State of Play: Commands and Colors: Ancients – Expansion 1: Greece and the Eastern Kingdoms (4/6)

  

 

Having finished our exhaustive play (six games) of French and Indian War, 1757-1759 (Worthington Publishing, 2020; read my review of the game here), I’d planned to go on to This War Without an Enemy (Nuts! Publishing, 2020). The campaign game is too long for a weeknight game, but there are a couple of shorter (four and six turns) scenarios that I thought might be doable in an evening. I got This War to the table on the weekend with the intention of just setting it up and pushing some blocks around, maybe playing through a turn and set-piece combat situation, to get a feel for the game before inflicting my inexperience on somebody else. I didn’t get that far; it took me the better part of an hour to set up the Royalist faction for the scenario and start placing the Commonwealth units. This War is a really promising game, with gorgeous components, but anything that challenging to set up is not going to be suitable for a school-night. I’m certainly not giving up on it, but I’m going to have to drop it from my 6x6 list. Hopefully the Christmas break will provide a clear afternoons to tackle the whole magnificent beast.

Theorie...

As it turned out, T needed to be at home Monday night, so I went around to his and we played the Issus, 333 BC scenario from Commands and Colors: Ancients, Expansion 1: Greece and the Eastern Kingdoms (GMT Games, 2006). T’s a big Commands and Colors fiend; we started playing through the C&C Napoleonics (GMT Games, 2010) base set on Monday nights while my wife had a protracted stay in hospital back in 2010, and we just kept going with it. We’ve played nearly everything Napoleonics, and a lot of the C&C Ancients Roman scenarios, but until this year we hadn’t played any of the Greece and the Eastern Kingdoms scenario; looking back over my game notes for the year, I was reminded that we spent one Monday evening in January this year stickering-up the Greek and Persian armies because hadn’t got around to them in however long he’s had his set.

...und Praxis.

Another complication I the set-up was that some of the terrain tiles seemed to me missing (probably stashed in another box – wouldn’t have happened at my house; just saying). We made do with a couple of river bends and a straight stretch of coastline and got on with it.

Issus was a peculiar battle; it saw Darius get something of an upper hand on the seemingly infallible Alexander, manoeuvring behind the Macedonian leader and cutting his line of supply. Alexander reversed to meet Darius on a battleground of the latter’s choosing, the banks of the Pinarus River.

Alexander's cavalry, left flank.

Looking at the disposition of the two forces, you could be forgiven for thinking that Darius has the upper hand. More units on the board (by nearly half a dozen) and more cavalry to hand. But look closer and you’ll see Alexander has the greater weight of force (a majority of Medium and heavy troops) and six Command Cards to Darius’s four. And he begins the battle.

In truth we both seemed to be hampered by our card draws. Most of my options were left-flank movement, while T could only seem to bring up his centre in the very beginning. I tried to make a virtue of necessity and get my auxilia and light bow on the left into an actionable position, then taking the forward and auxilia into the hills, where they took some hits from missile attacks but gave back more in melee, holding the defensible high ground.

Parmenio surrounded.

A double-time order gave T the opportunity to bring his heavy infantry into striking range, which withered my light units in the front, costing ground and allowing T an early lead in points. My medium foot held their ground, while my single heavy cavalry unit was finally able to come up and maul the attackers (due mostly to some uncharacteristically good dice rolls), taking out Craterus’s personal guard and forcing him take flight to the rear. Well into the battle (around five banners each) cavalry order allowed me to bring my medium and light horse under Narbazanes to get up and hit T’s shallow left flank, causing terrific strife. Sadly, Narbazanes was lost in the fray, as was Parmenio of the Macedonians. Two more rounds, and it was here the battle was won, with the last banner claimed by the Persian heavy cavalry who had pursued Craterus across the field of battle to the Alexandrian rear, swiftly disposing of the medium cavalry the general had tried to rally, though wily Craterus himself eluded capture once more.

The killing blow.

It was a close game, with only two points in it at the end (8-6 in favour of the Persians). An ahistorical result, which for all the complaints of lack of balance in C&C scenarios, does happen from time to time.

One odd artifact of the Command Card selection was that neither Alexander and his companion cavalry, nor Darius and his Immortals were ever activated, even to defend. The battle raged and (due to the vagaries of the draws) neither leader was roused to action.

Macedonians casualties.

