Category Archives: Boardgames

Wilson’s Creek – GBACW

Finished up Wilson’s Creek just before I left for the weekend.

Opted for the rules’ historical Union entry points and task organization.  The bulk of General Lyon’s Union army enters from the north, with General Siegel’s reinforced brigade attacking the encamped Confederates from the east.  Here’s a map of the historical battle.

The opening of the game is something.  As soon as Union units are sighted, each Confederate unit has to pass a morale check.  Since many of the Confederate regiments have a morale factor of two (2), and the roll must be equal to or lower in order to pass, things become rather chaotic.  Confederate leaders scurry about trying to  rally routed troops, and then get them moving towards the two Union threats.  The two senior Confederate leaders, McCulloch and Price, cannot cooperate.  So, I had Ben’s brigade, which had the better soldiers, take on the Union main body, and Price try to handle Siegel’s smaller force.

Meanwhile, the Union troops were moving slowly towards the Rebels.  The entire battlefield is covered in brush, which reduces trail movement to a single hex per movement point, and 1/2 movement point if off trail.  No lightning thrust here.  Surprisingly, a number of Confederate militia units on pickett duty survived their initial morale check, and did yeoman work delaying the Union main body.  On top of it, I failed to read and incorporate the special rule that gave the Union forces two (2) extra movement points per turn.  Slowly, and more slowly than they should have, the opposing sides were able to form battle lines and engage.

Siegel's Union Force Engages Confederates
Siegel’s Union Force Engages Confederates
Union Main Body Begins To Deploy As Rallied Confederates Converge To Form A Defensive Line
Union Main Body Begins To Deploy As Rallied Confederates Converge To Form A Defensive Line

The game became a series of firefights, with each side feeding in new troops as they arrived.  Lyon’s main body had moved in column, and took quite some time to fully deploy in the brush.  McCulloch had similar problems, and, given pressure from Lyon’s attempts to envelop, I added some of Price’s regiments to his left flank, even though they could not combine fire against Union targets.  Nonetheless, this was a bloody business, with three (3) brigade commanders killed.

I added to my rules transgressions by consistently misreading the CRT, using the less bloody artillery grapeshot results, rather than the small arms results.  Also, I misinterpreted the P/R result which does not allow the receiving unit to escape either a Pin or Rout through a favorable die roll.  The only mitigating factor was that these mistakes were effecting both sides, and not just one.

By game’s end, Siegel’s force was withdrawing, but not under any pressure from the battered Rebel units.   McCulloch’s brigade was grimly holding the Confederate right, while elements of Price’s forces were slowly giving way on the left.

Federal Main Body In Firefight
Federal Main Body In Firefight

To top it all off, my reading of the victory conditions was flawed.  The Confederates gained VIPs by cutting off Union units from their supply source.  As you can (maybe) see in the photo above, I had Confederate cavalry units poised to envelope Lyon’s left.  Had I done this, perhaps it would not have been a Union victory.

All these screwups aside, a good game, with plenty of tension and lots of replayability due to the variety of entrance hexes for the Union forces as well as the randomness of the Confederate response after sightings.

An alternative historical setup can be found over at the spi.net website.

I want to play a couple more games in this series.  So, once the Airstream unfreezes (temps in single digits here), I’ll get going on Cedar Mountain.

 

 

Heroes of Normandie

Note:  Had to change the original title since the Spam Bots were on it.

Focus for the weekend was supposedly on Red Actions! and Wilson’s Creek. But I was sidetracked by Heroes of Normandie (HoN). Before I editorialize, here’s a couple of quality descriptions and positive reviews (Review #1, Review #2) of the components and system.

I really like this game.

First and foremost, it’s quick and fun. This is always a good combination for a game. A simulation it is not.

