State of Play: Saigon 75

 

I’ve been falling behind on my posts, and there are reasons for that, but rather than go into the tawdry details, I’ll just teel you quickly about a game we played late last week. The game is Saigon 75 (Nuts! Publishing, 2023), a recent acquisition (bought on sale with Espana 1936 (Devir, 2007) to save on shipping – you can find an unboxing of that one here). I had every intention of doing an unboxing of Saigon 75 before putting up any other content, but such was not to be (that would have made for a short post anyway – there isn’t all that much to the game, components-wise).

Initial set-up, post Hallowe'en visitations.

Saigon 75 is a game covering the last roughly two years of the “American War” in South Vietnam. One player plays the ARVN, and the other the NVA. I refer to the sides as the two competing armies because very little in the way of politics is reflected in the game. It really is a clash of iron and blood, and each side tries to use what they have to hand to pummel the opposing side into submission. Except that the South Vietnamese player is pummelling with one hand tied behind their back.

The first thing you need to know about Saigon 75 is that if you’re playing the ARVN, you will almost certainly loose. Odds are stacked in the enemy’s favour, and he doesn’t have t be a master tactician to bring about your demise. This is built into the game; the NVA dice offer more hits (two strikes, two retreats and two blank faces, compared to the ARVN one hit, two retreats and three blank sides), their potential activations increase with the passing of time, and your South Vietnamese troops will begin to desert their posts if the North make too many territorial gains. The designers, Jean-Philippe Barcus and Pascal Toupy, warn prospective players of this in the introductory comments of the game. It’s the first in a series called the UP! (or Under Pressure!) series. It’s designed to be a quick-playing game that will allow a second game in an evening (so the players can change sides and each experience a win). The next game in the series will be Vendée 93 and will be published by Fellowship of Simulations. A Kickstarter campaign is planned for this one, so watch this space for news of the launch.

The Thin Yellow Line.

But let’s get back to The NVA player has two kinds of units, tall, division-level red cylinders (NVA) and shorter black cylinders (Viet Cong). If an NVA division takes a hit, it is replaced by a half-height brigade cylinder. The ARVN player starts with some resources on the board, mostly regular South Vietnamese infantry divisions (tall, yellow cylinders, some motorised brigades, and a few US forces (marines, rangers). But it’s not enough to cover everywhere, and the North Vietnamese can attack from anywhere along the country’s land border, with anything from superior to overwhelming force.

Some early South Vietnamese casualties. They weren't the last.

This isn’t a review, so I don’t want to get lost in the tall grass here, but here’s a quick precis of the game’s workings. The game is played over eight seasons/turns (if the South can hold out that long). In a turn the NVA plays a card from their hand of three, then rolls a die to see how many activations they get for that turn (result plus a set number, depending on the season) deploy or move its units, engages in combat, and when everything else is completed, check the status of the provinces. Any provinces held solely by North Vietnamese forces get a red star marker. This is a Quyết Thẩng (local militia) marker, representing the control the North Vietnamese have in that province. This becomes more important at the close of the South Vietnamese phase.

The ARVN player’s turn follows the same mode as the NVA, except after checking for province control, the ARVN player may have to roll on the desertion table. This is a killer, and it’s what ultimately cost me the game. If the NVA control five or more South Vietnamese provinces – represented by the Quyết Thẩng stars, the ARVN player has to roll a die, and remove the result’s value worth of troops form the board, in a preferential order to mitigate the immediate pain. This happens every turn thereafter.

"I hear Switzerland is nice this time of year."

So, just to recap, the North Vietnamese have more troops available, and they’re more effective in combat. They can go places you can’t – back across the border into Laos or Cambodia – and can engage you from anywhere along said border. And the better they do, the worse it gets for you. Nobody said the job was going to be easy.

T took Saigon province (the primary victory condition) at the end of turn six, after a bad roll on the desertion table saw the last of my remaining ARVN troops pull up stumps.  Could feel the downdraft from the helicopter on the roof of the US embassy on the back of my neck, the defeat was that visceral (it turned out to be the air-conditioner). Victory as the South Vietnamese is possible, but the pressure builds unrelentingly, and each misstep or unlucky roll makes the job ever so much harder. Good thing I like a challenge.

