State of Play: A 2025 Wargaming Goal (in spite of myself)

 

  

Harlan Ellison Wrote a book called The Glass Teat, which was essentially a condemnation of everything that television stood for. A few years later, an interviewer asked Ellison why, if he hated TV so much, did he persist in writing for television programs. His response, “What can I say? I’m a f**king hypocrite.”

I started with this story because Mr Ellison was one of my favourite authors growing up, and the story seemed germane to what I’m going to go into here. I was watching the War Room on replay this afternoon. I caught about fifteen minutes of it this (Sunday) morning, but we went for a walk in the neighbourhood before it got too hot outside, and I ended up missing most of it. For the uninitiated, the War Room is a weekly show on YouTube presented by idjester, Rough Swordsman Wargamer, and Nate Landrum (half of the Board Game Bunker – three YouTube commentators – where the three discuss wargames and wargame-adjacent topics for two hours. It’s a lot of fun, and somewhat educational.

The gentlemen of The War Room.

Anyway, each year Jester proposes a challenge to the regular viewers, usually around playing ten different games – all declared at the beginning of the year – within a time frame, usually by the end of that year. It was a misunderstanding on my part of the parameters of this challenge that set me on a Quixotic errand to play six games in my first year of writing A Fast Game, which has, in turn, inspired others to pursue similar goals.

At the end of 2024 however, I was done with trying to meet targets for games player or reviewed. The last year was particularly hard on my wife and me, and its only in the last couple of weeks that we’ve been realising just how much of our everyday lives we’d put on hold. I’m a little more forgiving on myself for what I didn’t get done now, and so I think I’m ready to set myself one more doable challenge.

In today’s episode of the War Room, Jester laid out the parameters for this year’s ten-game challenge. The rules are a little laxer than in previous years. People complained it was too hard to make their lists. Jester is a harsh but fair tyrant. But any challenge must have some rules, or it isn’t really challenging.

One of the changes is the number of games. To participate in the challenge you have to post your list of games to the Tac UP Facebook group (or email it to Jester and he will upload it on your behalf). This list will be comprised of twelve games instead of ten. This gives the participant a little wriggle room. If you have a game you intended to play but for some reason you couldn’t do it, you have a back-up (two, actually). In the past, some folks had put games on their list that were supposed to be published that year but were delayed for some reason. This takes care of that.

The rules for the 10 Wargame Challenge for 2025.

Another change is the newness of the game. In the past there has been a requirement that only new-to-you games were allowed (this was of course on the honour system). This year, it can be a game you have played before, but not one you’ve already played this year. Also, to qualify, they have to be played after the January 19 cut-off date.

And to make it even easier for those inclined to bite off more than they can chew (averts gaze, shuffles feet), participants are required only to make a real effort at playing each game. If one of them is just too hard or too long to finish, so long as you have made an honest go of it, that effort will count as a play.

The proviso is that evidence of play must be uploaded to the Facebook group with each play completed. Jester the Benevolent is going to keep a spreadsheet (a man after my own heart) of all participants’ lists and mark off their progress. I’m not sure what will be considered adequate evidence; a lot of folks who participate are bloggers or YouTube content creators themselves, so they usually post something on their channel and link it on the FB group. If you’re interested in participating, contact the administrators of the Tac UP group on FB. You have until the 19^th of January to submit your list to the group.

I’m still settling on my list. It’s going to be a mix of games I’ve played in the past but not lately and ones I’ve been meaning to get to the table, and probably a mix of solo plays and face-to-face games. I’ll write up a session report for each play and post it on A Fast Game.

I really had no intention of putting myself through the process of setting goals and see them unmet again and had resigned myself to just plugging away at the blog for twelve months. But this seems like an achievable target, as it’s what I would be doing in the regular run of things anyway. And it will be nice to feel like I’m taking part in something bigger than myself. So, yes, I do feel a little bit like a hypocrite, but it also feels like the right thing to do.

There are a couple of games I know I want to put on the list, but I don’t want to rush into anything. I should have a list firmed up in a couple of days. As I play the games and write them up, I’ll sub-head all the posts that contribute to my challenge target, so anyone can follow along at home.

 

 

State of Play: Task Force: Carrier Battles in the Pacific, Scenario 1 (Solo tutorial)

  

 

I had to run some errands today, but I managed to do something I’ve been meaning to since it arrived in May; I finally got Task Force: Carrier Battles in the Pacific (Vuca Simulations, 2023) to the table. If you’d like a better look at the whole game, Task Force was the first game I “stripped down for parts,” and my effusive commentary and component photos of questionable quality can be found here.

