game – long out of print – is getting a Deluxe Edition release, probably later this year. In the meantime, I have Volume 2: With the Old Breed (GMT Games, 2018) in the series. (A third, covering the British Parachute Regiment is in the works.) The game has a reputation for being difficult and for demanding much from the player in terms of concentration and commitment. But if I can crack it, that would potentially count to my 12 Solitaire Game goal, so it would be a win-win.

Table and play Chase of the Bismarck

I bought Chase of the Bismarck (Vuca Simunations, 2023) last year, along with Task Force: Carrier Battles in the Pacific (Vuca Simulations 2023). Vuca make really beautiful games and chase of the Bismarck is an unruly beast of a game that has probably the biggest overall footprint of any game I own (with the possible exception of Death Valley with its expansion). A game of Chase will require several things; a place to set it up (probably the night before), a full day clear to teach the game, then actually play it, and an opponent equally committed to the task. This is probably the Extra Credit goal I would most like to achieve, and the one least likely to occur, but a fella can dream. (To get an idea of the scope of this undertaking, have a look at my unboxing post of Chase for the Bismarck here. I forgot to mention just how distractingly beautiful the whole ensemble is.)

-----

So, that’s the plan in broad brushstrokes – more details as they come to hand. I want to nail down the 5x3 games in the next week or two, and I need to take inventory of what I have on had to play, because I anticipate not having the luxury of buying as many new games this year as last. Nobody is supervising me in this, and I have a history of flaking on commitments when they get difficult. So, I write a blog to self-police my own behaviour. That it’s fun to do – not as fun as the games themselves, but quite fun in its own way.

Anyway, if you're still reading this far in, thank you for being a part of this, and helping to keep me keep for playing new games and writing about them. I hope you've enjoyed it, and I hope you'll stick around for year two.

 

* That jab was not directed at anyone in particular. I do understand the pressure to produce new content can force some to cut corners. That’s why I write a blog – Nobody reads anymore, so no pressure, I can do what I want; I could spend a month writing about the intricacies of diplomatic relations in Here I Stand (GMT Games, 2006), and probably nobody would notice or care. There is one outstanding exception; while I don’t always agree with his opinions, I am in awe of the consideration Calandale puts into every game he reviews on his YouTube channel.

 

 


Saturday 27 January 2024

Review: Napoléon 1806



 

Napoléon 1806: La Campagne de Prusse (Shakos, 2019) is the first game in the Conquerors series by designer Denis Sauvage and French game publisher Shakos. Since it was released, two more games in the series, Napoleon 1807: la Campagne de Pologne (Shakos, 2021) and Napoleon1815: Waterloo (Shakos, 2022), Rumour has it the next Conquerors game in the series will be Napoléon 1870 (pertaining to Napoléon III and the Franco-Prussian War – one can only hope).


Napoléon 1806 is also the third game completed from my own 6x6 challenge. After six runs at this game, I’m still not sure I can speak with any real authority about it without making it seem somehow less than it is. It’s true, it’s the most rudimentary of the three games; 1807 offers a multitude of scenarios compared to 1806’s two, while 1815 brings the option of a third player to the mix (again, with a higher number of scenarios). In case I forget later, in the tall grass of the review, I’ll mention now that 1806 is an absolute gem of a game, a finely wrought puzzle, a balancing act, and a game that will reward repeat plays with new insights.


Appearance

The production values in Napoléon 1806 are as good as the best-produced games I own. Nicolas Treil’s artwork is at once evocative of the subject and the era, and quite beautiful in its own right. All the action and a lot of the activity takes place on the 24"x24" mountedgame map, and presented to appear like a Napoleonic-era map, complete with spyglass, compass, and map-creases. The movement is point to point, the distance between points representing around five or six miles. The map also contains the game’s turn track, scoring-track, and a placeholder for a weather event card, which I’ll come back to.