This is not Squad Leader (SL), much less Advanced Squad Leader (ASL). I’ve played both, the former more than the latter. I own all the SL games -after selling my first set many years ago – and many ASL games and expansions. I really enjoy reading Mark Pitcavage’s Desperation Morale ASL site. I love the variety of troop types and hundreds of scenarios that are out there. But playing the damn thing can be just too much. I’m reminded of an old quote about SPI’s Air War (and I will paraphrase)….”a decision that takes less than a second in an aircraft takes ten minutes in the game.” That’s not my idea of fun.

Second, the components are absolutely wonderful. Thick card, great graphics, high quality geomorphic boards and quality event cards. I’ll get back to this later, but this is really a miniatures game using cardboard.

Third, plenty of variations and DIY scenario possibilities. A number of realitively inexpensive expansions, along with supplemental games and terrain can be picked on Amazon or even E-Bay. Here’s a link to the publisher’s website.

Fourth, it has a good “feel” to it, which is an extremely important component for a wargame, with emphasis on “game”.

Everyone acknowledges this is not a game for hard core Grognards. I don’t particularly care for the heroes and some of the off-handed tongue-in-cheek scenario and rules narrative. But there is no reason to let this get in the way of a game with an excellent feel for the decisions making, ebb and flow, and uncertainity of small unit actions. And the units are small. Fireteams, individual tanks and guns, with the ability to equip troops with hand grenades, panzerfausts and other items.

Fifth, it’s realitively easy to learn. The rules have some gaps and ambiguities, but any gamer with a modicum of experience can work through that. Another reason for using “realitively” is that so much information is printed on the counters, maps and terrain overlays. Learning these symbols is the key to getting into this game. I spent a lot of time just working through the symbol summary page on the back of the rule book. The upside is there’s no need for charts. All you need is right in front of you on the game board.

I’ve never played Bolt Action or Chain of Command. I’ve never read a negative review about either of these miniatures rule sets. But, if I had to recommend an entry-level WW2 miniatures game, I’d recommend HoN. It’s inexpensive compared to starting out in WW2 miniatures, and you can start playing right away, with a gaming environment that is evocative of the best of minatures figures and terrain.

Highly recommended.

Stonewall: Battle of Kernstown – A Quick Review of GBACW – Mk 1

This is a quick review of Kernstown and the (almost) first iteration of the GBACW series.  While there were some minor changes moving forward through the next several games, the basic rules were used for at least five games.

Decisions: Plenty for both commanders.  For the Confederates, it’s where to attack and with what.   For the Union commander, how to react and with what.

History: Both commanders are faced with the same operational problems as their historical counterparts. Both commanders have to “do a lot” with very little.

Luck: The ammunition depletion roll is a real problem.  It severely hampered the Union brigade fighting Garnett just east of town.

Atmosphere: Really good, with lots of moving parts.  The Pin result while undergoing defensive fire can really upset your tactical plan.

Mastery:  Can’t quite answer this now.  Will have to wait until I play the next few games in the series.  I had to read the rules quite a few times before playing.

Tweaks: Right now I can’t think of any reason to tweak it.

Abstraction: Command and control (including rally) might be a little too easy and flexible.

Clarity: Good.

Comprehensive: An excellent introduction to grand tactical battle in the Civil War.

Speed: A little fiddly, especially with all the markers.  Playing one of the monster games would be something.

Scenarios: None for this game, but not really necessary given Confederate entrance and flanking possibilities.

Summary: Fun, and a challenge.  Once I got the hang of the turn sequence, it moved quickly, with lots of action.  One complaint I have is that the marker chits detract from the aesthetics of the game.  Small complaint.

Now Who's Who?
Now Who’s Who?  Final Dispositions.  Pritchard’s Hill In Center.  Garnett Bottom Right.  Jackson Upper Right.

Component quality is SPI early 80’s.  I’ve always liked their maps.  The counters……..mmmmmmm….let’s just say they are functional.

