FAB: Siciliy

Eric's choice again, and he decided that next on the table would be the recent release from GMT, FAB: Siciliy, the second in the Fast Action Battles series, the first being FAB: Bulge, which I'm rather fond of after a couple of excellent games.

The first thing to note is that the rules have changed very little from the first game in the series. Although I hadn't played FAB:B for a year or so, the mechanisms came back quickly, and we didn't have to do much rule referring pretty quickly.

Additions to the FAB: Bulge rules are fairly minimal. Some rules for landings, and for the wobbly Italian morale, but that’s about it. Air units have been moved from distinct units to become assets, so they’re handled as part of the standard rules. Overall, pretty easy to play, and the rules are well presented, and thorough. Once you’ve been through the move/combat processes it sticks in the brain quite easily.

We spent an evening getting back into the FAB ruleset, playing the tournament scenario, then played the full campaign game over another couple of shortish evenings. Perhaps 5 hours for the full game, with a little rules confirmation and kibitzing. That first game played pretty quickly, although I was a trifle concerned that it was rather easy for the Allies to win. 

The Axis player has 8VPs at the start of the game: 5 from areas that score for both players (Termini Imerese, Caltanissetta, Catania, Val di Catania, and Niscemi); and 3 that only score for the Axis player (Syracuse, Palermo, Marsala). The Allied player has 0VPs at start. 1VP is also awarded for killing any large block, one that starts the game with 3 or more steps. The current victory level is determined by subtracting the higher score from the lower, so the Axis player starts with a net 8VP lead. So, for example, if the Allied player captures Niscemi, the score is 7VPs to 1VP, for a net Axis lead of 6VPs.

In the tournament scenario, the Allied player wins if the net score is 3VPs to the Axis player, or less, after 5 turns. Capturing Syracuse is 1VP, and Niscemi and Val di Catania are 2VPs each (1 lost by the Axis player and 1 gained by the Allied player). So, capturing those 3 areas give an Allied victory. Given that the British land in Syracuse, Niscemi is adjacent to Gela, an Allied landing area, and Val di Catania is only 2 areas from Syracuse, it doesn't appear too hard.

And indeed it wasn't. By the end of the 3rd turn (I think it was) my Allies had already done enough for the victory. The last couple of turns were just playing it out. The Allies have the stronger force, better assets, and a higher replacement rate. The Axis have a couple of good German blocks, but mostly just weak Italian garrison blocks. I don't recall any outrageous fortune on either side.

For the full campaign game we switched sides, but the outcome was pretty much the same. Requiring to get a net score in their favor to win, the Allies took Syracuse and Niscemi quickly. However, they had trouble getting into Val di Catania as I rolled like a demon with the strong forces there, rolling above average to score 5 or 6 hits in his first couple of attempts, and Eric chose to call off the attack rather than take the large losses.

By the time it fell during turn 6, Eric had also captured Caltanissetta and killed an Italian large block. That made the scores 4VPs against 4VPs, for a net 0VP, meaning Eric had 3 turns to score a single VP for the win.

There then followed 3 turns of ‘find the weak block’, which Eric totally failed at, as I successfully played a shell game. He also attacked into Catania, but, once again, I rolled well in my defenses and repulsed him each time. In the final turn it came down to Eric needing to roll 5 hits in 8 dice on a 50/50 chance in his at ton Catania. For pretty much the first time in the game he got the roll, captured Catania, as well as removing a large block, swinging the score by 3 VPs for a Decisive Victory.

I have several issues with the game.

Despite rolling like a demon for most of the game, the Axis still lost. If I’d been rolling averagely, the Allies would have captured Val di Catania, and been attacking Catania, a turn or two earlier, and won that much sooner. Eric rolled on or below average for most of the game. If he’d been on average, he would likely have killed more blocks and won that way. Yes, it was very close in the end, and Eric pretty much won with a Hail Mary, but if he'd been able to guess where my weak blocks were, and roll average on his attacks, he would have found the required VP there. The balance of luck was with the Axis, and they still lost. After just I single play I can’t say the game is unbalanced, but I’m sure not able to see how the Axis can win. They have to protect the VP areas, but doing that loses blocks, so they lose either way.

The second issue is that the game is very small. The British zone from Catania north is 1 area wide, and only 2 areas wide below that, so they have no real maneuver options. The US forces have more room to maneuver, but won’t get too far given the length of the game. Generally, the US has a choice of one or two areas to attack in, sometimes not even that. The only real choices are in the shuffling of the blocks, and how to assign assets, not in any choice of strategy.

Another issue is the VPs for large blocks losses. At the end of the game, I’ve seen it devolve into a search for the weak units for that final VP, quite common in our FAB:B games. Just feels a little off.

And that brings me to the biggest challenge I have with the game; it doesn’t cover the whole Sicily campaign, stopping about half way to the actual German withdrawal. That leaves an odd taste to the game; just as you think it’s getting interesting, it’s over. The US forces never get a real chance to drive to Palermo and capture the island; the Axis never really have to play a fighting withdrawal. The campaign just feels half done.

Overall, the FAB system works, and it’s a cool system, I like it. But Sicily just doesn’t work as well as Bulge, Not enough options, too small an area, not enough play, and it’s over before it gets interesting. I think I’d play it again, as with familiarity of the rules you can fit it into an evening, so it’s a good length, but I’d far prefer to play FAB: Bulge.

Eagles striking

My choice again, and for this week I proposed the recent Academy Games release, Strike of the Eagle. This covers the struggle between the Polish and the Soviets in 1920, although strictly speaking the term 'Soviet' didn't come into existence until 1922. I had played this recently with another gaming friend, and I thought that Eric would enjoy it.

SotE is, at heart, a block game in the Columbia tradition, played over a very good looking point-to-point mounted map, split into two fronts, north and south. The strengths (from 1-4 Strength Points - SPs) and types (Infantry, Cavalry or Leader) of the blocks are hidden, and they are rotated to reflect losses and/or additions. Unlike most block games, however, combat losses are not dictated by dice, but on a flat table, which dictates the losses inflicted for a particular attacking strength. All well and good, and pretty standard so far, but SotE adds 2 mechanisms.

The first is the orders mechanism used in A Game of Thrones. Each player has a number of order tokens that are used to command the armies, placing two orders per front. These include orders to move, defend, recover (steps), use rail, etc., and they are placed face-down, which provides an additional level to the fog-of-war aspect. You can see that orders have been placed on a group of blocks, but you have no idea whether they have been ordered to advance, defend, or fall back. Orders are revealed in a specific sequence, with the player with initiative deciding who plays first when revealing orders of a each type.

The second mechanism is the addition of cards, and it's a card supported game, rather than a card driven game (CDG). Each card has several potential uses, and as in most CDGs, can only be used for one of them. They can be used to increase the number of orders that can be placed on a front, in battle resolution as a combat modifier, to gain reinforcement points, or for the text on the card. This last can be either a historical event, a battle event, or a reaction card, which can be played at the times specified on the card for the defined effects (e.g. place additional orders, switching orders, prevent execution of enemy orders, etc.). Of course, the best cards are strong in all three options.