While Napoléon 1806 is technically a block game, it takes a quite different approach than the Columbia or Worthington block games you may be familiar with. Rather than having a unit’s status represented by pips on the block which you rotate to indicate its current health, a unit’s status in a Conquerors series game is recorded on a separate, concealed board. This board lists all of that side’s marshals, each with his own track to indicate the strength and health of his troops. Each marshal has a corresponding block on the Board with that leader’s name and portrait, and any special abilities he brings to the table (this information is replicated, slightly more readably, on the tracking board).

Napoleon and his marshals, with pennants and retreat markers in the foreground.

The blocks themselves are coloured in an appropriate dark blue for the French and grey for the Prussians. Every block has an eagle on its reverse, opponent-facing side, French Eagle and thunderbolts and Prussian crowned eagle (the Alliance blocks in Napoléon 1807 feature the Russian double-headed eagle on appropriately green blocks). The intention is that during play, when a block had been activated – regardless of whether the formation had managed to act during its activation – it would be turned upside-down, so the little arrowhead at the top of the eagle would point downward and make it clear to both sides it had been activated that turn. By our second game we found ourselves placing them face-down instead to more clearly indicate activation.

French Order of Battle

With it’s separate Tracking boards, referred to in the game as Orders of Battle, coloured blocks – two colours for each side to distinguish infantry and attached cavalry – and orange cylinders, as well as the wooden playing pieces and track tokens, you could be forgiven for mistaking Napoléon at first glance for Euro-style resource management game. Part of the game’s charm is its emphasis on tactile experience, and it does indeed have an aspect of resource management in maintaining the operational efficiency of your forces while pushing them to the limits of their endurance. The blocks feel weighty and move ponderously along the paths. Every loss of a block or gained exhaustion cylinder is a visceral reminder of the precarious state of your army. Other wooden components are also provided, standing pennants on poles to indicate the control of citadels (or to provide the enemy with a visual reminder of their target destinations), and little arrows to be used as a mnemonic for the direction of retreat for an attacking force.

The Prussian Order of Battle after a narrow victory by the French.

The game leans heavily on the use of symbols and illustrations to convey the meaning of rules and actions in play. The shields for the force tracking boards are usefully decorated with the game’s symbology, succinctly explaining what can and cannot be performed at each step of the action. Everything in the game is at once decorous and informative, an elegant synthesis of design and communication.

The game comes with a box-sized, four-page Quickstart booklet which will (after stickering up the block for play) will allow you to get straight into play. The quickstart guide strips the game back to its essentials (movement and combat), offering a good grounding in how to play, but leaving enough meat on the carcass to still provide a challenging experience. If you are looking for a fast game, you might be happy enough to stick to the quickstart rules for your first couple of goes. Even at three turns, the first couple of games are probably going to run to about 45 minutes to an hour.

The Quickstart rules set-up guide.

The Rulebook s 24 pages in length, printed on good gloss paper-stock. It’s been produced in full colour and with copious illustrations, and with a pleasant, buff background that is merciful on the eyes. The first thirteen pages cover the “Rules for the Recruit”. This is the meat and potatoes of the game, covering in a little more detail what has been sketched out in the Quickplay rules, but incorporating the start-of-turn card draw, the use of Actions, Rain and other hindrances, and a few more details that enrich the play experience. The remaining pages introduce the “Rules for the Grognard”, optional rules spelling out the free-placement guidelines and the use of the Cavalry Vedettes blocks, “Rules for the Marshal” which cover tournament play, some notes on the card events and actions, and a brief (three-page) history of the campaign, interspersed with designer’s notes.

Every aspect of the production is of excellent quality, from the wooden components to the poker-weight cards in the two decks. My only grumble (given my age and history, I’m entitled to one from time to time) would be that the Order of Battle cards, while a pleasing weight of card (about 2.5mm thickness) have developed a slight camber and don’t lay perfectly flat, but while the use of a thinner card would have rectified this, it wouldn’t have been sturdy enough to ensure the shield stays in place around the board. For that, it’s an inconvenience I’m prepared to put up with.

 

Davout and Soult engage Blucher, Tauentzien and Ruchel in a moving attack (at the
cost of one combat result card. If the battle had taken place in the woods(the green-
coloured areas, top-right), the defenders would have gained an extra card. 


