Showing posts with label 6x6. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 6x6. Show all posts

Monday, 1 April 2024

2024 Q1 Report: Paved with Good Intentions

 

  


I think I’m done. I am ready to withdraw from my stated commitment to complete my stated target last year of playing six preselected games six times each against a face-to-face opponent. I managed to complete just three last year, and another in these last three months, but the ask is too great. The killer is the face-to-face opponent aspect of the equation. It seems impossible to keep to any kind of schedule when you involve a second person.

So, I’m rewriting the rules. In a recent interview, game designer Volko Ruhnke said something to the effect that, “When you buy a game, you own it. If there’s a rule that you don’t think works, take a pencil, cross it out and change it.” I’ve never done that in a war game (I may have done it a time or two in RPGs) but, when it comes down to it, this is my game, and as such I’m entitled to tinker with the rules a little.

Apropos of nothing, Volko has a new game design on GMT's P500
 list on a subject that is really interesting and, as an Australian, is
close to my heart. You can pre-order your copy here.
Now we'll return to your regular transmission.
 

After my last (December 2023) quarterly report, Wednesday night game host B told me it was stupid to commit to playing the same game six times, or words to that effect. At the time I disagreed, but in the intervening months, I’ve come around to thinking that it might have been too big of an ask. It came about from a misunderstanding in the first place. I noticed people talking about their 10x10 Challenge games, and in my ignorance thought they were planning on playing ten games ten times each, when in fact “10x10” meant playing ten games (often from their respective “shelves of shame”) once each within the first ten months of the year (i.e., by the end of October), then proving it by (more often than not) making a YouTube video about it.

Dates highlighted in green are from this year.

I’ve talked before about how the end goal for me was to stop being a “game collector” and to rediscover the joy of being a “game player”, and how that worked out, so I won’t rehash it here. What I did discover over the course of the project was I enjoyed writing about games and reviewing games, and some people seemed to enjoy reading what I thought about different games.

Part of the challenge was that after – and only after – the sixth play of a given game I’d write up a considered review of it. I’ve always thought that a single run at a game is never enough to make a true evaluation of how it works and whether it achieves what it sets out to do (I can understand the pressure some content creators are under to regularly churn out new material, so I suppose being less popular/non-monetised has its perks). But I now think that sometimes playing a game too often in a short amount of time can obscure some of the elements of that makes it a worthwhile game or a special experience. I’ve found the sweet spot for me is to begin writing a review after the second or third play and to play the game once or twice more while I’m writing it up. This is the pattern I’m going to stick to in future reviews.

 So, where to from here?

Well, thanks for asking. I played my sixth game Napoléon 1806 (Shakos, 2017 near the start of the year, and wrote my review a little while after that. Since January, I’ve managed to get a couple of games played form the remaining candidate games. What I propose it to play another game or two of each and write up my reviews of these remaining three. In February, I mentioned in another self-indulgent screed I was intending to scale down my ambitions to a 5x3 game target. These remaining three games will make up the beginnings of that, but if all goes well, I’ll expand it to a 7x or 8x3 target. Also, I’m lifting the moratorium on counting solo play of two player games. I nearly always play the first “learning” run at a new game two-handed solo, unless I’m getting a tutorial from an experienced player (as I did with Great War Commander (Hexasim, 2018). I used to think that two-handing a game solo was kind of missing the point; I would only do it to “learn” a game well enough to introduce it to somebody else, but in discussions on Facebook with dedicated solo players and through my own experience doing this, I’ve found it can be a rewarding pursuit in its own right. Even some games with a dedicated solitaire function, like Pacific Tide (Compass Games, 2019), I’ve found I prefer to play the game two-handed. When I’m playing a game on my own – against myself – I also have a little more latitude to try things I might not get to against another player. I can reverse a couple of plays or a turn, if my opponent agrees, and replay it differently to test a rule or try a different action. So, from now on, solo runs get counted, but I’ll stil play two player games against another human at least once or twice before writing them up.

