You have guest access to browse, login, or register.

 On the Table
Read Today's News | Watch Today's Videos | CSW Brief #7
367 News Items for March [updated 18 Mar.]
I want to: [Join | Subscribe to Forum] | [Receive News | Submit News] | Buy/Sell | Donate | Report Problem Post]
XML RSS feed

Go to:

 [F] CSW Forum  / Boardgaming  / On the Table

This is the place to talk about the game you are currently playing and why -- is it the topic matter, were you inspired by a book, because of a friendīs recommendation, because of the publisher or the designer? We invite everyone to post here your current gaming activities, so members can get a quick sense of what is presently hitting the table tops. Be sure to also take advantage of any topics dedicated to the game you are playing as well for more in-depth discussion. This topic is now spotlighted at our news site, so please post on-topic!

Please be courteous and do not repost pictures posted here without first obtaining permission

Your moderator - Allan Rothberg

Attachment:

Leviathans.jpg



Older Items Oldest Items Outline (older msg: 75512)

Markus_St - Feb 27, 2016 3:09 am (#75513 Total: 91301)  

 
[Markus_St]
This week, Chris and I took Excalibre's version of Battle for Stalingrad off the table by mutual agreement after three sessions. I've never been a great fan of Stalingrad as topic. But urban combat is a hard topic that is not often tried, so I was curious to see how John Hill approached it, and it seemed among the more approachable Stalingrad games.

In usual Excalibre fashion the game is relatively lavishly produced, but with graceless design and careless editing of the components they are actually responsible for. A glossy very sturdy box and a fat glossy rulebook and a separate booklet with analysis articles, very crude covers with a blocky font too wide apart. The rulebook is in space-eating and inconvenient single-column format, apparently OCR'ed from the SPI one without anyone ever actually proofreading it for OCR errors. The supplementary book, listed as "layout by Charlie Kibler" has two-column format. Why couldn't they let him do the rulebook? Anyway, at 30 pages, there's a lot more rules than I expected for an SPI game of that size.

From a production POV, the saving grace were the map and counters which are basically the same as the Six Angles version and have the usual beautiful Six Angles aesthetics.

Setup was a fair bit of effort, in particular since the German units are set up by division (but are not grouped like that on the countersheet). This is led ad absurdum when one realises that from the first move on, the divisional IDs don't matter - units are simply piled up by type. Pointing that out in the setup would have saved a lot of time and peering at unit ID's. So there are lavish setup and reinforcement charts but really the individual counter info should be ignored, you just pick any (say) 5-4-12's at random.

Anyway, we spent an evening on setup and then two short evenings on the first turn, which corresponds to the introductory scenario. The game has a fire-based combat system which I normally like, and a very unusual sequence of play, allowing for serial attacks by the "overrun" and "breakthrough" mechanisms, unpredictable Soviet reaction by chitpull, and opportunity fire (called "instant counterattacks") whenever a stack moves adjacent to an unactivated unit. Sounds like it's ready made for solo play.

I had read a lot about the game before I even bought it. It obviously has many fans. It left us cold in play. There was no real feeling of conducting any historical operations, just going through the moves as directed by the sequence of play, with lots of movement point counting to see whether 18, or 24 MPs could reach a particular hex. It is often mentioned about how it is design for effect, well, I've played John Hill with enjoyment for decades but perhaps this is one step too far for me. Especially since it looks as if some of the major effects are artefacts of the game, such as the need to take the Mamayev Kurgan immediately so that the Russian reaction speed is halved. Observation post or not, that seemed excessive. At no point did I have the feeling that what I was doing sort of connected to the historical campaign, it feels more like an abstract optimisation problem with piles of near-faceless counters going through the attrition machine every turn, or stacks racing clean across the city because it's obvious which city blocks contain no Russians. Constant references to "the effects of column X of the TEC are not applied in this situation" did not help. (On the map they are actually rows, not columns. Excalibre strikes again.) Oh yes, and there is the old "trace supply lines of any length snaking anywhere around the map as long as it's not a ZOC or blocked" rule.

