Memoirs of a boardgame!

I picked up Memoir '44 a while ago and it's become my 'go to' game for evenings where my brother comes round, so I thought I'd post some thoughts about it. There are a couple of reasons Memoir '44 has bubbled to the top. First, the box is nice and light and smaller than Battlecry. It's a small detail, but it matters when you're reaching up into a cupboard. Second, it's a bit quicker to play than CC:Ancients. Like BC, it's more lightweight than CC:A and therefore each turn is a bit more straightforward. And last, I think it's a bit more flavoursome than Battlecry. Perhaps it's just that WW2 appeals a bit more, but the synergy of the artillery, armour and infantry seems to suit this game a bit better. It also seems that infantry firefights can be a bit more protracted in dense terrain, due to the fewer dice thrown, which makes infantry a touch more durable than in Battlecry.

As far as components go, this is right up there with Battlecry. The box is nicely organised and the pieces are very nice. I had a slight issue with some barricades that were missing, but Days of Wonder provided them quickly and without fuss. A couple of the terrain tiles also have a slight printing error, but I can live with that. All in, a good quality set. The rules are well laid out and you get some nice touches, like cards that summarise all terrain penalties and such. The Command Cards are of a decent stock and feel like they'll last well. Overall, I'm happy with this game and so far it's given some pretty good, tense battles. The scenarios are well thought out and ones that you might think would give this system a hard time, like Omaha Beach, actually deliver a tight and plausible game. The other plus is that there are plentiful expansions that are mostly in print and cover the major theatres - the Pacific, the Med and the Ostfront. I've asked Santa for the Pacific one as it should provide some pretty interesting scenarios and it gives me a fix of the Pacific ground warfare without a high entry cost.

 

Napoleon's Triumph

My New Years boardgame treat to myself for 2012 was a game from Simmons Games called Napoleon's Triumph. This is a game that covers the battle of Austerlitz at the grand strategic level and uses a very unusual mechanic for combat - there are no dice or cards. In fact, there is nothing in this game that is random! Coming from a traditional tabletop wargame background this provides a pretty noel experience, but one that I found to be very stimulating. I won't go into great detail about the game as there are some very god reviews available on BoardGameGeek that I will link to, but I will cover the basics.

The contents
First off, the production values of the game are outstanding for a small independent publisher. The board is huge, measuring a whopping 44"x32". It comes in two sections and once laid out, you're presented with a sumptuous representation of the battlefield. It really does evoke the feeling of looking at a real battle map straight from the 19th Century. You then get to deploy your units onto the map and these just ratchet the aesthetic appeal up another couple of notches. The pieces are wooden, rectangular blocks; red for the allies, blue for the French. Not having counters or square blocks really makes the game look like representations of battles you might read in books. All in, this is one good looking game!

The rules
The rules are very well written and there are almost no ambiguities. They are also laid out well with plenty of illustrations to reinforce the text. You also get two copies in the box, which is a nice touch! This is a game where the rules don't teach you how to play, though. Each and every point and clause makes perfect sense when you read them, but it's only when you play the game that you start to appreciate how they affect the ongoing strategic situation and what your limitations are. It can seem a little overwhelming at first, but after a couple of turns you'll probably find yourself coping with the mechanics, but expect to play a couple of games before you'll have it all in your head.

Gameplay
The game is played in alternate turns with the Allies going first. Pieces are initially organised into corps and this is the only way to move multiple pieces. Each army has a limited number of independent commands (the French have 4 to the Allies 3) and, crucially, the French can move all of their 8 corps compared to the Allies who can only move 5 of their 9. There are no distinctions in quality of the pieces except that the final decider in ties is that the French win and I find this quite refreshing! The Austro-Russian army is not penalized on the ability of it's soldiers (as with plenty of tabletop rules), rather it is on the ability to command and control them.
The map is also quite interesting, as it is divided into locales and each piece can only move from one to the next, except by road. The position in the locale is important too. The lines that divide the locales are called 'approaches' and your pieces can block them, making the much more potent in defense. But beware! If you're in an approach and caught in the flank then you will be forced to retreat and suffer losses! The terrain type is also represented by penalties for certain troop types operating across them, which makes the map more than just the playing surface. It's an integral part of the game. Here's a link to the game's website which amply illustrates locales and their role - locales.
Battlefield friction is very nicely modeled in the way that combat and cavalry screens can force units to be detached from their corp which leads to problems due to the limits on independent unit moves. The combat mechanism seems quite complicated at first, but it's actually very simple and you'll soon find that frontally attacking a powerful corps in well placed positions is futile. There are options to wear your opponent down and you can have titanic clashes between corps that last for (game) hours, but the most effective way of defeating your enemy is through maneuver and forcing him to fight on your terms.

