Turn 7 saw Terry/Gibbons’ continued success in the south and a lack of “Custer’s Luck” in the north.
Terry/Gibbons cleared all hostiles south of the Little Bighorn. But, Custer’s force was attacked and mauled by White Bear. Despite this loss, the Army now has 19 VPs, the the hostiles have scattered to the fringes of the map.
White Bear Attacks Custer’s Detached BattalionSituation At The End Of Turn 7
I probably screwed up the rules (shocking!) when it came to the requirement that hostiles retreat after combat (disregarding the 8-12 roles that called for them to remain stationary). Probably cost the hostiles some VPs, but it didn’t intefere with my enjoyment of the game.
Going to pack this one up to make way for 1942. But, this isn’t because Custer’s Luck is a bad game. It’s fun; a good solo romp that has a quick set-up time, easy rules, and, yes, randomness.
You get a glimpse into the problems faced by the Army during these campaigns. “If only they’d stay still….we could get ’em.”
I’ll play it again.
Tim’s in this weekend for another go at Red Star/White Eagle.
Custer attacks both Fast Bear and White Bull, causing casualties and forcing White Bull to retreat. Which may not be a bad thing.
Terry/Gibbon command keep grinding down their opponents, also killing Lame Deer.
Each command was able to find, maintain contact, use envelopment (in game terms “prong attack”) to attack, and inflict casualties. Doctrine in action (?).
The system’s randomness has created some interesting situations, with plenty of give-and-take. It really is fun, with the “Hostiles” bouncing all over the map.
In Turn 4, Sitting Bull’s weak contingent attacks Terry/Gibbon’s combined arms force despite overwhelming odds.
During Turn 5, Terry/Gibbon maintains contact with Sitting Bull, while Custer envelops Little Bear’s force. Sitting Bull’s force is destroyed, and Little Bear takes casualties.
Later in the turn, Custer is attacked by Sioux drawn like moths to the flame of randomness. One of Custer’s battalions is destroyed.
At this point, who knows what the hell will happen. At the end of Turn 5, Army has 9 VPs, Hostiles 3.
Been back at the Pine Cone Lodge for a week. Moved from one work farm to another.
Finally back to wargaming last night with Custer’s Luck. Purchased and wrote about this a few months ago, and was happy to finally get it on the table. Fitting, because I started setting up on the anniversary of the Battle of the Little Bighorn.
This is a solitaire game, with garish map and utilitarian counters. The rules are…..well, let’s just say they provide a framework for playing the game. Lots of minor problems, but they can be pushed through with a little common sense. It’s a magazine game, right? Well, that’s harsh. Always liked The Wargamer, with interesting topics and, at times, interesting take on things.
The game covers the 1876 summer campaign. The Army’s objective is to kill as many Sioux as possible (shocking!). There are three cavalry commands; Terry/Gibbon, Custer, and Crook/Merritt. While it can be played multi-player, the mechanics are oriented for solitaire play. Sequence of play is Custer (move & combat), Terry/Gibbon (m&c), Crook/Merritt (m&c), “Hostiles” (m&c).
The Sioux initially set up face down with each stack having a leader, village and combat unit drawn at random. Rules say 12 stacks, I could only muster up 8. Hostile movement is dictated by a compass chart. They move on a 2D roll of 7 or less, and remain stationary on a roll of 8-12.
Army Scouts can be used to identify a hostile stack. Wagons and Mules are used for supply, with combat reducing supply capabilities. The Far West steamboat stooges around as per the whims/attention span of the US commander.
Combat is straightforward, with leadership, terrain, surprise, envelopment, and supply modifiers effecting column shifts, not unit strengths.
Decided to play the historical scenario. Crook/Merritt command does not move.
Initial Setup. Handwritten Player Aide To Your Left. Rules On Right With Insane Letter To Editor….Zoom In….
Decided to let Gibbon/Terry move south to pin Hostiles. Custer was ordered to exercise restraint….OK, this is not the (real) historical scenario.
Plodding Forward In The Relentless Summer Glare, Gibbon/Terry Advances (left). Custer Shows Restraint And Is Attacked By Gall.
Hostiles begin random movement. Gall heads straight for Custer. This time, it’s Gall’s Luck. His negative odds attack only results in a retreat. Again, Custer shows ahistorical restrain and does not pursue.
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.