Play

For such a gamey-looking game, Napoléon 1806 offers a satisfying simulation of l’Empereur’s Prussian campaign. You’re not going to get the granularity of a regimental-level simulation (à la Hexasim’s Eagles of France series), but the game achieves what it sets out to do.

Victory in Napoléon 1806 can be secured in a number of ways. The scoring is kept on a pendulum table, starting at ten. Twenty points on the board will secure a French Victory immediately; in the unlikely event the Prussians can beat down on the French hard enough to get the score to zero, they will win. After seven rounds (a fortnight in game time) if the French haven’t secured victory, it’s a default win to the Prussians – the home team must hold out long enough for international support to arrive. A sudden death victory can be won by one side controlling all four citadels at the beginning of their turn. The Prussians start with three – Eufurt, Halle and Leipzig, while the French begin with Bamburg as their home base. On the remote chance that one side kills/captures the others leader, that will also result a sudden death victory,

Napoléon 1806 runs on its cards. Each side has its own deck of thirty-six cards, much like Combat Commander (GMT Games, 2006), and like that game, cards fill in for several roles, including dice damage applied in combat. Each card has a points value printed in the corner (1-5 for the Prussians, 1-6 for the French). These points are used for both determining initiative and establishing how far an ordered unit can move, if at all. The cards provide mandatory events and tactical options, and determine the amount of damage inflicted on the enemy in combat.

Bernadotte and Soult harass Halle and Leipzig as Napoleon considers his next move.

At the beginning of a turn, the players simultaneously draw cards from their draw deck and compare the number, with the highest point-value winning the initiative for that turn (meaning that player goes first, with the French winning ties). Then the players draw three cards each for their hands. There is no hand-size limit in the Conquerors series, so a player can end up with more cards in their hand than in their deck if they’re not careful. Cards in hand can be used for their Actions, usually small perks that can offer an edge in combat or movement when played at the appropriate time.

There are two types of Actions, before play Actions – assuming you have some in your hand, you can play one of these at the beginning of each turn, before any action has taken place. (they’re marked with a light blue title banner at the top) – and in-turn Actions – these are the ones you may play before combat, gain and extra step of movement, or to shrug off some exhaustion (marked with a green banner). Some Cards actually have Automatic Events instead of Actions; these are marked with a Red banner, and if you draw one of more of these at the start of the turn, you need to play it immediately. Some are punitive (such as preventing one of your formations from acting in that turn), but most are Rain events; there is a place-holder box on the map for a Rain card, below the Turn track, to remind the players of the change in conditions. Rain effects movement and exhaustion for everyone for the turn. At the end of the turn, the Rain card is removed and goes into the appropriate player’s discard pile.

A lucky play that paid off.

In a turn, starting with the established initiative holder, each side will take turns “conducting an operation”. This involves choosing a corps or a stack of units, declaring what you would like the to do, then drawing a card from your draw deck to see if chance and fate agree with your intention. Most often, the order will be to move, either to a fixed position, or along a path as far as the points will allow the formation to go. The currency is one point will allow one unit to move one space. If you’re moving two units together, the first point is spent coordinating the two units, then every point after may be spent on movement. Three units in a stack, you’ll need a 3-point card draw to move them just one space. There will be reasons at various times to have units moving together as one, but it going to take a toll on your manoeuvrability.

There’s also the matter of exhaustion. Units and even stacks can move up to three spaces without any ill-effects, but for each space above three the unit – or every unit in the stack – is going to take an exhaustion point. Exhaustion points are an abstraction of the wear and tear on an army on manoeuvre over an extended period of time. A little exhaustion is tolerable, but it can build up very quickly and sometimes unexpectedly.

With Halle and Leipzig in French hands, Napoleon takes Eufurt
for the game (a sudden death victory in Turn 6).

Below the Strength Points track for each leader/formation is an Exhaustion Points Track. Each time a unit takes an exhaustion hit, a little orange drum is added to this row. Say you draw a 5-point card and move Lannes five spaces because you want him to get past an intersection before a Prussian unit has a chance to cut him off; congratulations – you made it, but Lannes’ corps will now be two exhaustion points wearier. Two points aren’t that big a deal, but exhaustion accrues in other ways as well. If the turn has a Rain event, all movement will add one point of exhaustion to every unit moving, whether their card draw actually allows them to move or not (and added to that, it will cost an extra point to get those chaps moving, along with any stack penalties – Rain is as much an enemy as the opposition).