Victory and simulation
So how is the game won? For a major victory you must simply demoralize your opponents army. There is a morale track on the board and each time a side loses a fight the track is reduced by the number of strength points lost. Believe me...this track can move at an almost frightening pace towards the end of the game! If time runs out (there is a time track which goes from 7am to 4pm) then victory is adjudicated on the control of victory locations. And it is on this point that I think Bowen Simmons, the designer, had a stroke of genius! Austerlitz is a difficult wargame subject as the Allied commander will naturally be unwilling to knowingly walk into a trap, especially as he holds the numerical advantage. Napoleon's Triumph deals with this by placing victory locations on each side of the map. For the Allies to win they simply must hold a French victory location at the end and not allow the French to hold any of theirs. So the Allies have to attack, simple as that! But! At the start of the game the French must keep Davout's and Bernadotte's corps off the board as reinforcements and they can bring them on at any point (well, Davout must wait a turn) to spring the trap on the Allies. In doing so, they reverse the victory conditions! Now the French must hold Allied victory locations and not allow the Allies to hold any French. Simply brilliant! And the timing of your reinforcements is absolutely critical. Too early and the Allies can consolidate on their start positions! Too late and the French may not have time to get over there! Here's some shots take from my last game at the start of each turn. You can get a sense of the French corps in the centre disintegrating as more and more individual blocks appear and the Allies advance and breakthrough!

I really, really like this game! I've only managed a couple of games, but I want to play again, which is the mark of a good game. So, if you're looking for a very good looking boardgame that will allow you to re-fight the entire battle of Austerlitz in 2 to 3 hours then you can't go far wrong, as long as you're comfortable with the lack of randomness and the fact that you can't blame that lousy roll for your defeat!

Here's a couple of links to some longer, more in-depth reviews:
BGG Review 1
BGG Review 2

A gate has opened...

...and I have stepped through to the Other World that is Arkham Horror!

I pretty much knew that I didn't have time to complete a game last night but I played a few turns to try it out and found it was very hard to stop and go to bed. This is a seriously good game! I'll not try and review the game mechanics or components as that has already been covered by the following couple of great reviews (these actually helped sell me on buying the game) :

Boardgamegeek review
Anatoli's Game Room review

What I will talk about is what I liked about it. Firstly, the atmosphere is just right and permeates every component in the box, from the artwork to the flavour text on the monster cards and the mythos cards. It probably helps if you have come across Lovecraft's work before, but if you haven't it won't take long to realise that letting the Great Old One awaken is not a good idea! And you really don't want to be attacked by a nasty monster like a StarSpawn unless you're packing some heat! And this is where the real hook comes from...decisions! I was talking to Alasdair at the club a couple of weeks ago about what makes a really good game and he said "it's when the game presents you with a really difficult decision". I couldn't agree more. That's what good games generally boil down to - when do I commit this reserve unit, or should I sacrifice that unit for some advantage. Well, Arkham Horror is absolutely bursting with just that kind of decision making. Every single turn has a phase where you have to decide how to tune your characters skills for the forthcoming turn, but be careful!  If you're in an unstable location and you're unprepared then bad things can happen! I played with 2 investigators and one of them went to a location to pick up a clue token and was subsequently attacked by a Warlock as a result of the encounter card. A quick look at the skill track and monster stats showed that the fight was actually not winnable and an ambulance ride to the hospital ensued!

There are also things that can happen as a result of cards being drawn that add to the dilemmas already facing you. For instance, a rumour started from a mythos card that meant after some time and lack of attention there was a chance that any sealed locations would be 'unsealed' and subject to gates opening again. At first I didn't care as I hadn't sealed any locations, but once I had - and crucially a gate failed to open because of the seal which felt like a small victory in itself - I realised that the rumour was going to take effect very soon and had to go sort it out. However, to sort it out I had to go into the streets which meant that I was vulnerable to the two twisted monsters flying about in the sky!! It was at this point that I first got the feeling of events building up against you and largely out with your control. And I liked it! A lot!

The gameplay is quite complicated for a boardgame and I know I made a couple of mistakes, but there is a FAQ available on the FFG website and plenty of posts on the various forums such as Boardgamegeek that I have already answered most of the questions I had. I'm also pretty sure that a few plays will smooth things out, as I was even starting to speed up a bit towards the end of my playtest. And as soon as I'm comfortable with the core game and even maybe beating the odd Great Old One here and there I'm sure I'll pick up an expansion or two and reset the difficulty level back to 'OMG'!

In summary, this is a top notch game. The design is very well thought out and the production is lavish. I had a most enjoyable time playing it and I felt I could let my imagination go with the game and let it draw me in. It actually felt a bit like the RPG sessions I used to play many moons ago! I can't wait to play it again and that is from a single effort playing solo. I can only imagine how good this will be with a few other victi...errr...friends to play with!