 

 

By the Numbers: Wargame Collection by Publisher

 

 

I’ve been delving into the stats of my game collection. I keep a spreadsheet of what games we have, which has come in useful lately; I’ve been selling off a bunch of family games that we’ve either never played or are unlikely to go back to. My wife comes from a gaming family, and she has her old favourites (like Win, Place & Show (Avalon Hill, 1977, but originally part of the 3M Sports Game series), seriously, the best horse-racing game ever made, and Rail Baron (Avalon Hill, 1977)), as well as a few we’ve discovered since we’ve been married (like Dominion (Rio Grande Games, 2008) and Alhambra: the Card Game (Queen Games, 1992), so there’s no point hanging on to stuff that isn’t going to get played. I suppose this is another aspect of my wanting to get more games generally – and wargames in particular – to the table.

I’ve been using the information in my game spreadsheet to keep track of may progress in working through my collection. I wrote about this in a previous post. Here I thought it would be interesting to look at the publisher breakdown of my current collection. Here’s an annoying pie-chart with a hard-to-make-out colour legend.

 

Again, this just covers the base games in the collection. It comes as no surprise to me that the largest chunk of games in my collection comes from GMT Games (44% of core titles). I’ll point out again that these are just the base games; adding the expansions for Commands and Colors: Ancients (2006), C&C: Napoleonics (2010), Combat Commander (2006), Tank Duel (2019), and Wing Leader (2015) would add another 28 titles to that count (I do have a completist tendency that sometimes gets the better of me; it’s one of the reasons I’ve never got into Warfighter (Dan Verssen Games. 2014). I tend to show brand loyalty when it comes to publishers. I was a huge fan of SPI back in the day – their games made up nearly all of my adolescent collection – and I was heartbroken when the company was absorbed (FitA) by TSR. When I started playing and buying wargames again, GMT seemed to be everywhere, and everyone I talked to recommended one or another of their games.

When I was less committed to wargames (spending more time and resources on RPGs), I bought a not inconsiderable number of GMT one-off games quite cheaply as package fillers when buying things from US sellers (damn, but I miss the days of dollar-dollar parity. I’ve got GMT games that I bought from game stores to make up the difference to get free shipping, like Halls of Montezuma (GMT, 2009) and Mike Nagel’s Sun of York (GMT, 2005) but never actually got to the table (though I expect to get to them eventually). This has artificially bloated GMT’s share of my collection.

That brand loyalty has extended to Worthington Publishing (previously Worthington Games) whose games make up over a quarter of the collection. I think I can confidently say I’ve never been disappointed by a Worthington game. A lot of them seem to be on the simpler end of the wargame complexity continuum, and I get why that might put some folks off, but if it's just snobbery, it's misplaced. In my experience, every Worthington game I’ve played, starting with Boots on the Ground (2010), has presented a rich narrative experience with a lot of decision points throughout the play. I’ve played a higher proportion of Worthington titles owned than any other publisher, 18 out of 26 games - nearly 70% - probably because they tend to be easy games to teach and learn. Of the eleven reviews I’ve posted on the blog thus far, five of them have been for Worthington games.

The title of fastest-growing publisher representation in my collection goes to Compass Games. Roughly two thirds of the fifteen games on my core list (plus the French expansion for Commands and Colors: Tricorne) I’ve bought in the last two years, and I've got a bead on a couple more. Compass’s production quality is, in my experience, excellent (and they’re very responsive when they screw something up, like sending out free errata counters out to every customer that bought a game directly from them, free of (extra) charge. I’ve liked all the games; my only complaint would be that sometimes the choices around the rulebook layout (mostly background colour or colour graduation, like in No Peace Without Spain (Compass Games, 2011) make the rules a little difficult to read (Barbarians at the Gate (Compass, 2023) falls into this category as well). Well, I find them harder to read. But I’m old and should remember to use my reading glasses more often. Compass is one of the most prolific publishers in the wargaming space, and they make a lot of winners. Expect to see some Compass game reviews over the coming months.