Each game turn has a card draw phase (draw 6, discard down to a maximum of 7), 5 Operations Phases (where the meat of the game is played), then a Reinforcement Phase. The Operations Phase is:

• Initial Card Play: each player may play a card on each front, starting with the non-initiative player for the northern front, initiative player north, then the same for the southern front; in the same sequence any played cards are revealed and the player states how they are being used, either for the Historical Event (after which the card is removed), to increase the number of orders for that front; or for reinforcement cubes, to add SPs at the end of the turn
• Order Placement: starting with the northern front again, the player with initiative declares who will place the first order, then they alternate until the full complement of order tokens determined from the previous step have been placed; then the same is done with the southern front
• Order Execution: Order tokens are resolved in the following sequence, with the northern front again being done first, then the southern front:
  • Forced March: initiative player decides who goes first; blocks move one extra space, but fight at half strength (round down); orders are either 'To' or 'Out'; the former is placed on the target are, and any blocks within range may move to that area; the latter is placed on the area with the blocks to be moved, and they may be moved to different areas
  • Recon: initiative player decides who goes first; if this is placed on an enemy-occupied area then the blocks have to be shown
  • Move: initiative player decides who goes first; blocks move 1 space for infantry, or two spaces for cavalry; once again, there are 'To' and 'Out' orders
  • Withdraw: initiative player decides who goes first; units in a battle area may move out of the battle area, but lose 1SP; cavalry may ignore the loss if only attacked by infantry
  • Battles: battles are executed from smallest to largest, treating both fronts together; starting with the attacker each player may play a battle event card, then chooses whether to play a combat modifier card from hand, for a +1 value, or to draw from the deck; blocks and cards are revealed, each side calculates total strength and compares this to the loss chart to determine the number of SP losses caused; steps are lost, step by step from the strongest block at that moment, the loser determined, and retreats and advances performed; adjustments to the initiative and VP tracks are then made, and you continue to the next battle
  • Reorganize: initiative player decides who goes first; one block in the area marked with this order may gain 1SP
  • Rail Transport: initiative player decides who goes first; up to 4 blocks in the area may move up to 8 areas following rail lines; blocks may be moved to different areas
• Supply: Blocks in areas that cannot trace a supply line to a Key City now lose 1SP per block; units that lose their last SP are removed, and 1VP is awarded to the opposing player; OoS blocks can only use Move Out, Withdraw, or Defend orders
• Victory Points: the VP track is adjusted for changes of ownership of Key Cities

OK, I've glossed over a few bits of chrome, e.g. Fortifications and Garrisons, but that's about all you need to know to get started. SotE is that simple it's brilliant. A wonderful amalgam of mechanisms that leave you with deliciously angst-filled decisions to make. Fog-of-war on top of fog-of-war. What are those blocks in that area? A couple of weak brigades or are they full strength divisions? What order has been placed on them? Are they defending or planning to advance? What if they're cavalry and Force March, how far can they reach, especially knowing that there's a Reaction Event card that allows cavalry to move through enemy blocks? Should I use this card for the powerful Historical Event, or keep it for more orders? Or for the high combat modifier? Delicious, delicious, delicious. Eric and I played through the first 2 scenarios in one evening, then for our upcoming full day of gaming chose to play the full campaign, it excited us that much.

Now, if I could stop there, this would win game of the year, decade, and century, and could be my first '10' on BGG, it's that good. However, I can't because the rules are just plain goddamn awful. Atrocious. Ridiculously bad. More holes than a holey thing. SotE suffers from, to paraphrase Mr. Ballmer, "Development, Development, Development". Or, rather, the lack of it. This game is 2-3 months short in it's development, suffering from an obvious lack of play-testing, editing, and even rudimentary proof reading.

When I first looked at SotE, I got as far as the first actual rule, discounting the component descriptions, setup, and overviews, before I found that the example of play contradicted the actual rule. That gave me cause for concern, and it got worse. Confusing terminology; terms used to mean different things in different places; examples that don't agree with rules; play-aids that don't agree with rules; game situations that aren't covered. Not just in the rules, but in the cards as well. When I first played SotE we spent about half our afternoon wrangling over possible meanings of the rules, and what to do in situations that weren't covered. When I played Eric we found even more situations that had us scratching our heads. At least by this time a lot of questions had been answered on BGG and in the FAQ/Errata. However, on one BGG thread the Academy representative admitted that he hadn't decided what the rule should be yet. WTF? You've published the game and you still don't know what the rule should be?

Eric opined that the problem is that the rules were written to fit in the available 8 pages, but I'm not sure that I agree. In my view the biggest problem is that the verbiage is just plain bad, and a good editor would solve most of the issues by being consistent in term usage and clearer in the prose, and still fit within the 8 pages. The second big issue is that more (and better) play testing was required, especially blind play-testing, to find those areas that weren't covered adequately. (Heck, even I could see major rules omissions just from reading them, without even having to play it.) Again, judicious word choice and phrasing would have addressed the issues identified, without taking up copious amounts of extra space.

So, after SotE, and the preceding Conflict of Heroes farce (where the game rules had a major makeover from the first game to the second, substantially changing the game play), I now would not buy another game from Academy Games that hadn't hit at least a second edition. I'm done with buying games where I have to throw the rule book out and print a set of rules that could, and should, have been done right the first time. Chad Jensen, with his exemplary Combat Commander ruleset, has shown it can be done. It takes a commitment to doing it right, and not just pushing the product out the door.

The big question is whether these are the worst rules ever? We've excoriated Prussia's Defiant Stand from Worthington Games, Fury in the East from MMP, and The Devil's Cauldron, also from MMP, in the past, but in my view, SotE takes the prize. Mostly, however, that's because I really, really, like this game (just in case it wasn't clear by now), and it's frustrating as all get out to see it substantially reduced by a shoddy job in the final stretch to publication.

Overall verdict: go play this game; just don't buy it until the second edition hits the streets.

Oh, and in our game Eric's Poles resigned when it was clear after 4 turns that the Soviets were going to win an automatic win. But that's not important right now.

Back to the fun bits

And, we're back.

I'd like to say I did something interesting in the year it's been since you heard from me on this blog, but (other than a wonderful trip to Europe with my wife for a combo 10th anniversary/40th birthday gift) that hasn't been the case. Mostly, two things have shut down my writing on this blog: I was working on two simultaneous, parallel documentation projects at work that severely diminished any desire I had to write, and Mike and I were playing OCS Korea for most of the year. We discovered that really big games make poor incentive to blog. Various non-gaming life issues jumped up as well cutting us way back on gaming in the fall, and so that left us with a grand total of four posts this year up until now.

Not acceptable.

My work duties have shifted to a new project, and Korea's been packed away (or will be shortly.) We've made it through the end of 1950, and we will complete it at some point. Just not now. After some discussions, we decided we wanted to get back to what got this blog moving in the first place: evening two-player games and what we think about them. So, if you're ready to hear our slightly-informed opinions every week or two again, we're ready to start writing them. Right... about...

Now.

Mike and I got GMT's new Command & Colors: Napoleonics on the table last week. I'd been curious about this one, as I find the C&C system quick and enjoyable, but don't particularly care for Battle Cry – the version of the game closest in time frame to the Napoleonic wars. Also, the Napoleonic era is about my least favorite one to study. As a result, I didn't preorder this game. But, never being one to pass up a good game, wanted to see what it was like.

C&C:N is, frankly, not very different from C&C: Ancients. The production is very similar, and I think they use the same terrain tiles. Readers of this blog will likely be familiar with C&C:A, so I'll highlight the differences between the two games:

• Ranged fire is more powerful.
• The number of blocks in a unit changes per national characteristics.
• Similar units (say, Line Infantry) fight differently for different nationalities.
• The number of battle dice you roll is a function of the number of blocks remaining in the unit.
• Units down to a single block may not be able to battle due to terrain modifiers.
• There is much more terrain in the game. MUCH more.
• Many of the scenarios involve terrain objectives.
• Infantry can form square

There are more differences, but these highlight the major points. Let's just say that playing this game like you'd play C&C:A will cause you to lose. Badly. And that's a good thing. It also much more closely resembles C&C:A than Battle Cry as far as rules complexity goes. And that's a good thing as well. I was fearing this game was Battle Cry with Bicorns. It's actually closer to C&C:A with gunpowder. In all the good ways.