All in all, a good game, well-fought. At this point, the plan for next week is to return to Napoleon 1806 (Shakos, 2017). We played the introductory scenario twice early in the year, but have yet to play the Campaign scenario. Tune in next time.

 

 

Review: French and Indian War, 1757-1759

 

 

Worthington Publishing (and the company’s previous incarnation, Worthington Games) have a long and deep connection with the French and Indian War, as the North American theatre of the Seven-Years’ War (1754-1763) between the empires of Britain and France and their subjects and allies in the New World. Hold the Line (Worthington Games, 2008), and its revision, Hold the Line: the American Revolution (Worthington Publishing, 2016), each saw its own French and Indian War expansion (Worthington, 2008, 2016).

I was on the fence about French and Indian War, 1757-1759 (Worthington, 2020) game when it was first announced. Because of financial pressures at the time, I didn’t end up backing the Kickstarter; shipping to Australia always add around half to two-thirds the cost of the pledge. I like a block game, and I was thinking about grabbing a copy through Noble Knight, but I already owned Volko Ruhnke’s classic, Wilderness War (GMT Games, 2001). With limited storage space and a lot of historical areas my smallish-but-respectable collection doesn’t yet cover, could I justify buying a second French and Indian War game.

What convinced me was Bill Molyneaux’s review of the game on BoardGameGeek. Bill designed the well-received Wilderness Empires (Worthington Publishing, 2015), as well as a sack-load of other games set around aspects of the conflict, and is a historian and heavily involved in the F&IW re-enaction scene. He said it was, to his mind, the best game covering the conflict (and mentioned that his son prefers it to Bill’s own game). I confess, I haven’t played Wilderness Empires, but Molyneaux is a consistently solid historical game designer, so his endorsement counted for something with me. After reading his thoughts in it, I pulled the trigger on French and Indian War.

Having played it now half a dozen times and spent a lot more time thinking and writing about it, I feel like I’m in a good position to talk about this game. Having said that, I feel like it eludes me somewhat. It’s a simple game, very easy to pick up. I’d say it’s an excellent game for introducing new players to wargaming, and to block wargames in particular. But underneath its veneer of simplicity, there’s an awful lot going on in this game, and I’m certain I won’t be able to cover it all in this review.

Appearance

French and Indian War, 1757-1759 (F&IW) is a spare game, the mounted board is a narrow, four panel item (11” x 32”), representing the region in which the bulk of the action in the conflict took place from the northern shores of the Great Lakes to the frontiers of Pennsylvania, New York state, and New England, with key locations marked out, along with paths connecting one location to the next. The colour pallet is muted but nonetheless quite attractive; highlights the action rather than smothering it. The board also features a Year-track (1757-59), and turn-track (11 turns with a possible 12^th on a successful die roll for a late winter), and points tracks for each side (running 0-12).

F&IW is a block game, which isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. If you’ve read this far, you’re probably a fan or at least curious. The blocks in F&IW are of a typical size for a block game (comparable to the Columbia Games’ block games or the Cavalry blocks used in GMT’s Commands & Colors family of games) The British blocks are in a red very close to the British Redcoat uniform crimson; the French blocks are in a rather pale blue (which is historically more fitting than the expected royal blue). Two sets of stickers are provided with the game; these are applied to one side of the blocks, and represent the three types of units available to the players (French unit stickers on the blue blocks, British on the red). The differences in the sets are purely ascetic. I went with the more conventional of the two sets.

Also included are a handful of small black cubes intended for track markers. There are several more then are needed on the board, so we placed an extra one or two (as appropriate) on the 0-box to mark when the twelve-point track had been lapped (i.e. a 0 block and a 3 equals 15 points, two 0 blocks and a 2 would equal 26 points). We also used a spare block as a mnemonic for the location of a battle, as the pieces are all removed to a battle board for combat.

The Battle Board is where conflicts are resolved. This is a thick 11” by 8½” panel with a combat ranks and instructions printed on one side. On the reverse side is a break-down of the historical set-up for the game.

The game comes with six custom dice, used in the combat rounds. Units hit on their own symbols, of which there is only one face on each die; Regular army units hit on their respective flags, Irregulars hit on crossed tomahawks, and Militia on a roll of crossed muskets. The game also comes with a single regularly-pipped six-sider, for rolling at the end of the game-year to see if a late winter allows an extra turn that year.

