Skip to main content

Bloody Hell: Operation Goodwood

Well the blogging schedule I had convinced myself i was going to keep hasn't worked out. Too much thesis writing...

I've had a slightly turbulent relationship with hex and counter war games. I've played several of the simpler ones; A Victory Denied (MMP), Hells Gate (VPG), Nuklear Winter 68 (LnL), Arnhem (SPI), and one a little more complex, It Never Snows (MMP). Of these games only It Never Snows really impressed me, and thats a sprawling monster that takes 17 hours to play and really at least 4 players (http://www.shutupandsitdown.com/blog/post/review-it-never-snows/).

Most of these games I found to be a combination of the fiddliness of hex and counter war games, and a little too simplistic in terms of the strategy they offered to be worth the effort. Bloody Hell: Operations Goodwood and Spring bucks this trend.

This game is a two player Hex and Counter simulation of the British and Commonwealth forces fighting the Germans in Normandy in WW2. For those of you with some historical knowledge Operation Goodwood happened in the area around Caen and involved Field Marshal Monte launching a some what disastrous assault against German defences. The operation was followed up by operation Spring which is a second scenario and map included in the game. The games I listed earlier were all published by fairly major players in the war board gaming world, MultiMan Publishing etc, this game was desktop published by a Canadian USAian guy who runs his own company High Flying Dice games. I took a bit of a risk on ordering it after listening to him fast talk on a war game podcast. It turns out to have been a surprisingly good decision.

The game has components to match MMP or any other publisher, that is to say they are still cheapass for a boardgamer. The maps are gloss printed and decent paper, the chits were die cut and had clear art etc.

Picture of game in progress

So whats the deal with this game? Why is it good? The thing with hex and counters is, because you save on miniatures, a mounted board etc, you can do things both big and detailed. You can have a big (relatively speaking) map, and lots of soldiers. If you have these two things, in a good hex and counter theres lots of room to manoeuvre. Good war games are all about manoeuvre. They are about flanking your opponent, cutting of their supplies, taking that key town, or hill, thats the geographical part, and its fun. The second thing hex and counters do well is give you lots of different units and give you interesting ways to combine their moves. So you can lay smoke with your artillery, suppress the enemy positions with your tanks from the flank and then move in your infantry. At least thats the plan, but then your artillery fires inaccurately, your tanks just get stunned or killed by enemy fire, and then your infantry gets bogged down in a war of attrition. Wargames are about creating beautiful plans and watching either the dice or your opponent destroy them, and then picking up the pieces. Bloody Hell gave me a enough pieces to play with, enough map space to play with, and just the right amount of rules detail to play with, to create this fun messy war that I look for in war games. The rules come in at about 8 pages and much of this will be bread and butter for regular war gamers, the game takes about two hours maybe three to run through. This is probably about the right weight of war game for me. A Victory Denied and Hells Gate were nice, but too simplistic, OCS Burma sits on my shelf unplayed because i just don't have that time at the moment.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Quick Looks: Cimean War Battles - Tchernaya River

 A quick one today I traded off Across the Narva by Revolution Games (should post something on this) for an oldish (2000) copy of an S&T magazine. The mag came with two battles reprinted from the 1978 Quad game on the Crimean War. The full Quad also contained Inkerman and Balaklava, this magazine version just has Tchernaya River and Alma. Initial setup Early SPI games (and actually GDW and AH come to think of it) of the 70s tend to have lots of rules you already know. I go, U go, movement, fire, melee, rally, and most of the rules are standard. Command and control rules and friction of war arrived a lot later. To couter this I have added a simple house rule. For each division (units are brigates and regiments, about 2-8 per division) roll. On a 1 in 6 movement is halved unless the unit can charge, in which case it must charge the nearest enemy.  A simple easy to apply rule for generating those light brigade charges. You could also easily convert this to a chit pull game by division

Quick Looks; Red Star / White Eagle

I generally hate it when people describe designs or ideas in games as dated, because many of the most innovative games  are older than I am. Equally it implies there is something innately good about new designs, which I don't think there is. Dune is arguably the best multiplayer 'war' boardgame and the 70s basic DnD is in my view still the best RPG. I wasn't born until the late 80s and didn't discover these things to the mid 2000s so this isn't nostalgia doing my thinking, its just that some old ideas are better than new ones, despite our apparent 'progress'. Back when Roger B MacGowan did cool art house covers But having said all this Red Star / White Eagle is a dated game design. And this matters if you are looking at popping £70 on a new reprint of it from Compass Games. I am a wary cheapskate so I picked up a second hand copy with a trashed box of ebay for £20. It was worth it, but only just. Poles have just been creamed on the south we

Wilderness War is probably the best CDG (review)

One attribute of a good war game is that it opens up rather than narrows down the more you play it. Each time you play you see there is more strategic depth than you thought there was. When I first started playing Wilderness War, a card driven wargame design (CDG) on the French Indian War by Volko Runke, I thought it was simply a case of the British building a large kill stack and marching it up the Hudson and the French trying to get enough victory points (vps) from raiding to win before the inevitable. The outcome would likely be decided by card play and who got the reinforcement cards when they needed them. The game is afoot.  Four games later I have realised that this is not the case. Yes the British will sometimes win by marching a big army up the Hudson and sieging out Montreal, but a lot of the time things will play out quite differently. Maybe the French strike first, perhaps the British realise that going up the Hudson is going to be a slog try another route. Ei