New game smell!

If there's a better aroma then I don't know what it is!

One of the problems with my monthly game meetings with James and Carl is that three is an awkward number for a good game. Most games can support 3 players, even traditionally 2 player games like FoW. You just divide up one side and have 2 vs 1, but it's still not really ideal. So I've been searcing for a while for a game that either supports 3 players in direct competition or cooperatively. I'm well aware that Nuts! is capable of this, but I just don't have the time to paint up enough figures and make terrain to keep it fresh. One further consideration is the transportation and setup times. I don't have space for a proper wargames table and so can't put on anything larger than DBA or CC:A/Battlecry, which are even more restrictively 2 player games! But I think I may have just found the answer...

I picked this up yesterday and had a thorough read of the rules last night. All I can say is that I wanted to punch out all the tokens and get playing there and then, but it was half ten already! I've not read any Lovecraft in a while but I do like the whole mythos he created and anything that is heavily influenced by his work (take Hellboy as a fine example). So the setting is perfect and the game is oozing in atmosphere. The mechanics seem very interesting and I particularly like the idea of the Doom counters building up to the point the Old One awakens. I think this will create an exciting and tense atmosphere, especially if you're up against a pretty hard enemy like Chtulu (I particularly like Azathoth who basically wins when he awakens...there's no final combat, just game over!). I intend to try a couple of solo games to get to grips with the rules so we're not scratching our heads too much when we try it out together and I'll post my thoughts on the actual gameplay when  I get a chance.

Wargames in a box

First off.. Happy New Year! Right, now that's out the way onto the gaming! :)

My first buy of 2011 was a semi-impulse purchase of Battle Cry (an American Civil War version of the Commands and Colours game system). I noticed it at a local comic/toy shop and thought 'oooh...should I buy that?'! I left it, though, and went home. At that point I decided I did want it so went back the next day and got it. It's no secret that I like games that are easy and quick to set up (and by that I mean assembling and painting figures and terrain) which is one of the main reasons I like Commands and Colours Ancients (CC:A), so Battle Cry seemed like a reasonable addition to the collection. In particular, I like the portability of the CC games which are, literally, wargames in a box! Most people's initial impression of the CC games is probably that it's a board game, but it really isn't. The system was designed for miniatures but for some reason it's produced as a board game rather that a paper rule set with various supplements.

So, with CC:Napoleonics pretty much on everyone's radar at the moment I thought I'd do a quick comparison of Battle Cry (BC) with CC:A. The box I got was the 150th Anniversary of the Civil War edition which is not, I believe, just a reprint, but includes some tweaks and all the scenarios from the original game plus supplements, so that's a meaty 30 scenarios in all compared to 15 in CC:A.

Contents/Price
First off, the actual production of BC is nothing short of lavish. The board is good quality and sturdy, the cards are nice and glossy as is the rule book (which contains the scenarios). The hex terrain tiles and various counters are all made from heavy card and the plastic figures are nicely detailed. The box comes with a plastic tray insert with compartments for all the various tiles, cards, dice, tokens and figures which is very appreciated. Contrast that with CC:A which came with no tray which means all the terrain tiles, cards, dice and blocks are all loose (all my blocks are segregated in zip-lock freezer bags, which I thought absolutely necessary if you want to set up a game in less than half an hour!). Finally, the dice in BC are properly engraved, nicely-sized dice and not just cubes you have to put stickers on. The dice in CC:A are my biggest bug-bear with the game...they're massive, clunky things!! Given that I picked up BC for £45 which is actually cheaper than I picked up CC:A for, then BC wins by a mile!

The Mechanics
The first section there is more of a comparison between different companies productions (Avalon Hill/Wizards of the Coast for BC and GMT Games for CC:A). The game mechanics themselves are very similar, unsurprisingly. However, BC is a actually a lot less complex than CC:A. In BC you have three troop types -infantry, artillery and cavalry. In CC:A there are also infantry and cavalry, but they are graded as Heavy, Medium and Light and that is what you are trying to throw against.
Also, in BC, the generals are a lot less important and do not have a symbol on the dice. They simply allow a retreat to be ignored and allow activation of attached units on leadership cards (usually with an extra dice in combat). In CC:A they have all those benefits plus a distinct effect on combat with leader symbols on the dice hitting for any units attached or adjacent.
Next is the major difference in the games - firepower, of course! In CC:A, light infantry can fire a couple of hexes (three for bows) and generally do little damage, as only unit symbols and flags count. In BC, infantry get 4 dice and lose 1 for each hex past the first to the target (so 4 at a unit in adjacent hex, 1 at one 4 hexes away). Artillery get 5. Cavalry get 3 but must be adjacent to attack (at first I was surprised at cavalry having to be adjacent as it felt like melee but they weren't generally used in the mounted, sabre-wielding role, but you can rationalise the short range as representative of the smaller numbers in a regiment, plus the fact that a portion have to hold the horses).  So firepower degrades nicely over range. This feels pretty good.
Associated with the firepower is the lethality of attacks. With the absence of a leader symbol on the dice it means there is a face going spare and it has been filled with another infantry symbol. Given that crossed swords always hit in BC it means that, against infantry, every dice has a 50% chance of hitting. In CC:A there is only one symbol for each grading and swords only hit for Medium and above, so the light infantry are really there to harass and it's the Mediums and Heavies that are the killing machines. The addition of a leader means you can achieve a 50% for each dice, but on the whole it's easier to get hits in BC than in CC:A.