French and Indian War comes with two copies of the rule book; this is something Worthington started doing a few years ago, and it is such a boon. The rules run to eleven of the twelve pages, and these include solitaire play guidelines and the option for hidden simultaneous movement (the game also comes with a pad especially for recording your movements before the simultaneous placement), which I can’t speak to because we haven’t tried that, but now I’m really wishing we had for at least one game; when we get around to playing this again I'll make sure to use the hidden movement rules and report back. The last page has a map with abbreviations for the hidden movement mode, but it doubles as a player’s aid (a good thing there’s two copies of the rules).

Play

The forces in French and Indian War are comprised of regiments Regular (professional) soldiers, cohorts of Militia, bands of Irregular units (Indians and Rangers), and naval units for gaining or challenging control over the Atlantic. These units are represented by labelled blocks, Red for the British and their allies, light blue for the French and their Indian tribes allied to Louis. The strength of each unit is indicated by a decreasing number of pips on the sides of the edges of the block sticker; as is typical with most block games, when a unit takes damage, the block is rotated counter-clockwise so that the upper edge always represents the current strength of the unit (i.e., a four-pip regular unit takes a hit; it is rotated so the upper edge now shows three pips). Combat rounds go rank by rank; first Irregulars, then Regular troops, then Militia. Defenders roll first, and hits are taken immediately, so there’s always the possibility of disadvantage as the attacker, especially when attacking a fort or a port settlement (attacking Irregulars and Militia roll with one les die on their first round).

The game is divided up into three years of 11 or 12 turns to a year, depending on the roll of a six-sided die to determine whether Winter sets in early or late (on a roll of 4-6, the players get one more turn for the year; on a 1-3 the snow comes early). Each location has a victory point score, which also corresponds to how many units can winter in that location. A winter garrison can exceed the VP number by one irregular unit and take no penalty, but any further units will take a one-pip drop in their strength (reflecting desertions, Militia members returning to their homesteads, etc.). Getting caught with a larger formation in a small town can be devastating.

The play action of French & Indian War is deceptively simple; with each turn, each side – beginning with the British – may move a unit of units from one location. These units can move from their point of origin to a single location, or they may disperse to separate adjoining locations, but most can only move to an adjacent location. The exception to this is the Irregulars – the allied Indian tribes and local Ranger units – who can move to a second connected location.

When you arrive at a location already inhabited by the enemy, you fight. The number of pips across the units in a rank dictate how many dice you roll for that rank, and you hit on that ranks’ symbol (crossed hatchets for the Irregulars, crossed muskets for the Militia, and the Union Jack and Fleurs de Lys for the British and French Regulars respectively). In this game the dice are unforgiving. Whatever you are fighting with has a one-in-six chance of raining hurt down upon the opposing side. Sometimes a whole round or two of combat will prove ineffectual for both sides. But occasionally a single roll can be devastating. Only occasionally, though (statistics say so). Being a block game, you don’t know what your opponent has placed where until you test it, and in this, combat can have as much use as a method of probing for intelligence as its more obvious purpose. Knowing where the other side is strongest can deliver vital information regarding your opponent’s intentions.

For all the reduced movement options and sometimes sluggish combat resolution, French and Indian War is a remarkably fast-playing game. Our first run at it had all the usual qualities of a learning game, and so ran to about two hours and twenty minutes, but from the third game on, we managed to keep play within the 90 minutes suggested on the box. French and Indian War is a tight game that flows easily, so long as you’re not given to labouring over every difficult choice.

Appraisal

F&IW involves a combination of strategy, guesswork and, to a degree, dumb luck, though not as much as it might appear on the face of it. To win, one side must gain a clear ten-point majority in points at the end of a year, after any territorial gains have been tabulated. Each unit destroyed offers the victor a single point, but you’re not going to win by killing the enemy. Taking territory is where the points are, but it’s not enough to push the enemy out of his homes; to claim a location as a prize, one of your units must reside there at the close of the year. That means, to have a chance at winning that ten-point lead, you will have to spread your forces fairly thinly in an effort to gain those extra victory points. And if you don’t win the game that year, you’ll be spending turns gathering up your units for another fight or two before trying to claim all that territory again. This also means that a fight to the death isn’t in your interests. If you knock out two of the other guy’s units but lose one or two yourself, you may not be able to cover the terrain you need for those elusive points. French and Indian War is a long string of difficult choices.