When you get into combat (which you will want to do, especially playing the French, as this is your best chance to shift the Victory Point marker in your favour) you will not want to be carrying to much exhaustion into battle because fighting is itself exhausting. Even if you win, your forces may come out of it with enough accrued exhaustion to push you up to the limit, which is nine points. A corps can carry up to eight points exhaustion, but if it goes over that for whatever reason, it is eliminated (there’s a handy little memento mori of this on the Exhaustion track – a little skull on the nineth position to say it’s over).

Kalckreuth creeping dangerously close to complete exhaustion.

This isn’t to say that once you’ve accrued exhaustion you’re stuck with it. At the end of each turn, any units that haven’t been activated (i.e., are still upright) can lose ALL their exhaustion. But that’s the cost, they can’t have done anything for that turn. And choosing not to activate a formation may not be a guarantee; if they happen to be attacked by an opposing force whale they are trying to sit quietly, they’ll be classed as having been activated, and they may well gain even more exhaustion into the bargain.

Combat resolution is tied to the cards as well. Each unit will bring one or two cards to the fight. Some leaders gain an extra card, some Actions may offer another (or lower the opposition’s card-count), and in some cases, environmental factors will come to play; defenders gain an extra card draw for wooded terrain or defending a walled citadel.

A rare strong defence for the Prussians (three hits, and nine exhaustion), though those
two Destroyed Bridges cards may have been more useful in his hand..

Combat is conducted simultaneously: after establishing how many cards each side gets to draw, each player draws that number of cards, laying them out face-up in front of them. The cards present the damage inflicted in a box in the lower left corner. Orange circles mark exhaustion points taken, while squares with crosses overlaid indicate the physical damage inflicted on the force’s collective strength. Damage and exhaustion is shared out over the participating formations as evenly as possible (at the discretion of the owning player), and if there is a mispatch in the physical damage dealt, the higher damage recipient retreats. Single engagements will rarely see units annihilated (except perhaps by exhaustion), but they can be brutal. The total damage to each side is compared, and the difference is added to or subtracted from the Victory point track, in favour of the victor.


Appraisal

Napoléon 1806 is an extraordinarily finely balanced game. The French are the more effective fighting force. They have eight formations to the Prussians nine (though Werternberg doesn’t enter the game until Turn 5), and five cavalry units to the Prussians’ two), reflecting Napoleon’s superior theatre intelligence and the independent command of his forces. The Prussians field weaker forces; the average strength across the French corps is a shade under 6.4 blocks, while the Prussians average at 5.3 blocks per corps). They are forced into a reactionary posture; to some degree they must respond to the intentions – real or implied – of the French. They don’t really have the option of taking the fight to the enemy wholesale. The French superiority in command in control is reflected in their deck spread:

But the Prussians are playing a waiting game; all they have to do is run out the clock to guarantee a default win – not one shrouded in glory, but not an ignominious loss either. It is incumbent on the French forces to engage the enemy and inflict losses, which will translate to points, and to take the Northern citadels, which means they have to cover a lot of terrain just to reach their objectives. Fast movement means a swift accrual of exhaustion points. A corps can shake off all of its accrued exhaustion points by remaining inactive for a turn, but that hands the Prussians another turn to reposition themselves into a better defensive state, or to block a crucial chokepoint. Or allows them to attack while you’re still carrying all that exhaustion.

Drawing three cards every turn potentially removes a lot of cards from circulation. Having useful Actions to play – like the Destroyed Bridge card for the Prussians – can make an outsized impact on the unfolding drama of the game.  But the cards with the most crucial actions are inevitably have point-values, and these will often have superior combat results as well. In such a finely-balanced game, maintain a balance between your holdings and your potential draw pool is crucial.

The final turn; Prussian victory after the French fail to gain distance swiftly enough.

