Civil War Jones

I'm not sure if it's because of the 150th anniversary, or because I've been reading about it (James Macpherson's excellent Battle Cry of Freedom, or some combination of those and other factors, but I've really been jonesing lately to play an American Civil War game or two.

I own several ACW games, and I've love to get one or more on the virtual table (probably no opportunity to play face to face), including:

• Bobby Lee
• A House Divided
• Glory III

I also own For the People and In Their Quiet Fields II, but haven't played either; I'd love to learn both of those.

A Victory in A Victory Lost

My PBEM game of A Victory Lost has ended, and I've won--my opponent conceded, saying that I'd broke through in too many places for him to salvage the game. I'm not sure that's true, but I'll take the win happily. We'd played about 2/3 of the way through the game when he conceded.

I think that my opponent is even newer to the game than me. As the Axis, you need to focus almost entirely on force protection for the first few turns, giving up territory to save units. This is especially true of German units, and even more so for German panzer units--the Soviets get victory points for killing German units (1 for infantry, 3 for panzer). My opponent tried to fight delaying actions, which exposed his units to being surrounded, which meant that I destroyed a bunch of his units in the first half of the game.

In AVL, you get victory points for (1) controlling victory cities, and (2) destroying some types of enemy units. Each victory city is worth 5 points, and there are 5 victory cities total. The Axis controls all of the cities at the start, so begins the game with a 25-0 lead. In our game, I hadn't captured a single victory city yet (although I was seriously threatening three of them). The final score was something like 27-22 in his favor. I think my opponent believed that I couldn't be stopped from taking at least one victory city, which would put me up by 27-22, and I might be able to take several cities. I think he's probably right about that, but you never know for sure.

We are now playing another game of AVL now, playing the same sides. I hope he hasn't learned his lesson.

AVL Picture

Here's the situation at the end of all Soviet moves in turn 3 (the turned opened with 4 consecutive Soviet activations, I'm done for this turn). Things are going slowly up north, and I don't like that my reinforcements this turn won't be able to arrive across the river. But I think that things are going well in the south. The Axis have tried to hold solid lines against me, which I think is a mistake--he should be withdrawing more. So I've been able to kill a fair number of German units all ready, which is a big boost in the Victory Point column for me. And as of now I've got a fairly open shot towards Rostov and Stalino.

Things change very quickly in this game, though, so I'm not getting overconfident.

A Victory Lost PBEM

I've managed to start not one but two PBEM games of A Victory Lost. I tried generating a graphics file of the map using Vassal, but it seems to working badly, so I couldn't get a decent one. In the game, it's is the end of turn 1, and I'm playing the Soviets. My opponent is not doing what everyone claims you're supposed to do as the Axis--run away. So my initial progress is slow, but I hope this means I'll get some shots at his German units early in the game. Given that I'm lousy at most of these games, I expect I'll lose, but I hope I'll at least make it competitive.

Reprints

Two games with huge reputations are being reprinted this year (at least according to the companies reprinting them). One I already have, but the other . . .

• 1830, the classic train game that spawned a huge line of games (well, not quite accurate--1829 actually pre-dates 1830, but 1830 was the first 18XX game published in the U.S., and it's the game that generated the insane love for the series). Mayfair Games will be reprinting it, apparently with some variant rules. I own the AH original, so I'm not interested in this one, but it's nice to see the game will be available again. Of course, the fact that several dozen 18XX games are already in print diminishes the excitement for this one, I suspect, but I think a lot of people will still pick this up.
• Breakout: Normandy, long regarded as the best of the area/impulse games (and according to some the best Normandy campaign game), has been out of print for years. L2 Design Group will be reprinting in time for WBC. This is a game I'd love to try, but given their other games I expect this will be very expensive, so I doubt I'll get it. Of course if someone wants to donate it to me, I'd humbly accept.
  

It's the CRT, stupid

As I've probably mentioned in this blog (and I've certainly said it in my podcast), I'm not very good at most wargames. It takes me longer to get a decent understanding of how to play than most people, I think. I've figured out one reason why this is the case--the CRT (Combat Results Table). The CRT is a staple of many wargames--usually you calculate the odds of an attack, roll a die (or dice) and cross-reference the roll with the appropriate odds column on the CRT to figure out what happens. Most results are fairly standard--units are damaged or eliminated, retreats, etc.

