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

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

Lestrades_Game

Search This Blog