Stonewall: Battle of Kernstown

Played through my first game of Stonewall: Battle of Kernstown. As stated in my previous post, this 1978 game was the second game to use the Terrible Swift Sword system developed by Richard Berg. The first game was a monster game of the Battle of Gettysburg entitled, strangely enough, Terrible Swift Sword.

While the system rules have gone through a number of permutations, here is quick and dirty overview of the basic rules for the first several games published by Simulations Publications Inc. Each game comes with its own special rules.

Turn Phase Sequence: Initial Command, Movement, Defensive Fire, Offensive Fire, Retreat Before Melee, Melee, Ammunition Resupply, Rally, Final Command.

Movement: Consistent rates for each unit type. Cavalry has mounted/unmounted; Artillery, limbered/unlimbered, Infantry, line/column.

Facing: Used and critical. Limits firing arc, zone of control (ZOC) and rear three hexes allow opponents to fire in enfilade.

Stacking: Limited to 8 strength points, with maximum of two units. Only top unit can fire, or take incoming small arms fire. Both units take incoming artillery fire. Both units count for melee, and both units are pinned when that combat result occurs. If top unit routs, second unit must roll for rout.

Fire Combat: Units can only be fired on once, firing units combine strengths. Artillery fires separately and at half strength against infantry. Line of sight rules are common sense, but beat to death in the rule book. Combat Results Table (CRT) uses firing strength points. Result are loss of strength, pin, or roll for rout.

Zones of Control (ZOC): Infantry, dismounted cavalry and artillery ZOCs extend to three frontal hexsides. Mounted cavalry all six. Supply wagons, and leaders none. Effect withdrawl fire, retreat fire, block both supply and command radius paths.

Withdrawl Fire: Takes place when unit leaves (typically retires before melee) a ZOC. Retreat fire occurs when a unit retreats into a unit’s ZOC.

Ammunition Supply: When small arms units roll to fire, either one (1) or six (6) die roll (depending on game) results in ammunition depletion. Unit cannot fire for rest of game unless re-supplied by a supply wagon (if available). Artillery units have a limited amount of ammunition. Hits on artillery units by other artillery units can explode cassions, resulting in ammunition depletion. Artillery batteries can redistribute ammunition. Infantry/Cavalry cannot.

Melee: Attacking unit ends movement phase in enemy ZOC. Takes fire, then advances into hex in melee phase. Melee CRT uses differential in strength points between units.

Rout: Based on morale rating. Three hexes, reduced movement and combat capabilities.

Rally: By leaders that are within their command radius. An expenditure of one rally rating point.

Brigade Combat Effectiveness (BCE): Each unit has a designated effectiveness strength. If it falls below that designated strength, it’s combat capabilities are dramatically reduced. BCEs are presented as a playing aide in the individual game rules.

Leadership: Units organized by brigade, with designated brigade commander. Brigade commander has an effectivenss rating, or hexes through which he can control his brigade, and a rally rating, which is used to rally units. One rally point rating automatically rallies one unit that is within its effectiveness rating. Divisional commanders have same ratings, but their effectiveness extends to their subordinates.

The game’s scenario is an interesting one. Jackson’s force is outnumbered, and has the mission of moving north from the south edge of the map. His three brigades can enter anywhere along the south edge of the map, east of (inclusive) of the turnpike. Objectives (for victory points) are securing a series of hills north of Kernstown, and/or exiting the map with as many units as possible.

The four Union brigades, while superior in strength, are spread out. An understrength cavalry brigade and an infantry brigade guards the river fords east of Kernstown, one brigade holds Pritchard’s Hill, which commands the town and turnpike providing a direct and rapid route for south-north movement, with another brigade in reserve near the north edge of the map. Here’s a link describing the historical battle.

Of course, I had to try something completely different and, as always, when given the opportunity, attempt to disregard at least one of the Principles of War. In this case, my most aggregious error was ignoring the principle of Mass.