Our sessions tend to be relatively short, so we spent one session setting up and two playing the first turn, which corresponds to the "Introductory Scenario". Everyone seems to agree that that scenario is unwinnable (the F&M review, which I read after we stopped, points out that the Germans historically managed to get four of the eight VP locations required for victory, and the analysis articles point out that it teaches the wrong lessons for the campaign, so why is it there? We were only eyeing the victory conditions with one eye anyway as we originally were thinking of just doing the campaign but I couldn't see how one would have gone beyond six. You'd think that in three editions someone would work out to improve this but since they couldn't even bother to fix typos...

In play, the Germans (as is recommended) immediately went for the Mamayev Kurgan, after the bombardment had removed the screen in front of it, and took it at the cost of 7 battalions out of 11 or so; they barely managed to get in. (First photo, center). The southern units then pushed through to the southern ferry hex. Since all the units in the center were expended hitting the Kurgan, no one was in reach to take the central ferry hex.

(Theoretically, a way to get to the central ferry hex would be to keep a motorized engineer of the 295th Infantry division in the center in reserve - they have a movement factor of 18 - and then race it to the riverbank after the way has been cleared. This is a move of breathtaking gameyness, but if the chits cooperate I guess it could be done.)

Anyway, the forces in the south drove a wedge between the Soviet forces by driving to the southern ferry hex, cutting the southern sector off from the city center. The Soviets then finally got to react, cut the encirclements in the north and south to reestablish supply, but did not manage to extract many units. An attack from within the southern sector on the southern ferry was repulsed, but massive reinforcements were landed at the central ferry. They killed some German units and managed a serious counterattack against the Kurgan which failed.

The most successful part of the game is probably the combat system. It really drives home the meatgrinder nature in the way in which it flips units out of existence. Of course many of the German ones gcome back seemingly unharmed to be thrown in again. This, and the way in which losses are handled ("oh, I lost seven units, wait - engineers are in low supply and are not likely to come back so let's pick only one of those") adds to the aura of unreality.

After the first play session I read through the analysis articles to revive my flagging enthusiasm. They were more of a turnoff, being couched in entirely abstract, game oriented terms. I never got a feeling of reading something relating to the battle, it was just counter pushing. "Always plan an attack on a fortified structure so that you have at least 5/6 of a chance to occupy it". I've never seen a fire-based combat system subjected to this kind of factor-counting analysis but obviously it can be done. It was also amusing to see the exhortations to rely on powerful stacks to run long sequences of overruns or long chains of attacks based on breakthrough points - even overruns of single non-guard soviet units in clear terrain saw the defender usually rolling a '2' or less, taking the attackers down a notch, after a couple of instances of this the attacking stack was usually worn down to a nub.

It's not that I hated the game but it was a very curious mixture that left me detached. The F&M review basically said "you will like this if this is the sort of thing you like" - apparently it's not, for me. Perhaps I'll try this again solitaire eventually.


bfs_20160223_222100s


bfs_20160223_233706s

Markus_St - Feb 27, 2016 4:21 am (#75514 Total: 91301)  

 
[Markus_St]
Significantly more enjoyable, perhaps simply because we were well familiar with the system after playing 48th Panzerkorps last month, was last Saturday's game at Nev's place, our first go at its stillborn sister, 57th Panzerkorps, That game of course isn't out, PacRim having sat on it for 20 years, but I got to borrow someone's playtest copy to try out. It covers 'Winter Storm' offensive that took place a week later than the Chir River battles in 48th. Much longer though, 24 turns instead of 12. I was interested to see how this would work out, having played the multiple scenarios of the Vanguard Winter Storm scenarios of the offensive within the last couple of years.

The German first-turn attacks kicked of in fairly promising fashion, and managed to catch several of the Soviet artillery units in the backfield while trying to retreat out of the way. (Attacking artillery directly is dangerous but hasty attacks with tanks are still the most promising method, if one comes with a strong enough stack and the artillery is surrounded.) The 302nd Rifle division had been seriously bloodied and was falling back. (first photo)

However, it did not continue like that. By turn 3 (morning of December 13), the Soviets had rallied to the front, the Germans had not been able to sustain the breakthrough, and three vulnerable spearhead units had been bloodied. A sole AT unit was cut off and eliminated completely. There was some sparring for a couple of turns, but the steam seemed to be out of the offensive; by this time the Germans were historically at or across the Aksay river in the center of the map. (second photo)