On the face of it, Napoléon 1806 may seem like a one-trick pony. According to the box-description, the game has three scenarios, a short (three-turn) getting-to-know-you game for those either unfamiliar wargames or just new to this one, the full seven-turn historical campaign, and a free-set-up option for the campaign game (places available to the two armies to set up in are marked by a French or Prussian Eagle). In fact, the Quickstart rules and the rulebook (pg. 15) offer alternative set-ups for the three-turn game, so there are arguably four scenarios included.

But this is a game of hidden depths. The paths through Prussia are tricky; there is always a way around, but it may be prohibitively distant, or take you even further from your objective. The cards can be fickle and using the same 36-card deck for every activity will see you burning through it a few times in a game. It's a tough gig for the French - they have to cover a lot of ground, and negotiate a dozen or more choke-points, to get the bulk of their forces north to threaten and harass the Prussians three held citadels. Each is worth three or four points; that's not to be sneezed at when a ten-point lead will secure victory. But France's Achilles heel is Bamberg. If left unprotected, a Prussian formation and some lucky movement-point draws could snatch the city and victory from them before they've begun to prosecute their campaign.

But that doesn't mean it's a cakewalk for the Prussians. The enemy has their work cut out for them, but they are faster, hit harder, and their formations are better-equipped to prosecute martial action. The natural choke-points in the paths offer some advantage, but there are multiple paths north, and you can't adequately guard them all. If you can run down the clock (at seven turns) you will win a minor victory, but it can feel like a long seven turns as you lose ground and French corps manage to slip past your blockades. Nearly every game I've played of Napoleon 1806 has got to the end of the fifth turn with both sides still having a good chance of taking the win. With so many variables at play, nothing is ever a foregone conclusion.

I have some suspicions about prudent courses of action in the game, things that might work in particular circumstances within the game, but I don’t think it’s the kind of situation that allows a player to find one path to victory that works every single time. And that’s a good thing. Napoleon 1806 is a game that will challenge you with new problems and entice you with hereto unseen opportunities each time you come to it.

 

  

Wednesday 24 January 2024

State of Play: Great War Commander (1/6), and Undaunted: Normandy

 

 

So, I was able to catch up with our Wednesday night host, B, on Monday last week for a couple of games in a kind of reciprocal assistance gaming session. Great War Commander (Hexasim, 2018) was one of the first games I put on to my 6x6 list for 2023. I’ve had it for, I think, about two years or may a tad longer. I’d punched it, read through the rules when I bought it and again around March last year, but had never managed to field this visually splendid game. Its mechanics are based on Chad Jensen’s Combat Commander: Europe (GMT Games, 2006), which I also own, and have similarly never actually played (in spite of also possessing several expansions – that would be the completist gene expressing itself), which is set in the Western and Eastern fronts of the European theatre during World War II. Great War Commander shifts the action – as the name would suggest – from the Second to the First World War, making a few minor changes, but keeping true to the mission of the first game.

B Offered a tutorial game of Great War Commander, but in return, I was to give hm a refresher in the Undaunted system. B and I had played two scenarios of Undaunted: Normandy (Osprey Games, 2019) a back in July of 2023. On the strength of that, he’d bought Undaunted: Stalingrad (Osprey, 2022) for him and his son to play, but life had managed to put the breaks on that. The Undaunted system is a neat, reasonably simple system that nonetheless provides a much more immersive experience than I anticipated, and Undaunted: Stalingrad builds kind of legacy-style narrative development into the mix; scenarios are played sequentially, but the success of failure in one scenario will affect the set-up of the next and the resources available or denied to the combatants. What’s not to like?


We stuck to the first scenario, La Reye. It’s a straight capture-the-flag set-up that has balanced forces and objectives, though may be skewed a little in the American’s favour. Or that could just be sour grapes; I played the Germans, and though we gave each other some blows, B romped it in six points to three (full disclosure, the Germans start with three points).

After grabbing some lunch, we went straight into my first real game of Great War Commander. The scenario is historically based (as, I believe, they are all) a dawn raid by the Germans on a little Belgian town, where a young Lt. Erwin Rommel made a name for himself as an on-the-ground tactician. As the game played out, art imitated life.

