| Hobby Games: The 100 Best Preorder »
August 06, 2007
2006 CSR Award Winners
Congratulations to the 2006 Charles S. Roberts Award Winners, which were presented at the 2007 World Boardgaming Championships.
Here are your winners!
Best Pre-World War II Boardgame
Here I Stand (GMT Games LLC)
Best World War II Boardgame
A Victory Lost (Multi-Man Publishing)
Best Modern Era Boardgame
Winged Horse: Campaigns in Vietnam, 1965-66 (S&T #239)
Best DTP-Produced Boardgame
Battle of the Little Bighorn (Khyber Pass Games)
Best Magazine-Published Boardgame
Golden Horde: Kulikovo 1380 (Against the Odds #18)
Best Wargame Graphics
A Victory Lost (Multi-Man Publishing)
Best Professional Wargame Magazine
Against The Odds
Best Amateur Wargame Magazine
Line of Departure (Jim Werbaneth)
James F. Dunnigan Award
To a Game Designer, Developer, Graphic Artist or Game for outstanding achievement
Tetsuya Nakamura & Adam Starkweather, A Victory Lost (Multi-Man Publishing)
We will be updating the official web site for the CSR Awards to provide a comprehensive listing of all category nominees. Note: Due to insufficient votes, the 2006 CSR Awards did not declare winners for other categories not listed above, nor name an inductee for the Clausewitz Hall of Fame.
06:06 AM in Industry News | Permalink | Notify Friend
Comments
Congratulations to the winners!
I admit I am somewhat puzzled that "Napoleon at the Crossroads" didn't win the awards for best graphics and that "CC:Europe" for best WWII Game.
"A Victory Lost" is good, but not that great IMHO. Low replay value, and too garish graphically. :-(
Posted by: Carl Paradis at August 6, 2007 07:12 AM
We will be posting a news story once we have the CSR Awards site updated with the complete list of nominees. We anticipate this will be completed before end of the week. Thanks for your patience! Note: most category nominees are listed from recent "Industry News" stories posted here. You can view them by selecting the "Archives by News Dept." pulldown menu in the top right column and by selecting "Industry News" to view them.
Posted by: John Kranz at August 6, 2007 07:17 AM
I couldn't disagree more about CC;Europe vs. AVL.
AVL is a fantastic game and a lot of fun and well deserving of the Best WW II wargame. Tremendous replay value, especially with the activation chits.
CC; Europe is fun, but a different type of game.
Posted by: John Tex at August 6, 2007 07:42 AM
Grenier Games demands a recount!
Congratulations to all the winners! :)
Posted by: Eric Grenier at August 7, 2007 12:03 PM
While a fine game, AVL is a reprint. As such it should not have been eligible.
Posted by: Joel Tamburo at August 9, 2007 10:17 AM
The CSR Committee does not agree, per the posted nominees. AVL is, for all practial purposes, a new game for the American market. There is no chance for a non-English language version of the game to gain any traction for the awards. Also, the game had some add'l development done to it -- similar to Afrika from MMP. Furthermore, it is not a straight reprint. The IGS line is off to a good start for MMP, as many English-speaking gamers can now experience these initial Japanese-release titles.
All the nominees this year are great titles which many gamers are enjoying.
Posted by: John Kranz at August 9, 2007 06:20 PM
I would add that there is precedent. The Avalon Hill version of The Russian Campaign won Best Strategic Game in 1976.
Posted by: Jim Dauphinais at August 9, 2007 09:16 PM
> Tremendous replay value, especially with the activation chits.
True. What about the replay value of CC:Europe?
Far superior to AVL. As is the fun factor and the gameplay.
Ditto for the Graphics of "Napoleon at The Crossroads" compared to AVL: it's a work of art.
Posted by: Carl Paradis at August 16, 2007 07:42 AM
AVL is a very fine game, too retro for my tastes. But what breaks it for me are the small chits and hexes...unplayable, especially in light of the wonderful modern trend of 5/8" counters and large, roomy hexes.
Plus, to be frank, CC Europe is a much more important design. It blends Up Front and SL into a CDG-type game that is unique and has proven to be very popular with a wide range of gamers, creating some much needed momentum for the war gaming genre. AVL deserves a silver medal, and the designers deserve their Dunnigan award- brilliantly executed game. I only wish that the scale had been adjusted to have a smaller map (w/the larger hexes as mentioned) and fewer units.
Posted by: Jackson Riker at August 16, 2007 08:11 AM
To be fair, AVL is still very good, it's not new, it was designed in 2001 as a magazine game (named "Struggle of Army Group Manstein"). A bit basic. The play feel it reminds me of "Panzergruppe Guderian" modernized. But nothing that will shake the hobby.
Posted by: Carl Paradis at August 16, 2007 10:15 AM
"But nothing that will shake the hobby."
Except that all it does is win awards and sells like gangbusters (not that you would know that, of course).
We are quite happy to have AVL in our line of games.
Posted by: Brian Youse at August 16, 2007 05:10 PM
Many wargamers tend to gush and lose their sense of perspective when they see all the cards, the multitude of scenarios and maps, colorful counters, and black-and-white photos on the cards of CC:E and think it's a great game. Compared to it, AVL must seem sparse. But AVL's minimalist design is more robust than CC:E. AVL is brilliant in doing what it does with what it doesn't have.
Posted by: Elijah at August 16, 2007 09:00 PM
I'm not sure I see the point of comparing the details of AVL and CC:E. The only thing they have in common is that they're relatively simple games on WWII themes. Their mechanics and scales are entirely different.
"Best Game" is subjective. More voters liked AVL better than CC:E., that's all. CC:E is a more innovative design, but that has nothing to do with whether it's a better game.
I'm wondering if there are more specific criteria for the Dunnigan award than "Outstanding Achievement," which is pretty subjective as well.
Posted by: Aaron Silverman at August 17, 2007 11:19 AM
Post a comment