I also mentioned in the same screed that I’d aim for twenty game reviews in 2024. Thre months in, and I’ve posted two; the Napoléon 1806 review from the beginning of the year, and another for 1944: Battle of the Bulge (Worthington Publishing, 2020 – the review can be found here). The slow rate thus far is partly because for a while I was putting a lot of time into playtesting and proofing a game called The Great Northern War (Conflict Simulations Limited, 2024), about the Russo-Swedish War of 1700-1723. When I nab a copy I'll post a review about it.

What it says on the cover.

Another reason for the tardy progress is - Reviews are really hard to do right. I put a lot of thought and effort into my game reviews. I try to present what I think makes a game worth your time and tease out some of the things that make it special or different. So, I’m not going to waste my time on a game I don’t think is worth that kind of effort, which makes me work harder on the ones I do like, and that think are worth the time and sweat.

I do have some more reviews in the pipeline. I have a couple outlined, and I’m thinking about a couple more. You should see three reviews – maybe four - before the end of the month.

Review coming soon (spoiler alert: I really like this game).

I’m also putting more effort into producing unboxings (the Stripped Down for Parts photo-essays). These have been outstripping the reviews in popularity. I try hard to bring a little more to the table than just pulling stuff out, saying, “Isn’t this neat?!” At the same time, I’m not trying to do a review. I’ll just spend some tie over the components, the artwork, sometimes the people involved, and maybe a little history or background to the game. This year I’ll also be looking at upgrading my camera equipment to warrant the popularity of the posts.

Because I’m putting so much effort into the other parts of the blog, I’ve started winding back the State of Play AARs. I was writing up pretty much every game I played when I started A Fast Game, and kept that up for nearly the whole year in 2023. From hereon in I’ll post a game report when I have the time or if it’s something special.

So, there’s a snapshot of what got me here and A Fast Game here, and where we’re going. It feels a little like the blog has taken on a life of its own, and I just feed it and clean out its cage. But It’s s lot of fun, and I occasionally get some positive feedback. If people are interested, I’ll put a post together breaking down the metrics of A Fast Game. But I’ll have to see some interest. (that’s why I kept it ‘til the end. I’m pretty sure nearly nobody reads this far.)



Sunday, 10 March 2024

State of Play: Brief Border Wars (2/6): Third Indochina War

    



 

Our second run at Brief Border Wars (Compass Games, 2020) took us to the north of Vietnam in early 1979 for the Third Indochina War. After the French and American Wars, the national government of the newly reunited Vietnam were resistant to any foreign power trying to exert influence over their country. Erstwhile ally and material supporter of the North Vietnamese in their American War, the Chinese Communist Party were of the opinion that the uppity Vietnamese government needed to be taught to know their place. The limited engagement took twenty-one days to resolve, at which time the Chinese forces withdrew, claiming victory and insisting their objectives had all been accomplished.

Situation at start. The  two artillery units on the East/West Front border and the infantry
 unit on the Tongmianzhen/Dongxing border (South-East end of the border) are free
placement  units for the Chinese player. The two Vietnamese units in the Damaged
box were actually mobilised from further south; this reflects the time it took for them
to to reach the front.

Taking a lesson from our last game, T took the Chinese aggressors, while I played the defending Vietnamese forces. The Chinese have superior numbers and this on its own could spell victory, but the Vietnamese units tend to be a little tougher, and they have the home-ground advantage the terrain bonus in defensive combat). Still, the numbers can play to the necessary Chinese aggression strategy. Remember, victory is determined by the points-value of the provinces controlled by the aggressor nation at the end of the final turn, and control is defined by at least one undisrupted friendly unit in the area with no undisrupted defending units in that area. BBW rules dictate that the Attacker in a combat situation can dictate which units participate in that combat on both sides. This way, they can single out individual Vietnamese units for targeting, while managing the risk to their forces more effectively. The Chinese player doesn’t need to place every Vietnamese unit out of action, but merely to either disrupt or force a retreat on each enemy unit.

That said, it’s still going to be a hard task. The Chinese are also impeded by an arbitrary partition in the battle-scape; the PLA forces are split in two and restricted to operating in either the Western or Eastern area of the border region. Units from one sector cannot cross the dotted line to support their comrades in the other sector.

Unprovoked Chinese aggression (West front).
Note on unit orientation: because of the smaller 17" x 22"  map, it was easier
 for both of us to sit at the corner of the table instead of on opposite sides.

