Thoughts of Chairman Mike

Yesterday I went along to the launch party of Railways of the World: The Card Game. As may be expected from the title, it has strong ties to the Railways of the World series of games (RotW, Europe, England & Wales, Western US), but borrows some mechanisms from Ticket to Ride (BGG entry) as well. I also have more interest in this title, as it was co-designed by my good friend Steve Ellis, owner of Rainy Day Games, a local gaming store in the Portland area. Oddly enough we played Railways of Europe just this last Tuesday, with me winning by a single point over JD in a rather epic game, so the main mechanisms were very much in my head.

RotW:TCG comes with 110 cards representing track, stations, and engine capability, a bunch of standard Euro cubes for goods to be delivered, plastic trains for each of the 4 players, a central starting hub, and a score board. A player’s turn allows an action from 5 possible options, then the drawing of cards to hand. The 5 actions are:

• Build a link – play a station and a number of track cards with a value equal to or greater than the station value; a link must extend from the central hub or an existing station; if the latter, it must match the color track on the edge of the existing station; the track and the station being played must match colors. You score points for the track value, so it can be worthwhile to play extra track, beyond the minimum. One fewer cubes than the station value, drawn from the bag, are placed on the station.
• Deliver a cube – move a cube from one station to another; the first link must be owned by the current player; the number of links may not be more than the current number of engine cards in play by the current player; the color of the cube must match the station being delivered to; you cannot move a cube through a station matching the cube color; the current player scores 1 for each link moved through, and other players score 1 for each of their links used.
• Play an engine card – play an engine card from hand to expand the number of links a cube may be delivered through; optionally, the player may also take the ‘Deliver a cube’ action, as above
• Discard a card – this allows the player to draw a card to replace it, or draw a cube from the bag to replenish a station.
• Pass – the player takes no action

The final part of the turn is to draw cards. There are 3 face up cards, and the player may draw 2 cards from the discard, face-up or face-down piles, or any combination. However, if an engine card is taken from the face-up display then that is the only card that may be taken in the turn. There is a hand limit of 13 cards.

All pretty simple really. The card drawing is straight out of Ticket to Ride, and the actions are pretty close to the RotW mechanisms. The only real challenge is remembering that the colors have to match when building links.

Scoring at game end is gained for the number of engine cards played, control of the stations (player with highest number of owned track cards connected to a station scores the station value, with friendly ties), and bonuses for sets of cubes delivered.

I played only part of one game, but enough to like what I was seeing. I really enjoy the RotW/Age of Steam/Steam lay track/deliver goods style of games, so this is right up my alley. I’m told that it plays in around 30-45 minutes, and is for 2-4 players. Interestingly, the designer said he prefers it for 2-3 players, but two of the players in my game said they preferred it with 3-4 players. I’ll have to try both. The cards and pieces are clean and functional, a very pleasant graphical design. One thing I did note, however, is that it can take up a considerable amount of space, so a decent sized table is recommended.

The only downside is that it’s from Eagle/FRED/Funagain, so you will not be surprised to learn that the price is set at a rather steep $38.00. Given the small, and rather cheap feeling, cards, cheap plastic trains, and simple cubes, and that it’s a 30-45 minute game, a price point nearer $30 would have been a better choice. Ah well, RDG were offering a launch price of  $30, so that made it palatable. Even though I liked it, and know the designer, I would have baulked at paying the full $38.

Those in my gaming circle can expect to see it on a gaming table in the very near future!

Found this rap video about Newport on A Welsh View, and I thought it was fairly amusing.

One of the games I bought for my iPad early on was Days of Wonder’s Small World, based on their board game of the same name (BGG entry). Whilst it looked pretty nice, I never got around to actually playing it because it was 2-player only, a point that Doug also mentioned in his blog post on iPad Euro games. However, DoW had promised that the next version would have an AI to allow solo play, so when I saw that there was an update available, I jumped on it to see. Sure enough, DoW were as good as their word, and there is now the option to play solo against an AI.