The action, and to a degree the level of player agency, in the Combat Commander/Great War Commander system is driven by the two players’ Action Decks. Each aide has a deck of 72 cards which serve in a host of rolls. Each card has an Order and an Action, and these will dictate what options are available to the player in a given turn. In this role, they also help to mimic the fog-of-war aspect of tactical fighting in a dynamic environment, limiting the player’s options using several mechanisms (more on these later).

The Germans start on the edge of fairly open terrain, with a tree-lined road leading up to the town. The French formation guarding the town were caught napping. It felt over before it began for the French (me) when I drew my starting hand of an Offensive order (which requires adjacency, when all of my units were spread across the town), two Artillery Request Orders and an Artillery Denied, which would have been great since the Germans were probably in view, except for the fact that only an officer of a forward observer (I think they’re called Spotters in GWC) can call in an artillery barrage, and neither of mine had line of sight my commanding officer didn't even have line of sight to another of his own units).

The dispositions of the antagonists, and my sorry opening hand.

A big part of GWC is the attitude of the belligerents, indicated in the scenario details. Each side is either attacking, defending or on patrol, and this will dictate how big a hand you draw. The scenario will also state the parameters for how many orders a side can declare in a turn and how many cards they can discard if no orders are given. The Germans (attackers) in Scenario 1 have a hand of six cards and can give up to two orders or discard three cards, while the French (asleep-at-the-wheel defenders) have a hand size of four cards, and the player can give two orders, or a discard a mere one card from their hand. If that sounds like a disadvantage, you don’t know how much of one until you don’t draw a move or a fire card in the first four rounds.

B, playing the Germans, had a full three rounds to advance and get some of them into defensible positions – ge still has his heavy machine gun out in the open, but that was to offer the best coverage, and actually fire on two of my positions, and I still couldn’t respond because of my less-than-spectacular card draws.

An orderly (unchallenged) German advance.

I thought I’d address this in a later GWC game report, but I did so spectacularly bad early on that I should take this opportunity. Gary Mengle on YouTube at Ardwulf’s Lair has gone on record several times about why he doesn't enjoy playing Combat Commander; this is why. The deck is made up of 72 cards, and among those are around a dozen or so each of Move and Fire commands. Not until my fifth draw did I see a Fire command, and on the sixth I pulled a Move. That’s round five and round six. In those first four rounds, B was able to steadily move his units up and place them in good positions for an attack. He even got some shooting in. Sometimes you’re just going to pull a crappy hand. Sometimes you’re going to pull three or four crappy hands in a row. It may even cost you the game. This is where Ardy and I disagree. Ardwulf argues that this is a failure of player agency. He goes to great lengths to make it clear it’s a personal preference, that he simply doesn’t enjoy not being able to do something for three or four rounds in a row. I choose to see this as one of the virtues of the game, or at least something like a virtue. Troops in small being out of command and paralysed by indecision is probably the norm rather than an anomaly. Research has shown that when people are put in a situation of high stress and limited information, roughly 75% of them will freeze up, waiting for more information before they will act, with the remaining fairly evenly split between breaking down emotionally or acting on the available limited information.*

To me, this amounts to the tactical equivalent of what a chit-pull mechanic does in an operational game. In some chit-pull situations, the last chit or two in the cup don’t get pulled. The drawn chits are returned to the receptacle, and a new turn begins. It’s possible for a regiment or a corps to remain inactive to two or even three turns. Or perhaps, it’s closer to the orders cards in the Commands and Colors games, where, like me a couple of weeks ago in our Austerlitz La Grande Battle game, I simply couldn’t seem to draw an order for one whole flank and had to watch the French troops draw dangerously close to my side of the board, taking pot-shots at my forward-most troops.

To me, this is a similar thing to the inclusion of combat dice in the Conquerors series of games (Napoleon 1806 (Shakos, 2019) and its sister games); Like Combat Commander/Great War Commander, the system is designed around the drawing cards for all the game’s randomised functions, including allocating damage in combat. Apparently, some people don’t like leaving their chance to cards, and insist they have dice instead, so special dice with the same statistical rage of results as the cards – separate sets reflecting the variations between the two sides – are included in every copy of a Conquerors series game. I don’t know how many people use them, but to me it feels like a departure from the intention of the designer. And it’s giving in to misguided notions of player agency.

