Thoughts on Realism

Quite often the same old argument rears its ugly head. How much realism is there in this game or that? Is it realistic enough? Is it too realistic? Does realism add too much complexity?

The question is being raised more and more these days because of the latest trends in wargames. ASL has regained some of its old popularity, more card-driven titles are surfacing and plastic armies are sweeping across the board in fast-playing skirmishes.

To get to the point, there are two broad-spectrum wargaming philosophies; realism and playability. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive - contrary to popular belief - because a game can still be very easily played and still provide an excellent simulation. It's all a matter of exactly what you wish to simulate and to what level. Before I go any further, let's just make sure you know what I mean when I use these two terms. Realism is how well the game system simulates what happens (or is supposed to happen) in real life; playability is the right combination of elegance, flow, story-arc and engagement the game gives to its players to ensure the game remains just that - a game.

As I stated these are not necessarily mutually exclusive; a combat system may introduce more chrome than you can shake a stick at, which is almost guaranteed to reduce the elegance of the game system, yet still be very playable because such detail engages the players. However it cannot be argued that the factors which make a game more playable will, if introduced, have a negative effect on realism.

It all goes without saying, really; but what I am trying to sift out of all of this is whether it actually matters or not. Take for example a really elegant combat system I just thought up:

1. Pick an attacking infantryman.
2. Pick a target infantryman.
3. Roll a die.
4. If the result is 5 or more the target is removed.

It doesn't sound very realistic, does it? However if there was ever a war where the mean survivability of the infantryman under fire was around two-thirds then it could arguably represent a realistic - allbeit bland and simple - combat system. If somewhere this is expressed as a percentage I could substitute percentile dice and present a similarly realistic (but overly-simplistic and not very playable) measure. I don't know if there ever was such a war, I was simply using that assumption to illustrate my thoughts. At its level of detail this system produces fairly accurate results; we don't know how quickly the defender evades or is killed, how far he may have moved, whether cover had an effect or not but the realism is in the result. This is a rather black-box system, and as far from a simulation of the action as we can possibly get; however the result is in this sense simulatively realistic.

The big issue with this black box realism is there is nothing to indicate its functionality but the output (the result of a combat roll). If we were to add in rules for cover, weapon used, position, range to target and the state of the target (prone, standing, running away, pinned and so on) then we would have a lot more to do but the whole activity of attack would feel more like the real thing - more simulative so to speak. However this approach induces more issues with realism.

You see, there are often certain assumptions made about how combat evolves; while many of these assumptions can be left as they are and still produce a good approximation of realism, many others will have the opposite effect. There are those which induce gamey behaviour - the style of play follows the dictates of the ruleset - but that goes without saying for most rulesets and is very difficult to overcome through rules alone. However gamey behaviour is not the problem where realism is sought, or at least it isn't as great a problem as the game-based realism that many have adopted from years of playing by ill-fitting rulesets.

I suppose what I'm really saying here is that not all wargamers are historians or military buffs and after years and years of wargaming they start to conclude certain elements (usually those we see as standard in many wargames) are the norm. Their assumptions on realism are then based on the models they have experienced rather than the empirical evidence of history and current military doctrine. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the wrong way to look at it; a "zone of control" rule might not necessarily apply to certain types of conflict, the expected behaviour of armour in a tactical-level wargame might not necessarily match reality just because that's how tanks worked in the other game you played and - most importantly - just because a rule looks at the result of a skirmish from the alternative viewpoint of target survivability rather than effective firepower doesn't make it wrong.

Baycon 2008 - The UK's Premier Games Convention

It was a hectic few months late last year and early this year for me and my family. The house has become a great source of pain as one small job has escalated into several large ones, I have been forced to make a career change after my former employer made me redundant and there was a death in the family just a couple of weeks ago. Despite all this I managed to make my annual pilgrimage the weekend after Easter to Devon for Baycon, the UK's premier gamers convention.

My timbers were shivered.