The Vietnamese have an inverse advantage; roughly a third of their overall strength is invested in Local Forces (LF). While the rules prohibit regular professional army units from leaving an area with undisrupted enemy forces present, the LF units can ignore this rule. Not only that, LF units can be moved from the Vietnamese Rear Area directly to any province bordering China. This came in very handy in the last round.

T came out swinging in the first turn. The card distribution of the first draw was four Chinese (white band) activation cards to two Vietnamese (grey band). The cards, have two values – movement and combat, and can be played for one or the other value. The value tells you how many units you can activate to commit to the chosen action on that card-play; if you have a card with a Combat value of 3 and a Movement value of 8. You can commit three units to engage in combat for that card-play, or you can choose to move units to the value of eight points (units can move from one area to an adjacent area each card-play; road movement costs a unit one point, while off-road movement will cost two points). In the first turn, T mobilised nearly all of his forces, pushing into nearly every province bordering China. I played coy, and in the Eastern Front, began to withdraw units in the northern provinces, hoping to lure T into following, so I could encircle his units and put them out of supply. Alas, he didn’t fall for it, instead choosing to fight some of the units still occupying border provinces in the Western Front, singling out the more powerful Regulars.

Unprovoked Chinese aggression (East front).

In Turn 2 we drew an equal number of cards, but the grey Random Event card came up, effectively robbing me of another opportunity; this was to be the pattern for the whole game. I rolled a 4 – Rear Area Chaos. Another roll was required: on a 1-3 the Chinese would be affected; on a 4-6, the Vietnamese. On the subsequent roll (a 2), it was the Chinese who couldn’t move anything up from their Rear Area for that turn. As it turned out, this was a small sacrifice for T as he’d moved all but three of his reserve units forward already.

Brief Border Wars is a game of skill and of chance. I wouldn’t say in equal portions, but both play their part in a given outcome. Turn three saw a 4-2 break in the cards in T’s favour again. I mostly concentrated on conservation of my units while T cherry-picked the most valuable provinces to try to take and hold. I could have told him that, in this scenario in particular, it probably matters less what you do in the first three or so turns, because of the room for reversal in the subsequent turns.

Random Event Card (not always a good thing).

Turn 4 saw the white band Random Event card drawn, and T rolled a 5 on the table: Diplomatic pressure for cease-fire. The game would now finish on turn 6, and to ensure this, the next six cards are drawn from the activation deck and discarded. These happened to be five grey-band cards (Vietnamese) to one white-band. That hurt me a little, but not too much since I’d avoided initiating combat for the last two hands after putting up a show of resistance in the first turn.

I had taken hits on some units rather than choosing retreat to soak a hit, gambling on bringing them back into action at full strength. T had been doing the same thing, I think, and we had both been using our Special Action cards for this purpose. T had burned through his in the last round. T lead each turn because he held the majority of cards (and the Aggressor faction leads in ties). Coming into the last round, I had one Special Action card left, which gave us both an equal number of playable cards.

The situation looks desperate.

With his last card played, I think T was feeling confident of at least a minor victory. On my last card play, I had 8 movement points available. I had two LF units in my Rear area. I moved one each into Hi Giang and Cao Bang, two provinces previously devoid of Vietnamese troops, and managed to move a couple of regular infantry units into other areas T was sure he’d had sown up. In the final analysis, only one of the occupied provinces was secured by non-disrupted Chinese forces, a major victory for the Vietnamese (though I’m sure the outcome would have been spun differently in Beijing).

My final gambit felt a little gamey and I’m not proud of winning on what felt like a technicality. If I hadn’t garnered Cao Bang and Hi Giang (either side of the demarcation line between West and East Fronts), T would have finished the game five points up instead of one, which still would have only been a draw. There is an element of gaminess inherent in BBW due to the limitations imposed on the system. It was always intended to be a fast-playing, small footprint game, and the area movement and simple, handful-of-dice combat resolution lend an element of RISK (Parker Brothers, 1959) to the feel of play.

Final game state, end of Turn 6.