While it is a relatively simple game to learn, and only really has one scenario (two if you count the historical set-up and free placement as separate scenarios), French and Indian War is a rare gem of a game; I found it reveals its depths slowly, rewarding multiple games with new insights. It elegantly captures the difficulties of waging a frontier war with restricted movement options, limited resources and manpower, and a mutual enemy in the harsh North American winters I’d put it on the same level as the best of Columbia Games' block games. I think the key to approaching the game is to adopt a guerrilla mindset, more Mao Zedong than Antoine-Henri Jomini. It was impossible to run a set-piece decisive battle in the vast wilderness the Great Lakes region in the mid-eighteenth century. Most actions in the game are small concerns, with one side conceding the ground and backing off to maintain their force strength of another day. Sometimes it can feel like whack-a-mole; each side is limited in its resources and stifled in its manoeuvre options, and I can see how some might find the frustration insurmountable, but its these elements that make the game such a strategic showpiece. It’s difficult to spring a surprise on your opponent when it takes your forces three turns to get into a position to pounce. This game rewards a flexible approach to fighting, and makes unanticipated demands on its players.

I’m sure some folks will balk at the ponderous nature of F&IW; the limited movement, the potential for successive rounds of ineffectual combat, and the requirements of winter-quartering potentially chewing up your last three or four moves for the year. But all these aspects work together to abstractly recreate the difficulties of fighting a war in the truly untamed and inhospitable environment of the Great Lakes region. Dealing with these restrictions through the course of play elevates this game of simple mechanisms into a deep historical simulation. French and Indian War is a deft and elegant example of game design.

 

 

State of Play: French and Indian War (6/6)

 

 

T and I played the final game in my six-game cycle of French and Indian War, 1757-1759 (Worthington Publishing, 2020) on Monday night. This has been a journey. On the face of it, F&IW is a relatively simple block wargame, but as I may have said before, it has hidden depths of strategic complexity, and I feel like after six games we’ve barely begun to scratch the surface. But I’ll come back to this. First, I have to tell you how I had my hat handed to me by a particularly tenacious French foe.

The balanced disparity of the starting forces.

This was our second round with free starting placement, rather than setting up using the historical placement of the forces. After five games with four wins, I thought I had a reasonable understanding of the strengths of the two armies. I’d prepared what I thought was a good starting pattern. I had a medium strength cadre in the West, held back in Alexandria, which I hoped would lure T’s units out of Fort Duquesne to try to seize Cumberland, so I wouldn’t have to give him the defensive advantage attacking him in the fort. I’d made a show of force in Halifax though it was only two Militia regiments. This tied up two of T’s units opposite, in Louisbourg. My ships took to sea in the second turn of 1757 and each year I retained naval supremacy unchallenged. T didn’t need to engage in maritime assaults, as we shall see.

The western theatre, at start.

The eastern theatre, at start.

In the centre I placed a convincing force in Fort William McHenry – two Regular regiments and a supporting Militia unit, which could jump back to defend Albany, gateway to the major coastal cities, if need be. I put two Irregular units in Oneida, so I could quickly take Fort Niagara and Toronto at the end of the year (if they remained unchallenged). I thought, correctly as it turned out, that T would take an offensive stance early, and try either to take Ft William McHenry by force majeure, or to sneak around through the eastern backwoods trail through Hampshire and Deerfield, threatening Boston. By the end of the 1757, T had started both. My aim in 1757 was to hold the crossroads of Albany and Deerfield until winter, take as few losses in winter quarters as I could manage, and push back with renewed strength (five reinforcements, nearly all regular units, to T’s three). Pulling back my troops in the face of winter left me thin at the front, but I reasoned it was necessary. So, in the last three turns I pulled back. T did as well in his turn, but not to as great an extent. He was willing to lose a strength point here and there to maintain superior numbers.

The situation, late '78.

With the eleventh turn, I rolled for a late winter, which it proved to be (in fact, for the first time in our playing, all three years gained an extra turn through late or mild winters; go figure). My western group had chased T out of Cumberland, and with the extra turn I risked a move against Fort Duquesne. This audacity paid off, and I pushed the French back to LeBoeuf. This was to be my last victory.

Thin ranks in Boston.