Because I had to attend a funeral the day before it all started, I turned up a couple of hours later than usual. I hadn't missed much, the hotel was running late in preparing the rooms and the lads from our group, Mike and Neil, had only just managed to complete their first game. As they started their second, I decided to take a wander round for twenty minutes while my room was made available, pay the required entrance fee for the convention and say hello to a few of the regulars.


Die Macher - it honestly looks more complicated than it is.

Usually when I attend this convention I play whatever people throw at me, but this year I decided I wanted to get a couple of titles I'd been sitting on for a while out on the table. Thanks to Howard, I managed to get both of the long games I hadn't tried before played on Friday and Saturday morning respectively. Howard gladly offered his services when three of us - Steve, Neil and me - expressed a wish to play Die Macher but would prefer if somebody who knew the ropes took us through it. On Friday morning through to Friday afternoon this was our game of choice. After the Green Party (my party) dominated most of the early elections and maintained the strongest party membership, the closing stages of the game left them high and dry. Howard's SDP took the national election after clever use of his media resources left his party most in line with the nation-wide public opinion. It's hard to fathom just how involving and appealing a game like Die Macher is when you're aware beforehand its theme is political and its playing time comparatively long; but I have to say it was everything I never expected it to be - an engrossing game of strategy with some interesting challenges. It makes me pleased to know that not everything I got from Valley Games will be as disappointing as Container (not that Container is a bad game - it isn't, I just felt it didn't meet with my idea of satisfaction).


Things aren't so complex to start with...

On Saturday morning we arranged to play Indonesia, something I had sat idle on it's shelf since I obtained a copy at Baycon 2007. Once again Howard had volunteered his services as instructor and once again the game lasted all morning; but thhis time it ate its way into the afternoon. Not a bad thing by any standards, and a most enjoyable and challenging economic game. But I warn you the downtime with this one is phenomenal. In the later game we all developed a habit of taking a break from the table and having a wander round to see what everybody else was playing. Indonesia is fantastic, but the accounting really needs to be cut down severely.


Near the start of the rail age.

Saturday evening when I was at a loose end, I found myself playing Brass with Howard and Steve. A most excellent game this was, slightly marred before the start by extensive discussions over whether one could build a rail link from Birkenhead, but overwhelmingly appealing up the very close final result. I managed to build a high level shipyard in Liverpool on my last turn, having watched both other players dominate the transport networks for most of the rail age, and in doing so I managed to prevent Steve from doing the same. The shipyard was still available in Birkenhead, but for the other two players it was not to be - no railhead had been established on the Wirral so no coal would reach Cammell Lairds. If only I had managed to garner a few more points in transport I might have took Steve's canal age lead from him - it wasn't a great lead, about four points as I recall. A great game, I must play again soon.

Steve brought his copy of Agricola - interesting.

One of the big hits of Baycon, from my viewpoint at least, was Galaxy Trucker. If you read my Essen report a few months ago you will know I managed to bag a copy of it over there; well it took right up until Baycon to get to try it.

Nice to meteor!

Steve took us through a kind of simplified introductory game incorporating three flights. The first time I got this I heard a number of complaints about the cards, how random their introduction was and how random their effects were. But as much as this is close to the truth, many of the naysayers missed one important facet - the game is all about working around the hazards induced by these cards. It's not as easy as simply knowing what is on them because there is still a fair degree of randomisation; in all this is definitely a risk-management game, but it is a pretty fun one. Neil liked it so much he vowed to get a copy; but let's face it - Neil buys a lot of games (almost as many as me), so it doesn't take much for him to buckle under. Still, I have to agree that a game like this is a lot of fun.

Always time for an old classic inbetween introductions.