That changed on December 14 (Turn 5) with the arrival of 17 Pz; that division, coming late to the party, hit a weak spot and managed to cross the Aksay in the west, near Generalovsky, and quickly got a foothold on the ridge south of Verkhne Kumsky. I think at this point the Russians suffered a crisis of confidence. Instead of quickly concentrating their by now considerable tank strength against the breakthrough, they fell back to the town, trying to just hold their now-extended line. This gave the Germans almost a day to clear out remaining Russian units in the backfield, and stretched the Russian line so far that 23Pz could achieve breakthrough near Samokhin on the eastern half of the battlefield. Here the Russians had been slow in falling back, being hindered by skirmishing Romanian cavalry, and the 91st Rifle division found itself cut off and destroyed in detail. The battle was now dominated by surgical attacks of the Germans that were taking bites out of the Russian lines. By December 16 (Turn 8 ), they had control of much of the ridge, and were threatening to outflank the Russians both along the western and eastern roads, had managed to cross the Aksay on the eastern side, and a unit of 17 Pz had even Myshkova in the west. (third photo) Both 4 and 13 Mechanised, two of the Russians' strongest corps, had taken serious losses their armour strength. Overall two rifle divisions and two cavalry divisions had essentially been wiped out, with seven motorised battalions of 4 and 13 Mechanised out of the fight. The last photo shows the eliminated units, with the exception of the stack of 2 Guards Rifle, a Turn 9 reinforcement, to the right of the game turn marker. At least five more tank steps had been eliminated from units that were still on the map, usually by coordinated hasty attacks. By carefully avoiding being caught in prepare attacks that would let the Russians apply their artillery, the Germans had kept their losses quite low.

We had to stop at that point. The Russians had strong reinforcements coming in now (2 Guards Army, diverted from the planned assault on the Stalingrad garrison) which would put up a much tougher fight, but forming a line would have been a challenge since none of the arrivals were motorized.

Overall, the same principles seemed to apply as in 48th PzK - effective concentration is the critical ingredient, and the Russians failed to apply it once 17th Pz showed up, bleeding them out. It was also interesting to see Verkhne Kumsky as the location of a major engagement since that was also true in the historical fighting.


57thpzk_start_P1070381s


57thpzk_t1g_P1070382s


57pzk_t3_20160220_184302


57pzk_t8_20160220_232824ms


57pzk_losses_20160220_233112s

Jon Gautier - Feb 27, 2016 9:20 am (#75515 Total: 91301)  

 
[Gautier, Jon]
BfS

Great write up, Markus. I guess I love it because I agree with every word and your experience mirrors mine (tee hee). I went into this game a year ago or so with very high hopes. After about three sessions, my opponent and I left off and I soon sold the game.

Not much to add to your comments. We played the old SPI version, which I actually liked just fine: sturdy and simple.

It obviously has many fans.


Yes, and if you read the CSW folder, you'll see that they have min/maxed this game to death. That should have been enough of a warning from the get go.

The most successful part of the game is probably the combat system. It really drives home the meatgrinder nature in the way in which it flips units out of existence.


Yes, and in theory I liked the integration of terrain effects with unit type for the combat system. But in practice it proved to be a real PITA (real min/max fodder here). I'm sure it flows well with lots of play, but after some play we lost our desire for lots of play.

After the first play session I read through the analysis articles to revive my flagging enthusiasm. They were more of a turnoff, being couched in entirely abstract, game oriented terms. I never got a feeling of reading something relating to the battle, it was just counter pushing. "Always plan an attack on a fortified structure so that you have at least 5/6 of a chance to occupy it". I've never seen a fire-based combat system subjected to this kind of factor-counting analysis but obviously it can be done.


Min/max. God bless.

Norman Stewart - Feb 27, 2016 12:25 pm (#75516 Total: 91301)  

[Stewart, Norman]
I'd love to see 57th Panzerkorps get published.

For that matter, I'd love to see the Winter Storm system modernized.

