Skip to main content

A quick review: Clash of Giants II, Ted Racier, GMT



I've played 3 games of this recently, two of the Galicia campaign game and one of the 1st Ypres (reverse side of map sheet) and thought I'd give a quick review.

WW1 is generally an less gamed conflict, and in my view rightly so to some extent. A lot of war games that I play feel like they have been crowbarred into being a competitive or interesting game where the historical situation was rather straight forward, attritional or one sided. However WW1 can work in 1914 or 1918, and hence most non strategic games on the topic focus on these two time periods.

Clash of Giants is a lot lot simpler and easier playing than the previous reviewed Somme 1918. Its a simple hex and counter that uses a chit pull activation system to create command and control chaos and simple but effective supply and combat systems that are evocative of the period.

The command and control system divides the map into areas with each area activated when its chit is drawn. Coupled with this you roll a die and consult a table to see how far units can move in that activation. This generates a lot of chaos, that while historical does not bode well for much strategic thinking. Rather, you might have overall strategic aims, defend this river, take these hexes, but on a turn by turn basis its a game of maximising combats and taking ground piecemeal. This is Ok, but doesn't really get my mind working out operational plans, which is what I like to do.


Galicia Scenario turn 2 (i think).

Combat is also a nice touch. Each player rolls to see how many casualties they suffer after consulting the odds ratio. It is a narrative of lives sacrificed which feels very appropriate. Victory is determined by controlling key hexes, there is a little bit of scenario chrome, trace supply, and some units whose strengths are determined by die roll. 

My copy is however now up on ebay despite only 3 plays after recently trading it in. Its not a bad game, but its chaotic and not that short. 1st Ypres took my opponent and I a full 5 hours to play, Galacia, the better of the two scenarios, took 3 and a half hours each play. It's a cleverly designed game and it is easy to play but it is difficult to think more than a turn ahead. For me the best wargames ask me to think like an operational planner and have a plan for 3-4 turns out even if it has to be adapted. I can do chaotic tactical games, but I prefer them shorter, Napoleonic 20 comes to mind.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Quick Looks: Won by the Sword

Won by the Sword went down like Fat Man over Nagasaki on most wargame forums when released by GMT back in 2014. Lots of misprints on the components and errors in the rules gave it a bad rep to such an extent that GMT decided to bail it out with a patch. James and I have played a couple of games reworked version, it still rides like a bike with two missing gears but its probably the most innovative and insightful design to hit the scene in the past 10 years.


The rules; they work fine for the most part, James is clearer on the gaps than me, he reads them, I'm the opponent. What I will say is that they work if you can put the daddy pants on and make common sense decisions to fill any minor gaps.



Forage; Some games are about movement, some about concentration of fire, some moral, others unit composition, some bluff or even supply routes. Won by the Sword is about burning peoples villages and taking all their food, mostly just to stop your opponent doing it. This is the 30 years war, a…

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.



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. Either way the players of both sides…

Quick Looks: Next War Taiwan

If there is a series for hex and counter hipsters at the moment it is Next War games by Mitch Land and Gene Billingsley. Kev Sharp's been blogging it 1, 3MA have been talking about it 2, these drunken reprobates have been playing it 3, two of my friends have picked up Next War India Pakistan 4, one of whom as his first hex and counter game. When I first saw the GMT Next War series with Next War Korea a few years back, I passed on it because it was pricey and I thought future wars were boring. I thought these things because I was a fool. I'm not entirely sure why the series has become popular, as speculative future wars seems like a hard sell but the continued releases (now three soon four) and the quality of the product seem to have carried it into the wargamer consciousness if not the popular.


Next War Taiwan depicts an invasion of Taiwan by mainland China sometime in the near future. I say sometime because the game has no fluff text paragraphs, opting instead to insert a few…