After three games I’m more than impressed with the game. The graphics are busy, but clear, the interface is very easy to understand and operate, and anyone who’s played the board game version should be able to jump right in and play. I’m not a good Small World player, but I comfortably won my first game, and I was concerned that the AI wasn’t particularly good. However, after getting spanked in my next two games that doesn’t appear to be a concern.  The game is very stable, with no crashes or hangs so far, and I haven’t identified a single issue with incorrect game play.

There are a few things that I’d like to see changed, but they’re all fairly minor. First is that when you are playing solo, it still has the AI’s turn showing as ‘upside down’ as if it were playing opposite you like a human player. It does make it hard to read the race/skill that has been selected. You can use the screen lock button for this, however. The other thing that I didn’t like is that there appears to be no way to quit a game in the middle and return to the menu.. Finally, I’d like some way to turn off the music in the game and listen to my own music, as the game music gets a bit wearing after a while.

However, none of those are enough to really detract from my enjoyment of Small World. A definite two thumbs up on this one – go download it from the iTunes App Store, and you’ll soon be as hooked on it as I am.

Another gaming retreat come and gone, so all is sadness. Except that we can start planning for next year’s event!

Highlights, game-wise, for me were the A Most Dangerous Time and Caucasus Campaign, with both Dougs. It was just really disappointing that the latter ended because we’d missed a rule, as it could have been a really tense and close finish. I’d like to try both again.

Lowlight was the Fallschirmjaeger game. Partly this was because of  wacky die rolls, and partly because we didn’t get anywhere near finishing it. I think this is the least prepared Chuck and I have been for any retreat. Normally we’ll fix our target game and go through a few moves a couple of times, so we have the mechanisms and basic strategies in our heads. This time, however, we switched game several times, and only decided on Fallschirmjaeger in the previous week. Originally, we were planning on Liberty Roads as our game of choice. However, with more and more people coming along, we were concerned for table space a little, but mostly we knew we wouldn’t finish it in a day, and wanted to give it a full play.

Most disappointing game was Successors, which felt less strategy game and more Ameritrash ‘beat on the perceived leader’ than I’d expected. There were some interesting facets, and I think I’d give it another go, but in the end I’d have preferred another go at Wellington or Kutuzov, or trying one of the bigger CDGs, e.g. Clash of Monarchs or The Napoleonic War. (Without having played either of those last two, I’m not sure that they wouldn’t end up the same, however.)

The Main Event, Battle for Normandy, was a mixed bag, and I was very conflicted about it. I loved most of the mechanisms, and the general feel was good, but the Mandatory Assault rules took the shine right off it. Following various threads on BGG and CSM, it appears that a few of the rules in that area were last minute additions, and against the designer’s best instincts, and that’s just the way they felt – rushed and poorly thought through, with some crazy side effects. However, I’ve been so intrigued about it that I bought a copy, punched and clipped all 2520 counters, and it’s sitting on my game-table as we speak. And as my major aim was to try the game to see if I liked it enough to buy, then I guess I achieved my objective, so it has to be regarded as a success! Of all the new games that I’ve played over the past year, this is the one that’s got me most fired up.

The biggest challenge at a retreat like this is satisfying all the interests and expectations. I’m more interested in the 2-player wargames, especially those that are longer (perhaps played as teams), others are more interested in the multi-player games, especially those around the 5-6 hour mark. With the numbers we had this year, there was definitely a pressure for more of the latter, although I managed to avoid most of them. After a past event I’ve commented that I’d be happy to play a big OCS (or such) game for the whole week, but hogging the big table for the whole week would be disrespectful of the other attendees, and I’d have to find a partner (or several) to play with. However, I do enjoy the varied company for each game, but trying to schedule some time with everyone there gets real hard.

I had considered going to the ConSimWorld con this year (I got as far as booking a room at the con hotel, but later canceled), also known as ‘MonsterCon’, especially to play in a monster event, and that may not be a bad solution for me. Use MonsterCon to satisfy the monster itch, and the retreat to play the smaller games. (By smaller, I mean games that take 1-2 days to play, rather than 3-5 days.) Time off isn’t an issue, but cost is always the factor that stops me going away to events, as with air fares and hotels, the costs mount up rapidly.

Anyway, this event was a success, and hugely so. I had a blast, and hit all my targets. Even if the games weren’t exactly to my liking (and let’s not even mention Leaping Lemmings at this point), the company was always first class. Many thanks to Doug, once again, for hosting the event, and to everyone for making it a total hoot. Same time next year!