Another game I was introduced to by Steve and Howard was In the Year of the Dragon. This strange game following one year in Medieval China is an interesting blend of programmed events and action selection. I didn't do too well at it, I have to say; but it seemed slightly more interesting than I was led to believe when I passed on it at Essen last year. Players must build palaces to house various people who fulfil different roles; these people have various uses, gaining rice, money, knowledge, military strength and buildings being among them. Ultimately combinations of these roles and a rather neat action selection system produce victory points and/or other effects based on what the event for the current month is. Only I could make this game sound this bad; well maybe not just me, because the whole reason I passed this up at Essen was based on the experiences of somebody else in the same hotel during their first game. I still don't get the urge to buy it; perhaps I just feel I have played enough games of that type, perhaps there are others immediately related to it I prefer, perhaps I just have too many games anyway or perhaps it's acombination of all three of these reasons that keeps me from buying a copy. Yet, I have this incomprehensible desire to finish off my Alea collection; so who knows what might be on the next order?

Wrong roof again - almost lost me the game.

Saturday evening was rounded off early Sunday morning with a game of Union Pacific. This was one of a couple of Alan Moon classics I managed to play at Baycon, most memorable of the others was Capitol. The trouble with a lot of these Moon titles (well I know of a few anyway) is there are usually two or three different versions of the rules; as with Time Pirates UP editions bear one of a set of German rules (as in this case, with a rather inaccurate translation), a set of official English rules from Rio Grande (usually with slight differences from the original German ruleset) or the rules the designer altered or intended (which was probably why the English translation didn't tally in this case). After some explanations and heated discussion (yours truly providing the heat), we settled on how the game was going to be played and got on with it. A good thing we did, as it was the longest game of UP ever recorded - lengthened unceremoniously by a full hour when the clocks went from GMT to BST midway through the game.

Missed out on this - shame.

Once again there were several designs being tested; JKLM Games were trying out a few of their new ones including Surprised Stare Games' upcoming Confucius which looks very interesting indeed and has been on my want list since I heard about it. Martin Wallace revealed his plans for a new range of games, and along with his other projects some of them were being playtested over the weekend. I espied Tinners' Trail - a game about Cornish tin mining, another political and military conflict (unfortunately the details escape me) and the game of Automobile (I assume a working title, but I don't know). The latter game I got to try out on Sunday morning before the presentations.

Automobile is the result of Mr Wallace's extensive historical research into the American automotive industry. He said he chose this industry in particular because unlike the early European automotive industry all the elements of free enterprise were present; direct competition, diverse markets, mass-production and significant development. The prototype below sadly has the appearance of an old-fashioned roll-and-move game; I can assure you the gameplay is very different. Each player chooses to invest in plants producing one vehicle model. The player must decide whether to risk working at a loss, pay more for better technology or just take whatever is most easily available. This is the function of the track; the further around a model is the more it costs to set up a plant and the more advanced the model is. Older models will incur losses, which are received at turn end in the form of black cubes and, if not reduced, will cost heavily at game end.

Don't ask me what's going on here; I haven't a clue.

In the centre of the board are two areas; the market area and the sales area. The market area is a map of the United States divided into five regions, each with its own demand based loosely on historical demand for the three vehicle classes. Players place their own distributors in these regions with the intention of shifting vehicles beyond what is demanded from the general sales by occupying the demand spaces at the appropriate time. The vehicle classes range from high-priced through mid-priced to low-priced vehicles, and the general demand for each is determined through the drawing of numbered tiles. Based on what players perceive this demand to be, each produces as many cars as they like within upper and lower limits for their plants. These are then distributed on the sales charts; if a player goes for a higher price he is usually less likely to shift them whereas a lower price will earn less per vehicle but results usually in more sales.

Martin has finely balanced this game, but I am sure there will be a few tweaks before long. Once again I can't wait to see these latest designs on the shelves; for some reason Martin's designs fit with my tastes almost impeccably.

Nothing to see here, move along!