Mike and I decided to start off at the beginning and played the first two scenarios, randomly drawing sides. As fate would have it, I drew the Brits/Portuguese each time. These two scenarios cover positions early and late within the Battle of Rolica. (Apparently the first battle in the Peninsular War involving the British.)

I attempted to push on my right flank with the Portuguese, as my opening hand was right-flank-heavy, but they failed miserably. Eventually, I gained some center cards and began advancing there, trying to focus on using artillery. Mike got to four of his required five flags quickly (three of them thanks to the Portuguese) but after I started forcing the action, pulled back to a 4-3 deficit with victories in the center. Shortly thereafter, Mike got his fifth flag, breaking my position.

As is typical with this game, both of us tended to run out of cards in the sectors where battles were the fiercest, and of course you have no idea your opponent is in the same boat. We felt we had the rules down pretty well, so we moved on to the 2nd scenario. This involves the exact same unit mix (except the Brits get a third leader) but radically different terrain. This one forces the Allies down lanes with impassable hills between them to assault a hill infested with French infantry (and one unit of artillery). Not an easy task.

I lost this one 5-2, I believe, and realized I was doing something very wrong. I'd been playing with the very Ancient approach of leading with the cavalry and having the infantry mop up. Not how it works in the Napoleonic era. You need to soften with artillery, push with infantry, and punish weak positions with cavalry. Particularly when you're assaulting a good defensive position, as you are in this scenario. If I play this one again as the Brits, I'd have a very different plan.

So, I lose two scenarios. I had some poor dice, Mike had some good dice (including five hits out of six dice in ranged combat against a single unit), but nothing earth shattering that would invalidate either play.

Those are the high-level reports of the gaming, but the important bit is what did I think about the game?

First off, it surprised me. After reading the rules (and only the rules – I had not seen any of the other components), I had a feeling it was going to be better than I initially expected, but the gameplay exceeded even those thoughts. Despite how light the C&C series is, this game will make you think. You've got puzzles to solve as well as battles to fight.

Secondly, the game gives the feel of Napoleonic warfare without getting into too much detail. There are bits of chrome to distinguish the varying fighting styles (e.g. the French line infantry get an extra die when in melee against infantry, but the British line infantry get an extra die when firing without moving) but the chrome doesn't get in the way. Exactly the level of abstraction I'd expect from this series.

Eight out of 10 from me, with the understanding this will probably go up as the line is expanded with other nationalities and scenarios.

Finally, a bit of a soapbox moment.

There's already been a bit of talk about “fixing” the game after a play or two because of some perceived superiority in one of the troop types. This is the kind of talk that has soured me on a lot of gaming lately – people make pronouncements about games very early without giving the games a fair shake. This is particularly bad with wargames, as that “fair shake” may involve 20-40 hours of play to really get a feel for what's going on.

Of course, this involved someone who is a self-proclaimed “Napoleonics buff” who has a different idea of how things should go. This is exactly why I was turned off of Napoleonic gaming back when I was a heavy miniatures player. For whatever reason, this particular era has a knack of attracting know-it-alls who are more than happy to tell you you're doing it wrong. As a result, I simply won't play Napoleonic miniatures. It's not worth the angst.

In this era of the internet, these people get a voice a lot louder than they deserve. I've seen many situations where games have been played once, discounted because they didn't meet the expectations of the initial player (who usually has way more time on his hands than should be allowed), and the game is subsequently shuffled off and ignored by a large number of players who'd probably like the game. That early dissenting opinion gets parroted rather than challenged. And there's a lot of games that don't get the table time they actually deserve as a result.

This whole phenomena has completely turned me off the primary boardgaming websites I used to frequent (BoardGameGeek and ConSimWorld). I now no longer go on there except for reference purposes. The interest in finding out about what's coming up has been completely squashed by people who, frankly, are most interested in hearing themselves.

So, while I used to occasionally re-post these blog entries on the Geek, I no longer will. I have no interest in shouting above the din. I will, however, be creating a Twitter account specifically for the blog, and will throw little tidbits up there as they cross my mind. I'll post details when those are available. I'd be more than happy to have you follow.

If you like what I write, great. I hope to be providing you semi-regular content for the foreseeable future. There's been a ton of great new games released in the last couple years, and lots of them are on our schedule.

If you don't, I'm sorry. But I do completely understand. There's no shortage of other game reviewers/reporters for you to read. Thanks for the time you've given us so far. Hopefully, we'll draw you back at some point.

And, with that, the return is complete. Next week's game is Washington's War.

PDS - take 2

One of the things Eric and I wanted to target was going back to games we'd previously played and giving them a second go. So far, due to so many great games that we wanted to play being published, we haven't been able to do this, but with the delays in starting our OCS Korea game we had a few weeks to fill in. And so we decided to get Prussia's Defiant Stand (BGG entry) from Worthington Games back on the table. In our previous playing (Eric's take, my take) we had a rule or two wrong, suffered badly from the DSDF, but generally really liked the game, despite some of the most atrocious rules ever.

This time around we kept the same sides, Eric as Frederick and the Prussians, myself as the coalition (Austria, France, and Russia/Sweden). In fact the game opened the same as our previous affair, with Frederick marching on Dresden. This time around we played that all face-up blocks on the battle board were 'engaged' and eligible to take hits, rather than hits having to be taken in the block class (Leaders, Infantry, Cavalry). The rules clearly states that any 'engaged' block is eligible to take hits, in fact it's in bold, but never identifies what is an engaged block. Anyway, Eric takes Dresden without too much trouble, while I play a waiting game, building up Austrian strength. 3VPs to the Prussians.

In the second year, the French and Russian arrive in turn 3, immediately pressing forward. The Russians besiege Konigsberg, the Swedes take Stettin. The French have advanced up to Dresden, and with an Austrian force and the aid of a card that allows two armies to both take part in the first round (normally one would be a reserve, joining in during the second round) I pound his forces into submission, but take a lot of losses in the process.

Meanwhile the Russians have captured Konigsberg, and start to move forward. I attempt a forced march, but roll 4 '1's in 6 attempts, and lose 4 steps. Not trying that again. The Austrians now push forward, and besiege Breslau. This is where we make our only real rules gaffe, and miss that both Breslau and Cosel are now out of supply, and should be losing steps.

Eric attempts to extricate his force in Cosel by attacking into Breslau, but against a stronger force he comes off the worse and only the leader makes it back to Gloggen.

I push the Russian Cossacks forward, and they capture the weakly defended Gloggen, but a large fight for it develops, as Eric counter-attacks, and I try to reinforce. Eric comes off the better this time and retains Gloggen, but Breslau falls to siege.

Going into 1760, we're both fairly weak, the victory track is at 4VPs in my favor, having just earned 6VPs at the end of 1759. Eric has some work to do to regain some VPs or he will lose at the end of the year, as 10VPs is a game-ending decisive victory condition. (You earn VPs at the end of each year for the enemy cities you hold.) However, it's now 2230, and we have to call it a night. It's going to be tough for the Prussians to come back from this one. Even if they capture a 3 VP city back, it just postpones the loss by one turn. But without Frederick, and generally weak on troops, it's going to be a hard fight just to survive this turn, and we agree that an Allied win is the most likely outcome.

OK, so after a second play, has anything changed? Not really, it's still a very engaging game. Good length, interesting choices, good mechanisms. A proper set of rules would go a long way to making this game more acceptable, as they are really bad, even in the 2ed. Some other gaming friends tried this with the 1ed rules, gave up on it, and won't try the game again. I feel that's their loss, but it's only a small one, as there are so many great games out there that they won't suffer from a lack of games to play.