And to to the last day. Boo! This is a pack up day, requiring laundry to be done, tidying and packing up, and with people leaving at various time, you fit in what gaming you can. Eric, Matt and I managed to fit in a game of 18TN (BGG entry), a new one to Matt and I, perhaps even Eric himself, although I think he said he’d played it once.

As part of the packing up I dashed off to get a shower  between turns, and when I came back they were waiting for me, so I just built, ran and paid out, without taking enough time to fully figure out what had happened while I was gone. Big mistake, as there had been a bit of a train rush going on, and my companies needed to withhold to get enough capital to fund some more trains. After that I was playing catch up, and played a little too hard, getting one (or more) companies dumped on me, and ended up well in last, with Matt ahead of Eric, but not by a great deal.

18TN is very interesting, although the Civil War effects are rather minimal, just canceling the income from a single train run when the 2nd (?) 3-train comes out. (Or some such like that.) Ah, who am I kidding? It’s an 18x game. I’ll play it at the drop of a hat.

From there it was the rest of the clearing up, packing, and tidying. Alex volunteered to close up the house, so Doug and I were able to get going in the early afternoon, and had a very clear run home, one of the fastest I’ve seen.

And that was it for another year. I’ll do a wrap-up post later.

What is up with this weather? We’ve moved from June-uary to July-uary. At least it’s very reminiscent of Scotland. And that’s not a good thing, as one of the reasons we moved was to get away from the weather. About the best thing that can be said is that it’s great weather for being indoors and playing games.

Despite all the pre-order shenanigans 10 days ago I was able to pre-order 2 16gb iPhones, although it took most of the day trying on and off. I had wanted them delivered, but that part of the pre-order process wasn’t working, so I had to arrange to pick them up. Originally one was for Colin and one for myself, but I decided that Catriona should also get one, and I’d get one later.

Come yesterday we all trooped off to the Apple store, waiting until lunchtime. However, there were still lots of people in the queue, and we were told that the expected wait time was 2-3 hours. As Colin had to get to work within that time period we decided to come back later, especially as the Apple sales representative said that they’d be open late to ensure all those with pre-orders got them sorted out.

So, after Colin had finished, we all headed back again, around 2100. There was still a longish queue, but at least the wait time was down to 1-2 hours. We also found out that the AT&T registrations system closed down at 2300 (now, that qualifies for a ‘wtf!’), so they were giving customers the option of getting a slip to hold the iPhones over the weekend. We took them up on that offer, so the kids are still without iPhones, but we’ll head back over this afternoon.

However, I did get to play with one a little, as a co-worker had bought one. It looks good, and it certainly is faster than previous models. I’ll get one eventually, as I’m now 2 generations behind, but I’m in no desperate rush.

I’ve been using WordPress for a few months now, and I’m more and more impressed with it. This evening I upgraded to v3.0 (after taking a back-up – never try ‘x.0′ of anything), which completed without a hitch. I’ve also changed the theme to something different. Just because it makes it so darned easy to do so.

Day 6 already, it’s almost over! The week has just flown past. Can we make it two weeks next year?

Today was MMP/The Gamers’ Fallschirmjaeger, another in the SCS series, with Chuck. This one has a good reputation, and a decent length. However, despite an early start, we were barely through half way when we had to stop around 1700.

In this game the German player starts with no units on the map, and performing an airborne operation to land in 5 distinct areas, looking to capture the major river crossings for their main force, which arrives on turn 10. Also of primary importance are the four air fields, the two major ones at Rotterdam and The Hague, and two minor ones. These latter two are outlying, and are really difficult to hold, as we found in our play of the first few turns to get a feel of the game. I was going to go with a variable set up, allowing the German player flexibility in landings, but decided to just use the historical set up.