However, every game has a different CRT, and when learning a new game you need to actually study the CRT. Different CRTs can produce wildly different results. I tend to think all CRTs are like the classic Avalon Hill ones, like in The Russian Campaign, so I tend to play that way. Which often leads to bad results.

For example, the CRT in the excellent game A Victory Lost is pretty mild--even at high odds, most attacks don't directly damage or kill units. Instead, retreats are by far the most common result. Since eliminating units is a key way to earn victory points in that game, you really need to know that about the CRT and adjust your play accordingly. Other games have much deadlier CRTs, or ones that favor the attack or defense. I have a feeling if I studied CRTs more diligently, I'd probably be a little bit better at some of these games.

PBEM, anyone?

Basically the only gaming I get to do these days is play by email, especially using Vassal. I haven't actually played a PBEM game in a while, and I'd like to get back into it. So I'm wondering if anyone out there is interested in playing any of the following, using Vassal (and ACTS, if appropriate):

• A Victory Lost
• The Russian Campaign
• WWII: Barbarossa to Berlin
• Fire in the Sky
• Victory in the Pacific
• Hannibal: Rome v Carthage

Keep in mind that with the exception of TRC, I pretty much suck at all of these games, and want to play to improve. So if you're looking for a challenging opponent in these games, look somewhere else.

Also, because of my very tight schedule, I may only be able to do a turn or two a week (that's a cardplay or two a week in a CDG). Some weeks I'll be able to do much more, but sometimes I simply won't be able to do that. So if you're looking for a really fast game, look somewhere else.

If anyone is interested, let me know.

The Battle for Moscow

I've spent a bit of time lately toying around with Battle for Moscow, a small and freely available wargame covering Operation Typhoon at the end of 1942. The game was originally published by GDW back in 1986 as a free giveaway to get people in to wargaming. I have no idea if it succeeded at that, but it did succeed as a fun and quick-playing wargame. I think you could probably finish this one in two hours or less, especially after you get to know the rules (not that they're particularly complicated).

As much as I like longer wargames (e.g. The Russian Campaign, maybe the greatest wargame ever), it is nice to have a game like this that moves quickly and can be played in a short period of time. Especially now that I have kids, time is very precious, and I can get the wargaming fix in a short time.

By the way, Victory Point Games recently published a new and cleaned up version of this one. And VPG has also published several other games by Frank Chadwick using a fine-tuned version of this system.

Classic Empire and Its Wargaming Legacy

Recently I rediscovered Classic Empire, a computer wargame from the '70s (apparently the earliest version was finished in 1971). Dubbed "the wargame of the century," Empire uses ridiculously simple graphics (letters designate terrain and units) in a game of world conquest. In the earliest versions, one player waged unrelenting war against the computer until one side was annihilated. The game included armies, fighters, and variety of naval units. The game was in many ways simple, but surprisingly sophisticated (especially given when it was programmed). For example, it includes a simple yet compelling economic engine at its core.

I first played Empire in roughly 1988, and immediately fell in love with it. It's an incredibly fun and addictive game. I go through phases where I play it extensively for a few weeks, then don't play it again for a year or two. Thankfully it is freely and readily available. If you haven't played it, you should.

If you play it, don't expect sophisticated graphics. Even the current version has very simple graphics. And the original didn't even have real graphics. But it's *fun* and addictive.

So how does this connect to wargaming? Well, the obvious answer is that it is a wargame, and one with staying power--it's been around for closing in on 40 years. But it also has a connection to board wargaming. It starts with a game that Empire exerted a huge influence on--Sid Meier's Civilization. In the early days of its publication, before the lawsuits started flying, Meier freely admitted that the two major influences on his game were Avalon Hill's Civilization and Empire. You can see this clearly in Meier's game--the economy is based on cities, each of which can produce something different. In fact, if you approach Empire after playing Civ, it would seem to be Civ focused solely on conquest, and with no technological advancement.