I split the Confederate forces in three. The cavalry brigade was tasked to force the fords to the east, and make a run for the northern map edge. Garnett’s Brigade’s mission was to support the cavalry brigade to its right, force the fords immediately east of town, and advance along the turnpike placing pressure on the Union forces there. The remaining two Rebel brigades, along with Jackson, swung west of Kernstown (not has far west as historically) to outflank the forces on Pritchard’s Hill, to engage and destroy the northernmost Union force. Hopefully, the strong Union force on Pritchard’s Hill could be bypassed, and inflict minimal damage on the bypassing Confederate forces.

It was a Dog Fight.

The Confederate cavalry brigade wore down its weaker opponent, forcing the ford and eventually destroying the Union cavalry brigade. As ordered, it moved to the north.

Garnett’s Brigade engaged in a slugfest with its Union opponents east of Kernstown, forcing the ford, pinning them, while taking long range fire casualties from Pritchard’s Hill. Two Union regiments had the misfortune of suffering ammunition depletion on their very first turn! Resupply did occur, but the supply wagon was captured by the marauding Confederate cavalry brigade. Despite these mishaps, the Union forces stopped Garnett’s advance, with both sides suffering heavy casualties.

Jackson’s two brigade flanking force engaged elements of the Union’s reserve brigade which had moved south to prevent a flanking attack on Pritchard’s Hill. As this fight developed, the advancing Confederate forces were attacked in the flank by units from Pritchard’s Hill, barely beating off these attackers during the melee phase.

After these attacks, which disordered but failed to stop Jackson, the Union forces continued to hold Pritchard’s Hill, with the now depleted Union reserve units beginning a slow withdrawl to their original position, under some pressure from a beat-up Confederate force.

I didn’t go to the effort of counting up victory points, but I’m pretty sure this was, at least, a Union tactical victory.

More thoughts on the game and system in my next post. Have to set up Wilson’s Creek!

War of Resistance – The Other Side Of The Hill

Tim posted up about our WOR session.  As always, astute and spot-on.  Here they are…….

Logistics are a major constraint for both sides. While the Japanese get more resource points than the Chinese, they have to pay RPS to buy extra naval transports and landing craft units. I spent at least one RP per turn for more shipping and still had extra units in Japan at the end of the game. You did a better job of using your HQs for suppy than I did– I kept forgetting that you can use HQs when you are attacking. I should have remembered– the same rule is in March to Victory.

I think we both fell into the old trap of using our air forces for either Ground Support or Defensive Air Support. Looking back, I should have started attacking your railroads sooner, especially the one high volume rail line. I’m not sure what the Chinese should do, but I think it wouldn’t hurt to try some naval patrol missions or port strike attacks. While their bombers aren’t very good making their chances of sinking Japanese naval units pretty small, this isn’t Second Front and the Japanese don’t have very many Naval Repair Points (especially if they are having to repair damanged LCs), so any hits hurt. Attacks on port capacity might be a good idea, too. I know I ran into issues with port capacity.

Weather plays a big role in the game. The rainy weather really hurt you in the Hong Kong scenario and the clear weather helped me. I think in the longer scenarios, the Chinese would be well advised to try to run out the clock until the arrival of the monsoon.

I need to spend some time looking at the interactions of various naval units. The Chinese might be able to use their naval units to impede Japanese movement along rivers.

I think you put too many of your good troops in Shanghai and neglected your flanks. I think it would be worth using your factional or unsupported units in the full or partial city hexes, in the hopes of getting some exchanges and trading easily replaced units for Japanese casualties. Like we talked about, it would be very worthwhile putting some supported units along the rivers to discourage amphibious landings (I also realized after the game that you can’t move along rivers if the enemy controls both sides of the river– I don’t think this would have changed our game).

Having said that, you did do a good job of defending Shanghai. I launched the amphibious invasion because it was going to take a lot of time to dig out your troops. I don’t remember how many factional units you had, but it would have been worthwhile to have left some of them behind in Shangai to act as a rearguard when you pulled out.

