Category Archives: Review

Finnish Civil War

Boardgames, Review

Set up and have started playing another Brian Train post-WW1 game, Finnish Civil War.  Good game.

It’s a smaller scale game, focusing on companies and battalions. There is a separate set of rules for regiments/brigades, but the former best fits the conflict. While it follows the rules template used in Konarmiya and Freikorps, there is conflict-specific chrome.

The Events Phase not only has a die roll for random events, but also a determination for peace talk progress between the Soviets and Germans. The progress of these talks can trigger German intervention, or Russian withdrawl.

The Operations Phase uses chit pulls, rather than I-Go, U-Go based on highest morale initiative. Each side gets three operations segments. Units may either move overland, use rail movement, or conduct combat. Overland movement is very, very slow given weather and terrain.  Zones of control only effect rail movement.

As with the other games, Political Rules effect morale which, in turn, effects operations and combat.

The companies have low combat strengths. So far, developing high odds attacks has been difficult. The Finns can use replacement points to build battalions. This should be a real advantage, and one I am looking forward to seeing in action.

Victory is determined by which side controls the most cities and towns.

Here’s a picture depicting the start of Turn 3.

Warfighter vs. Ranger

Boardgames, Review,

Title reminds me of…….

Enjoying another session with Warfighter.

Started thinking about one of its modern tactical mission predecessors, Ranger.

What a difference, and not just the programmed text aspect of Ranger, but in the treatment of mission planning and execution.

Warfighter focuses on team selection. Sure, Ranger has that planning aspect also, but it goes into greater depth as the soldiers literally “acquire” skills during their pre-mission refresher training. In Warfighter, they come with their skills.

Ranger’s planning phase also involves route selection, and not simply blind movement to contact. Warfighter’s card allocation and flow allows little in the way of route planning. You can avoid a certain piece of terrain or place, but at the cost of time loss. That’s an acceptable abstraction, but Ranger focuses more on avoiding contact. After all its subtitle is “Modern Patrolling Operations.”

Warfighter is all about combat. As one reviewer over at Boardgame Geek put it, and I quote rather loosely, it’s “the analog version of Call To Duty”. Ranger’s combat is not as involved or relentless.

The tension in Ranger is “what might I run into next”. The tension in Warfighter is “how many of these bastards am I going to have to shoot next”.

Apples and Oranges. But, wouldn’t it be nice to combine the two?

Grinding Again

Boardgames, Review, World War II

Have also set up Bloody Buna. This treatment of the New Guinea Campaign appeared in The Wargamer Magazine way back in 1979. The game has a primary map covering the main area of operations, and then a secondary map covering the Milne Bay area. Units can move between the two utilizing Transit Boxes.

The rules address the salient characteristics of the campaign: horrendous terrain and weather. Supply and movement are defined by both.

Each time a unit attempts to move more than one-half of its allowance, it must take an Attrition Check. On a die roll of 1-4, everthing is fine. However, roll a D5, the unit loses a strength (or “hit” according to the rules), but can proceed. Roll a D6, lose a “hit” and no more movement. In addition, during rain turns, units add a +1 modifier. Only jungle qualified units receive a -1 modifier when attempting an Attrition Check.

Supply is also limited by terrain and weather. Supply line length varies by type of supply unit, and whether at full or half strength. Supply units can provide support for a limited number of turns. Units operate at full strength for three turns, supporting a maximum of 5 combat units per turn, and then at half strength for another three turns, with, again, a maximum of 5 combat units supported.

Artillery can attack alone using indirect fire, that strength varying by range but limited by line-of-sight.

There are also rules for air support, airlift and amphibious landings. Haven’t dug into those yet.

There are three scenarios, as well as a full campaign game. I’m trying the smallest, which focuses solely on the Japanese advance on Milne Bay.

Russo-Polish

Boardgames, Review

Have been playing Konarmiya (Kon). Russo-Polish War game on a smaller scale than Red Star, White Eagle (RSWE).

Same topic, but different games. RSWE is classic GDW using a basic Europa-Type-System. You can read about Tim and My adventures playing this fun game here.

Kon starts the action somewhat (chronologically) later than RSWE, and interjects generic aircraft, armor and artillery units, random political events, as well as variable reinforcements and replacements into the game mix.

However, at the heart of Brian Train’s system is the interaction of a lack of ZOCs, voluntary combat, a limited radius for command and control, defensive counterattacks, as well as the ability of “shock” units to continue successful attacks.

Quite a mix.