The highlight of the convention had to be during the presentations. No, I'm not gloating because Mike Oakes was one point away from a guaranteed third win of the Spirit of the Game trophy; nor do I think watching everybody who gave me a sound thrashing waltz up to collect a prize and a handshake was more appealing than playing the games themselves. The highlight was prolific games designer Reiner Knizia proving once again to us ignorant British that Germans do in fact possess a sense of humour. Reiner joked about the French president visiting his home town of Windsor, the sole winner of a Nintendo DS game competition and made a few presentations. More importantly he jokingly had a dig at the choice of hotel for the convention once again; particularly the choice of breakfasts (or rather lack of it). I personally think we could do better for a hotel for Baycon, I don't think the hotel is very cheap considering what we get and to me it just seems to have a poor atmosphere - improved in no small measure through the efforts of the committee, I must hasten to add.

We were all really happy with the comedian the committee had booked.

But whether we're in the same place next year or not I look forward to attending the UK's premier games convention once again. I appreciate the work the commitee puts into this event every year, so I'd like to thank them here and now for their efforts once again (one minor point - where are those results?). All that remains is for me to congratulate James Faulkner on his winning the Victor Ludorum, and the young lady whose name I couldn't remember for winning the Roger Heyworth Spirit of the Game Award. I hope to actually play against her next year, something I unfortunately missed out on this year; and James, if you're reading this, it takes more than a win at Galaxy Trucker, you know!

Prisoner's Dilemma?

The New Year brought in an opportunity to play one of the lesser-known Essen 2007 titles I managed to obtain. Described roughly (and with reservations) by its designer as a cross between Beowulf and Puerto Rico, there were two main selling points for me here - theme and limited print run. The former point was the most attractive, but having something relatively unique is always another; so San Quentin Kings, in all its self-published glory, made it into my swag bag.

Until January we had never really had the opportunity to play the game; when we did there were just three of us present - so you must bear this in mind as we progress. The components are pretty much as can be expected from a self-published first edition, reflecting in some measure the inexperience and limited budget which is expected when a designer takes it upon himself to sell his product to the world. If this is ever taken up by a major publisher the few problems I had with the components will be ironed out; in fairness they never really interfered with our gameplay and simply affected the aesthetics.

The game itself involves between three and five gangs competing for dominance in San Quentin prison. In order to achieve this they need to earn a good (bad?) reputation through supplying drugs, winning fights, increasing the size of their gang, sending gang members to the gym, bribing guards, procuring contraband, going into solitary confinement and dominating the riot which ends the game. Since most of these involve some sort of fighting, winning fights with other gangs is perhaps the most important means of achieving victory. But to win fights you need gang members.

There are three levels of gang members - spider, scorpion and snake - each of which has a best use in certain areas. For instance, scorpion gang members excel at improvising weapons (shanks) while spiders are quite adept at scrounging and smuggling in contraband. The snakes tend to be the muscle of the gang members, and dominate just about everything else.

During each player's turn an action is chosen. This action is then performed by all players in order. Often there will be some sort of conflict attached to the action, with the dominant fighter gaining the lion's share and non-participants gaining nothing. Once an action has been concluded, it is no longer available for the rest of that turn (a year in game terms); at the start of a new year, all actions are reset and the process begins again.


Trade has finished in the canteen; but this was no fishmarket!

Fighting is perhaps the game's core mechanism. Players who wish to fight pick a number of their gang members as a secret bid. Once this is laid on the table players take turns to draw fight cards, or if they have any at their disposal play shank cards, in order to bolster their existing strength. Then depending on the action and the gang members involved (a different hierarchy for each action) a winner, second-place and third-place gang are determined. These will each gain some benefit according to the action.

When the last year has been played, there is one big fight - the riot - which is an opportunity to garner a few more points before the final scoring. Final scoring is based mainly on any drugs obtained, dominance in each type of gang member, and who won the most fights throughout the game. Naturally, the highest score wins.

