Category Archives: Review

What’s Not To Like?

Boardgames, Review

TAD at The Sunfish Capitol Of The World.  It’s a holding area for some of my older AH games.  Never know when there will be a couple of boring rainy days.

Set up The Arab-Israeli Wars,  the final iteration of the Panzer Blitz Series.  When I opened the box, I discovered three old envelopes containing the counters for Situations (they didn’t call them Scenarios back then) 2, 3 and 4.  Have no idea when I last played.  So….start at the beginning.

Before all of that, I read the rules.  Three levels; Beginning, Standard and Advanced.  Each layers on unit capabilities and additional types of units, even including fixed wing and rotary aircraft.  The usual foodgroups for tactical armor games; direct fire, indirect fire, overrrun, and close assault.

Scenarios reflect increasing complexity and number of units.  Counters are large and easy to read, maps are bland, but functional.  On the other hand, what can you do with the desert?  Well, someone did get creative with Bar Lev.

(In)Famously Psychadelic!

In short, what’s not to like for a reasonable armored combat simulation that doesn’t bog you down?

My only gripe is that the charts are on a double-faced fold out requiring all kinds of fiddling to  work with…..and some genius included the turn track.  But, the genius did add dotted lines so the track can be cut away from the charts.

It’s sunny now, but will still get in a few plays.   Here’s a photo of the whole shooting match.  Excuse the E-Bay Listing Approach.

 

In A Rut

Boardgames, Review, Solitaire, World War II

Opened up a box and it jumped right out at me!  “It” is an old S&T magaizine game, Saipan.

Why not?  It’s solitaire and is the first game I’ve ever played that has any of my old units in it (2/24 and HQ 24th Marines).

It’s another slog.  Wristage and more wristage; have to reduce 88 (yes 88!), Japanese fortifications, plus the chance of encountering Japanese troops every hex you move into (except destroyed fortifications).  Lots of rolling to do.  I can handle that, but what’s vexing is the step losses.  Yes, one has to use numbered chits to designate losses.  Ugh.

All that griping aside, the system seems viable, with NGF, Air support, Japanese coastal defenses, and reasonable command and control (called Lines Of Communication) rules for Division and Regimental HQs.  All in all, the game seems a reasonable representation of a meat grinder of a campaign.

I have Bloody Buna on the table and now this damn thing.  It is a rut!  Need to get an East Front game out (and not Stalingrad) next!

Mangled Turn 1, forgetting Japanese reactions to Marine movement.  But, it was an easy re-set.  Will try it again tonight.

Ready To Grind

 

More Table Fun

Boardgames, Review

Been playing another small game.  It’s a game with a war theme, so I guess it is a war game.  Realism…….not so much.  Entertainment and Fun……so much.

It’s Pocket Landship, a PNP game I stumbled across over at Boardgamegeek.

The link is for the updated version, with more options and better graphics.  The original looks like this when set up.

No, The Cards Are Not Huge. Yes, The Dice Are Very, Very, Small.

Game is simple and elegant.  In the basic game, you control one Landship, with three components – Hull, Sponson, and Gun.  The enemy has six random elements, including infantry, artillery and other land ships.  Only the front three are in play at any one time.  Roll three die for the enemy.  Assign lowest die to the left unit, and other two in ascending order.  See what happens.  For your Landship, roll three die and allocate as best you can. If you destroy one enemy element, another moves up.  Last Man Standing wins.

Fun and compact.  As the say, a great “filler” game.  Just like TAC, buy this one before it gets snapped up, pimped up, and priced up!

 

Table Fun

Boardgames, Review, World War II

Undertook a mini project when TAD.  It was TAC – Table Air Combat.

This is a simple, fun, inexpensive WWII aerial combat game with a wide variety of aircraft types.  It can be found over at Wargamevault.

You get a PDF copy of the rules with each aircraft type.  The PDF is very well done.  Other help is available for free download.

The aircraft maneuvering card includes all the information you need to fly the aircraft, so after a few plays, and familiar with the general rules, you can seamlessly transition to any aircraft you like.

The counters show a single aircraft on one side, and two aircraft on the other I’m thinking about mounting 1/700 aircraft on a counter for a 3-D effect.

Speaking of 3-D, the system incorporates “energy” as a means of simulating vertical maneuver.  The concept is simple, an aircraft can gain energy by climbing (reducing linear movement), which allows it to gain speed in a dive.

The footprint is very small, making it a great travel game.

For what it is…..it’s great!

Rules are well illustrated, easy to understand and have great graphic qualities.
BF 109-E Turning Into A Polikarpov I-16. Note Data On Manuever Care.

Remembering

Boardgames, Review

Snow and sickness can lead to some desperate measures.   After FAB I opened a shrink wrapped time capsule…..The Alamo:  Victory In Death.

It’s not like my recent games. Yes, there is a lot of wristage, but with counters and a map that contains all of the charts.  So 1980’s, and so appreciated.

Here’s a great overview at Boardgamegeek.

This game is well-suited for solitaire.  I used a die to determine where the Mexicans were to attack.

But, it can be tedious, with many die rolls for shooting and melee combat.  However, the tension factor is excellent, especially when the defenders have to fall back from the walls to defend the interior of the mission.

I still am badly confused by the rules concerning Mexican losses that result in an immediate Texas victory during the first five turns.

Here’s a picture of the setup

Too Fun To Solo?

Boardgames, Review, Solitaire

Really enjoying Supply Lines Of The American Revolution .

Bought it with some Christmas money after having read the excellent reviews and perusing the Hollandspiele website . That site is a  fun place with several intriguing titles .

It’s a real puzzler of the game and a departure from a card-driven or hex and counter game .

The  map is attractive with the counters more than serviceable.  I do like the wooden cubes.  The rules are well organized, but what really makes things work is the online example of play posted by the designer to the game’s Boardgamegeek page.   Invaluable.

However, by the time I was well into the first turn I started getting uncomfortable . A great game, but it’s solo playability, for me, is marginal . It’s a cat and mouse affair begging for two players, not one trying to outguess himself .

I’ll set it up again and try a scenario in which the British focus on a specific course of action ie. attack down the Hudson Valley…..just like Gentleman Johnny B.   We’ll see how that goes .

 

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.