Skip to main content

Quick Looks: 1914: Fureur a' L'est, Le Choc Des Trois Empires

Sometimes I have got to wargame! So I picked up a few titles recently including this magazine game from Vae Victis, a French language periodical that comes with a game. English rules translations can be downloaded from their website.



It's good, within the expectations of what you get from a magazine game.


1914 depicts the east front of WW1 at Corps scale with two week turns in a small half mapper footprint and 16 pages of A5 rules. Like most magazine games it is fairly simple and most mechanisms are recognisable to hex and counter veterans. The rules translation and clarity is good enough to discern the designer's intent without quite being tight enough to eradicate all doubts and queries. 


Each turn the central powers (Germany & Austria) and Russia will roll off to see who gets initiative (which can be very important and is entirely random). The  acting player will then chose a front to activate, the northern German front or southern Austrian and then they move and attack with their armies. All units can move two hexes with only mountains lowering this and then attacks are one hex against another with supporting units providing +1 per neighbouring hex. Players alternate front activations and doing all their moves and attacks before an admin phase for resolving replacements, reinforcements and some fairly harsh supply rules.



There is no clever mechanical hook in this game, the tension comes from the strategic situation. Both sides have to balance their replacements and HQ activations - more on that later, between the two fronts. How each player handles this will be the main lever they use to influence the result. 


Victory is achieved by capturing the opposing side's fortresses, with each side starting with 7 or 8. For the Russians there are three obvious options, drive into the open ground between the two fronts and threaten the German supply source whilst picking up lightly defended fortresses, try to encircle the Germans, or grind down the Austrians. They won't be able to resource all three. Whilst the burden of action and greatest flexibility lies with the Russians the Central Powers still have choices. There are very legitimate opportunities to go on the counter offensive, particularly when the Russians by poor luck or judgement make an error.


This is a fairly dicey game even by wargame standards. The combat system uses an odds differential with modifiers + a 1d6. Rolling a 6 will almost always bail you out of a disaster. On top of this each side rolls each turn to see how many of their HQs are flipped to their superior active side. This gives a 1-4 point sing in combat effectiveness and has a major influence on offensive success. The Russians in particular can be hosed by the dice in this roll, whereas the two superior German HQs will usually be active. In all the Russians will need to make ground when the dice do go their way and whether the storm when they do not.



The supply rules are reminiscent of the classic Rommel in the Desert in that they encourage conga lines of troops across the map. All units are forced to retreat (or die) if they are not within 2 hexes of a rail line supplied fortress or another unit that is turn in supply. This prevents the Russians just walking between the two fronts and attacking south Prussia unless they can build said conga line. It works quite well but can seem a bit gamey. 


Whilst we are on criticisms the unit turn over seems a bit high for two week turns. A corps can be wiped off the map and reconstituted in a 2 week turn around. I appreciate that the designer may have wanted a more action orientated game rather than just a bumper cars CRT typical of WW1 games but the frequent pulling units off and onto the map instead creates an illusion of progress and lots of simulation questions. In practice most armies will return to near full strength every other turn or so and lines will move back and forth. This creates a fun ebb and flow to the game but breaks any inertia one side may gain.


Overall this gets the thumbs up. It cost £14 which is good value. I preferred it to Clash of Giants Galicia which was cleverer but much longer at 4-5 hours rather than 3.

Comments

  1. That one sounds pretty decent- where did you get it from?

    Cheers,

    Pete.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Second chance games. An online store. Some good value, some terrible value games on there. Usually a good range however. I do like this one, but i doubt the Germans can quite replicate Tannenberg. Vae Victis as a magazine has quite a good rep. obviously its in French but the games it ships with tend to be of reasonable quality. S&T or Paper Wars have a more mixed reputation and are comparatively expensive.

      Delete

Post a Comment

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