While RSWE allowed special units the ability to exploit attacks, the rest of Kon’s – can I use the term “Fundamental Chrome” – makes this a game with different feel and approach.

Part of the feel is the smaller scale and accompanying higher counter density. Movement rates are not as dramatic, especially after successful combat, but still significant. The lack of ZOCs allows operational mobility, but that mobility is restrained by the limited command radius of the headquarters units, and, by extension, supply effects.

The generic artillery and armor units provide combat die modifiers and in no way detract from game-play due to a lack of historical designation.

I’m enjoying this game. While RSWE is an old, old friend; this game seems like a new friend.

Warfighter

Boardgames, Review

Never been one for video games. The ones I did like were Asteriods, Space Invaders and, later, Doom. All point and shot, and all date me.

Put Warfighter on the table this week. It’s not just a point and shoot game.

 I’ve developed an interest in ultra-modern skirmish wargaming, and checked out the highly regarded Sangrin rulesets. Had one and lost it in the Great IPad Data Loss Debacle. I lack the will to commit to the time and expense needed to paint the figures and construct terrain. And, I wanted to do this on a small scale, like 10mm. No figures available, even from the redoubtable Pendraken line. I thought Warfighter might provide the experience without all the work. It does.

Played three small scenarios the past few days. The learning curve was not smooth.

The commentaries about rule difficulties are spot on. But, again, you can say that about many games. It just becomes more frustrating for a game that shouldn’t be that difficult. Maybe it’s just me, but wrapping my head around a game where the cards are loaded with information is difficult.

Once I got it……I GOT it, and the game just flowed. Lots of tension and decision making. Do I really want to play that “Back Street” card that is loaded with potential bad guys and trouble? Maybe take an action and discard for the possibility of easier terrain.

Sure, once the enemy appears it is a point and shoot, but a coordinated one. It’s just not you. There are other troops, and all actions have to be integrated for a successful mission. Gee, a fast playing tactical card game where you go with the fundamentals: move, shoot and communicate. Shocking!

The challenges begin before the mission starts. How does one allocate resource points between personnel, their skills, equipment, and weapons? You can’t have it all, whether it’s a matter of resource points or ability of a soldier to carry what you think he should have as opposed to need.

It’s a challenging and entertaining game. Highly Recommended.

I’ll post up some other thoughts and commentary after a few more plays.

Grinding Pt.3 – Done

Boardgames, Review, Sessions

Really did set up a longer scenario.  All those counters on an absurdly small play-aide.  Really started playing.  Initial German losses, rubble placement…But it was no use.

Thunder At Cassino just doesn’t work for me as a solo game.  Too much of a shell game.  Wait, Shoot, Move, Wait?  Unless the game has a unique form of compartmentalization (for the lack of a better word – example might be actions that must be performed by one side, etc), you have to be Schizoid or suffering from Alzheimer’s to play two-player games solo.  It can work…..done it all my playing days.  But with this game, everything depends on the other side’s action or anticipated intent.  And, you just can’t hide intent from yourself.

So, down it will come.  Maybe shipped off to E-Bay at some point.  Someone else will enjoy it.  I know Tim won’t.  Not his cup of tea.

But, I really, really did start.  See.

Table Space Monster

Tanks! Book To Get

Review, World War II

Borrowed Steven Zaloga’s “Armored Champion” book from Tim.  Subtitled “The Top Tanks of World War II”, it is a fantastic overview of  tanks development from 1919 to 1945.

While the author’s selection of “Top Tank” for specific eras/years at first seems  gimmicky, it is actually an interesting exercise, as he takes both Commander’s and Tank Crew’s perspective.

Zaloga’s criteria focuses on the “Holy Trinity” of tank design; armor, firepower and mobility.

Chapter 1 explores “What Makes a Great Tank.”  In addition to the “Trinity”, Zaloga also addresses communications, crew layout/tasks, durability, crew capabilities and cost.  These criteria are used throughout the book.

Later chapters examine pre-war developments, and a by-year analysis of tank development and combat, with selections made at the end of each chapter.

Easily appreciated charts help illustrate his criteria and support his conclusions.  The photographs are of excellent quality.

Indispensable!

Ranger

Boardgames, Review, Solitaire

Took Ranger off the shelf the other day.  Had messed around with it about a year ago, after picking up the latest edition for practically nothing on E-Bay (bad box).

Each game consists of a mission.  The mission has two parts, planning and execution.  United States Army small unit doctrine for squad or platoon sized missions is used.  If you have had any exposure to this, learning the game is simple.  If  not, there is a very informative booklet included to help you learn the basics.