Unless you've been living in a cave, you know that Civ has been massively successful (the 5th edition recently came out, so it is still popular). Avalon Hill, trying to capitalize on computer gaming in general (and probably on the success of Civ in particular) created a computer version of Advanced Civilization in 1995. This led to lawsuits. In 1997, AH sued MicroProse, the makers of Civ, claiming that the computer game was a derivative of the board game. Then things got ugly. It turns out that AH didn't own the Civilization board game--instead, they had licensed it from Hartland Trefoil back in 1981. So MicroProse bought Hartland Trefoil, revoked AH's license, and promptly counter sued AH and its computer company partner. AH was forced to relinquish the computer version entirely and pay several hundred thousand dollars to MicroProse. Shortly after the settlement, AH was acquired by Hasbro, ending Avalon Hill as it had existed for decades. The largest wargame maker basically no longer made wargames.

So the battle between Civilization and Civ contributed to AH's downfall, a huge blow to the wargaming community. The lawsuit certainly wasn't the only factor in AH's demise, but it contributed to it significantly, and may have been the final straw. And Empire influenced Civ.

So what we clearly see, with impeccable logic, is that if Empire had never been written, AH would still be around today making wargames. QED.

The Convoluted Lineage of Third Reich

One of the most famous wargames ever produced is Third Reich. The game was originally put out by Avalon Hill back in the '70s, and has gone through a series of permutations and expansions. I am not that familiar with any of the versions except the fourth edition, so I would love to know how the different variations compare.

Anyway, here is the basic lineage:

• Original game: Avalon Hill published four editions of the original game. I believe that there are substantial differences between first and second editions, but after that the changes are fairly minor in new editions; I could be wrong, though.
• Advanced Third Reich: As if the original weren't complex enough, AH published advanced rules in 1992.
• Empire of the Rising Sun: The rules were ported to the Pacific Theater in 1995. I've heard that this one has major problems, but I haven't played it myself, so that could be incorrect.

This is the end of the AH run of the game; AH went out of business a few years after Rising Sun came out. But the development of Third Reich kept going:

• John Prados' Third Reich: Originally published in 2001 by Avalanche Press, then updated a few years later, this one bears the name of the original designer, but I don't think John Prados actually had anything to do with this one. I believe that this one significantly changed the game, especially combat (from CRT to bucket-o-dice combat). The original version had some rather harsh reviews, and I don't know if the later updates fixed those.
• The Great Pacific War: In 2003, Avalanche ported the JP3R system to the Pacific Theater. I've read some pretty good reviews of this one, but I don't know how representative those reviews are.
• A World at War: GMT has published this monster, which combines the ETO and PTO. Its rule book clocks in at nearly 200 pages. My impression is that this version adheres much more closely to the Advanced Third Reich than the Avalanche Press branch of the family tree. Adam Starkweather wrote a rather scathing review of this one in Paper Wars #59, but it has a devoted following.
• Global War: According to Starkweather's review, the hardcore 3R gamers play their own, constantly evolving version of the game that they call Global War. It is based on A World at War, but with many rules tweaks since that game was published.

I'd love to hear from someone who knows these games about how the Avalanche Press and GMT branches of the Third Reich family compare. At the very least, I doubt we've heard the last of this line of games.

Few Games, Huge Quality and Influence

There are a few designers out there who only have a few games to their credit, but the quality and/or innovativeness of their games is huge. There are two that I want to point out who I think sometimes get overlooked when talking about the great wargame designers.

First is Courtney Allen. If you don't count expansions, Allen has only 5 games published under his name that I know of--but they are insanely good and ground-breaking games. First is Storm Over Arnhem, a game which shook up wargame design by getting rid of hexes and replacing them with areas of different sizes. It also broke up the turn sequence: rather than an IGO-UGO system, in Storm Over Arnhem players alternate moving some units in impulses. The resulting system is thus called the area-impulse system. This system hasn't taken off the way card driven games has, but it's had a major impact. One of the highest rated wargames out there, for example, is Breakout: Normandy, which uses this system. Also, MMP has a whole series of area-impulse games (some published, some in pre-publication still).