I won this first game but not by much; usually a close finish is the sign of a good game and in this case the theory has been bolstered. With Ian, Hatti and me playing I can confirm it does actually work with three players; I have yet to play it with the full complement of five. I think competition will be a little bit tougher in that case and I look forward to it. The game is a lot of fun to play and perhaps fills that niche between the Euro and Ameritrash genres; the action function is clearly of a Euro style, but the whole theme and presentation (with perhaps the exception of the wooden components - much more practical for a secret bid than minis) is very much Ameritrash. If you prefer a hybrid design (as I do) then this is the way to go; let's hope a major publisher takes up SQK soon, so that more can experience it.

US Advance Stalled

A week ago, Tom came around for a wargame session. A few weeks back we had managed to get in some Combat Commander: Europe, and I do have quite a few others I want to try, but I just couldn't resist giving Tide of Iron another bash having missed out on playing it since last Summer.

I decided I didn't want the game to last too long; we're still both getting used to the system because it's not the kind of game the group manages to play too often. Hence I chose a scenario with limited turns, The Last Stand, as downloadable from the FFG website. The scenario involves a US advance on a German position; as you probably guessed from the title the US advance ended up less than successful.

Taking command of the German force, I decided a building overlooking the road down which the enemy was likely to advance would make a good vantage point for an MG42 team accompanied by an AT squad. This deployment was my first and perhaps my greatest mistake of the entire game; Tom as US commander rolled forward one of his Sherman tanks and rendered the building a deathtrap. His first shot took out the MG42 leaving the best part of the road clear for his advance.

My second mistake of the game was to leave the surviving Panzerschrek team in that building, awaiting an expected advance from one of the enemy tanks - it didn't happen and they soon suffered the same fate as the machine-gunners. This was a devastating loss for the German side.

However the US commander failed to exploit this initial advantage; I suppose the less than effective MG42 I had positioned a little further back from the bridge provided some discouragement to his troops breaking cover, and perhaps the lurking Panzer IV I had covering the crest of the hill had something to do with it. The result was that for most of the game the US commander garnered few command points, while I managed to reinforce my dwindling forces fairly regularly. This ensured a rather slow advance for his infantry, to the point that by the mid-game it had become all but impossible for Tom to meet his objectives


The beginning of the end - a German PzIV shakes up a Sherman.

A short time later, though, Tom pressed his advance across the bridge on my left flank; simultaneously he attempted to race a Sherman around the hill despite the realisation he could not succeed - his intention it semed was simply to inflict maximum casualties before the game was over. My only effective means of stopping his tank was my Panzer as he had successfully eliminated my AT elements; outflanking his Sherman I first damaged then destroyed it. But the Panzer suffered damage first and it only took a swift coup-de-race from his second tank to burn it out.

While all this was going on, his troops pushed up and took the bridge, were disrupted by my rearguard MG42 as they crossed it, and then wiped out in a counter-attack by my reserves. At this point it dawned on Tom he had overlooked the value of an assault order altogether; having already failed to meet his objective he decided it would be a good time to try. He drew up an assault on my fresh troops in the open between the bridge and a nearby building, but failed to eliminate them totally. Soon after the turn limit was reached.

This is a good game and really needs to be played more; I recently acquired the Days of the Fox expansion and look forward to trying out some North African scenarios in the near future. However this scenario seems very difficult for the American forces to win; I would advise using this scenario where there is an imbalance between players - perhaps where one player is new to the game and the other not - giving the more experienced player the American forces.

Contain Yourself!

Tuesday's session saw my second game of Container; yes I know I was a bit lax and didn't write anything about last time, but for me times are changing and besides I had to try it twice before I could say for certain how I feel about the game. I have since found we may have been playing a rule wrong - or rather overlooking a rule - regarding a player's turn ending once an auction takes place; but I doubt it's omission really has any bearing on what I am about to say on the game.

My produce, my goods ready to ship, not a ship in sight.