Using engineers to negate or reduce negative modifiers for city hexes is really important. As usual, neither side has as many engineers as they would like…

I misunderstood the international concession rules, thinking that the hex was off limits for all combat…It also functions as a port, that would have really helped the Japanese. I don’t know if the Chinese could get enough strength to make an attack on it, but it might be worthwhile to try.

I probably should have landed north of the Yangtse sooner. Opening up a second front helps to stretch the Chinese.

Whampa (the port NE of Shanghai) is a really important hex. I don’t know if you can set up troops in it or if you can use the first turn to move troops to defend it, but making the Japanese fight for it is a good idea. Taking that port really simplified my logistics.

War of Resistance – Hong Kong and Fate of Nanking Scenarios

Tim and I were able to get in three sessions of War of Resistance (WOR) on Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday. It’s amazing how some level of moderation in beer consumption, and  lack of viable evening movie options, can increase the time spent gaming.

We played two sessions of the Attack on Hong Kong scenario, with full Chinese intervention, and one using the Fate of Nanking scenario. I’ll use the “old” spellings throughout.

Hong Kong is referred to as the game’s introductory scenario. That’s true if you have never played the Europa system before. The Fate of Nanking involves all aspects of the Glory rules system used in WOR. I hoped my playing of The Damned Die Hard (TDDH) would prepare me for WOR.   That was not the case, as the supply/logistics,  guerilla, reaction and command rules are far more detailed and extensive than those featured in TDDH.

I played the Japanese in the first session, limiting the forces committed to attacking  Hong Kong to the OB’s designated assault force. Too many troops were allocated to defend the assault force’s flanks and rear from the two Chinese armies situated to the east and north, as well as the guerrillas located to the west. In addition, I left out one attack supply factor, which limited my full strength assault attempts to two (2).  The result was failure to take the city in the time allocated.

We switched sides for the second session. Tim loaded up his assault force and with a successful role for his reaction phase – which allows the non-phasing player to move and attack – during my first turn was able to take Hong Kong in two (2) complete game turns (because of the Reaction Phase and the Japanese player plays first, he had three (3) attack turns). My Chinese attack on his forces to the north had an initial success, but the game was over before they could attack again.

Japanese Take Hong Kong (Why Have I Circled The Wagons in the North?)
Japanese Take Hong Kong (Why Have I Circled The Wagons in the North?)

The Fate of Nanking was another matter.

The Japanese must land, assualt and secure Shangai, and then move west and take Nanking. The Japanese have significant, but management intensive, naval resources. The Chinese player has strong forces near Shanghai, but weaker forces in the Nanking area.

Supply management is critical for the Chinese player, he must juggle the need for attack and general supply, as well as utillizing resource points for construction and repair. This is a typical challenge in Europa.  But in WOR, the very limited number of resource points – which can be converted to attack suppy which, in turn, can be converted to general supply (yes, this is confusing… it confused the hell out of me) – combined with a problematic transportation network, has a direct and significant effect on what the Chinese player can and cannot do. Unless the player is thoroughly comfortable with these rules and their application, a disproportionate amount of time and effort is spent with logistics, with combat operational planning adversely affected.

Guerilla bases and units are another aspect of WOR that is a challenge. While these units were included in both scenarios, we didn’t use them. One reason was that we had our hands full with other aspects of the game. Another was that our games, for the most part, involved urban combat, and guerillas cannot enter cities. As we play longer scenarios, I’m sure we will start using bases to recruit guerillas, for attacking lines of communication.

Reaction can only be used if there is a Army (Japan) or War Zone (Chinese) command unit available. Each Army or War Zone has as command radius, and success die roll. If the die roll is successful, then all units within the command radius can move and fight in the reaction phase. This allows the non-phasing player to maintain momentum generated in his phase of the turn. Tim did an excellent job of applying continual pressure on my units defending Shanghai.

