Category Archives: Boardgames

Food For Thought

Boardgames, General

Recently purchased “Custer’s Luck”.  Found out it could be played solitaire.  Very reasonable price, just slightly more expensive than a pint of beer.

While researching the game, I came across an interesting article by Charles Vasey over at Boardgamegeek.  I also read the posted comments about the game.   People either love it or (mostly) hate it.  Actually sounds best (now) as a multi-player game.

Vasey’s perspective is an interesting one, despite his caricature of an Ordered Gamer’s personal life.   Today, Experience Gamers might be characterized as interested in narrative flow.  Both Ordered and Experienced Gamers enjoy games that closely follow historical outcomes or their personal bias toward narrative/outcome.  Any uncertainty is limited to replayability, and often this categorization is predicated on the number of variety of scenarios, not the replay of the same scenario.

Chaos Gamers want nothing of it.  Any historical setting must be basic in the extreme, with limited constraints.  Game flow is unpredictable with outcomes varied in both impact and timing.  To me, this involves a level of impartiality that is difficult if not impossible to attain.  I know I have favorite units, sides, and the need for one side to attain an outcome.  It takes discipline not to re-roll for an event that shouldn’t have happened.

The upshot of this is that I’ll try to categorize my gaming experience, starting a game with the pre-condition that it meets one (and only one) of Vasey’s categories.  Good Luck with that, Ralph.

 

 

What’s In A Number?

Boardgames, Sessions

Through with Xmas visits/visiting so finally have time/energy/sobriety to post up about another Fire In The Lake game with Tim.

This will be a fuzzy-through-altered-memory overview of the game focusing on my experience, with Tim adding his thoughts in the near future.  As with last time, I had the NVA/VC forces.

First and foremost it was a lot of fun.  We decided to use the historical card option, which allows for a roughly chronological card sequence.  Coup Cards are randomly placed in 12-card groups using each of the three (1964, 1965 and 1968) decks.  There are six total groups to work through, with half of the cards from the larger 1968 deck.

Lesson learned:  When a Coup Card is drawn, get going during the current turn and get set-up to grab some points during the End Turn phase.  While somewhat “gamey” it does (in a way) reflect the chaotic situation that leads to a coup.  The US player cannot use air strikes during the turn prior to the coup (considered monsoon season), so the NVA/VC player can be aggressive without fear of devastating retaliation.

Lesson Learned:  Spend the resources necessary to keep the Ho Chi Minh Trail in good shape.  The source is a “times two the level” source of reinforcements.  This is, literally, a powerful force multiplier.

Lesson Learned:  The  NVA/VC will take casualties.  Inevitable if aggressive operations are launched.  However, casualties can be minimized by using the Ambush option.

Lesson Learned:  Occupying Lines of Communication (LOC) can result in victory points, or at least, tying down US/ARVN resources.

Lesson I Couldn’t Learn:  How to effectively get the VC into cities, where they can disrupt COIN control.  The problem is that they have to reveal their presence, which means they can quickly be “killed”.  Maybe it’s just a matter of using them to soak up US/ARVN options, or flooding a city with VC (Tet).

We managed to get through four Coup Rounds.  At the end of fourth, we discovered (to our surprise – or certainly to my surprise), that the RVN had attained victory by ONE STINKING POINT!  Not a BLAMMO by any stretch of the imagination, but a victory nonetheless.  The good news was that “victory” occurred at about 2200, so we could call it a night.

We’re planning on a another game in the near future.  We’ll switch sides and see what happens!

Going Tactical

Boardgames, Sessions,

While the Battle of Katlego Faragh has been raging, I’ve also been playing Ranger and (gulp) ASLSK.

Be careful what you wish for.  My last two games of Ranger have been nothing short of disasters.  Those combat scenarios are a lot tougher than a pure recon mission.   In one game, the squad barely moved past the perimeter before it was hit by a close ambush.  I forgot doctrine, and tried to break contact.  Wrong & BLAMMO.  Need to assault through a close ambush.

The next mission was an anti-armor ambush that went really well……except the getting home.  Again, another close ambush, but far from home and too many casualties to evacuate.  Well, the good thing about wargaming is that it’s just like “Edge of Tomorrow”.  Die, Learn, Try Again.  I really dread rolling 2-3, or 11-12.  As mentioned in my previous Ranger post, bad things happen.

ASLSK has been fun.  Playing the first scenario, rules-in-hand, one half-turn at a time.  With low counter density, no supporting weapons, and a methodical approach, it’s been a pleasant and not frustrating experience.  I’ll try another similar scenario, and then, perhaps, add crew-served weapons.   Unfortunately, the complete rules are in the No. 3 game, and I am loathe to spend $30+  for just a set of rules.  I have a lot of counters and scenarios to mess with already.   Got to figure that out using the ASL rules and the player’s guide.

Another Mission

Boardgames, Sessions, Solitaire

Completed another Ranger reconnaissance mission (Card #3) yesterday afternoon.