Of all the games I played in the week, this is the one that suffered most from the now infamous DSDF. Why is it that it’s normally my game with Chuck that sees it kick in hardest? Perhaps that’s just another aspect of it. To achieve and hold their objectives, the German player needs help from the Luftwaffe, and the availability is determined randomly. During the game my rolls were 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, and, as you might guess, low is not good. On my air landings my first roll for both major airfields was a 1, meaning that all landings suffered a negative DRM immediately. Against this, Chuck was rolling like a demon for his artillery (and his flak rolls weren’t too shabby, either). Twice I set up attacks to link up two of the air heads, but both times he rolled 3 from 3 on a 1/3 for a hit, following up with 4 from 6 for outright kills, again on a 1/3 chance. Yep, he rolled 4 from 6 1/9 chance.

My initial landings went pretty well, managing to capture all major objectives.

At Moerdijk/Dordrecht I managed to capture the main bridge at Moerdijk, but quickly lost it as his killer artillery removed steps. I was squeezed into a small pocket at Dordrecht, and it didn’t look good for my survival until the main force came in, as they now had to fight their way over the bridges.

At Rotterdam I had a good perimiter formed, but was never able to link up with the Dordrecht forces due to the previously mentioned killer artillery. I started to move more units over in the latter stages, but it was probably too late to save anything. My attacks on the bridge in Rotterdam also came to nothing.

The Hague area also started well, and I even managed to briefly capture the queen. However, reinforcing was an issue, and landing supply suffered from his flak (which also rolled well), putting the entire grouping out of supply. By the time we stopped, his reinforcements were starting to encircle my forces, and I had to contract to protect the perimiter. In the final turn we played I decided to try to break out towards Rotterdam, giving up the airfield. It was either that or be defeated in detail, and still lose the airfield, so trying to aid the troops trying to take Rotterdam seemed the better idea.

At the two outlying airfields north and south of The Hague my units didn’t last long at all, as they’re difficult to support effectively.

Despite all the die rolls, I also managed to play quite poorly, with several really dumb moves. I should have been more aggressive with the units around Rotterdam, trying to link up with the Dordrecht/Moerdijk airhead sooner. Reading the player notes would also have been a smart move.

By the time we had to stop it was not looking good for the Germans. VPs are scored for control of the airfields, and some bridges, and for how far the Germans control the main road towards, and beyond, Rotterdam. Given that the reinforcements were going to have to fight their way onto the board, I didn’t think they were going to get very far, and it was certainly looking like a major Dutch victory.

Overall, and only based on half a game, Fallschirmjaeger is an interesting game, but appears to be a tough one for the German player. The landings have to go reasonably, the Luftwaffe have to make a reasonable contribution, the reinforcing units have to land not too scattered, supply has to make it through. That’s a lot of things that can go wrong, and if several do so then it’s going to be hard to achieve success, at least in VP terms. There is a little weirdness in the reinforcement landing rules, and they can end up a long way from where they’re supposed to be, as they may have to roll twice for scatter, which seems a trifle odd. We went back over the rules several times to see if we’d misunderstood the rules, but we appeared to have it right. I’d really like to give this a full go at some point, possibly even a couple of goes, and at around 15 hours it would be a couple of full days or 5 evening sessions. Fairly doable.

In the evening we played Battlestar Galactica, my favorite of the ‘cooperative’ style games. In the last 3 games I’d been a Cylon, so was hoping to be a good guy, but with last choice of character, and not wanting to play a pilot, there wasn’t much to choose from. In the end I chose Baltar, despite getting 2 loyalty cards right off, and risking being a Cylon again. In the end, neither of the two 3-card characters (myself and Dave, playing Boomer) drew a Cylon card in the game. We had the Cylons fairly well guessed by about two thirds the way through, but Matt and Rog were able to pull off the Cylon win with another massive assault.

BSG is one of the few ‘wacky’ games that I actually like, and I think it’s mostly down to the theme, although it’s certainly the best of the cooperative games I’ve tried. (LotR was good, but lacks inter-player tension; Shadows Over Camelot has the inter-player tension, but the game play is fairly boring; Pandemic is just random rubbish; and the less said about Vanished Planet, the better.) I’m always up for a game.

And so the the main event of the week, The Battle for Normandy (BGG entry), from GMT. I originally had this one on pre-order, but canceled late as I wasn’t sure that it was one that I really wanted. (And let’s not discuss whether I needed it!) So, whilst this was certainly not my first choice for a monster game (that would have been OCS, EFS, The Devil’s Cauldron), it was a game I was interested in trying, to see how it went, and whether it was one that I’d want to pick up.