And that's where I think that Worthington (and they're not alone in this regard) have kinda shot themselves in the foot. They've produced a fine little game that deserves to see some table time, but the rules were so bad that people won't play it. Why fight through the ruleset to find out whether the game is worth playing when there are many other games in the queue all shouting 'Play me!'?

I can see this game being great for a Sunriver WBC-W bash.

My only concerns are in play balance, as I felt I had a relatively easy time of it. Then again, that card that allowed me to bring in my two major forces in the attack on Dresden was major, as it allowed me to take out a strong force and Frederick. After that, building up and attacking to Breslau made that and Cosel out of supply, and it seemed like an easy win. Knowing that, the Prussian player may need to withdraw out of Cosel, or be a bit more aggressive in defending Breslau.

All it shows is that even after a second play we still need to get it back on the table again. And I'm pretty sure it will make it, despite those rules.

Richard III

With possibly a single night to fill in, Eric wanted to try the latest release from Columbia Games, Richard III (BGG entry). This is another in their very successful and mostly excellent block games. Specifically, it follows very closely in the heels of Hammer of the Scots (BGG entry) and Crusader Rex (BGG entry), with only a few changes from HotS. However, a couple of those changes are fairly significant, especially the change to the combat hit resolution.

In HotS, each hit scored by an attacker was removed from the currently strongest defending block, evaluated hit by hit, i.e. 2 defending blocks, each with 3 strength points, receiving 2 attack hits, would lose a single strength point each. This also allowed you to roll for all units of a single class (A, B, etc.) and hit capability together, with the hits removed as a single group. In R3, however, all hits from a single attacking block are removed from the single defending block with the highest strength. This means that you have to roll each attacking unit individually, removing hits after each roll, so combat is a little slower in R3. It can also be rather devastating, as a good roll can see a unit removed from the map.

The second part is the way that blocks can be switched from one side to the other by treason. Some of the nobles are rated with a '1', '2', or '3', which is the number of dice that have to be rolled in a treason conversion attempt, with all dice having to come up even in order to be successful. So a '1' rated block has a 50% chance, a '2', 25%, and a '3', 12.5%. The downside is that this is done as part of combat, and is another option in the fight/flee action choice, and only the king, the pretender, or one other Yorkist noble are allowed to attempt treason rolls, so it's not a huge part of the game.

The cards are used in generally the same way as HotS, with each player being dealt 7 cards in each of the three turns (campaigns), playing one card per turn. The cards are either actions or events (some also with actions). Each action point may be used to activate an area for movement, or used as to place a reinforcement block, which are placed in their home areas.

The game starts in 1460 with the Lancastrians in control of England, and nary a Yorkist to be seen. They land from France and/or Ireland, and their first aim is to get a foothold in England, allowing the placement of reinforcing blocks. From there they have to expand and push for the control centers, and London is a good target. The aim is to become king by having a majority of nobles on the board, with London and the two Archbishoprics counting one point each. Whoever is king at the end of the third year wins. It's good to be the king.

Victory can also be claimed by killing off all 5 of your opponents blocks representing their princes. Only 3 start on the board, and as they are killed off, the others are brought on to replace them. Of course, if you manage to get all your princes killed then you were probably going to lose anyway.

In our game I played York, and had a tough time in the southern landings from France. My foothold was more a toehold, and it wasn't looking good at the end of the first year. In the second year I landed a strong force in the north with some of my best blocks, which Eric promptly attacked, coming off by far the worst, as I had the superior force (in steps, and capability), attacking before him. We also had a fairly epic struggle over London, and by the time the dust had settled at the end of the campaign, England had a new king, of the Yorkist variety.

The third year saw more battles around London and the south, as Eric had a good swing at it, but the battles went my way. Up north my position almost crumbled after a spectacularly bad move on my part, but poor rolling on Eric's part saved the day for me, and I was able to keep the crown for the win.

Overall, quite a superb game, one of the best that Columbia have done. Good length (we played in approx. 2.5 hours), good gameplay, interesting decisions. Definitely one that will hit the table again and again. Whilst there has been some talk on BGG regarding the use of reserves in battles, and how that's not really historical for the era, I'm comfortable with the way it works out and it provides a great story (and I'm not normally one for a great story). As a game it provides all the angst of all the other block games, and it's just damn good fun to play.

Go buy this game, you'll have a blast!

In the meantime, as the Hube's Pocket continues, next on the table is MMP/The Gamers' Bastogne, another from the SCS collection, one that Eric and Chuck raved about when they played it out at the Sunriver WBC-W event.

But what about the Princes?

(edit: major gaffe on my part, swapping Yorkist for Lancastrian - misread the initial setup while writing the blog and just went with that rather than thinking. The below text is now correct.)

Due to some of the physical constraints Mike mentioned in his last post, we were in need of a one, maybe two-week stop gap until we could get OCS Korea onto the table. Fortunately for me, Mike had recently received a perfect candidate for this exact purpose: Richard III, Columbia's most recent block game covering the Wars of the Roses. This is designed by Jerry Taylor, the designer of other gems such as Hammer of the Scots and Crusader Rex. I'd been looking forward to this one for a while, but hadn't gotten around to actually ordering it yet.

For those not familiar, a typical “block” game implements a “fog of war” mechanism through the unit strength only being visible to the owning player. Stickers are applied to one side of flat square blocks that are stood on end during play. Think Stratego. Richard III is no exception. For those more familiar, you'll recognize the game's heritage right away. The core game engine is very similar to Hammer of the Scots.

The gist of the game is that the Lancastrians are in power, and the Yorkists are attempting to gain control. Most blocks represent Nobles and their retinues, but there are also militia, bombards, and mercenaries.

A signature feature of this conflict was the wavering loyalties of many of the nobles. This is most famously exemplified by Lord Stanley changing sides on the field at the Battle of Bosworth. As you would expect, Nobles can switch loyalties here as well.

A brief rundown of the game goes as follows:

There is a deck of 25 cards. 19 of the cards provide action points, and six are events. You're dealt a hand of seven cards at the beginning of a seven-turn campaign. Each turn, you'll secretly choose one of the remaining cards in your hand and both players simultaneously reveal them. Higher numbered action card goes first, though events win out. If there's a tie, the current Pretender goes first.

During your turn, you can spend your action points to activate spaces to move or recruit units from your pool. If both sides have units in an area after both players activate, there's combat. At the end of each turn, there's a supply check. You do this seven times, then there's a Political Turn between campaigns. This is where levies and mercenaries disband, you check if the Pretender has usurped the thrown, and Nobles return home. Whomever is the King at the end of the final Political Turn after the third campaign is the victor. It's possible to score an automatic victory if you can manage to kill all your opponent's heirs as well.

For those that have played Hammer of the Scots or Crusader Rex, here's where I see the important differences:

• Nobles can only change sides via a Treachery attempt during combat. This uses up the unit's attack for that round as well.


• In combat, all of the hits from a single unit must be applied against the opposing strongest unit – you don't apply them hit-by-hit. This really changes the dynamics of multi-unit combat.


• There isn't a “muster” option when spending action points. (you can't nominate an area for units to move to. Only from.


• If both sides play an event simultaneously, it doesn't end the turn.


• When the Nobles winter back home, it's more forgiving than in Hammer. Most Nobles have multiple “home” areas from which to choose.


• When you recruit a unit, you choose it from your pool. It's not random.

There's a few other things that differ, but those are the highlights.

The starting situation is very asymmetrical. The Lancastrians start on the throne and in control of nearly the entire map. The Yorkists have to move their way onto the map and gain a foothold. They also have, as a general rule, stronger units than the Lancastrians. So, the Lancastrians are basically holding on trying to keep the Yorkists from getting themselves established.

I haven't gone through and analyzed the map comparing home areas for terrain advantages or anything like that. There's likely some other advantages to two sides have that we didn't notice in one playing.