Something worth pointing out is a full 17% of my collection is made up of games from European publishers (okay, I’m including Osprey and PSC in this number, but everything else in my collection is from North American publishers). For a long time. Wargaming publishing was the domain of a handful of prolific publishers (Avalon Hill, SPI) and a couple of smaller operations, like The Chaosium (and Warhammer, across the pond). In the last twelve or fifteen years we’ve been seeing a lot more really good games coming out of Continental Europe. That is to say, there have been European designers creating fun, thoughtful and innovative wargames and European publishers printing them for a lot longer than that, but they’re now making their way outside of Europe, and with rules translated into English. It might be an artefact of the rise in popularity of Eurogames like Settlers of Catan (KOSMOS, 2008) in the English-speaking world. Frankly, I could care less. If it means I easier for me to access games like Verdun, 1916: Steel Inferno (Fellowship of Simulation), Great War Commander (Hexasim, 2018), and Chase of the Bismarck (Vuca Simulations, 2023), then let a thousand Euros bloom, let the children play Power Grid (2F-Spiele, 2004).

The rest of my collection is a scattered mix, though Legion Wargames is nearly into double digits. Some games I’ve bought because the subject interested me, or I wanted to see how the designer approached a particular situation. Some were recommended by people whose judgement I respect.

And some acquisitions were the result of a confluence of factors. I read recently an interview with John Poniske (if I ever do a post of designers represented in my collection, he’ll be up near the top), and he mentioned his favourite of his own designs was Lincoln’s War (Multi-Man Publishing, 2013), because he felt it achieved what he set out to do with it. About the same time, I was ordering some games from Noble Knight Games for shipping to a friend visiting the states. I needed to make up another $10.00 to qualify for free shipping (the shipping would have cost a tenner, but it’s the principle), and NKG had a second-hand copy of Lincoln’s War for $10.45. Like it was meant to be. When it arrived, not only was it unpunched, but it included a complete set of pieces crafted at about 160% larger size on craft board. I suspect the previous owner was a play-tester for the game, for John had written a really nice thank-you message inside the box cover.

A couple of the titles represented here are miniatures or miniature-adjacent games. While I really enjoy playing miniatures games, I’m not a big minis guy, I possess no real talent for painting, nor do I have the time, patience or space to acquire that particular hobby. B, our Wednesday-night host, lives in a house with a whole second floor dedicated to gaming, and much of that space is taken up with immaculately painted lead and resin figures; I live in an inner-city apartment, and I’m looking at having to introduce a one-in/one-out policy for boxed games. I’ll save talking about those games for another post.

 

 

The fresh contenders; or Churchill’s replacement

As mentioned in an earlier post, I’ve been wanting to swap out Churchill from my original 6x6 list of games for 2023. I was excited at the prospect of a game-related challenge, and have been keen to get Churchill to the table since my P500 copy of the latest print run arrived. I knew it was a three player, but that it can be played as a two player with a Stalin-bot, but from earlier experience with under-player-ing Versailles 1919 (GMT, 2020), I really think I owe it to the game to have a three-player experience.

So, having decided to put aside Churchill for now, I needed to come up with a suitable replacement for that slot in my 6x6 endeavour. Going through my shelves, I picked out a stack of possible candidates. After some consideration of my shelves, I managed to whittle the list down to four likely contenders which, I am embarrassed to say, I still haven’t got around to playing for one reason or another. These are:

• Richard III: the Wars of the Roses (Columbia Games, 2009)
• Undaunted: Normandy (Osprey Games, 2019)
• Colonial Twilight: The French-Algerian War, 1954-62 (GMT, 2017)
• Verdun1916: Steel Inferno (Fellowship of Simulations, 2020)

The oldest of these, in terms of ownership, is Colonial Twilight. I bought it during GMT’s 2021 Summer Sale (along with a truckload of other games), and was very excited about it when it arrived. I read the rules, flattened out the mounted board under some other weighty game-boxes, set the game up and played through handful of turns, two-handed. By the end of that I felt like I was getting the game. I was impressed by the new mechanics for this first two-player COIN game and the simple actions - complex ramifications nature of the play. It was an elegant game and I couldn’t wait to play it with an opponent.