Upon deeper consideration, I don’t feel like that’s fair to the game. The simplicity of the rules (four pages, plus special rules for each scenario) bely what is really a deep strategy game. Like a lot of wargames, BBW gives both sides a complete and unhindered view of the battle-space, which itself is unrealistic. Allowing the Local Forces to move quickly and with impunity from the Rear Area to the frontier is reflective of the fact that by 1979, the Vietnamese army and irregulars had gained thirty-odd years of experience fighting a better equipped invading force, and had taken to heart everything they learned. On reflection, I can’t help but think that Ho Chi Minh himself may have smiled at my dog-move at the very end of the game.

COIN isn’t the only system that models asymmetric warfare really well.

 

 

Friday, 16 February 2024

By the Numbers: Final-ish Game Plans for 2024; and 100 posts!

   


  

This post marks my one hundredth submission to A Fast Game is a Good Game, two weeks into the blog's second year. I’ve talked about why I started A Fast Game and how its direction and purpose has changed over time several times before, and in a previous post I sketched out some ideas I had for my gaming program for this year. Well, a month-and-a-half in to 2024 and I haven’t locked down every detail, but I’ve got some things to share, and I thought that would be a good way to mark my hundredth post.

6x6 now 5x3

If you’ve been reading from the start you’ll know that I initially started A Fast Game as a way to track my progress at my self-imposed 6x6 challenge, i.e., playing six designated games six times each, against a face-to-face human adversary. That turned out to be a lot tougher than I first thought it would – mostly due to the difficulties scheduling, so I’m adjusting my expectations. 

This year I’ve been working on picking five games to play three times each. I’m still going to try to finish the outstanding 6x6 games (as a manner of penance for my overreach – I had seventeen unplayed sessions at the beginning of the year, and that’s now down to fourteen), but looking back over the year, I’ve come to the conclusion that three runs at a game is a pretty solid position from which to critique it. While I understand why it happens, I really hate it when people review games after a single play-through. I don’t think it’s fair to the game or to the audience. Six games is great, four or five is swell, but I think three is the minimum number to begin to get a solid feel for a game. To wit, I present the titles I’ve so far settled on for the 5x3 challenge:

 - Brothers at War,1862 (Compass Games, 2022 (see the unboxing here))

 - Dawn’s Early Light: the War of 1812 (Compass Games, 2020)

 - Napoléon 1807 (Shakos, 2020)

These three are firm choices. I did a solo run-through of Brothers at War and was really impressed. I’m looking forward to playing it against an opponent. I spent some time with Dawn’s Early Light last year (and wrote positively about it here). I think that is a strong candidate for my favourite CDG. And after my experience with Napoléon 1806 (Shakos, 2017), I was keen to see how the system will play out over a bigger play area and multiple scenarios with differing strategic goals.

C&C: Ancients - both fast and good.

For the last two slots, I’m tossing up between Undaunted: Battle of Britain (Osprey Games, 2023), No Retreat!: the Polish & French Fronts (GMT Games, 2018), Fate of the Reiters (Hexasim, 2019), Dunkirk: France 1940 (Worthington Publishing, 2018), Old School Tactical, Vol. 2 (Flying Pig Games, 2017) and a Columbia Games block game, maybe Athens and Sparta (Columbia, 2007). If I can’t choose and I’m feeling game, I may stretch to a 6x3.

Solitaire Play and Review Challenge

I mentioned this in my previous goals post. In the past couple of years, I’ve built a decent collection of solitaire or solo-friendly games. I’ve managed to play quite a few, but certainly not all of them (probably about half), and most of them have gone unreviewed (well, five of the twelve reviews I posted last year were solitaire games, but I feel like I could have done more). I said in my last By the Numbers post that I was going to aim for twelve solitaire games, wither new or revisiting (I’ve recently had a hankering to get Skyhawk (Legion Games, 2022) to the table again). I’m going to wind that target back to eight, but I’ll concentrate on new games, or at least, games I haven’t played yet. This will also be open to games with a dedicated solitaire mode (like Atlantic Chase (GMT, 2021) and Pacific Tide (Compass Games, 2019).

My most recent acquisition.