Container is one of those games which is purely economics. It's a combination of limited funds and limited actions, the product of these factors being a game in which all of the players directly influence a market in which they themselves are both the sellers and the buyers. The whole market can be simpified into the following short list:

1. Goods are produced at a fixed cost of 1 (disregarding factory costs for the time being as the first machine is free).

2. The price of produced goods is set by the player producing; between 1 and 4.

3. Goods can then be bought by other players, who then set a new price for them at between 2 and 6.

4. Goods may be loaded onto ships at the given cost, but not from one's own harbour.

5. Goods are transported to the island and sold by the shipload to the highest bidder in a blind-bid auction; if the highest bidder happens to be the ship's owner they pay to the bank, otherwise they receive both the bid and the same amount again from the bank.

6. Goods on the island will vary in value from 2 to 10 at game end; this value is different for each player. One good will be worth double (10 instead of 5) as long as at least one of every type is present Additionally, whichever good they have shipped more than any other to the island will become instantly worthless at game end.

That's about it; as you can probably tell it's quite easy to gauge what anything is worth to you but very difficult to gauge its worth to any other single player. This is, however, a minor problem when the game is considered as a whole - there are other, much worse issues I have with the game as a whole.


The island stock is rising, but not where I'm shipping it isn't!

Auctions, which occur when a ship arrives at the foreign island, are the only way money is brought into this semi-closed economy - as well as being a key means of the total money in circulation being reduced. Even though payments are made between players (as they are during all other trades during the game), an equivalent amount is also taken from the bank - unless the shipping player decides he wants the goods for himself (in which case money is taken out of circulation by that player, whose final bid goes into the bank). As I said above, these auctions follow a blind bid format; players secretly select their bid amount and simultaneously reveal their bid. This can too easily result in overbidding and essentially induces severe chaos to the system; this chaos is one of the key factors which makes the in-game value of a container of any sort difficult to pin down. The direct effect of this, for the seller at least, is it then becomes difficult to sift through the minutiae to evaluate the highest bid in comparison to the worth of that shipment. The indirect effect is tied in with the next major issue I have - competitive pricing groupthink.

The way containers are priced, either in factory storage or in the harbour, ought to have some basis in what players expect to sell them for if they were to ship them to the island. However in the games I have played this is usually ignored in favour of direct competition between the players. Yes, it's a groupthink effect and with a bit of experience I expect the way pricing behaves in the in-game market will change; as it stands however the player to the direct left of the player selling at knockdown prices is basically given first refusal on a gift - assuming he has the warehouse space. If not enough players do, then what usually happens is everybody starts dropping their prices; but as I say it usually goes the other way with one player reaping the benefits and the others just watching their cashflow fritter away in comparison. This is probably less effective where there are fewer players, but with the full complement of five players I have to say it becomes rather annoying if one player is simply feeding the next cheap product in a constant flow.

And therein is the final problem I have to discuss with a game like this - it has a fixed turn order. There may be a way to manipulate this to best personal effect, but I haven't seen one. If player A plays poorly then player B, not players C, D or E, will benefit. I can see the blind auction works much better in this situation, but as far as the rest of the game goes a player is forced to adapt their strategy based on his place in the seating order. Still, that could be argued as being a minor failing or even a feature in some respects.

In summary, while there are some interesting economic facets to this game - enough to keep me playing for the time being - making the right play is kind of a hit-and-miss affair. As the game unfolds you can get an idea of the demand, but by then it's too late to turn back on the semi-random errors you made early on. You will have been producing for most of the game and buying other's stock to ship; but right up until the last few turns you will probably be unaware of exactly who wants what containers. I suppose you could figure it out, but that's a lot of work to put in for less reward than it ought to be. This is a game which seems to hold some water with the rest of the group, so for now I'll continue playing (at least until I get the special containers I was promised by Valley Games); if I'm missing something feel free to comment; if I'm not then please feel free to elaborate.