Gameplay
I always thought that CC:A is a very simple game that you can teach a new player in minutes (and I mean that!), so I was interested to see just how an even simpler version would play as well as the obvious difference in warfare. I have to say I was not disappointed! In CC:A it's very much about getting your battle lines organised and into the enemy. Victory flags are mostly won through getting light troops behind targets and getting the heavies into the fight as soon as possible. BC felt completely different. Getting close to the enemy, especially one in terrain or dug in, is suicidal unless you're very confident of winning in one go, and artillery can really close off avenues of attack. I found that troops were generally moving into terrain a lot more (and the scenarios tend to have a lot more terrain, understandably) and blasting away at each other until the opportunity for a bayonet charge presented itself. So terrain becomes incredibly important, infantry are much more lethal, but are in turn killed a lot more easily. Throw in trenches and earthworks and all the flavour of the ACW is there!

Conclusion
Commands and Colours as a game system is simply brilliant! The same easy mechanics, with some simple tweaks, can satisfactorily (at least for me) represent warfare as widely different as Rome going head to head with Carthage and the ACW, which is really the first glimpse at modern warfare! As mentioned, CC:N is grabbing all the headlines at the moment, but I would heartily recommend Battle Cry to anyone as a fun, easy and quick game that really does play like a miniatures game and captures the flavour of the period. Of course, ditto to CC:A! It sort of feels like I'm criticising CC:A here, but I'm really not. I still love that game and would probably love Memoir '44 and CC:N if I ever got them! However, I have Napoleonic and WWII minis so I can get my fix that way. CC:A and BC really do fill a hole in my gaming spectrum, though, which is another reason why I'd urge people to consider them...they're a really cheap and accessible way of getting into period you don't currently have the minis for!

No time like the past!

Every now and again I find I come to an impasse in painting. Usually it's because I end up getting too much stuff for too many projects and none of it ends up getting done. I recently sold some old GW stuff on eBay that I found in my mum's loft and went a bit berserk buying stuff, from some 15mm Magister Militum Romans to a couple of 28mm Grand Manner buildings for the Crete project. On top of all this I have a pile of Battlefront FoW stuff to do, as well as the 28s I posted about before. Did I mention the bag of cowboys that George at the club loaned out to me?! The end result is a lot of lead and resin and a brain-block on what to do next!

So progress is very slow on the painting front, but gaming continues apace. One in particular is standing out for me at the moment...Commands and Colours : Ancients. As hinted at above, I quite want to get into some ancients gaming, but the massive variety of figures, rules and periods is a little bedazzling, not to mention the time involved in getting it all together. So I thought I'd pick this game up to allow me and my gaming friends learn something about ancient warfare without comitting masses of time and money.

So, C&C; I have to say, I have found the game to be most entertainting and also somewhat aesthetic! There's something about the little wooden blocks that looks old fashioned, but I actually quite like it. The combat system is extraordinarily simple, but the combat rules coupled with the command card system actually add some real subtelty to the game. OK, you may not have the cars in your hand that you want, but this is essentially a boardgame and that is just one mechanism. To be honest, you can almost always do something that you would have wanted to anyway and the card system adds a little uncertainty that a lot of traditional games also apply, such as the TFL system of card actication. In many ways, the C&C way is no different.

I was quite curious when I first played C&C about how it would play and whether historical tactics would apply and I was quite happy with the results. Heavy infantry formed in line can literally blow away whole units in one turn, but this line can be broken up, or delayed by lightning fast skirmish attacks. Or the end units can be picked off by coordinated attacks and the line rolled up. Certainly light units do not last long at all in close combat, but there are evade rules to mitigate this. One unit I haven't used yet is elephants, but I can't wait to have fun with the 'rampage' rule!

All in all, I'm really enjoying C&C. I think it gives a good flavour of ancient combat while being playable in an hour, plus it all packs into a box!! I'll certainly be trying to work through the scenario book at every opportunity and will no doubt be eyeing up the Alaxander expansion pack after that!