If the game was significantly longer (a bigger time-investment), or I was more invested in the competition than in the narrative or the experience of playing, I might feel more strongly about it. But to me it’s an artefact of the game that doesn’t really occur that often (though it will feel like it sometimes) and creates something like real-life experience rather than the cinematic experience some people expect. Here the rant endeth. For now.

French line falling back.

As you might imagine, it was difficult to come back from a beginning like that. The Germans swept into the town, checking the French units as they went. I did manage to call down an artillery barrage on top of several German sections (in a departure from Combat Commander, four-figure units in Great War Commander represent around 20 men), and a handful of suppressed French survivors managed to hold their own in a melee assault on a position that happened to also have (thanks to a timely card with a Hidden Position (Scenario Defender Only) Action) a 75mm gun – when opposing nits end up in the same hex an all-or-nothing fight breaks out and the loser is eliminated. And I knocked B’s communications out, so the Germans couldn’t call in their own artillery support.

But the day belonged to the Kaiser’s soldiers, many of whom managed to achieve the stated goal of the scenario and leave the map intact via the roads leading out of the town on the far side from their entrance. I think the final tally was four or maybe five points for the French to more than 20 for the Germans, who had also managed to take most of the French victory point locations as well. All in all, it was a tough lesson, but a worthwhile one, and an early loss hasn’t dampened my consideration of the game. I’ll admit, I’m looking forward to more fire and movement orders.


 

* This is getting off-topic, but there is an excellent short piece on this very psychological phenomenon I recommend everybody read (link here). It's an excerpt from an excellent book by psychoanalyst Stephen Grosz, called The ExaminedLife: how we lose and find ourselves. The excerpt is confronting – I used to send it to the people and insist they read it when I was a fire warden – but the whole book is worth a read if you’re interested in why people behave the way they do (including those across the table from you, and of course, yourself).

 

 

Tuesday 23 January 2024

By the Numbers: Thinking about Wargaming Goals for 2024

 



January is the time people choose to make decisions about changes in their lives. I’m certain most people make these declarations – or unspoken determinations – with sincerity of spirit, but the fact remains, any kind of change is hard, and behavioural change is an order of magnitude more difficult again. Most New Year’s resolutions are abandoned – forgotten or ignored – withing the first eight or ten weeks of the year,

I’m no stranger to unfulfilled self-promises and commitments to being or doing better. But, at the beginning of 2023, I wanted to change one behaviour that I noticed in myself. I’d shifted from being a wargamer to being a wargame collector. I’ve talked about this before; collecting games is a valid hobby in and of itself, there is a special joy in owning some artifacts, and I would never try to fat-collection-shame anybody, but I’ve always identified as a player of games (more recently, nearly exclusively board wargames), but my actions were not reflecting my self-identity. So, I set about doing something about it.

Here I Stand (GMT , 2006)

As a veteran of failed change attempts, I knew I had to plan something manageable, and settled on playing six games I owned hadn’t got around to playing, and playing those games six times each before the end of the year, to get to know them better than if I’d just played each one the once, with all the rules  mistakes and tactical errors that are inevitable in first runs at a new game.

As I’ve also mentioned here, I didn’t complete the task I set myself. But I tried to. And in the trying, some interesting things happened. I played a lot more than six new games – I just didn’t play them al with other people, one of the stipulations I set myself in my 6x6 challenge – and a lot of those were games I’d had in my collection for some time, but now had the desire and confidence to try out on my own.

A Fast Game (this blog) was an unforeseen side-effect of my desire to play more of the games I already owned. I wanted a way to keep myself accountable for the project. I could pose AARs on Facebook – there is a very supportive group based in my adopted home-town – but I’ve always been a writer, and I thought keeping a written record of the games I played and my responses to them would make me think more deeply about the games in question and about why I played what I played or chose this game over that (or just chose both).