2007 - The Agony and the Ecstasy

Originally I intended this article to appear around the beginning of January, but with my job disappearing I have been concentrating on other matters. I missed out on writing about a lot of things last year; that could mean I got in more gaming but really the only certainty is I got in less writing. Looking back, there were highlights and lowlights I ought to have discussed but never. There were also enough episodes I did discuss that I could still talk a little more about:

The Agony

Fury of Dracula (GW)

After much waiting, when we finally got around to playing the old version of Fury of Dracula I found myself very disappointed. There just isn't enough cunning required on either side. Dracula can too easily avoid the hunters when they are strong, yet the hunters can too easily find Dracula on the turn of a card.

Furthermore, the core hunting mechanisms have very little bearing on the outcome; this relies on a combination of good draws and good rolls for one party or the other. IMO the whole hunting element which forms the core of the game should influence the outcome more.
Think about it; a hunter with any sense would only choose to hunt during daylight and must spend the night fending off Dracula and his minions. Likewise, why would Dracula attack during the day? He would choose the cover of darkness when he is at his most powerful.
Alright, maybe I'm a little bitter at rolling daylight for the one and only encounter I had as Dracula in a game lasting the evening; and hence automatically losing against a hunter with a stake.

I've never played the new game so I don't know if things have improved; but this minor element tarnished an otherwise fun game. If there is a little more strategy involved (as in trying to time encounters so they occur to your side's advantage) then it would work better for me personally.

Age of Empires III

Ekted's report on this kind of inspired this whole article; no matter how many times I play it I seem to end up completely missing the point. The game sits there and grins at you, telling you there is no required strategy, yet colonisation seems to be the way to go (colonies being the only points to score more than once). But as soon as you head down one road, the unknown order of discoveries and capital buildings plays havoc, and the initial leader finds himself trailing. The swing introduced by discoveries is just too great.

In subsequent games I have tried to take different approaches, even took greater chances on discoveries, but they never seem to work. Mike, however, seems to be doing comparatively well every time he plays - how can this be? We're talking about the D.O.G. here; he never does well!

But the frustration here is a little nicer than that over Fury; it makes me determined to have another go just to prove I'm wrong. If I can't prove I'm wrong soon, however, it could be the trade-pile for this one.

A Game of Thrones: A Storm of Swords Expansion

The latest expansion to a most excellent boardgame can also be played as a separate four-player game based around the central part of Westeros. However many of the enclosed additions are for the base game and it is these which brought great agony earlier this year.

The new rules lengthened player turns considerably; I suppose practice would reduce downtime but day-long sessions are getting increasingly difficult to set up around here. We used leaders, the special Westeros deck for this edition, special one-time orders, ports from the first expansion and the new cards for each house. I may have left something out as it was some time ago now; what I can remember is the hideous results.

The game lasted way beyond the alloted three hours - in fact it was around eight hours (and was unfinished - we had to stop after turn nine because people were running out of time). This was blamed primarily on the new Westeros deck, which allowed far too much mustering and not enough of the Wildling attacks. Combined with a little AP this just made the game drag. Oh, the agony!

The Circle

Never before has a game promised so much and delivered so little. Alright, a fair bit of exaggeration there; however having bought this at my first ever Essen due to its excellent theme and what appeared to be one of the most innovative mechanisms of the year (the time wheel) i was severely disappointed to find a heavily AP-prone, slow-moving strategy. Neither theme nor mechanism has managed to save this one from only going a single play; as wont as I am to give games a chance this one is teetering on the cliff-edge overlooking my trade pile.

1825 Unit 1

I'm not really blaming the game here, though it is partially down to the game. We played Southern England only, with four of us. This is generally bad (as I was to find out the hard way) because there are too few companies to go around and it's highly likely one player is going to be mostly watching everybody else doing something - at least for most of the game. In this particular case it was Neil, known to be a rather tolerant gamer who likes games from all genres. His tolerance was tested to the limit here, as he spent around two hours doing next to nothing (having figured out that buying or selling shares wouldn't help him at this point). He said he was considering never playing a game of that genre again after that session, and I couldn't fault his statement. I just hope he doesn't stand by it indefinitely.