The first three scenarios are single-player tutorials, introducing the concepts and rules gradually. I’m somewhat a novice when it comes to modern-era naval games so I appreciate the approach. There are some excellent materials available on YouTube; Ruff at Rough Swordsman and Michael at Boardgames Chronicle both have good playthrough videos, and I’m not embarrassed to say I’ve been checking both out. Thanks, fellas.

Helpful scenario set-up board, populated,

The first scenario is the Attack on Pearl Harbor by the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN). The intention is to introduce how the air-to-surface combat and air-defence rules work (a crucial part of carrier operations), before moving on fleet movement and conducting search operations. I always appreciate the opportunity to learn new games with unusual concepts or mechanics in bite-sized chunks rather than the sink-or-swim approach. I’m not saying it’s the best way to teach and learn, but it works for me.

The set-up took a little longer than it might have if I’d used counter trays; there is so much in the box that there was no way the three GMT trays I’d need to accommodate everything were going to go in it (one would have been snug). I bagged up the ships for each side by class, except for the carriers, which each got their own bag to accommodate their air assets. While some of the planes were generic land-base planes, three-quarters of them were from the carriers involved in the actual Pearl Harbor raid, so I had to go fishing through extra zip-loc baggies to make up their numbers.

Once the helpful scenario template was filled, setting up the game map was a simple task and quickly done. The Scenario 1 map is printed on paper; it’s the only one in the whole box not mounted, I’m guessing because the scenario was written specifically as a teaching exercise, and not meant to be repeated more than a time or two.

Initial set-up (the calm before the storm).

The attacking IJN planes are a mixture of high-altitude bombers (B), dive-bombers (D) and modified Torpedo bombers (T). To make it a bit more of a challenge each wave completely, then rolled, so as not to be able to cherry-pick weakened targets. Well, that’s not entirely true; the scenario rules allow the first four planes attacking to strike without dealing with AA fire from their targets. These were straight runs, so I set these up first. I went straight for Battleship Row, and the two closest to the mouth of the harbour channel, the USS Oklahoma and USS West Virginia. I paired a much weaker B-Kate unit with a T-Kate unit from Yamamoto’s flagship, the Akagi. The West Virginia got a full-strength unit of T-Kates from the Akagi and the half-strength T-Kate unit from the Kaga.

Remainder of the First Wave; they'll have to deal with AA fire.

In air-to-surface combat in Task Force, a low roll is a good roll. The attacker also gains a -2 modifier when the target is stationery (e.g., a land-base or a docked ship). Reader, I rolled ones on the Air-to-Surface Chart, sending the Oklahoma to the bottom of the harbour and falling just one point of damage short of sinking the West Virginia as well. Big ship damage is handled quite well in Task Force. A battleship can shake off repeated hits of a few points (it’s a battleship, after all), but each one has a rating on the lower left corner, usually a 7 or higher. Let’s talk about the Oklahoma (7-rating). Meet or exceed that number in a single attack, and that puts a Minor Damage marker on the ship. But it doesn’t stop there; one more point of damage takes that marker off and flips the counter to its Reduced side. The Oklahoma has a 7 on this side as well. If the result you rolled was ten (7 + 1 + 2), it would end there; the big old battleship would shake off those last few points. If the result was a fifteen though (7 + 1 + 7), that would tear through that extra seven points and put a Critical Damage marker on the ship. A critically damaged ship can’t manoeuvre or defend itself, and just one more point of damage will end it. The Kates hit the Oklahoma for nineteen points.

The USS Arizona sustaining damage.

The West Virginia was a younger ship, and structural improvements had been incorporated from the laying of her keel. Her initial integrity factor was 9, with another 7 on her reverse side. Her initial attack fell just one point short of sinking her outright.

The Second Wave attacks.

I could go and on with stories of the glory my brave pilots brought to the Emperor, and of the sheer tonnage of metal sent to the bottom of Oahu harbour, but suffice it to say five ships were sunk,  four battleships (the West Virginia among them) and the light cruiser Honolulu with another two battleships damaged (the Arizona significantly, the Maryland only lightly – probably operational again within days) and a cruiser, the San Francisco, for a total of 30 scenario points, a full battleship short of the prize. To “win” the scenario, 35 points would be required to reach a major tactical victory, 40 for a decisive tactical victory.

The USS Maryland, takes 9 points damage; one more would have flipped her.

I could run though it again, see if I can sink even more ships, but I don’t think so. This was meant to be a learning scenario, and I think I’d like to take the lessons and move on to Scenario 2: Sinking off the Prince of Wales and the Repulse.

 

Casualties of war.