I haven’t settled on all the solo games I’ll try to get played through the year, but I’m planning on starting with titles I already own. The first couple off the rank will probably be:

 - Skies Above Britain (GMT Games, 2023)

 - Redver’s Reverse: The Battle of Colenso, 1899 (Legion Wargames, 2016)

 - Midway Solitaire (Decision Games, 2017)

 - Beneath the Med: Regia Marina at Sea1940-1943 (GMT Games, 2020)

Redver’s Reverse, set during the Anglo-Boer War, only arrived this week; I’ll post an unboxing in the next week or so. I’m currently reading though the rules, and it looks promising, if a little daunting. Technically, I have played Beneath the Med before; I ordered it through GMT’s P500 program and played it when it arrived, but it’s been a while and I’d like to run through it again to get reacquainted before reviewing it.

I’ll aim to play all these at least three times, and review each of them here at A Fast Game. This should help toward my third goal for the year.

Twenty considered, generally positive game reviews in 2024

My first year of A Fast Game saw me post a total of game reviews. The reviews I post are the most popular features on the blog, read by an order of magnitude more folks than anything else here. Not to blow my own horn, but I feel like I’ve gotten better at writing my reviews. And it can be tough, but they are the most rewarding posts to put together. I think I can put twenty reviews up this year (I’ve already posted one in January for Napoléon 1806, so only nineteen to go). Eight solitaire game reviews, five or six for the 5x3 challenge and three more for my outstanding 6x6 games will get me most of the way there.

1944: D-Day to the Rhine (Worthington Publishing).

At this point, I’d just like to reiterate for anyone who’s joined us recently that you’ll only see positive reviews here. I don’t think I’ve come across too many games over the years that I absolutely didn’t like or that I couldn’t find any redeeming factors in, but if I do through the course of writing about games, I won’t review it. This is partly because whatever I don’t like, somebody is going to think it’s the best thing since the last really good thing, then they’re going to start spamming me with vitriol and I don’t need that. I used to write music reviews back when the internet was still shiny, so I know of which I speak. Mostly, though, it takes time an effort to write a review, good or bad. If I’m putting that much effort into a piece of work, I want to promote something I think is worthwhile.

Extra Credit Goals

At the beginning of the year and the first flush of enthusiasm over new beginnings and such, I had a list of things I hoped to achieve in the coming twelve months. With just ten and a half of those months left, I’m trying to be a little more sober-minded about what I can accomplish. So, there are a couple of things I’d like to do, but I won’t castigate myself if I don’t get there. Part of the reason I didn’t complete my 6x6 challenge last year is the multifarious ways life outside of gaming would trample on plans and curtail the best intentions.

Fire and Stone (Capstone Games).

I already written up a wish-list of extra-curricular accomplishments I’d like to make happen this year, so I won’t reiterate it here. The most realistic might be learning Fields of Fire, Vol. 2 (GMT Games, 2019), as that would tick off another solitaire game, but if I don’t get tick any of them off this year, I’ll still be cramming in a lot of gaming goodness.

So, if you’ve been following A Fast Game for the duration, thank you, and I hope you’ll stick around. If you’re a newcomer, please don’t feel like you have to go back and read everything, but browse the index and see if there’s anything of interest (some of the reviews are quite good, and if there’s a particular game you’re interested in, you might find some of the AARs interesting). Here’s to a game-rich 2024 and a diverting blog going forward.



Wednesday, 14 February 2024

State of Play: Brief Border Wars (1/6): The Football War

  

 



I’ve been keen to get Brian Train’s Brief Border Wars (Compass Games, 2020) to the table for over a year now. It’s a classic four game box-set in the tradition of SPI’s quad-games; four situations using the same set of series rules, with a couple of pages of exclusive rules to add more flavour to the individual conflicts. It was one of the first games I chose for my 6x6 personal challenge last year. Last year didn’t happen quite the way I hoped, but I’m still keen to finish what I started, and so on Monday night I introduced T to the Football War, which was fought between El Salvador and Honduras.

Train offers a short but informative precis of the war in his designer’s notes for this conflict – and I’d recommend reading his notes for each of the situations, but in short, El Salvador briefly invaded Honduras in 1969 for a perceived short-term political gain. In the end, nothing was gained, many more civilians were killed than soldiers, and under pressure from the US and the Organization of American States (OAS), a cease-fire was reached in less and a week.

Opening set-up (apologies for the plexi-flare).

