Category Archives: Boardgames

Beginning and Confluence

Boardgames, Miniatures, Napoleonics, Sessions

Finally started pushing cardboard, but immediately ran into problems.  Not unanticipated, but one of them brought the session to a halt.

Movement phase difficult because counters are damned fiddly.  Movement trays?  Bad thought. Cardboard is easy, right?

The French advanced with skirmishers front, engaging each Spanish regiment.  I do like the way the game looks!

Then, another problem:  Casualties.  The game calls for a detailed accounting of losses.   Makes the fiddiliness of moving regiments pale in comparison.  So, in the name of my sanity, decided to assign losses to the entire regiment, removing company counters for each 10 percent loss of the regiment’s total strength.  Skirmishing companies will be accounted for individually.

Drafted up a regiment, company strength, total strength worksheet.  A picture is shown below.

Crude, but hopefully effective.

While messing around this morning found this link/article over at Web Grognards.  Confluence of events?

Will give it another try this PM.

Tim’s Take

Boardgames, Sessions

As always, interesting perspectives.

  • That CRT is interesting, with the attackers possibly taking losses even on an 8:1!
  • It seems that a defender would be well advised to defend with at least two factors in each hex.  That way the attacker doesn’t get the +1 modifier for a single defending point and runs the risk (in the absence of other modifiers) of taking losses.
  • Is supply checked at the instant of combat?  If that is the case (and I can’t check since my copy of the rules got put back into the box and is now back in Bend…) surrounding defenders becomes even more important.  I would think, given the CRT, it wouldn’t be hard to surround defenders….
  • That game does not reward defending!  The infantry units defend much worse than they attack…I wonder if it would be worthwhile for the Poles to continue to attack in the North.  I had thought about making a couple of spoiling attacks against weak units, but I didn’t want to trigger Russian reaction and extra reinforcements.
  • You did a good job with the Konarmiya.  I’m not sure how that would have played out…I was hoping that you would suffer some attrition that would prevent them from rolling up my southern flank and I was directing all of my reinforcements and replacements there, but who knows if that would have been enough to stop them…
  • I had thought about moving a unit next to the units in the Konarmiya to deprive them of the charge bonus, but that felt too gamy…

 

Tim’s Birthday

Boardgames, Sessions

Over to Portland for Tim’s birthday and some wargaming at Guardian Games.

Fun place.  You can game, drink beer, and when it’s your opponent’s turn, look at the inventory.  It’s not a wargame store, but they do have some games, along with Flames of War miniatures.

Lots of diverse Portlandians playing a wide variety of games.  However, the fellow next to us playing D&D using different voices for each character was a bit difficult to handle.

Thank Goodness The D&D Game Is Over

Played Red Star/White Eagle, an old GDW Russo-Polish War game.  Mechanics similar to Europa, but with period chrome. An earlier session attained legendary status due to a rules gaffe changing it from a fluid, fast and fun game to a static, boring slogging match.  We misinterpreted the CRT.  I’ll leave it at that.

That CRT is bloody.  Most casualty results also require retreats of several hexes, with opponent able to pursue.  There are no outright ZOC kills, but many units have a intrinsic “delay” factor, forcing a retreating unit that pass by them to roll for casualties on a separate table.  Literally double jeopardy.

Tim played the Poles (blue counters).

Situation After Game Turn 3

It’s a big map with relatively low counter density.  The Soviets have two armies, which cannot cooperate, located in the north and south, respectively.   The map’s center is dominated by marshy terrain, significantly reducing movement, with rivers creating east-west compartments.  As you can see, the mandated initial set-up for the campaign game places both side’s units facing each other in the East.  Victory is determined by city occupation.

Both Soviet and Polish armies are mobile, with most units having much higher attack than defense factors.  Mobility is assisted by rail networks.

Each side receives significant replacements. These factors are represented by special counters which must be in the same hex as an active counter during the reinforcement and replacement phase of a game turn.  So, some planning and management is required to reinforce reduced strength units.

The northern Polish and Soviet units have limited movement and attack options for the first three turns, so early action occurs in the south.  Also, the  Polish player must capture Kiev early, or lose his Ukrainian troops.  Tim attained this objective and gained 6 victory points.