In 1758, I reinforced Philadelphia, New York and Boston with Regulars. But I couldn’t get them up quickly enough to counter T’s attack on Ft William McHenry. The next turn he pushed forward to Albany, then into New York! The dice were friends to nobody, but T seemed to be favoured a little more than me. I eventually pushed him out of New York, but for the remainder of the year, two intact French regiments resided in Hartford, seeing off challenges from ever weakening attacks from New York and Boston, before finally rousing themselves to push out my battered units and take winter residence in New York. At the end of 1758, T had a nine-point lead on me. I’d only managed to get that lead down to a nine point margin by a last-ditch march from Oswego on the undefended Fort Niagara and Toronto by two depleted units. I should have taken the loss stoically at that point; I would have spared myself the further deprivations of 1759.

Six fresh British regiments (raised from the losses I had so recently suffered) arrived in the Spring of 1759, but these proved no match for the truly God-like efforts of the New York-based French army. A renewed two-pronged offensive from Fort Carillon saw Ft William McHenry fall and a huge warband of native allies move swiftly through Hampshire to take Deerfield, and in the next turn, Boston.

A remarkably effective attack.

My foolish pride wouldn’t let me concede, so I went on sniping at the edges of T’s victory, but in the final call, the numbers spoke of my shame; T lapped the twelve-point score-track twice for a total of 31 points to my 19.

And an embarrassingly comprehensive French victory.

It was an inauspicious way to end our tour of the French and Indian War, but it was nonetheless a satisfying game. Through his early losses, T still proclaimed how much he enjoyed this game. I’m looking froward to stepping away from this for a while (not before next year, in all likelihood), but I’m sure we’ll come around to it again. It still has a lot to teach us.

 

 

State of Play: French and Indian War (5/6)

 

 

On Tuesday night, T and I played French and Indian War, 1757-1759 (Worthington Publishing, 2020), game five of six. We had planned at the outset to do two games each playing the British/French using the historical set-up, with the last two games taking turns at each side with free-form set up. I’ve really enjoyed playing the historical set-up games, and while set the board for each game, I can’t keep in my head the disposition of the opposing army (beyond say, playing the French, remembering the British have two regular units holding Halifax). After this game, though, I think it’s the free-form set-up where the game really shines.

Starting disposition, East (for reference, New York - top right corner).

We diligently tried to set up to our own respective strategies, ignoring as best we could the opponent’s placements. After set up, T – as the British – took the first move, and too to the high seas, claiming control of the Atlantic Ocean. I had placed four units in Louisbourg, but they were all Militia; I wanted the appearance of a reinforced garrison, but I’d located my available Regulars at Forts, Carillon, Duquesne and Niagara. Inexplicably, T had left Halifax unoccupied in his set-up, concentrating his forces in the major cities and on his land borders.

Starting disposition, west (for reference, New York, top-left corner).

I wanted to push hard on t least two fronts and make gains before the end of the first year, and maybe even take the prize. In my first handful of turns, I did manage to take Fort William McHenry, which had also been left unattended, and Cumberland, where offered stout resistance for several rounds, but withdrew in good order, perhaps sensing a burgeoning threat in the central corridor leading to New York.

I did make a show of attempting to wrest control of the Atlantic from the British, and I saw off one of his ship units, before being expelled myself from that field of conflict. Britainnia indeed ruled the waves.

By the end of the first year, I had conceded two units to T, and he had lost four. These translated to that many points each. After we’d dealt with winter attrition, we countered off the enemy locations held. I gained another seven points in this way; a worthy effort, but not quite enough for the required 10-point margin that would have given me victory in the first year.

Situation at the end of 1757 (before deployment of reinforcements).

The Second year began with reinforcements. I had relinquished an Irregular unit and a contingent of Militia. I spent my measly three reinforcement points for 1758 on a fifth Regular unit and two Irregulars, and this turned out to be a wise move. I suspect T spent his five reinforcement points on Regular units, and had he put them all into the field, the course of the war may have been altered. As it was, he placed two units in Halifax, where they would stay for the remainder of the game.

A war party of Indians allied to the French made it as far as the outskirts of New York, before being turned back by a Large conventional force, thus tying up resources that should rightly have been taking the fight to my (now shaky) front in the west. I admit I went into the game with the sketchiest of strategic plans – mostly I took opportunities as they presented themselves, but the opportunities kept coming, and I exploited them as best I could.

I didn’t get it all my own way, but with the end of the year nearing, T began to pull some of his troops back to the larger cities and towns to preserve them over the winter. I used the last two rounds to disperse my troops, especially the ranging Irregulars, to as many uncontrolled British towns as I could reach. This tactic won me the game at the end of 1758, with an end score of 21 points to T’s nine.