At my insistence we played the full invasion (what’s the point of a D-Day game if you don’t play the invasion?), so spent the Wednesday evening and the early part of Thursday morning getting through the landings. I played the Commonwealth forces, Eric the US, with Chuck and Doug the Germans, the former opposite me, although that seemed to change during the game, and covered some/most of the Omaha beach as well.

The Commonwealth landings went well, with 6th Airborne getting down without any losses at all, including capturing Pegasus Bridge. The beaches had been mostly cleared, with openings created on both Gold and Juno beaches, with Sword not far behind. However, over on the other side things weren’t going so well. The airborne landings were pretty disastrous, with a lot of units scattered all over the map, and around 25% losses. The beach landings went pretty badly as well, with Omaha being a struggle.

Chuck put little emphasis on pressuring 6th airborne, so they were able to build up and hold the flank. His main concern was with keeping me out of Caen, as I drove forward from Sword/Juno, so most of the reinforcements were fed into this area, managing to block my advance. I also pressed hard on the Juno/Gold axis, reaching as far as the main Caen/Bayeux highway. Around the middle of the 7th June turns we found that we’d been playing the supply rules all wrong, missing that supply lines can only go 1 hex over streams, which left me in a bad position with many units out of supply, and I spent the next turn or two reorganizing to get units back in supply. At this time we also learned more about Mandatory Attacks, which I’ll discuss in detail further below, which exacerbated my supply issues greatly.

By this time Eric had managed to get Omaha stabilized, and had started pressing forward. Utah had also been organized, and was starting to show some coherence.

The June 8th turns saw me use Pegasus Bridge and a gap in the German lines to sweep forward and actually get a unit into Caen from the east. However, this became the focus of Chuck’s attacks, and I was never able to get the die rolls required to fully support it, and Chuck managed to retake it on the 9th. In the mean time I’d been able to clear his unit that was screwing up my supply lines, and pressed on toward Bayeux, managing to take a hex of the city on the 9th PM turn, with the US Omaha forces right there as well. Chuck was unable to get the result that forced me to retreat, which left the Allies with 5VPs when we had to stop.

As a game session, I feel that my objectives were achieved. We never expected to get too far into the game, so getting as far as we did was about as expected. I mostly wanted to get a feel for the game mechanisms, and that was successfully achieved.

There’s a lot to like about BfN. The game focuses on trying to remain playable, and it does that well. There is a marked absence of markers, OoS being pretty much the only markers used, so the map is kept clean. The invasion itself is kept moderately simple, although there is some planning required in the order you land, and where, so it’s a good balance. For a low level game the supply rules are well thought out, and encourage you to keep your divisions together and not have them spread out all over France. Combat is simple, and the structure of the results table make the Combined Arms +/-1 DRM well worth looking for.

The air was is mostly abstracted. The Allies have a number of air points which they can allocate to Armed Recon, Ground Support, and Interdiction missions, the latter being split across the 5 maps in play. The German player has a number of AA points that he also allocates across the maps, which can negate the effects of the Interdiction missions, the net effect being the number of MPs lost, by each map, when a German unit moves. Simple, but very effective. We focused on the first two missions, but perhaps should have allocated more to Interdiction to slow up the reinforcements.

The Allies also have a limited amount of Combat Supply Points, that get refreshed slowly, and which limits the number of attacks that can be made. A single hex attacking without support costs no CSPs. Throw in some support (air, naval, or artillery) and it costs 1CSP. Have a multi-hex attack (with or without support) and it now costs 3CSPs. This introduces a certain tempo to the game, where the Allied player has to arrange his major attacks carefully, and any combat involving the use of CSPs that doesn’t get a result is a serious set back.

Overall, there was a lot there to like. So, what were the negative points?

For me there were three negatives: Mandatory Attacks (MAs); Mandatory Attacks; and (yep, you guessed it) Mandatory Attacks. The general concepts are fine: units in Clear, Farmland or Flooded/Marsh hexes must attack enemy stacks that are adjacent; and if any adjacent enemy stacks are attacked, then all adjacent enemy stacks must be attacked. The first part means that trying to hold weak terrain is really hard, and I think that’s a fair premise, as being caught in the open is not good. The second part means that enemy forces adjacent don’t sit idly by while you attack their buddies, also a fair premise. However, you can barrage adjacent stacks, which counts as the attack, so avoiding any possible negative result on the CRT. All good so far. Where it starts to break down is in the exceptions.