Poles Take Kiev

By Turn 4, both sides are free of movement restrictions and by Turn 6, the Soviets have received the Konarmiya reinforcements.  This is a corps of cavalry and mechanized units, with extremely high attack factors and a charge bonus.  To gain this bonus, the unit(s) must begin their movement outside a Polish ZOC.

I pushed my Konarmiya south of Kiev, maintaining sufficient distance from Tim’s Poles.  I was afraid that Tim would “ZOC up” the Konarmiya with low strength units to reduce my combat effectiveness.

Russians Counterattack Kiev

The attack was successful, but it was time for a big Italian dinner.  Just when it was getting interesting.

In summary, this is a fun and challenging game.  We will play it again when we meet this summer.  No food until game finished!

Mired and Dumb

Boardgames, Miniatures, Napoleonics, Sessions

Thrashing now.  Trying to reconcile the game system with reading Napoleonic tactics.  Disconnect with battalion/regiment frontages and depths.  Of course, all of these book dictates are conjectural, based on manuals, pundits, and the revisionist interpretations of manuals and pundits.

One hex in Squad Leader is 40 meters or just over 43 yards.  The hex width is 3/4 inch.  Counter frontages in System 7 are one inch equals 40 yards.  Battalion frontages were 75 yards.  Not a match, but close enough.

The real problem appeared to be  a company counter depth of 5/16 inches or roughly 14 yards in scale.  According to my interpretation of a Chandler, a six company battalion advancing in column would have an overall depth of 15 yards.  This is problematic, especially since according the rules, maximum stacking is two companies, which leaves a depth of 42 yards per battalion if attacking with two companies abreast.  All of that just doesn’t make sense and at this point I was dizzy.

Somehow came to my senses, looked a few more resources, had a pop…..ahhhhhh…the depth was 15 yards per company or  45 yards.

Heavy sigh……

 

 

 

Storm Over Arnhem

Boardgames, Sessions, World War II

I like this game……I really do.  But, for some damn reason I found it hard to start pushing the counters.

Some games you just can’t wait to get to the table and play the next turn.  Examples?  Can’t roll that one over in my brain right now,   have to focus on SOA.

A highly regarded game that has spawned a number of “Storm Over” games.  Great area movement map, big counters (no tweezers needed), rules are……hmmmm, well maybe it’s just my learning style.   Perhaps the problem is the chrome with tanks, reformed units, bren carriers, and setting fires.  This play aide found over at Boardgamegeek was very helpful.

I really like the  impulse turn system involving individual sectors,  and units becoming more vulnerable after they have either moved or fired.  This leads to a cat-and-mouse tactics (at least in my first play).  You don’t want to move/shoot a unit that would be “flipped” to a committed status with a lower combat/defense strength with a full-strength enemy adjacent to your area. On the other hand, an area can only be fired on once a turn, so one has to maximize an opportunity to attrit an opponent.

Close-combat is a separate phase with all  committed units flipped to their active side,  engaging in new combats with any enemies in their sector.

Outcomes are dice-tastic, but generally reasonable.  Lots of counter-punching (no pun intended) with one side reacting to their opponents preceding move.

Maybe what I like is the problem; yes isn’t that the way of the world.  Constant back and forth with no respite for the solo player.  It would  be really fun FTF, especially with RAW restricting the time a player has for each impulse.

In my first try I relied on the British set-up used in the Avalon Hill General.  My German tactics were relatively ham fisted, blasting away at British units, with results less than optimal.  Pretty sure the Brits will prevail.

But, we’ll never know.  Time to take it down and make way for System 700.  However, this quality game will be back on the table sooner rather than later.

Maybe I can talk Tim into playing……

By The General Set-Up. Very Nice Looking Components.