Even more innovative, though, is Allen's design Up Front. Up Front gets rid of hexes and counters entirely, shifting the game to cards for units, terrain, attacks, and other facets of infantry combat. To this day, Up Front is often worshipped as a great game--and I fully admit that I'm one of the worshippers. It's an insanely great game. Unfortunately, it's been out of print for a long time, and it's very expensive to acquire. I bought it in college, so I don't need to worry but I'd love to see it come it back. MMP has the rights to reprint it, but it's been lingering (literally a decade); I don't really understand why it's so slow. And oddly, despite the high praise, Up Front hasn't really spawned a lot of imitators. Some other games use parts of its design, but the only game that has really built on it in a big way is Allen's own Attack Sub, which ported the system to Cold War naval struggles.

The second designer I want to highlight is Craig Besinque. Besinque's games have all been block games, and although he didn't invent the genre he pushed in ambitious new directions, yielding some of the most highly praised wargames today. In particular, Besinque is best known for two brilliant games: Rommel in the Desert, and East Front (both from Columbia Games). Both are deep and rich games without being overly complicated; both have very clever and playable ways of simulating limitations on command and control. Besinque's latest design (this time for GMT Games) is Hellenes, a simulation of the Peloponnesian War, and it looks to be an outstanding refinement and expansion on the Hammer of the Scots-style block game.

So let's take a moment to appreciate brilliance of these two designers. I think they may have the highest batting averages of all wargame designers--only a few games under their names, but the quality of their games is staggering.

PS: Does anyone know what became of Courtney Allen? I've seen no evidence that he's designed a game in twenty years. I assume he moved on to fields that actually pay a living wage, but gaming is poorer for his absence.

Wargames I Want To Play (IGS Edition)

Over the last several years, MMP's International Game Series has produced some remarkable (and remarkably successful) games. There are many, many games that I'd really like to play, and three of them come from this game line.

• A Victory Lost: I've played this one maybe 4 times, and quite like it, but I haven't played it enough to get past the "holy crap, I suck at this game" stage. I think I am slower than many other gamers in figuring out strategies and tactics that work with games, and this one is no exception. But it's a fun game, and I'd love to play more.
• Red Star Rising: I'm a sucker for eastern front games, and this one looks to be a very good one. I've heard it's unbalanced towards the Germans, but I still want to try it.
• Fire in the Sky: A game that looks like it'd be tricky for me to figure out, but one that also seems incredibly cool. I have played very few PTO games; I'd like to change that.

It's all about firsts

So what's my gaming background?

I got into gaming way back in the late 1970s. My first real move beyond normal games like Risk was the Dungeons & Dragons basic set (now referred to as the Holmes edition), sometime in either '78 or '79. I quickly moved on to AD&D 1st edition, and played the hell out of that for years. My gaming tapered off a number of times, but I was always able to get back into the hobby.

My first real move away from D&D-style games was in grad school. Through some great friends in Chicago, I got into games like the original World of Darkness games, Over the Edge, Amber Diceless, and a number of others. We continued to play D&D, but I moved away from Chicago shortly before D&D 3.X came out. In fact, I have little experience with D&D 3.X or 4.0; I've played *much* more 1st and 2nd edition AD&D.

In the last few years, I've gotten into Savage Worlds (which I am very sick of) and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, as well as some Call of Cthulhu and Traveller.

As to wargaming, I got started a bit later. Sometime in the early '80s, a friend and I became all but addicted to a computer wargame called "Eastern Front." We played that thing for hours. My friend's dad had played some of the classic Avalon Hill games, so we went out and found Afrika Korps. That was my first board wargame, and I've continued to play such games since then.

My favorite wargame is probably The Russian Campaign. I also quite like some of the card driven games, especially Hannibal and Paths of Glory. And I love Up Front. I've actually written a few reviews for Paper Wars, although that publication's erratic schedule means that several I've written have yet to see the light of day.

While playing wargames, I also got into a variety of non-war non-family type boardgames. I'm not sure which was the first; I remember playing several games like Kremlin and Junta in college, but I may have played some others before that. Of the Eurogame type, I got a bit of a late start--I played Settlers of Catan for the first time several years after it came out. I'm by no means a hardcore Eurogamer, but I quite like some of them, especially Settlers and Age of Steam. I also quite like the 18XX games (although I've only played a few of them) and some of the crayon rail games.