Situation at the end of 1758.

The takeaway from this game, for me, was something I had suspected from playing the French for the first two games. French success, I think, is dependent on the maintenance and judicious deployment of the Irregulars. Their ability to move two locations when activated is key to claiming points for captured locations for end-of-year scoring. With some forethought-outplacement of my Indian allies, I just managed get over the 10-point victory threshold at the end of 1758. I think to be fair I should also mention T’s assistance in my victory; we both conceded points for lost units, but where I would sacrifice a Militia unit to preserve my Regulars or Irregulars, T would doggedly stay in the meatgrinder of prolonged battle in the hopes of weakening my troops overall. Across the game I think the unit loss was roughly 1:2 or maybe even 1:2.5 in my favour. That was a solid contribution to the French victory.

One more game – at this point slated for next week – then we move on to another game. I’m not sure what we’ll go on to yet, but I’ve got an itch to get This War Without an Enemy (Nuts! Publishing, 2020) to the table. Given we can really only play on school nights, we’ll probably have to stick to the shorter scenarios. Anyway, I’ll confirm the next game in the final report, and I’ll post a full review of French and Indian War within a couple of weeks.

 

 

State of Play: French and Indian War (4/6)

   

 

After a few weeks of inactivity, we returned to French and Indian War, 1757-1759 (Worthington Publishing, 2020) last week. This was our fourth outing with this game, and I think we've got through the teething problems and can concentrate on gaining strategic advantage over the enemy. As per our agreed schedule, T played the French again, and I played the British. This was our second turn each, after playing the first two games as the other faction.

After three French victories in a row (two to me, one to T), I was keen to prove the game was not imbalanced and that the British could indeed win under historical conditions (i.e., the proscribed set-up). I set a defensive posture in the central region, committing significant Regular forces at Fort William McHenry to protect the potential highway to New York, but aimed to concentrate my efforts on first liberating Fort Duquesne, then pushing through Le Boeuf and Pressque Isle to Fort Niagara. I also wanted to secure the Atlantic early on and threaten Louisbourg, though I was ambivalent about actually attacking the port.

I did manage to take Fort Dequesne, in the first year (1757), and managed to hold it until year’s end, but a redoubled effort on T’s part – along with some canny to-hit rolls, managed to drive me out again, as far back as Alexandria. In the spring of 1759 (the beginning of the final game-year), I steeled myself for a second thrust into the wilds of New France. This is where the lack of French reinforcements compared to the British was telling. I managed to bulldoze my way as far as Pressque Isle before the French conceded defeat.

T changed his tactics as the French as well. Last time we played. In our last game, after securing the Atlantic, my British forces made a successful marine assault on Louisbourg early in the second year, and threatened to push on to Quebec, but was pushed back by force. This threat tied up some of T’s units that may have been useful elsewhere, but alas, it wasn’t enough to allow me the latitude to gain the ten-point lead needed for a British victory in the subsequent scoring rounds.

In this game, T doubled down on the reverse tactic, putting two of his precious reinforcement points into two ships in an effort to secure the Atlantic for a French naval invasion (which he managed tidily). I had landed Regular reinforcements in Halifax with the view them joining their brethren in Boston, them marching them through Deerfield to Hampshire with the view of assaulting Fort Carillon, allowing the troops at Fort William McHenry to remain securing Albany/Oneida. With the Atlantic held by the French navy (quelle horreur!), those troops were stuck there, but proved up to the task when T did attack Halifax, only to be repulsed. His two Regulars and one Militia were no match for four full-strength units of Redcoats, who handed them their hats with only two strength point losses between them.

The face of the enemy.

T’s mistake in the second half of the game (roughly half-way into the second year) was not withdrawing after two rounds of battle and preserving his forces, but to insist on fighting to the bitter end. Perhaps it was because he was weary from campaigning on a different front (he had been playing a rather long game of Lords of Waterdeep (Wizards of the Coast, 2012) with the family before I arrived and throughout my set-up time). Whatever the reason, his flagrant disregard for the wellbeing of his troops cost him resources that, with some judicious movement, may have cost me the game simply by occupying enough British locations to deny me the full ten-point lead I needed to secure victory.

With four turns remaining, but having only three units left on the board, the French leadership conceded to the British, leaving the battlefield, and all of New France, to the victors. The Brightest candles burn out quickly, and France burned so very bright on the field. The British forces were a shadow of their former glory, but remained on the field in great enough numbers to hold their ground.