WWII Commander: Battle of the Bulge (Compass Games, 2020)

I’ve been making some notes in my planner (which might hint at how old I am) on what I might set as my gaming goals for 2024.Nothing is carved in stone as yet, but here are some of my thoughts:

➤ Complete my 2023 6x6 Challenge I feel like I owe it to myself to see it through, so it’s not just one more incomplete effort. I’ve talked about this before; I don’t see it as an overall failure because the process of committing to it and writing about it has made me both more conscious about the games I play, and more eager to play new and different games off-list. Before 2023, I could have counted the number of solitaire games I’d played on one hand. Looking over my records for 2023, I recorded 52 separate solo games played (some of those were two-handed solo learning games, but I’m still counting those). For the year, I had 122 gaming incidents listed, so all up, around 150 individual games (a full third of those alone, but that’s okay too). Planning to play games has lead to more games being played, unplanned. Which is kind of cool, and kind of why I started planning to play games in the first place.

Siege of Syracuse (Worthington Publishing, 2022)

At time of writing, I have made some headway on this, having last week played my sixth game of Napoléon 1806 (Shakos, 2017) and my first run at Great War Commander (Hexasim, 2018) on the same day. There are a couple of things vying for my attention at the moment, but I’m hoping to finish the three outstanding games on my list by the end of March, and I should have a review for Napoléon 1806 in the next week or two.

➤ Commit to something like a 6x6 for 2024 This is a tough one. At the end of January last year, I thought that a slate of 36 games – six games, six plays each, against another actual face-to-face human would be tight but doable (I even set myself a stretch goal of another six games of 1960: the Making of a President (GMT Games, 20##). I think it’s a valuable exercise, and I wouldn’t be heartbroken if I didn’t complete it again, but I’d like a better chance of getting it done. If I do commit to a scheduled program like that, it might include solitaire games, for a little more flexibility, and maybe even online games (using VASSAL or Rally the Troops!).

➤ Learn to play the Great Battles of the American Civil War (GBACW) rules-set I have no excuses for this one; I managed to land my White Whale game, Death Valley: Battles for the Shenandoah (GMT Games, 2019), after a year-and-a -half of near-misses and second-hand but lovingly clipped and tray-sorted,  and I have Into the Woods: the Battle of Shiloh, April 6-7, 1862 (GMT Games, 2022) tucked away and as yet unpunched, waiting to be played. GBACW has a reputation for being a difficult system to grok, but I’m prepared to put the time and effort into it.

Regardless of what other goals I settle on, I intend to pursue another year of A Fast Game. The only item I had on my list relating to the blog was to try to raise the number of game reviews posted from 12 in 2023 to 20+ (I remember when I wrote out my notes that I thought about declaring 25 reviews – roughly two a month – but I lost my nerve and lowballed it a little to keep it manageable). Reviews are where everything I’ve learnt about a game, thought about it and through it, and taken from it gets wrung out into a fifteen hundred-of-so words, and it rarely conveys everything I mean it to. I like to think I’m getting better at it, though.

Aces of Valor (Legion Wargames, 2022)

The reviews are often the hardest part of the blog to write, but also the most probably the most satisfying as well. I’ve never accepted a copy of a game for review (I’ve never been offered one either), so I’m in the lucky position of being able to spend that energy on games that I think deserve a spotlight for whatever reason. That won’t change. But I’ll still be posting game reports and unboxings (State of Play and Stripped Down for Parts posts in A Fast Game parlance), and the odd, meandering prose-poem about some esoteric facet of our shared hobby (Overthinking It).

The end of January will mark the first anniversary of A Fast Game, and my first year of blogging about games. Writing A Fast Game has been very rewarding personally – a separate joy from the actual playing of the games I write about – and some folks seem to enjoy reading it. So, whatever I end up settling on for the year, people will still be able to read me babbling on about it for another twelve months at least.

Great War Commander (Hexasim, 2018)



Stripped Down for Parts: The Lamps Are Going Out: World War I

       World War I, or the Great War (or The War to End All Wars), as it was referred to at the time, holds an abiding fascination for me as...