Preparation time drastically reduced to about 15 minutes.  Kept my same roster and equipment from the last mission.  Plotting ingress and egress from the objective was straightforward.  I remembered to seal off the objective and PZ with supporting fires, as well as providing some contingency support at the LZ.

Managed to survive without incident.  Now I’m ready to move on to a combat mission.  Fun little game, small footprint.

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.

 

Raid On St Nazaire – Again Pt II

Boardgames

Finished up the game yesterday.  A semi-tradition to spend a lot of time wargaming the day after Thanksgiving.

The British wound up with 60 VIPs, better than the historical outcome of 53, but less than the 70 needed to “win”.

If the British were to win, this would have been the game.  The German harbor defense and activation rolls were terrible.  Literally all the commandos were able to land, and faced only moderate opposition when ashore.

Still, over the 13 turns, the British assault fleet was reduced to kindling, with only four ship escaping, two of which were on fire.  The ML Falconar was able to return 6 survivors and Chant’s demolition team to the UK.  Nobody else made it home.

For once I should taken a picture of the end-game.  The surviving commandos were huddled around their point of debarkation, watching the remaining three MLs, and their hopes of making back, being blown out of the water.   As you can see from the Game Log, several of the commando units were still in good shape.

img095

The “star” of the operation was Swayne’s unit, which destroyed not only their primary target, but two others, accounting for 12 VIPs. Both Smalley and Chant’s demolition teams accounted for both their primary and additional targeted facilities.  The game score would have been higher but for a D6 roll of “6”, which damaged  the scuttled Campbeltown, but did not destroy it.  That would have brought the score to 66, or one target away from “victory”.

The only real bit of bad luck for the Brits was that the ships that were sunk on the run-in contained demolition teams.  That reduced their ability to gain VIPs.  Oh, yes, and my stupid decision to move one demolition team in a position where it could be engaged by not one, but three, flak emplacements.  Blammo!

Enjoyed playing this game.  Its well known virtues were evident throughout my two play-thrus.  I’ll certainly take it off the shelf again.

Into The Abyss?

Boardgames

A long, long time ago I played Squad Leader (SL).  Really into it.  Sorted all the counters into plastic containers, so typical for an SL Dweeb.  Then, for some reason, I gave it all away to a younger war gamer on a budget. Dunno……

About seven years ago, started buying up not only SL games on EBay, but also the all-consuming monster that is Advanced Squad Leader (ASL).  Scrounged through AH Generals for scenarios, copied them, and then placed them in a binder.  But, every time I looked at the monster rule book I just cringed, and satisfied myself with looking at the scenarios, and browsing through Mark Pitcavage’s wonderful Desperation Morale website.

For reasons that cannot be explained, I bought the Advanced Squad Leader Starter Kit (ASLSK) #1 a year ago.  And now, I’ve decided to start playing again in little, teenie, tiny baby steps.

What made this decision easy was the discovery of this.   Jay Richardson did a fantastic job putting together this guide.  It reminds me of how helpful the old AH replays were when you were learning one of their games.

Now, I’m going to hold off on the second and third modules for awhile.  It’s a progressive system, with successive rule books adding mortars/artillery and then vehicles.  What I really need is to find the third module’s rule book.  I’ve got plenty of ASL modules with counters and a gazillion scenarios, so there’s no real need for the counters/maps – I think(?).

Will start this up on T-Giving, after I finish up the latest iteration of Raid on St. Nazaire.

Fire In The Lake – AAR – Tim’s Take

Boardgames, Sessions,

Finally back from road trip.  Now I can post Tim’s observations about the game.  We have another session scheduled for Mid-December.

Here are my thoughts about Fire in the Lake-

  • We made a big mistake on the tunneled base rules.  They are much more difficult to remove than the regular bases.  I’m not sure it would have made a big difference in our game, but definitely something to note for future games.  BTW, I didn’t like the term ‘tunneled’.  I wish they’d used something different like ‘fortified’ or ‘entrenched’.
  • I wish I’d spotted the rules about South Vietnamese Rangers being able to raid across national borders.  It was really frustrating to watch the NVA building up in Laos and Cambodia.
  • The charts were very good.
  • I’m still laughing about the mistake of tracking ‘available’ units…We made that much harder than it had to be…:)
  • Very few of my units could both move and attack at the same time.  It felt like I was playing Paths of Glory!
  • Bombardment missions can really pay off for the NVA in the long run.  They provide a relatively cheap way of attritioning the COIN player.  I’m not sure if we removed to adjust ARVN aid to reflect US casualties (I think its something like -3 per unit killed– that adds up).
  • The VC need to adopt a ‘fleet-in-being’ strategy.  Admittedly the mistake about tunneled bases didn’t help, but they were rapidly wiped out in our game.  At one point you were using rally phases to make activate guerillas inactive.  It is really frustrating for the COIN player to see guerillas that have been activated by sweep operations go inactive during rally phases…A nice modeling of the frustrations of COIN operations.
  • On the rare turns when both of my factions started eligible it was a real dilemma whether or not to have them both run operations or have one pass so I would get a chance to respond to your moves during the next turn.
  • That game would play very differently with four players.  I don’t think the VC would let themselves get wiped out to the last man or the ARVN would let the Americans transfer large amounts of patronage to resources….
  • I kept forgetting to move the police out into the provinces, which hindered my pacification efforts.
  • Neither one of us did much fighting for the LOCS– I wonder if mass attacks on the LOCs would yield better results for the insurgent player.