End state at French capitulation (1759, end of turn 7).

So, the British can win with the historical set-up, but it was certainly not a given. There were a couple of points where a stronger French victory or a canny retreat may have changed the situation and secured yet another victory for la belle France. We have two games left of French and Indian War, and our intention is to play the last two games with one game each as the French, but with the freeform set-up described in the rules. The same reinforcement schedule applies, so the game will have the same limitations for both sides. It should be an interesting venture. Stay tuned.

 

 

State of Play: French and Indian War (3/6)

 

 

T and I caught up Monday night for our third go at Worthington Games’ French and Indian War, 1757-2759. For the first two games I played as the French and T as the British. I thought this would give him an advantage, given the strength of the British starting forces, and the disproportionate reinforcements they receive in the second and third years of the conflict.

I wouldn’t say the French trounced the British on both occasions – the second game was a closer-run thing – but I wagered that, if the French survive with a good portion of their forces intact to beginning of the third year, they would have a strong chance of wearing out the British onslaught and bring them to the negotiation table.

Early in the game (coffee untouched).

In the first and second years, either side can win if they hold a clear ten-point lead over their opponent after the end-of-year VPs have been tallied. This is a big ask but not impossible; in most instances, losses are going to be fairly even, but if you push deep into the enemy’s territory and hold enough higher-point locations, you may be able to tip the balance. That’s what I set out to do last night. I wanted to prove the British cold prevail by the end of the second year. Such was not to be the case.

The British move first, and in each turn, each player can only move one troops from one location, although you can split that movement over multiple locations. The problem for both sides is that you want to try to shore up your frontier locations – the one’s on the opponent’s doorstep – quickly, but with the movement limit of one adjoining location per move for most units (two for Irregulars), that’s impossible. There will always be a weak point for your opponent to press the advantage.

The judgement of Paris.

T opened aggressively, probing on toward Fort William Henry and in the far west. Despite some appalling defensive rolls, I eventually managed to blunt his attacks, but not before losing Cumberland, Oswego and Oneida, all in the first half of the first year. I took a defensive posture for the remainder of the year, hoping that the heavier reinforcements due with the new year would tip the balance.

In 1758, T started to gather his forces in Louisbourg for a maritime assault. Realising the danger, I took to the Atlantic with my navy, sacrificing a much-needed land manoeuvre, but ensuring the security of my chief port. For the French, Halifax is an attractive goal; not only for its potential three victory Points at year’s end, but for the fact that it’s a single move to Boston and only two to New York.

A thin Red Line.

1758 saw some back and forth on control of a handful of locations, and al the time T managed to whittle my forces down block by block so that I couldn’t gain the momentum for a proper counter-offensive. The close of 1758 (with another early winter) saw the French seven points ahead, mostly on the strength of British unit losses.

1759 Saw a slight swing in favour of the British, firstly taking and holding the Atlantic once again, then retaking Cumberland (again), and pushing on to Fort Duquesne, then relieving the occupation of Oneida. Fort Carillon proved a tougher nut to crack. Again, the attrition of forces by superior French dice-rolling maintained their lead and added to it slightly. The French Irregulars (Indian allies) showed particular ferocity, making short work of their enemy at every turn. The final result was a convincing French victory; 20-11 points.

The unvarnished truth

Mistakes were made, and lessons taken to heart. We've both become more attentive of the progress of the year, and neither side took Winter Attrition losses in this game (progress).

We’re scheduled for a rematch next week. This will be our final game using the sanctioned (historical) set-up. For the last two of the 6x6 games, we’ve agreed to play one game each side using the free set-up guidelines. Meanwhile, I haven’t given up all hope of a British victory next week. Watch this space.

 

 

State of Play: French and Indian War (2/6) and a return to Bolt Action

 

 

Our regular Monday game was moved to Tuesday night this week due to T having a work commitment, which was just as well because I approached the game with a clearer head than would have the previous night. Nothing self-inflicted, just recovering from a nasty cold.

This week we returned to the French and Indian War, 1757-1759 (Worthington Publishing, 2020) one of my declared 6x6 games. Once again, I deployed as the French, T as the British, and once again it was a tight match. We ended up playing through the full three years (early winters each, so no bonus turns) All the first year and into the second, T played a very aggressive game, as my settlements in the western interior fell one by one. The only thing that slowed his progress was the arrival of winter (end of 1757).