Attack and general supply points can also be stacked with a command unit. This is an effective way of efficiently using supply points, as the ratios needed are far less than the one (1) point per regimental equivalent (RE) typically used. Neither of us consistently took advantage of this capability to improve our logistical support.

With the exception of a small contingent stationed in the international section of Shanghai, all Japanese combat and logistics assets must be transported from Japan to China. The number of naval transports and landing craft vary from turn to turn. In addition, landing craft can be damaged during operations, and removed from further play. Tim said this was a constant concern, and limiting factor, in his operational planning.

I decided to hold Shanghai in strength, which is what happened in 1937. Tim built up combat power in Shanghai and methodically attacked my units at odds of 3:1 or greater.

Initial Chinese Forces
Initial Chinese Forces

 

Stalemate in Shanghai
Stalemate In Shanghai

As the fighting in Shanghai developed into a battle of attrition, Tim launched an amphibious assault along the Yangtze River.  This prompted a long discussion on the rule limitations on naval transport, river movement, and amphibious assault. We’re still thrashing this out.

Amphibious Landing Along The Yangtze
Amphibious Landing Along The Yangtze

The game ended with Tim consolidating and building up his beachhead, and with me starting a fighting withdrawl from Shanghai to the west.

Japanese Advance Along The Yangtze & Chinese Withdraw From Shanghai
Japanese Advance Along The Yangtze Force Chinese Withdrawal From Shanghai

Lots of good game play and challenges. A fun time!  We’re planning another go at the Nanking scenario in early December.

Stonewall: Great Battles of the American Civil War (GBACW)

Set up Stonewall: The Battle of Kernstown. This is a single map, lower counter density game in the Great Battles of The American Civil War Series (GBACW). The game was first published in S&T in 1978, with a boxed version released later.

I’ve been messing around with this system off-and-on (mostly off) for some time, even playing Wilson’s Creek when it came out about 3million years ago, but now want to spend some time with the system. Maybe not all the way to the monster Terrible Swift Sword (Gettysburg) game, but certainly a number of the smaller games, which have been accumulated over the years.

Richard Berg’s original design has evolved quite a bit since introduced in 1976. GMT now owns the franchise, and has published the larger games, many of which are now out of stock.

I’m digesting the rules, and making up a couple of cheat sheets, since the game’s tables are on the map, and not necessarily complete. This will be an incremental approach and hopefully the transition from the earlier to the later rules will be relatively painless. Play will start after I return from Portland and War of Resistance.

Mission Impossible?

Finished up my last play thru of the Luzon Scenario in The Damned Die Hard. Earlier sessions are described in a previous post. I played this scenario at least six (6) times, and in each playing the Japanese fail to make any appreciable progress towards Manila. Seems ahistorical.

However, there are administrative reasons for the first few failures.  Which is a polite way of saying I displayed some, well, incompetence.

I neglected to thoroughly read the scenario rules. Not the first time this has happened. For the first couple of games I missed the mandatory US setup adjacent to the Japanese lodgment at Lingayen Gulf and then the mandatory two (2) regimental equivalents (RE) “within two (2) hexes of 1718”.  These constraints prevent any initial defense in strength along terrain blocking the axis of advance towards Manila,

OK, tried it again, assuming that “within” was inclusive of 1915. Once again, the Japanese made little progress. However, in the middle of the night it dawned (no pun intended) on me that maybe “within” wasn’t inclusive. In these situations I go to Experten, and the Experten in this case is Tim. His response was that “within” was not inclusive.

OK, tried it again, this time with 2 REs of units back from the MLR. Same bloody result.

OK, tried it again, this time making the assumption that units shown in T/O as “Battalion Groupings” were not “Small Battalions” that have lower RE strengths and reduce possible GS air strikes.  Same damn result.