 

 

Third World War -Tim’s Take

Boardgames, Sessions

Here are his thoughts……

> 1)  I either should have reinforced my amphibious landing or withdrawn it.  I think it was a good idea, but the execution was a little flawed.  The Pact player has to take some risks to get across the Bosphorus.  Like the Rhine, it is almost impossible to breach using regular units.
> 2)  I wonder if it would be a good idea for the Yugoslavs to withdraw to Sarajevo and form a national redoubt.  they would probably last longer and tie down more Pact troops if they did.  I’m not familiar with Yugoslav defense planning in the 80s but I bet they actually thought about doing something similar (ie that plan might not be all that gamey…).
> 3)  My poor rolling on aircraft maintenance on turn 2 really hurt.  I was thinking about attacking Istanbul, but without air support, I had very little chance of taking it (basically I had to hope for an exchange).
> 4)  I wonder if it would be a good idea for NATO to use its air power in the first subimpulses of the Pact turn.  Pact units can’t attack during the second subimpulse if they’re in a ZOC and lowering the odds so attacks don’t succeed (meaning that the defenders don’t retreat) prevents units from being to move/attack in the second sub impulse.

 

 

 

Third World War

Boardgames, Sessions

Played Southern Front from the old GDW Third World War series last weekend at Tim’s.

Much lower counter density than Battle For Germany, and with very tough victory conditions for the Warsaw Pact.

Victory points are awarded for controlling cities and ports, and the Pact must control almost every city and port in Yugoslavia (if hostile), Greece and Turkey to score a decisive victory.

The NATO player is outmanned and outgunned, and must grimly hang on during a seemingly endless series of Pact high odds attacks.

While the game is only eight turns long, each turn is lengthy and involved.

Aircraft maintenance and missions assignment occurs before any movement takes place.  Aircraft can fly deep strikes including logistical strikes (effecting supply status), runway cratering, or escort; interdiction missions resulting in additional movement costs and disruption for enemy units, as well as plain old ground attack and ground attack escort missions.

Movement and combat takes place in impulses.  The turn sequence is Pact First Impulse (movement and combat), Pact Sub Impulse (units not in enemy ZOCs may move and attack, with regroup), a NATO Reserve Impulse (units not in enemy ZOCs may move and attack, units may also regroup), Pact Second Impulse (same as first with two sub-impulses) , and finally a NATO First and Second Impulse.

A key element in this game system is Proficiency Rating.  Differences in ratings shift combat odds in the favor of the side with higher average proficiency.  The regroup phase allows players to “rebuild” units, recovering one proficiency step if the unit has not done anything in the previous phase and is not in an enemy ZOC.  Pact units can never be totally “rebuilt” and retain a one factor proficiency loss, regardless.

Yugoslavia is either neutral, an ally of NATO, or becomes a NATO ally during Turn 4.  This determination by a chit pull.

A special rule in Southern Front precludes any NATO deep strikes, cratering or escort missions during the first turn.  Also, the NATO initial ground dispositions are mandated.  The result is that the first Pact impulses result in significant attrition of NATO Turkish forces, with the Greeks taking some hits, also.  Not surprisingly, Turks and Greeks cannot cooperate or enter each other’s country.

In our game, Tim initially focused on Turkey, making an amphibious landing east of Istanbul, which is the bottleneck leading to Anatolia.   Despite severe losses, the Turks held  Istanbul and, with the arrival of reinforcement, destroyed the flanking Soviet Marines.  Tim’s attempts were handicapped by some horrific die rolling during the maintenance phase of Turn 2, which temporarily gave NATO air superiority.

Beginning with Turn 3, Tim’s attention  turned towards Yugoslavia (which had entered on Turn 1), and Greece.  When the game ended at Turn 5, the Yugoslavs were in disarray, with Pact forces massing for an attack on Greece.  However, Turkey was still controlled by NATO.

A good game.  I’ll post up Tim’s comments later.

Geek, Dweeb or Spazz?

Boardgames, Uncategorized

Sucked into the vortex that is Advanced Squad Leader.  Feel like one of the characters in the classic SNL skit when  organizing counters in plastic containers.

The slippery slope began with Starter Kit #1.  The slide accelerated with the decision to play a couple of scenarios from Partisan. Why Partisan?  It’s been sitting on the shelf for about 4 million years, is infantry only, with low counter density.  The deal was closed when I read this review in Boardgamegeek.  It’s my fondness for un/semi-loved games.

The GDSpazz-iness started because the partisan counters aren’t in the Partisan game.  Huh?  Yes, this predecessor to Armies of Oblivion only contains generic axis allies counters.  The partisan counters are in Beyond Valor.  I bought Beyond Valor loose, bagged and without a box about 4 million years ago.  So, started separating Russians to get the Partisans.  Since I was involved in the process, it seemed logical to take care of the German infantry, too.