And then I didn’t. Looking back, I don’t know what pushed it off my radar; it may have been another game I was even more eager to try out, or it might have been some aspect of my Life Outside Games that fought for my attention. I would have put away Colonial Twilight with the best of intentions of pulling it out again soon and getting back to it, but it hasn’t happened yet.

The problem with Colonial Twilight is the fact that is breaks one of the informal guidelines I set myself for the 6x6 challenge; it would be a second game designed by Brian Train, who is responsible for Brief Border Wars and the upcoming Brief Border Wars 2 (Compass Games, slated for release this year). Brian’s games are always interesting and challenging, but it would feel wrong to privilege one designer over all the others whose work I really like and respect. If I do this again next year, though, I think I have my first pick.

Richard III is a classic Columbia Games block game. They make a lot, and by all reports, nearly all are at least very good, and some are exceptional (Crusader Rex (2005) gets mentioned a lot around the forums). This would be an easy choice is I didn’t already have three block games (This War Without an Enemy, The French and Indian War, and Napoleon 1806) on my list already. I’ll still try to introduce T to the joys of Columbia’s block game style sometime soon, but It’s not going on the list.

Verdun 1916, while technically a block game (it uses rectangular wooden pieces to represent formations and thinner, matchstick-sized ones for trenches), the style of play is so radically different from anything else I possess that I would be happy to pick it. There are two things that are stopping me from going with Verdun for my 6x6 challenge; firstly, I’ve tried to select games from different conflicts. World War I is already represented by Hexasim’s Great War Commander.

Which brings me to my second reason for its exclusion. Three of the five remaining games on the list are from French publishers – Nuts!, Shakos, and Hexasim. This shouldn’t be at all surprising; companies all across Europe are producing excellent, thoughtful, and challenging games. In good conscience, wanting Great War Commander on the list precluded me adding The Fate of the Reiters (Hexasim, 2019). Nonetheless, I hope to get in a few games of Verdun sometime this year, and report back accordingly.

It would seem that the last man standing will be Undaunted: Normandy. This is a fairly recent acquisition, having arrived a little before Christmas. I’ve owned Undaunted: North Africa (Osprey, 2020) for maybe a year, and have managed to get it to the table – at least for two-handed solo play – several times.

When U:N first arrived on the scene, I was sceptical. I owned a handful of Osprey games and loved all of them.  But it seemed to me, on the face of it to be too much of a crossover game, a self-conscious attempt to make a wargame that would appeal to non-wargamers to “trick” them into wargaming. When U:NA came out, I was a little more familiar with the work of co-designer David Thompson, and, having only recently read Gavin Mortimer’s The Men Who Made the SAS (Little, Brown; 2016), I was intrigued by the historical background of the game, and – frankly- it was pretty good value for money.

Reader, I bought it. And it’s a purchase I haven’t had cause to regret. I was really surprised to see how well the deckbuilding mechanics worked in the context of the game. It’s definitely at the “game” end of the game-simulation continuum, but it’s a lot of fun, and, as rules familiarity increases, quite a fast-moving game, but it still offers challenges and decision-points enough to feel like a satisfying and worthwhile experience.

As I understand it, the scale of Undaunted: Normandy differs from U:NA – the units are squads and support weapon teams rather than individual combatants, and vehicles were only introduced to the game in the second offering (although, I believe, vehicle options for U:N scenarios feature in the Undaunted: Reinforcements (Osprey, 2021) deep box).

I think Undaunted: Normandy will also be the right level of complexity for my primary opponent, T. T is by no means stupid – he’s a senior medical specialist – but he has a serious job that comes with equally serious responsibilities, and as such, has a limited capacity for processing new information, like game rules. After a couple of plays he’s usually picked up the basics, and after half-a-dozen or so games he’s usually giving me a run for my money (we're pretty evenly matched at all of the games we're most familiar with), but as we catch up at best once a week, a lot of table time will be spent in revision for the first few runs at a new rules-set.

But for now, we will be concentrating on Napoleon 1806.  This week we’ll be graduating to the Rules for the Conscript. I think I’ve assimilated the extra rules and am ready to make six or seven mistakes in the first half-hour of play, but that’s how we learn, right?