But I did come up with this much to say: This might be Jerry Taylor's best game.

Given the popularity and success of Hammer of the Scots, that's saying something. Time will tell on balance (Crusader Rex certainly went through some tweaks getting the balance right) but Richard III seems cleaner and more forgiving than Hammer while keeping all the decision angst. Crusader will remain a good game, but a distant third to the other two.

If you're into this sort of game, this comes recommended. If you're not sure, but have been curious, this is a great entry point. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm predisposed to liking games on the War of the Roses (I've painted many a longbowman figure in my day) so I might be overlooking a wart or two. And we have only played the game once. This is going right to the top of my Christmas/Birthday list, though and I'll be buying it if I haven't received it as a gift by then.

But we still don't know for sure about the Princes.

First Look at Prussia's Defiant Stand

(I've been fighting a massive head cold while writing this, so apologies in advance for any inaccuracies. I blame them entirely on the pharmaceutical industry.)

Mike wanted to get Prussia's Defiant Stand on the table last week. This is Worthington Games' block game on the Seven Years War released in 2006 (I believe). If you've played other block games, you'll recognize elements of many other games such as their own Forged in Fire, and Columbia's Crusader Rex and Hammer of the Scots.

The general structure of these games are you are dealt a hand of cards and each simultaneously choose a card for each round on a given turn. Various rules are used to determine who goes first each time, etc. Supply is checked at various intervals to ensure you don't get units isolated, and VPs are scored as you take various major cities on the map.

Many game-specific rules are used to simulate the events of the SYW. This conflict saw a newly preeminent Prussia fighting off Austria, Russia, Sweden, and France. England assisted financially (and in other theatres with troops and ships) but Prussia's Defiant Stand concentrates on the area in what is today Slovakia, The Czech Republic, eastern Germany, western Poland, and Austria.

Maria Theresa had just ascended to the Austrian throne, and Frederick the Great, king of Prussia, decided to force matters and invaded. This eventually brought Austria allies, and Britain joined in on Prussia's side to balance matters. The conflict quickly spread around the world. In the Americas, it's known as the French and Indian War. Major conflicts also occurred in India (the Third Carnatic War) and elsewhere. It was, truly, the first World War though it lost that title to the monumental conflict 95 years ago.

In the actual war, Russia and France joined in after the first winter of 1758. This is handled in the game by not activating Russian or French units until the 3rd card play of the 2nd turn. (There are 5 card playing rounds in every turn but the first) Also, Catherine The Great (Empress of Russia) died during the war – her heir, Peter III, was a HUGE fan of Frederick, and immediately pulled Russia out of the war – this essentially saved Prussia as a sovereign nation. In the game, this is handled by rolling dice at the beginning of the last three turns to see if Catherine dies. If she does, the Russian and Swedish units are immediately removed from the map. This starts as an 8-or-higher roll, but an extra +1 is added every subsequent turn.

Forewarning: the Deansian Statistical Distortion Field (an effect documented in detail in the past and elsewhere) was in full effect during this game.

Prussia's Defiant Stand is a good physical production. Attractive usable map; clear, well-made cards, and easy-to-read stickers on the blocks. The rulebook is physically attractive, but we'll get to the contents later.

There are three game mechanics that I feel differentiate PDS from other block games: Supply being checked after every round, Friction of War and related turn-sequence subtleties, and the combat sequence. Let's look at these items in detail.

The supply situation is checked after every card play (i.e. five times per turn) rather than at the end of every year. Each player simultaneously checks that every unit can trace through to a supply source. If you're in enemy territory, every city on the trace route must contain a friendly unit. Besieged fortresses can supply garrisons within, but at the cost of a step (this is a rule I think we missed the one time it likely came up.) In addition to the supply check, during this phase players can coalesce identical units in the same city. You just add the steps of one onto the other, and place the eliminated unit back into your force pool to be reused as a reinforcement later on. Finally, existing sieges are resolved in this phase. Roll a die, and add the number of steps under four left on the fortress. If the result is 7 or more, it surrenders, otherwise, it's reduced a step (but goes no lower than 1.) This means you've got a 50/50 shot at claiming a 1-step fortress. Something Mike managed to fail at in something like 8 of 9 attempts.

The turn sequence is a bit interesting. After you've revealed your chosen cards, the player of the lower-valued card chooses who goes first. Units/leaders are activated (without needing to state for what purpose) then the Friction of War table is referenced. This may keep leaders from moving, allow one side or the other to inspect blocks, etc. After this, then each player performs actions with their activated units. It does make for some interesting decisions if you're the one getting to choose who goes first. Knowing where things are going to be activated is valuable, but sometimes you want to get the jump on the other guy. A good feature here. My one complaint is that the Friction of War table blends in to the map so well, we frequently forgot to roll on it. And, as there's no aid card with the sequence of play on it, there was no effective visible reminder. It's an issue in learning the game, but over time wouldn't be a problem.

Finally, let's look at combat. There's a few tweaks in here from the typical block game. When opposing forces end movement in the same city, combat happens. The first side into the city is the defender, the other is the attacker. Combat is similar to other block games – one die per strength point of the unit, and it needs its combat value or higher on a d6 to hit. In many other block games, different blocks are rated A, B, or C to indicate when they fight in a round of combat – in PDS it's decided on the class of troop – leaders, infantry, and cavalry in that order. First you deploy – infantry and leaders are fighting, cavalry are formed up and not necessarily committed yet. Reserve forces are placed in reserve. Then you move to the first round of combat:

1. Defending Leaders fight


2. Attacking Leaders fight


3. Defending infantry fight


4. Attacking infantry fight


5. Attacking cavalry may move from form-up to charge


6. Defending cavalry may move from form-up to charge


7. Cavalry fight simultaneously. If one side has more cavalry than the other, the excess inflict their hits against opposing leaders/infantry.

Now, in looking back at the rules, I realized we played a rule wrong, and this is due to a failing in the rulebook. The rules say hits are applied to opposing “engaged” units, but “engaged” is never defined in the rules. You have to dig into the combat example in the updated rules to see that infantry are engaged in round one before they actually fight, and the initial leader hits can be applied to them. We didn't play this and applied all leader hits in the first round to the opposing leader. As leaders are out of the game when eliminated, this really affected the result. Particularly since Frederick (who inflicts hits on a 3 or higher) hit on 9 of his first 10 shots. I think he personally took out two leaders. As those hits should have been spread around, Mike would have had more leaders later in the game leading to more operational flexibility.

After round one, any cavalry that charged are moved to melee, reserves are deployed, and combat now becomes simultaneous. You continue fighting until one side retreats or is eliminated.

At any point during the combat, a side may choose to retreat the class of units due to fight. If they do so, the opposing class gets to fight unopposed. It's completely unclear from the rules if these hits are to be applied to all engaged units (including the units about to retreat) or only the retreating units. We played the latter, but the 2nd edition of the rules hint at the former. In either case, it's completely unclear.

Finally once one side completely retreats from the battle, if the other has a surplus of cavalry, one hit per extra opposing cavalry unit is inflicted in the pursuit.

So, what Seven Years War specific effects are added into the combat? There are three that I see. First is the lack of defender advantage after the first round. No problem with this one. Second is pursuit after combat ends – again, looks good. A superiority of cavalry in this era was important, and the 1-hit-per unit sounds about right. What I'm not sure about is the leaders-fighting-first bit. This was not the era of leaders (at the level represented by the block) fighting from the front. I can see that they're trying to model the effect of better commanders, but it seems a bit contrived. They say right in the rules that Leaders represent the generals, their staffs, artillery, and supply trains. Yet they're frequently the best fighting blocks you have. This doesn't sit well with me but I haven't come up with something better yet.