Stewart Newman - Feb 27, 2016 1:39 pm (#75517 Total: 91301)  

 
[Newman, Stewart]
Serbia/Galicia from the SPI quad, Great War in the East. Lovely system. But this one is hard going for the "Prison of Nations" (as some of the A-H subjects referred to it, I've just been told).

Ellis A Simpson - Feb 27, 2016 2:55 pm (#75518 Total: 91301)  

 
[Simpson, Ellis A]
Chickamauga from Glory 1. Having tried the Gamers' Barren Victory, and West End's Chickamauga, I continued my Dave Powell inspired look at the Battle by stepping down another notch in simulation towards playability.

The Glory system is chit pull activation, with three types of combat: artillery fire, charge, and defensive fire. Charge is close combat. Units have a front side and a disordered side. A disordered unit that suffers a disorder is withdrawn off the board. It may then recover - and return on its disordered side, with the possibility of full recovery - or be permanently eliminated.

I used the original activation chits, with the original optional Overall Command Capability rule. (I did not like the Corps level activation shits proposed with the latest rules, as it did not fit my reading of the battle.) Essentially, each division gets two activation chits in the Pool. But each turn, the total number of chits drawn from the Pool for that side which actually activate, is randomly determined. So, you get a good mix of chaos and uncertainty, and excellent solitaire playability.

I have played the first day through to a conclusion, but doubt I will try it again. It's too bland. The combat system leaves me cold. The activation system makes it a good game - potentially - but I am looking for more than that. I wish I had the space and time to attempt the Regimental level River of Death. When the designer tells you it will take a couple of hours for each game turn, you know you are in for a long game!

I took a look at the Avalanche Press game on Chattanooga and Chickamauga. The division level of the game does not appeal to me, so that will have to wait for another time.

Having finished volume one of Dave Powell's trilogy, I'll probably take a break from Chickamauga (unless volume two turns up sooner than expected).

Bob Titran - Feb 27, 2016 3:28 pm (#75519 Total: 91301)  

 
[Titran, Bob]
Chickamauga from Glory 1.


We had a good time with this one back in the day. I was just getting back into the consim hobby after a long absence, and it was my first Chicka game. I remember coming away thinking "Wow this is such a cool battle!" and I've been into Chickamauga games ever since. Enjoying your AARs!

Te Ly - Feb 27, 2016 5:41 pm (#75520 Total: 91301)  

[Ly, Te]
Operation Dauntless

We got Operation Dauntless on the table for a learning game in Falls Church. Check out the session report here.

Markus_St - Feb 27, 2016 9:12 pm (#75521 Total: 91301)  

 
[Markus_St]
I agree with every word and your experience mirrors mine (tee hee). I went into this game a year ago or so with very high hopes. After about three sessions, my opponent and I left off and I soon sold the game.


Thanks for the independent confirmation, Jon. :-)

Markus_St - Feb 28, 2016 2:21 am (#75522 Total: 91301)  

 
[Markus_St]
I'd love to see 57th Panzerkorps get published.


It was a serious breath of fresh air after the overwrought attempt (and the underwrought graphics) of ATO's Wintergewitter.

Tom DeFranco - Feb 28, 2016 4:00 am (#75523 Total: 91301)  

[DeFranco, Tom]
Ellis,

I had the same impression of Glory I's combat system - way too bloodless for the ACW, and especially the second bloodiest battle of the war. Fun, I guess if you want to lift a beginner into the hobby, or to play something quickly.

You're still waiting for Volume 2, Glory or the Grave? It's been out a while now. I have it, haven't read it yet, though.

Markus_St - Feb 28, 2016 4:11 am (#75524 Total: 91301)  

 
[Markus_St]
I had the same impression of Glory I's combat system - way too bloodless for the ACW


Yes, my impression, too. Unless you had the misfortune of defending close to the map edge, this was the original realm of the rubber routers.

Ellis A Simpson - Feb 28, 2016 4:24 am (#75525 Total: 91301)  

 
[Simpson, Ellis A]
"I had the same impression of Glory I's combat system - way too bloodless for the ACW, and especially the second bloodiest battle of the war. Fun, I guess if you want to lift a beginner into the hobby, or to play something quickly."