There are several reasons for this. One, the best odds the Japanese can get are 4:1 on 1915, the hinge of the US defenses. This assumes that none of the Japanese forces are disrupted in the mandatory check before combat. Second, the impact of airpower is minimal since the rules limit ground support (GS) to one unit per two (2) REs, excluding artillery. Given the scale of the game, the Japanese have only 4.5 REs (exclusive of artillery) in their hex. Third, while the Japanese movement advantage in rough translates to a +1 to their die roll, it is negated by the -1 for the rough.  So, it takes a six (6) to blast a hole in the US line.

 

Initial Dispositions - See Next Photo For "Corps" Composition
Initial Dispositions – See Next Photo For “Corps” Composition

 

Corps Composition - OK, It Was Dark And I Was Using My Iphone
Corps Composition – OK, It Was Dark And I Was Using My Iphone

So, why the angst?

A successful disruptive Japanese attack during the first critical turn is highly unlikely.  Any result less than a DE allows the US Reserve Force (two (2) hexes north of Manila) to move up after the attack and plug any gaps as well as reinforce the MLR. The ability of the US player to begin assembling Philippine divisons and a light armor cadre further reduces the chance of any Japanese success.

According to The Fall of the Philippines, the official history of the campaign. The Japanese made significant progress before Jan 1, forcing the US forces to retire to Bataan. I confirmed this in the West Point Atlas of American Wars, which has several maps on the campaign. Based on my experience and reading of the scenario and rules, there is just no way this can happen.

Oh Well……My, My….

All told it was time well spent. I enjoyed the opportunity to really dig into the rules and replay a scenario several times rather than a more typical “one and done”.

I’m hoping this familiarity with The Glory game system will hold me in good stead when I travel to Portland next week to play the Hong Kong Scenario in War of Resistance with Tim.

Soviet Dawn

With an increasing focus on Red Actions! this month, it made sense to try out Soviet Dawn.  This is a solitaire game I picked up on EBay for a very reasonable price.  Originally published by Victory Games, this version was included  in GMT’s C3i magazine Issue No. 27.

Was able to play four (!) games this Saturday afternoon.  The back story as to why I was able to/did this would bore even the most avid reader.

This is a nice card-driven solitaire game.  Easy to set up, with simple rules and plenty of replay value.  A good review of the game can be found over at Web Grognards.

Game play is a real juggling act, holding off Germans, Finns, White Russians, Poles and Western Allies while trying to build international political credibility.  During the first game, I lost track of the Eastern Front, and allowed Moscow to be captured in just 12 turns (cards).

The next two games featured the blitzkrieg generated by the “Denikin Unstoppable?  Objective Moscow!” card.  This punisher allows the White Southern Army to advance towards Moscow until defeated.  A couple of bad rolls, and you are out of business, especially if you allow the Czar to be rescued when the “Czar’s Fate Decided in Ekaterinburg!” card is played.  This gives the Soviets a -1 DRM on all offensive roles.  Not good!

The fourth time was the charm.  I was able to shut down the Poles, Southern Whites and Finns, while getting some nice rolls on the Soviet Army Reorganization Table, and Political Level Track.  Was I lucky?….Sure, but it was nice to beat a very enjoyable and accessible game system.

Game play time is about 20-30 minutes, so with the easy set up, a fun game can be played very quickly in a small space.  I also liked the map.  Here’s an indifferent IPhone photo.

Soviet Dawn

Highly recommended!

 

 

Doubleheader

She’s away with the trailer this weekend and my salmon hunting expedition postponed (the biomass has not moved into the Columbia yet), so I’ve set up two games on the dining room table.

The first is another try at the Luzon Scenario from The Damned Die Hard (TDDH).  The second is an old Europa Magazine scenario, Operation Icarus.

I found a nice TDDH series replay at a fellow Oregonian’s site.

The Icarus scenario is one that I’ve played before.  As Hitler is quoted in The Eagle Has Landed, it’s a “simple matter of logistics”.  How to get German units from Norway to Iceland, repair ports, build airfields, resupply what units you have, and, yeah…….stop the British.  If only I had one more para unit!

I’ll post a session(s) report later on.