Finally, let's look at the rulebook. I want to say right off that this is not a complex game. How they could then manage to mangle the rulebook in so many ways is beyond me. Key terms (such as “engaged”) are not formally defined yet frequently used. There are two versions of the rules on Worthington's website – one is the original rules as included with the game, nicely formatted, and the other is a horrendously formatted .DOC file with updated rules. The updated rules are MUCH tighter than the original, but are physically difficult to read and still contain holes. One example comes to mind – at the beginning of the 1761 turn, you start rolling for the Tsarina's health. If she does not die in 1761 – and I quote - “Each subsequent year a +1 is added to the dice roll.” Is this cumulative? It doesn't say. In addition, there is a card that lets you add or subtract 2 from this roll. The card says “Play during the Tsarina's Health Phase.” As the health phase consists of a die roll, how do you play a card during a die roll? It's either before you know the result or after. And this isn't addressed anywhere that I've found.

I guess I do spend a lot of time complaining about rulebooks, but when you're doing what we've been doing (playing a game that's new to us nearly every week) you spend a lot of time in them. And it's not always fun time. After playing I asked Mike whether this rulebook was worse than Devil's Cauldron's rulebook and we decided it was – at least the TDC rulebook seems to have all the information in there, it's just finding it that's difficult. This one is simply incomplete, and the updated version helps in one way but takes three steps back with atrocious formatting.

In the end, though, this game has promise. Maybe it's just because I'm a sucker for the SYW overall, but I think this is a nice representation of the conflict in a block-game style. One problem strategic SYW games have is how to model Russia's exit. I haven't yet examined how Clash of Monarchs does it, but Friedrich's deck of fate is one way, and the Tsarina's Health die roll is another. It can be frustrating to have your plans wrecked by a single die roll, but you have to know going in that it's a possibility and plan accordingly. (It's been said that Friedrich should be viewed from the Allied perspective as having the game endpoint be before you start in the deck of fate and any time you gain through the deck is bonus time.) I certainly want to play this again sometime, and am will be adding it to my want list.

Freddy dies, Prussia wins

You know, sometimes I wonder why I bother to play these games, as the game experience is just atrocious, and this was another of those experiences. On the table was Prussia’s Defiant Stand (BGG entry), from Worthington Games, which I’d recently traded for. This is a combined block/CDG, very much in the line of some of the Columbia games. Decent game, good tension, nice presentation, but terrible rules.

Let’s start with the presentation. Nice looking box, well constructed. The map is mounted and is excellent. The blocks are, well, blocks. Mostly decent, without too many with obvious blemishes (which would allow identification of units/strengths), but many were significantly smaller than the others. Not a huge issue in and of itself, but those were smaller than the labels, which meant some trimming was required. Speaking of labels, functional, clean, but several had sticking issues, and are already coming away from the blocks. My biggest gripe is with the cards. While they’re printed on decent stock, they’re of a non-standard size, which make them a real pain in the butt for those who like to protect the cards with sleeves. Why not pick a card in a standard size?

Finally, we come to the rules. Whilst they have some nice graphics, they proved to be full of holes and unclear in places, especially around combat. Fortunately there is an updated set out on the web-site, and I would suggest that you not attempt to play the game without them. Whilst we’ve been critical of rules in other games, it’s even more heinous in this case as the game is pretty simple and straightforward, although it’s sometimes hard to tell from the rules. I’d hate to see Worthington try anything as complex as The Devil’s Cauldron.

Mechanisms are really very simple. The game is divided into years, with each year having 5 regular rounds and a wintering round. In each of the regular rounds players may choose a card from their hand of 7 for the year, which acts as their command card, allowing a certain number of operations/actions. These can be used to activate leaders (and their attached army units/blocks), individual units, recruit new units, or strengthen fortresses. Activated leaders can either move or marshal forces from nearby areas, acting like a magnet, attracting units to them. Cards also have events, and movement/battle effects on them, so often you have the choice to make on whether to use cards for operations or effects, possibly leaving yourself with having no command card to play in a round.

Wintering comes at the end of each year, and means that units have a strict stacking limit. (Effectively, it’s not really stacking.) A city by itself can support one block, a fortress 4 blocks, and a leader up to twice their current steps, with each location having the highest of the three, i.e. they are not additive. Any blocks in excess of this limit are removed, e.g. a city with a fortress and 5 blocks would have one block removed, as the limit is four blocks (for the fortress). Any cards remaining in hand at the end of the turn are discard, the deck is shuffled, and the next year starts.

So you move your armies from city to city, in a game of cat and mouse, until eventually opposing armies end up in the same city location, and a battle is fought. Units are split up into their different types, leaders, infantry, and cavalry, and placed on the battle board in their respective areas. Battle is fought in a series of rounds, with the defenders firing first in the first round. Leader units fire at opposing leader units, infantry at infantry, with the ‘to hit’ number on the block. (Mostly 5 for infantry, leaders range from 3 to 5.) If there are no units of the same type then they can fire at the other type, e.g. leaders at infantry. In subsequent rounds combat within a type is simultaneous, and losses are taken from the highest strength engaged opponent, regardless of type.

Cavalry is handled differently. They start the battle in a ‘Form up’ box, and may be committed against opposing cavalry, or against opposing infantry (for a +1 DR modifier) if you have more cavalry units in the battle than your opponent. In the subsequent round cavalry move forward to melee against their selected target, at the end of which they can choose to continue the melee or to move back to ‘Form up’ mode and start the process again.

When it comes to their turn to fire, each type may choose to retreat, leaving the battle, however, the opponent gets a final chance to fire. I felt this was a little too strong, for the level of the game, especially as there is also a cavalry pursuit rule. (If the victorious army has more cavalry units, they get to roll the difference, with '6's scoring further hits.) You’re going to take the same hits whether you fight or retreat, so you might as well stay and fight, and too often it meant the total obliteration of an army.

This may sound a little complex, but it’s really pretty simple in practice, and you get into the swing pretty quickly.

Fortresses and sieges are handled differently. Each fortress has a strength, and at the end of each round you perform bombardments, rolling 1d6, with a +1 modifier for each strength point below 4, requiring 7+ to capture the fortress, i.e. a 1 step fortress has a 50/50 chance of being captured. If the fortress is not captured then the besieging force loses a step. There is also the option to assault, but with an automatic step loss for each step of fortress strength, neither of us tried it.

Victory is measured in terms of VPs, which you gain by capturing your opponent’s cities, only some of which have fortresses, which need to be captured in order to claim the city. Gain lots of VPs and you may score an automatic victory, 10 required for the Allied player, 9 for Prussia. If no-one has scored an automatic victory by the end of 1763, the higher VPs wins.

There are a few additional rules to handle the bigger political scene. Prussia gets a VP in each of 1760 and 1762, if still in the war. If they are losing in terms of VPs at the start of the 1760 turn they receive 2 cards fewer per turn from then on, which reflects the loss of British support. For the Allied player, starting in 1761, a roll is made for the death of the Tsarina - a roll of 8+ on 2d6 means the Tsarina dies and Russia and Sweden are out of the game, although there are 2 cards in the deck that modify this roll by +2.

Pretty simple, huh? Some nice mechanisms, good chrome, all within a game that plays in around 4 hours. So I was looking forward to playing. Eric played Prussia, and opened by besieging Dresden with Frederick, following history. I marshaled some units and sent an army to attack him, attempting to raise the siege. And this is where my game started to go downhill. In the initial Leader Frederick rolled 4 hits on 4 dice (requiring 3+ to hit), killing my leader outright, and it got worse. I lost my entire army, losing 21 steps for against a loss of 12 for Eric.