I think Rick Barber's Chickamauga map was the clincher as to why I tried the Glory system out again. (I love his maps. Well, most of them.) The chit pull version of activation that I used is good fun, but the combat system is way wide of the mark.

"You're still waiting for Volume 2, Glory or the Grave? It's been out a while now. I have it, haven't read it yet, though."


It's ordered and on its way. Often I can get books cheaper, including delivery, from Book Depository (BD), compared to Amazon. This, despite Amazon owning BD. That's the case here. (Sometimes BD only has the paperback version of a book, and I tend to revert to Amazon.)

Ellis A Simpson - Feb 28, 2016 4:28 am (#75526 Total: 91301)  

 
[Simpson, Ellis A]
"Yes, my impression, too. Unless you had the misfortune of defending close to the map edge, this was the original realm of the rubber routers."


The Glory III system has routers replaced with units being withdrawn, and possibly returning, and possibly being eliminated. (Rubber rebirth?) The more I played it, the more I disliked that aspect. I want ACW games at this level to reflect the grinding nature of the combat, and Glory doesn't do that.

Timon Berger - Feb 28, 2016 6:19 am (#75527 Total: 91301)  

[Berger, Timon]
On the table right now is the first wargame from Poland I ever played: Legnica 1241 from Taktyka i Strategia. A battle between the Mongols and Polish that historically was a decisive Mongol victory. And in the game too, the Polish will propably get overrun most of the time by the numerically superior Mongol horse archers.

But there is a what-if option that assumes the Bohemian army arrived in time for the battle which I am playing right now.

If you are playing without the Bohemians, as you can see from the setup, without them (the darker shade units) the Polish side has a lot fewer units than the Mongols! But also the Mongol reserve formation will be locked and the Mongols get a huge VP malus if they move them. With the Bohemian army also present the Mongol reserves can move freely.

Attachments:

2016-02-27 17.20.17.jpg (1393 KB) (192 Downloads)

2016-02-27 17.20.54.jpg (1269 KB) (95 Downloads)


Markus_St - Feb 28, 2016 6:22 am (#75528 Total: 91301)  

 
[Markus_St]
Big game.

Vince Hughes - Feb 28, 2016 7:57 am (#75529 Total: 91301)  

 
[Hughes, Vince]
Looks nice though!

I take it there is an English translation of the rules within the box rather than going through Google translate? If there is the translation of decent quality or does it raise any questions?

Vince Hughes - Feb 28, 2016 7:59 am (#75530 Total: 91301)  

 
[Hughes, Vince]
Just been to the Taktyka i Strategia site.

An interesting array of games for sure!

Timon Berger - Feb 28, 2016 8:21 am (#75531 Total: 91301)  

[Berger, Timon]
The site is difficult to navigate in English but just write them a mail, international orders are not possible through the website anyway. 20 € per game, which is a very good price for the components and game size if you ask me.

The rules and games are in Polish but there are English translations available, provided printed out together with the games and as PDF. The English in them is not perfect but - at least for Legnica, the only game I have played so far - doesn't raise any question, and there's lots of examples throughout the rules. And they are formatted well, you don't just get an ugly text-only version of the rules or something.

Vince Hughes - Feb 28, 2016 9:10 am (#75532 Total: 91301)  

 
[Hughes, Vince]
Thanks Timon


Newer Items Newest Items Outline (newer msg: 15769)


Check Messages   SearchPost Message     Email to Sysop  New User Registration  Login

 [F] CSW Forum  / Boardgaming  / On the Table


Go to:

Who's Here?   [ Richie Crowe Jr ] [ David Powell ] [ Stefano Cascarini ] [ Andrew Brazier ] [ Mike MacDonald ] [ MICHAEL BOROVSKY ] [ Rob McCracken ] [ mkiever ] [ Sven Weiler ] [ Herr Dr. ] [ Grant LaDue ] [ Rory "Hawkeye" Aylward ] [ Andrew Mulholland ] [ Mitch Soivenski ] [ Per F ] [ Simo Voutilainen ] [ Bruce Bonnevier ] [ Dav Vandenbroucke ] [ Yasuo Horiguchi ] [ McKinley Hamby ] [ 2 Guests ]

Terms of Use | Forum Guidelines