Now that I have them organized, might as well get some of the play-aide and marker counters organized.   Why play when you can while always the hours fiddling with cardboard?  Croix de Guerre beckons.

Tim’s Take

Boardgames, Sessions,

Tim sent me his (always trenchant) comments.  Here they are:

    • I was curious about how much population is contained in city spaces (14).  In light of this weekend’s games, a good strategy for the US is to focus on pacifying the cities (14 x 2= 28) and keeping the commitment low (you had 22 available troops), as it is hard for the insurgent player to counter.  I had trouble moving guerrillas into the cities and keeping them alive…
    • A good counter to the above strategy is to kill off US troops.  I didn’t do a very good job of hunting them down (and you were good about not putting them in exposed positions).  I had hoped to run some bombardment operations but either my troops were in the wrong place or I had to do something else…
    • Another possible counter is the one I stumbled upon in the last game: the VC wins the hearts and minds of the countryside and just enough of the cities to get the win.
    • I was surprised at how the lack of resources really hampers the insurgent player.  I got a little frustrated during the first game because it seemed just when the NVA was ready to intervene, you would play an event card to either reduce or eliminate their resources.
    • The ARVN and VC were much more active in this weekend’s games than in our earlier games, which were dominated by the US and the NVA.  The VC ability to subvert enemy troops makes them fun to play (you showed admirable forbearance in the face of my constant cries of ‘terror and subvert’….).  The ARVN troops gave me trouble in the second game and played a big role in holding the line until you could bring your airstrikes to bear.
    • I missed a trick when I didn’t move the NVA troops into provinces that supported you.  I know you would have bombed them anyway, but the price would have been higher.
    • Did you know that NVA troops can be used for terror operations?  I didn’t notice that until midway through the second game (there is a lot of nuance in this game).  I wonder if it would be a good idea for the NVA to send in small groups of troops for terror ops and maybe picking off the occasional enemy unit.
    • Did you know that NVA guerrillas can set up in the south?  For some reason, I’d gotten it in my head that they couldn’t.
    • I kept too many units back to defend bases.  I probably should have pushed more units forward into the fray…I think it wouldn’t be a bad idea to put more than one base in area so as to cut down on the numbers of defenders.

 

Maximum Effort

Boardgames, Sessions,

Tim came over the mountain last Saturday for a weekend of wargaming.   Spent Saturday afternoon/evening catching up and turned to on Sunday.  Many Private Reserves and Blue Boars were consumed.

Completed two (yes, two!) games of the two-player version of Fire in the Lake.  Finished up at 2310.  How?  We actually stayed on task (no football, especially if you count The Pro-Bowl), and the Coup Cards popped up sooner rather than later.  Coup Cards determine the end of a turn and also the an accounting for determining victory points.

There were three consistent threads in our talks during the games.  The first was how different the character of each game was, and the accompanying re-playability.  It’s a spendy game, but sure worth it.

The second was how tough it was to play.  Not the rules, how the card flow created the decisions that had to be made under less than ideal operational conditions.  There never seemed to be a direct path to accomplishing mission goals.  Who was that, Wolfe?  “War is an option of difficulties.”

The third focused on how each of the four sides had conflicting goals, and the impact on operations and results.  This is a great four player game.  The problem is finding four players.

US strategy emphasized pacification (with accompanying support), using air strikes and irregulars to attrit communists.  This was accomplished using a minimum of US troops.  ARVN troops would sweep to locate enemy guerrillas, so they could be bombed, with ARVN Rangers raiding provinces to destroy guerrillas.  In both games, the South Vietnamese were used to attain US victory points.

Both communist factions are hampered by a lack of resources.  As a result, their operations featured taxes, but also using terror to reduce support.  Infiltration was another favorite tactic since ARVN troops or police could be eliminated or “flipped”.

Both games followed the historical pattern of the US/ARVN forces controlling cities and VC controlling the countryside.  The first game was a US victory, the second was a tie between  the US and VC.

Great weekend of gaming with a great game.  Here’s photo of the end-game for game number 2.