Raid on St. Nazaire – Again

Boardgames, Sessions

Started up another session.  Once again, discovered rules mistakes made during the last session.

The British can be attacked when in The Approaches, before movement.   And….the Germans have one searchlight operational for their first fire phase (a -1 on the to-hit die r0ll), and another searchlight becomes available for their second fire phase.

Fortunately for the British, the German die rolls were bad for their first fire phase.   However, the British Covering Fire was (again) useless, and the Germans could bring 6 firing factors to bear in the “A” zone during their second fire phase, which gave them twelve (!) attempts to damage British ships.  The result:  Bloodbath!

Still, the doughty Brits pressed on and are ready to land several intact teams of commandos.  Unfortunately, while the German Activation die rolls have been bad, the troops have been placed (by some strange hand of cardboard fate) right in or adjacent to their landing areas.

Should be interesting.

Fire In The Lake – AAR

Boardgames, Sessions,

Had a fun session with Tim this past weekend.  Full of fumbling and stumbling.

As discussed in an earlier post, this is a highly regarded game, with beautiful components.  And, as also discussed, for two old hex-and-counter Grognards, it promised to be a new experience, and not the type of card-driven game (Paths of Glory, Pursuit of Glory, Wilderness War, Wellington) we were used to playing.

This will be more an overview of the process, rather than a turn by turn narrative of the game we played.  I was so involved in figuring the damn thing out, that coherent recall much less thoughtful strategy was well beyond my capabilities.

First off, we really needed a picture of what the map board should look like when set up.  We messed up on where to put available cubes, what cubes to use as markers, and what counters go where.  It’s a new take on “idiot rules”, we need rules crafted for idiots.

The first difference we noticed between this and our previous card driven experiences was that each faction (USA, South Vietnam, Viet Cong, North Vietnam) cannot do something with each card.  Only two factions can play a card, and only one can play the card as an event.  Also, not only is the card in play turned up from the play deck, but also the next card to be played.  This forces players to anticipate how to react with two cards, not just one.

The deck itself is constructed differently.  In many games deck events and options are predicated on period of the conflict, or the play of a major event triggers the inclusion of more cards.  In FITL, the very large deck is initially split into six decks of twelve cards each.  A coup card is then shuffled into each deck.  Play commences with one deck, and after a Coup card is turned up and played, that Coup card is removed and the next deck placed under the remaining cards from the previously played deck.  There are a large number of cards that are not included in the six decks.  This must enhance replay.

Most card driven games involve reacting to an opponent’s play and  sequencing a group of cards held in hand.  This leads to a rapid sequence of play, with a card played quickly followed by another.  In FITL, the pace was less frantic, and steadier.  Maybe this was due to our inexperience.

The options for the first eligible faction (sequence of eligibility shown at the top of each card) are to pass (perhaps because of the next event) play the event, or play an operation (in multiple spaces), with or without a special activity. The second eligible player can pass, execute the event (if not done so by first player), or execute a limited operation.  Limited operations can take place in one space, only.  Only if the first two pass, can the third eligible faction act on a card.

We learned that Operations have complementary Special Operations, and successful play involved the ability to mix and match these operation types.  Also, the first eligible faction can really frustrate a stronger opponent by executing an Operation, only, after which the second eligible player can only execute a Limited Operation, not the Event.

All sides must be careful not to take too direct of an approach.  For the VC, taxing to raise resource levels or terrorizing the populace will alienate the local population, reducing support.  US airstrikes, while devastating militarily, are just as damaging to popular support.

While control of areas and provinces is the key to victory, each side has other activities,(not just destruction of enemy forces and many times in conflict with those of their “ally”) that contribute to victory.  For the VC and NVA, base building and maintaining the Ho Chi Minh trail must be a priority.  For the US, it’s ability to win is directly tied to reducing the number of troops being used.  ARVN forces gain victory points by siphoning off US aid into their coffers.

All of this maneuvering comes to a grinding halt when a Coup card is turned up.  The card in play is then considered to be a Monsoon card, which limits operational play options, and the Coup card is then the last card played.  After play for that card is finished,  victory points are calculated.  If a faction wins, it wins.  If not,  new aid and resources are distributed, and victory points are again calculated.  If one faction has attained victory, the other factions know it and the last deck is played.  An interesting way of changing play strategy and perspective.

Tim will be posting up his observations.

We’re playing this one again in December.