In the next turn The French moved forward, Frederick tried to block and in the ensuing battle Frederick again rolled 4 hits from 4 dice, the French were annihilated, losing 26 steps against 13. However, this reduced Frederick’s force enough that I was able to follow up with an Austrian army under Loudoun and remove Frederick from the game. Another major battle lost in the same fashion meant that I had now lost 6 leaders to Eric’s two, and was barely able to command forces.

By 1760 the Russians had moved forward, and I was actually ahead in VPs, from using the Cossacks to threaten here and there, drawing forces away from his sieges allowing me to relieve them and sneak a point or two here and there. This meant that Eric’s hand was reduced to 5 cards. In the meantime I’d pushed him back from his incursion into Austria, besieging several fortresses, as well has having the Swedes push south. However, I proceeded to miss 9 out of 10 50/50 siege rolls in the turn, losing 9 steps in the process, and ending the year overstacked, so had to lose another 3 blocks.

At the start of 1761, I, of course, rolled 8 to remove Russia/Sweden from the game, the one time I needed the Tsarina card in hand was the one turn I didn’t get it dealt to me. With only 1 Austrian leader left on the board and little in the way of units left I resigned, as Eric would quite likely have scored an automatic win in that or the next turn.

Another decent game, made almost a farce by the dice. Whilst Eric had a little to do to score the win, mostly he just had to sit there and watch my forces implode. Even when I had a numerical superiority, I couldn’t get any results that mattered. Whilst Frederick is a tough nut to crack, scoring hits on 3+, in the first battle he scored on 9 out of 10 rolls, and twice rolled 4 hits from 4 dice to remove the opposing leader in one go at the start of the battle. Sigh. Still, the game itself is good, and I'm not going to hold this farce against it. Definitely goes on the 'Thumbs up' pile.

Oh well, never mind. I’ll be back next week for whatever Eric chooses

Saracens Take Jerusalem (Crusade Declared a Success Regardless)

Thursday saw Eric and I facing off over the Holy Land in a game of Crusader Rex, a Columbia block-game set during the Crusades - the 3rd Crusade, to be exact - in the late 1100s (1187-1192). I'll state right up front that my knowledge of this historical period is sketchy at best, so I don't have much to say as to whether the game "accurately simulates" anything - but I can also say up front that our game Thursday was an enjoyable, and closely fought, match between Saracens and Franks (aka Crusaders).

It's probably important to note, as well, that we were playing with the 1.4 version of the rules (the latest, to the best of my knowledge) - I had played Crusader Rex early last year (with the rule set as initially released) and found it much less balanced, with the Franks having a very tough time of it. I lost again - this time playing the Saracens - but enjoyed the experience much more than last time, as it felt as though both of us were in the game up to the very last. If a single die-roll had gone differently (Eric's garrison in Egypt, doing winter attrition) on the last turn, I'd have won. In fact, after the game, Eric pointed out a move I could (probably should) have made and won the game outright (taking Acre with a small force from Damascus - it would have required a forced march, but Eric didn't have the forces he would needed drive me back out, and had left it un-garrisoned). Sadly, I didn't see this - I had forgotten that I could force march, and discounted that move as it was 4 stops away from Damascus, rather than the 3 my units could move normally. Ah well - the game was very tight, and tense throughout - as the Saracens, I never really felt as though I was at risk of losing my starting locations (other than Egypt), but I was constantly under pressure trying to react to Eric's attacks, especially on Jerusalem and Tripoli, and also had to see to the defenses of my home cities (which I did poorly for Egypt, but did fairly well for Aleppo and Damascus).

In our match, it became clear that the two sides were pushed to take very different approaches - Eric, as the Franks, tended to concentrate his forces into the few major locations, while the Saracens, under my command, also tended to form large forces (a side-effect of the typical Columbia rule allowing a group of units to be activated and moved en-masse), but Saracen units are more mobile than the Franks typically are (a movement of 3, compared to a typical movement of 2 for most of the Franks, with some exceptions).

The victory conditions of the game are whoever controls a majority of the 7 major cities - Antioch & Aleppo in the north, Tripoli, Damascus & Acre in the middle, and Jerusalem & Egypt in the south - win after the final turn in 1192, OR if either player ever controls all 7 of those cities they win immediately. I suspect the "sudden death" ending isn't terribly common, because it's quite tough to take a major city if it has any garrison to speak of!

As the Saracens, my forces started out in control of Aleppo, Damascus and Egypt, which puts the Saracens on the offensive in that they must take at least one of the other major cities in order to have a chance at victory. Fairly early in our match, I was able to take Tripoli, on the coast of Lebanon, as well as gathering a strong force in Tiberias, just west of Acre, but also close enough to Jerusalem to be a threat.

This brings to mind another interesting element of Crusader Rex - Winter, which is the last of six rounds in each year, are typically used to disperse your forces (making them harder to gather and use easily), as you are required to have forces winter in towns that have enough capacity to handle them. If you winter in a town friendly to your side, you can hold 3 times the normal capacity of a town you have captured from your opponent. This forces, at the end of each year, both players to disperse their units in order to avoid being eliminated by the harsh winters. The Saracens also have an added challenge - normally, in winter, units can use the value of the city they are quartered in to rebuild their strength. Saracen units, however, only get the full benefit of this if they are in their home city (stated on each block, and where they start) - otherwise, it costs them 2 town points to restore 1 point on a block away from home. I don't recall this rule from my initial playing, and it is the one that I think most successfully balances the Saracen mobility - Saracen units can travel very quickly across the board, but it doesn't do to get them TOO far from home, especially if they've seen battle, as they become difficult to restore to full strength when not in their home locales.

Most of the battles in our game were in cities initially controlled by the Franks - other than capturing Egypt with the French crusader blocks, due to my unwisely leaving Egypt ungarrisoned, the Franks never brought the battle to the Saracen home countries - which I suspect is accurate, given that the trigger of these crusades was, apparently, the Saracens taking Jerusalem. I am certain that, had I been more alert, I could have taken the game (I never really felt as though I had a chance at the "all seven cities" victory condition, but I probably should have been able to keep 5 of the seven).

Eric asked me if I had ever felt "threatened" as the Saracen - as I mentioned, I didn't feel as though my "home" territories were threatened, no, but I felt constantly under pressure from the Franks, especially as the English and French Crusaders entered the game (the Germans showed up so late as to not have any effect on the game, other than to secure Antioch). Those units are so dominating - especially given the ability to use the Knights Charge - doubling the number of dice rolled at the risk of some hits to your units - that they were definitely a focus of my defense. I suspect that is probably as it should be - the Saracens need to go on the offensive, and if they can keep the pressure up, they should. One of my failings was I didn't follow up a late year strong showing in a battle in Antioch, where I knew the Franks were weak, even with points to rebuild. I should have attacked Antioch again early the next year, as that would have given me the potential of eliminating more of the Frank defenders while they were weakened from the previous combat.

I really enjoyed our playing of Crusader Rex - much more so than my first playing, due in large part to the rules improvements, although it might also have had to do with being the Saracens as opposed to the Franks in my first playing. I need to give this game a try as the Franks, with the current rules, to fully form an opinion, but this was an entertaining evening, only lasting a bit longer than our aim of 3 hours (I think we wrapped up around 11:30 or so, after getting started around 8:15 or 8:20). I really like the "block games" in general - both the "fog of war" element, and the stepped losses, really make for an elegant system that wraps quite a bit of decisions into a simple implementation. The map and "history" in this particular version is definitely interested - especially given that a lot of these places are still in the news today (for similar reasons).

As to our next game, I am likely to select either BattleLore or C&C:Ancients - largely this will depend on whether Eric has BattleLore (if he does, that's my choice). Until next week, then!

No need for a 4th Crusade. We're fine.