I have seen the enemy, and he wears French cuffs.

I realised between last week’s and this week’s game that there were a couple of things that we did wrong; In the first game I attacked Halifax from Louisbourg when I shouldn’t have been able to, T holding the control of the Atlantic at the time. The game wasn’t so close that the extra two points would have decided it, but this time I quietly took control of the Atlantic uncontested while T went on his eastern rampage, and held it for the whole game. I took Halifax legitimately at the end of the second year, wintered there (I was unable to place reinforcements there as all hands were needed to shore up the fort defences at the other end of the board), and pushed on to Boston at the beginning of my spring offensive. This blunted T’s anticipated push in the centre somewhat – Boston could not fall to the dirty French – and he diverted troops back along the southern coast and we-took the city two turns later, then pushing on to dive me out of Halifax. But had he not been provoked to defend his western cities, T was set to push through my brittle defence of Forts Carillion and Frontinac, which would have almost certainly cost me the game.

The British march on Le Boeuf in force.

The other thing we had missed in the previous week’s game was winter attrition. At the end of the yearly cycle (the beginning of winter), any troop numbers in excess of the VP value of the settlement in which they are located must take a strength reduction of one point, two if it’s an occupying force in an enemy settlement (the first irregular unit gets a pass on this, since they’re used to the harsh winters). We both took penalties to our troop strengths in the west; T took the bigger hit, but her could afford to. At the end of the second year, with an eye to the turn track, I managed to maintain all of my units at their current strength, while T took reductions to a couple of Militia units (men going home to be with their families, no doubt). 

The Marines take Hampshire unopposed

The third year was a stalling exercise for my side. Scoring rounds occur at the end of each year. VPs are gained on a simple metric of one for each enemy unit taken out of the game (scored immediately) and how many enemy locations you hold – the ones where you actually have troops positioned – at the end of the year (the step before winter attrition). If one side has a clear ten-point superiority over the other, the war ends that year. If it runs to the third year, the onus is on the British to gain that ten-point lead, or victory defaults to the French. I didn’t mind relinquishing Boston and Halifax, because those forcing T to regain them meant two crucial turns, he couldn’t attack anywhere else, as well as tying up a not-insignificant portion of his resources. At the end of 1759, T did have a lead on me, but by the fourth turn of that year, there was no way he could come back to take victory. France prevailed, and the fur trade was maintained (a little longer). But we did manage to trim about forty minutes off the playing time from last week.

The final scores.

Wednesday night saw the group fighting in western France, circa July 1944. I believe B had a scenario set up for Bolt Action (Osprey Games, 2012; three buildings (including a magnificent cathedral with a removable roof-piece, roughly in the centre of the play area, with the two roughly numerically even sides, seasoned SS troops who had been recuperating in France after service on the Eastern Front, and D-Day-bloodied US infantry, converging on the town in the hopes of capturing the key locations. The Germans had a Panther tank in support, and the Americans had two Shermans (known colloquially among the German anti-tank teams as “Tommy-cookers;” true, as it turned out).

"I see the little silhouetto of a tank..." 

Sides were drawn mostly at random – K had a particular desire to play the Germans, while the other spots went to H, D and myself as the Americans, and B taking up the other German units.

Advancing with caution (and armour support).

The tone was set for the six-round match by H bringing the first Sherman up on the very first order, only for the Panther to edge froward along a road intersecting the main street of the town and putting it out of action with a single round. The second Sherman came up nearly in line with the smoking hull of the first and fired on the Panther, but failed to penetrate its thick frontal armour. Both sides’ units moved forward in a rush, and with the second round heel would be unleashed…

"Tommy-cookers"

On the Americans; drawing the first activation, K brough his Panther to bear on the second Sherman and dispatched it with ruthless efficiency. Thinking it would be unsporting to concede defeat then and there, the Americans fought on bravely but in vain; we inflicted some losses on the adversary, gave him pause in places, but the will (and canny die rolls) of the Germans carried the day.

I do like the initiative mechanism in Bolt Action; one special Order dice for each unit in a draw cup, and with each dice drawn, that side chooses which unit to activate next, leaving the Order dice face up next to the unit as a reminder of both it’s activation and what it was trying to accomplish.

Fierce house-to-house fighting.

My own gaming time will be reduced for a month while I attend my civic duty. I’ll try to take the opportunity to finish some reviews I’ve begun. Until next time.