What’s fascinating is the few number of rules.  The platoon leader has to act like a platoon leader during the planning, briefing and rehearsal stages of the mission.  Determine your unit’s load, work out the route from your insertion point to the objective and then back to your pick-up point, plan for supporting fires, and manage your rehearsals.

Mission execution is accomplished using the programmed text.  While movement to the objective can be a little tedious, you can’t make a mistake, or something bad might happen.  Make sure your unit is in an appropriate tactical formation, call halts every 750-1,000 meters, and don’t get in a hurry.

One aspect of the programmed text that confused me at first was how to stop moving once my squad had reached the objective rally point.  Well, the answer was simple….call a security halt, and go to that paragraph.  The text options provide the prompts to start your actions at the objective.

To be successful, actions at the objective must comply with doctrine.  If you start free-lancing, bad things do happen.

This game has a very quick set-up, but preparation before the mission is lengthy, but an integral part of the game.  However, after a couple of missions, SOPs can be established, reducing planning time and increasing effectiveness.

Playing time for my first mission was about 1.5 hours, all-in.  This squad-size reconnaissance  mission is an excellent introduction to the game.  I look forward to moving on to Mission Two in the very near future.

 

Battle Over Britain – Minden Games

Boardgames, Review

Been messing around with Minden Games‘ Battle Over Britain (BoB) the last few days. This “Tactical Plane vs Plane Air Combat Game” is designed by Gary Grabner, who also owns Minden Games, and publishes both Panzerschreck and Panzer Digest.

I’ve always liked Gary’s games, and the BoB series is no exception. First published in Panzer Digest as Faith, Hope & Charity – Air Battles Over Malta, 1940-41, the series now includes Battle Over Britain, Flying Tigers and a Solitaire Module.

What attracted to me to the series is its use of a wide variety of early war aircraft. These include CR-42s, Gladiators, a Polish P-11c, a Dutch Fokker D.XX1, and a German HS-123.

As with many Minden Games, the action is generated by the use of a deck of playing cards. These cards are used to establish each aircraft’s altitude and firing position on a Dogfight Display. This display is a simple grid using card suit and value.

Each aircraft counter has a top-down view of the aircraft, along with its Speed, Agility, Fire Modifier, Performance, and Durability Ratings. Speed indicates the number of cards in the player’s hand, Agility determines how many new cards can be drawn if the player “Yanks The Stick”, Performance rating differentials allow players to disengage from combat, and Durability is the number of hits an aircraft can take before being destroyed.

He’s incorporated a lot of chrome in both the basic and optional rules. These include ammunition, rear fire, a tailing bonus, ace status, and bailing out. The latter can be used in a campaign game. Several ideas (which Gary refers to as “abstracted”) are included in the rules.

The components are basic, but get the job done. I can see using a small terrain map with the grid superimposed, along with Tumbling Dice 1/600 aircraft to create a nice visual effect.

Gary designed this as a “fast and furious” card game with high replayability. He achieved these goals. It’s a lot of fun!

Heroes of Normandie – Gazettes 4 & 5

Boardgames, Review

Picked these up the other day.  Looking forward to incorporating them into my HON collection.  But, these gazettes also show why this game is not loved in the (USA) Grognard Community.

The caricatures of historical figures, creation of personalities & inclusion of (caricatures, again) Hollywood war movie actors, combined with typographical errors and, what I assume are flights of Gallic fantasy (yes the publisher, Devil Pig Games, is in France), can make a serious gamer have real reservations about the product.

Despite this sometimes colloquial and sophomoric perspective on World War II,  the issues (and the base game) are well worth the relatively low cost.

Issue #4 includes counters and scenarios for Brandenburgers.  How fun is that!  Issue #5 focuses on the Arnhem Bridge, and while it requires the use of counters from the Pegasus Bridge Expansion, includes two large unmounted maps of the (now John Frost) bridge.  Plus, there are counters and scenarios to include the Poles.  Even more fun!

I haven’t played the scenarios, but the additions to the inventory create even more options for the gamer with the imagination to DIY any number of small unit actions.

As always, the components are fantastic and a real option for the miniature wargamer lacking the time or patience to start painting up Bolt Action platoons.

As I’ve posted up before, the game system is fast moving, intuitive and a source of enjoyment.  Hardcore simulation?  No.  Fun option to the drudgery of other tactical systems?  Yes!