Game: Crusader Rex
Franks: Eric
Saracens: Tim

I decided to pull out Crusader Rex this week. This is Columbia Game's block game covering the 3rd Crusade. I had received it as a birthday present from my mother-in-law, and had been looking forward to trying this one long before that.

We randomly chose sides, and I ended up with the Franks.

I had never played before, and Tim had played under the original 1.0 version of the rules. In that version it was very hard for the Franks to win. The rules are up to version 1.4 now, and the balance seems to be coming close. Some would say the Franks are now favored, but it's apparently close enough to make a good game of it.

The Basics

The game is played on what is essentially a point-to-point map of the Levant. (the modern Middle East Mediterranean coastline) There are a number of cities on the map, but only seven of them really matter. (Aleppo, Antioch, Damascus, Tripoli, Acre, Jerusalem, Egypt. Yeah, I know Egypt's not a city.) The Franks start the game in possession of Antioch, Tripoli, Acre, and Jerusalem. Victory conditions are controlling the majority of the 7 key cities at the end of the game, or an auto-victory is possible if you control all seven simultaneously.

The game lasts 6 years (1187-1192). Each year has six turns, the last of which is a winter turn with limited actions available. At the beginning of each turn, each player is dealt 6 cards from a 25-card deck. The cards are numbered 1-3, with four event cards. The numbered cards determine a couple things. First, the Franks will go first each turn unless the Saracen card is numbered higher. Second, the card you play determines the number of actions you get. An action is (usually) either activating a city containing your blocks for movement, or activating a friendly city to act as a muster point to which all blocks in range can move.

Combat can either be done as a field battle or a siege. What I believe are standard block-game mechanics apply. (I've only played Hammer of the Scots, so I have a limited experience with block games.) Each block has three combat-related ratings: strength, combat quickness, and combat effectiveness. (The latter two are my terms – I don't recall what the official names for these ratings are.) Strength runs from 1 to 4 and determines the number of dice you roll. These are indicated by triangles around the edge of the stickers on the blocks, and you rotate your block whenever you take a hit (thus losing strength.) Combat Quickness is a rating from A to C. A's go before B's before C's. Combat effectiveness is a rating from 1 to 4. When you roll dice, every die showing a number equal to or less than your Combat Effectiveness is a hit. Hits must be applied to the strongest opposing block at that moment. If there's a tie, the block's owner chooses who takes the hit. Combat is not considered simultaneous – there is a definite and defined sequence to the events. Finally, the defending side in a battle goes before the attacking side, and the attackers must retreat if the battle reaches a 4th round with blocks still on the field from both sides.

Sieges change combat somewhat. If the defenders stay within the city, it takes two hits for them to lose a strength point. Also, the storming side is limited to twice the city rating in active blocks while the defender is limited to the city rating as a defense force. Defenders can sally out, but lose the double-hit advantage on defense. If the siege reaches 2nd and subsequent turns, defenders are subject to attrition, which is basically a 50/50 shot at losing a strength point at the end of each turn. Relief forces are also possible, turning the besiegers into defenders.

The winter turn is usually one where you try to position yourself so you don't lose any blocks due to attrition, and maximize your replenishment opportunities. Sieges can't be prosecuted over the winter except in the case where you play the Winter Campaign card in the final turn, and losses on the besieging side are likely.

At the end of every turn after the first year, each side draws a block from their replacement pool, placing it either directly on the map, or into one of three holding boxes in the case of Crusaders.

My attempt at creating a Permanent Crusader State

I wasn't really sure how to start off in my quest to conquer the Holy Land. The three cities I needed to take – Damascus, Aleppo, and Egypt, are all rather well fortified. Between, there are lots Saracens scattered hither and yon. I needed to try taking these cities while holding what I already possessed. Of course, merely holding on to what I started with would win the game for me. I decided to muster my scattered units into a handful of larger forces. My thoughts were it would be easier to move them in cases of a bad hand, and I could always split a force apart right before wintering if losses needed to be healed. So, I spent the first half of the first turn mustering troops together.

Meanwhile, Tim decided Jerusalem looked like a ripe target. I don't recall if it was in the first turn, or early second, but Jerusalem fell rather easily. I spent most of the first two or three turns feeling like I was in constant regrouping mode. In some ways, it felt very much like playing the Americans in Twilight Struggle. I was holding on against a Saracen onslaught trying to chip away while waiting for reinforcements (Crusaders) to arrive.

Between Jerusalem and a couple other sieges that were over quick, I was really beginning to wonder if it was a sane choice to retreat to the castle when given the opportunity. It seemed that the doubled resistance on defense was more than offset by double the number of attackers. It didn't help that the majority of the Saracens were A-rated, and the Franks only have two A-rated blocks in the entire army. This meant Tim was nearly always going first in combat whether he was attacking or not. It was becoming very difficult to pull off the slow attrition plan I had in mind.

Sometime around mid game Tripoli fell. I think it changed hands three times during the game.

The Crusaders slowly started trickling into the replacement pools. I actually got all three English before any French or Germans appeared, getting the English (the strongest Crusader force) to arrive in 1190. My first goal with the English was to retake Tripoli. It didn't go well. In fact, the English died to a man. The only thing that made it feel any better was that it was at the hands of Saladin himself. In the 1190 year, I think Tim went first every turn. He definitely took the initiative at that point. I was left with control of only Acre and Antioch, and was relatively weak. It wasn't looking good.

As 1191 arrived Tim was looking like he was preparing to go for the kill. He was amassing forces in Damascus and Aleppo, and was slowly trying to expand a wedge between my forces. At this point, the French arrived. And, at this point, Tim had left Egypt empty. After all, there wasn't much I could do in the south without abandoning Acre, and that meant Egypt should have been safe. Except for the fact that the French could land in any friendly port and Ascalon (two cities away from Egypt and behind Tim's lines) was a friendly port. So, the French landed in Ascalon and headed straight to Egypt. That put the score at 4-3 with one turn left.

Early in 1192, the Germans finally arrived and amassed in Antioch. That made it nearly impossible to take. So, I had two options left to pull off a victory – take Jerusalem or Tripoli. I had eight blocks within striking range of Tripoli, but one was north and the other south. It would take multiple activations to pull it off. I also had a force centered in Acre. It was too far away to support Egypt, and Tim had clearly abandoned any thought of taking Acre and was reinforcing Tripoli. So, I left Acre empty and trundled off to Jerusalem.

On the next-to-last turn of the year, Jerusalem finally fell into my hands. Meanwhile, Tim was besieging Egypt. I was leading at this point 4-3. On the final turn, the siege of Egypt left Tim and I down to one block each, both with a single strength point left. It came down to Winter Attrition in Egypt to decide the game. If I failed the roll, Tim won. If not, I did.

Fortunately, the roll went my way and the Franks held on for a 4-3 victory.

As this was my first playing, I know there was loads of sub-optimal play. Tim, to be sure, missed an opening in the final turn where he could have taken Acre by a forced march. (I had left a gap in my defense-in-depth. I had single units in Tiberias, Caesarea, and Sidon. If the latter had been in Tyre, I had all the approaches blocked. As it stood, he had an opening.)

That said, I enjoyed the experience quite a bit. I constantly felt like I was constantly on the verge of collapse, but still managed to hang on and eek out a victory. I think Tim certainly could have been more aggressive as he never really was threatened the entire game.

This one's definitely a keeper. The decisions are tense - at least in the fact that you have to consider the resulting board position of any particular move - and there seems to be a variety of feasible strategies. And, given we literally went down to the final die roll, it seems they've got the balance issues somewhat figured out.

Administrivia

Next week's game will be Tim's choice on Wednesday, and I haven't heard word one about what it'll be. Looks like we'll be on a regular schedule for a while with the exception of the first week of April as Tim's off to the Gathering.