The first major exception is that units need not attack units across a stream or river, which is fair enough.  The second is that units that cannot retreat away due to terrain and/or enemy ZoCs do not have to attack. This is major, as you want to work to put your opponent into a position where he has to attack or retreat, but if you succeed too well, he no longer has to retreat, and just stays there. Even worse, defenders in an OoS state have no impact on their defense strength, so you’re even more up against it. This means that you may be better off without that breakthrough and surrounding enemy units, as you now have to winkle them out. At least if they have a retreat path you can force them out and take the position.

The designer’s rational is that when they’re cut off they wouldn’t attack, as they wouldn’t be in a good position to do so, and would just dig in. Now, that’s not a bad starting point, but is a bit of a generalization. And why are other units not allowed to dig in? Take an infantry unit facing a strong armor unit? Would they really charge forward in a suicidal attack? Of course not. They’d dig in and request support, in exactly the same manner. In the game they’re forced to attack and take a few step losses (probably) as well as retreat. Now, I recognize that troops sitting in poor terrain would want to get off it and into something with more protection, but that doesn’t mean they’d perform suicide assaults to do it.

The next impact is that combats are not permitted at <1:4 odds. Combined with MAs, this means that, again, if it gets too bad for the defender, it actually works in his favor, as a unit that can’t perform the required MA must retreat. So a unit ‘attacking’ at <1:4 gets to retreat, and one at 1:4 will lose steps and (probably) have to retreat? Sorry, that’s just stoopid.

But it gets better. The one final rule hidden in the MA section (and not mentioned in the Movement nor Supply sections, where it should be) is that a unit in an OoS state is not permitted to move adjacent to an enemy unit in terrain that would require an MA. Again, not a bad premise, but what it does is prevent any sort of breakout by the OoS units. Think of a strong armor unit, with an attack strength of 10, cut off by a bunch of weeny 1-strength infantry units. If the infantry units are smart enough to not move adjacent, and ensure that it’s the clear MA terrain adjacent, then the armor units can’t do a thing about it. Not. A. Single. Thing. They’re stuck there with no way to fight their way out. That’s not just stoopid, that has moved into ludicrous territory.

This is all really sad, as there’s a lot to like here, and I think the game just needs some more development, as the problems with MA are easily solved. The first option is to simply do away with MAs altogether. They’re trying to introduce a good concept, but in so doing introduce too many issues. However, there’s a better way.

The system already uses steps to show the gradual friction of combat, but retreats are all or nothing, either the stack retreats, or it doesn’t, and if it can’t then it loses everything, all steps are eliminated. That’s a trifle brutal for a game at this level of details, so why not allow units to swap retreats for step loss(es)? Even better would be something along the lines of the Determined Defense used in GMT’s The Caucasus Campaign, where the result is determined by a die roll which dictates how much strength is lost in exchange for not retreating. This would solve the problem of  MAs, as now they would be truly mandatory, but cut off defenders could be slowly ground down.

Partly this depends on what MAs are trying to show. Combat units in contact don’t just sit there doing nothing, but there is a consistent low level of activity going on. At the higher scales it doesn’t have much effect, but at the low levels depicted in BfN, especially with units having multiple steps, this could represent the general friction/attrition that goes on when in contact with the enemy.

Now, I’ve no idea whether this would work in practice, and I’m just theorizing. But I’m curious to see whether these would make the game better or worse. I don’t think variable retreat/losses would add much overhead, and it would certainly allow the defender to give up force for position, which is not a bad effect in my view.

Either way, I’m still conflicted by BfN, as there’s a lot to like. But those MA rules are just plain broken in my view.

It’s also worth mentioning that the designer’s support of the game has been exemplary. The questions we posted to BGG in our play were answered quickly (within 10 minutes on Thursday evening, I believe), and he has been very ready to discuss his design thoughts when asked. Can’t ask for more.