The game is an interesting puzzle. El Salvador is the aggressor. They have the larger forces at their disposal and enjoy the element of surprise, the majority of their forces setting up on the border, while much of the Honduran army available is still barracked near the capital. But the onus is on them to push out and in many directions to cover more territory than the Hondurans can protect, capture cities, then hold them against a limited but fully mobilised Honduran force. The terrain is working against them. If no roads links territories – which is the case along nearly the whole of the Salvadorian/Honduran border – the movement cost to each unit is two points (double the normal movement cost).

This is probably a good point to break the narrative and talk about mechanics. This is a game that takes seemingly clunky mechanics and works them into a relatively seamless narrative. Play is driven by cards, and there are two suits, white and grey, which are shuffled together and dealt out six cards at a time. Of those six cards, the white-striped ones go to the Designated player (the instigator of hostilities) and the grey-stripped cards go to the other player. Whoever has the most cards in their hand goes first that round, and card-play goes back and forth until both hands are depleted, or until both layers pass their turn. In that case, any cards not played are discarded, the turn marker forwarded one place, and the next six cards are dealt.

Access to the road network is crucial to success in The Football War.

Each deck has 20 action cards, and each action card has two values, Movement and Combat. Each card can be used for one or the other – you can’t move and engage in combat in the same card-play. The Movement number is normally how many units you can move in that activation; one point will get one unit from one area to an adjacent area. As mentioned earlier, the Football War, any non-road movement costs two points per unit.

Combat is handled simply, with one die allocated to each side for their participating units' combat value (CV – the single bold number on the unit markers). Like with movement, the number on the card played dictates how many units can be committed to fights in that round (the points can be split over several areas, and points can also be allocated to air support at a rate of one air unit per ground unit participating. The Attacker calls the shots. He declare which units from BOTH sides will participate in the action (he can gang up on a single enemy unit if he wishes, ignoring other units present in the area), but the defender gets the terrain advantage, up to two extra dice, as well as their own air support. A successful hit will flip an attacker to its Disrupted side, while the defender has the option of staying put and becoming disrupted, or to retreating to a neighbouring area but maintaining its cohesion (essentially an orderly retreat). More hits will lead to more serious results. As mentioned, terrain always favours the defender, and in The Football War, much of the play area is both mountainous and thickly forested. In most situations, a defender is going to get an extra die for each of these for their rolls.

Air support can be a deciding factor *it just wasn't in this case - no hits for both sides).

Each deck also has a random event card, which is declared and played as soon as it comes out. Each game comes with it’s on exclusive rules, and the exclusive rules include a table of random events; when the card come out, you roll a d6 and check the table. Every game runs through 7 turns, so each player will play through their 21 card-deck completely through the course of the game.

At the end of the seventh round, victory is determined. In The Football War, various Honduran cities are allocated values of one or two Victory Points, and any of these locations held uncontested by the Salvadorians go to their score. Being T’s first game, and my first in more than seven or eight months, after playing through the Operation: Attila and the Third Indochina War two handed, I think I can safely say that neither of us had a coherent strategy going in. After some jockeying in the first three rounds, I managed to distract T in the south, where his long-suffering Hondurans had made an incursion into Salvadorian territory, near the coast, tying up some of his limited resources while I made a late break through the northern part of the map, occupying a few unprotected cities at enough distance from his nearest forces to make interception unlikely. The presence of Salvadorian forces in an area is enough to establish control, but if there is also a Honduran unit or units in the space, it becomes contested, and the Salvadorian player can’t claim that point.

At the bottom of the seventh.

At the end of the seventh turn the Salvadorians held cities to the value of 5 points, a draw. Seeing how things played out, we both made a lot of mistakes, but that’s why I always approach a first game out of the gate as a learning game and try to be more invested in the how the mechanics function alongside each other rather than what I need to do, or stop the other guy from doing, to win. I think we both learned a lot, though I don’t think T will be able to curb his “all in:” instinct enough to take advantage of all the benefits offered to the defending player and set up situations to invite the aggressor to declare a fight; or at least, not straight away. With five more games to be played and only four in the box, I think I’d like to come back to the Football War with what I learn from playing the others.

 

 

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" mounted game 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.

 

  

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 se...