This was the last of several plays with just one unit; it highlighted the main problem with this game more than it had before. The player who floats the first company is highly likely to walk away with it. Introducing extra units and expansions to this one for four players or more is probably going to be key in varying the outcome, but until I can get in another session that remains to be seen.

The Ecstasy

Tide of Iron

Never in the field of conflict has so much been spent on so little by so many. But I just had to have it, I just had to try it and I just had a great time. ASL'ers will tell you their favourite tactical level wargame is the best because of the detail it delivers, miniatures wargamers will tell you that nothing can beat the feel of the open-form battlefield with painted scenery, soldiers and scaled measurement; I would take ToI over both of them any day. The main reason is because it occupies the middle ground between the two so well; it straddles the almost opposing ideals of realism and elegance quite satisfactorily. I don't wish to get into arguments about realism, but I've always thought any system which goes deep into the realms of simulation goes too far; thankfully ToI doesn't and I look forward to the upcoming expansion Days of the Fox (which arrived in the post today!).

Twilight Imperium 3

Playing with the expansion for the first time earlier this year was a very satisfying experience indeed. the game actually felt it had purpose to it, more than the basic game at least, and I really enjoyed being trounced having reached a dominant position which I held for around three quarters of the game. There's a hell of a lot of atmosphere to this game, and with the introduction of several changes from the expansion it felt more like a galactic struggle than a competition for the most ISC selections. The only downside is still the massive playing time; there were only four of us this time around and yet the game still seemed to threaten a duration into the small hours of Sunday morning, after a mid-afternoon start.

Warrior Knights

We managed to get this game to the table a couple of times this year, but I'm particularly referring to the Crown and Glory expansion. It added several interesting aspects to this game of politics and war; we tried everything but the rules for the King (I'm looking forward to going through those later this year). If you ever play this game, be careful of the player who lays siege to three or four cities on that first turn. It's highly likely if he isn't disturbed he'll have a great advantage for the rest of the game.

Cuba

Despite many who said this game was made of much the same stuff oher predecessors were, we found it a really enjoyable and challenging strategy game - not to mention worth looking at! My first approach at a strategy was a water strategy, but then one of the others fouled that up by building the golf course. A change in strategy at this point fared no better; thankfully a game like this rewards a flexible approach. That flexibility still wasn't enough to get me a victory; Chris had the Town Hall in his pocket and dominated the politics.

Age of Steam: Chesapeake & Ohio

An unofficial expansion, downloadable for free, this proved to be a very good map indeed. The rules involved found great favour amongst our rail gamers and as I recall the results were fairly close. Cut-throat games like AoS can really shine when the right map appears; C&O is an excellent, free addition to the myriad of expansions available.

Brass

Up for my 2007 game of the year this one is; but as you know I have gotten kind of lax on these matters. Brass seems to have taken the networking elements of Wallace's rail games and introduced an industrial framework for them - fitting perfectly the theme of Lancashire during the Industrial Revolution. The networking element is the core, starting with the canal era and then moving into the rail era. I can see a lot of plays in the future for this one; it's my kind of game.

Railroad Tycoon: Europe Map

I'm still waiting for the official Rails of Europe to surface, but way back in the Spring we got to play Chris Boote's excellent conversion of the base game into a European map. To me this was much better than the base game; all of the map space was used, the special rules made it more balanced in addition to the even distribution of cities, and most of all the cards had less of an influence on the outcome. Chris did an excellent job; unfortunately I have yet to try other conversions, but at least I have a decent benchmark.

That is 2007 in the can; now I have to look forward to 2008. I'm living in hope of a more regular foray into the world of the light-to-medium wargame, the more adventurous boardgames and perhaps a slight return to the role-playing hobby (that all depends on whether or not Hatti will volunteer as Dungeon Master!).

Christmas Gaming

In an unusual turn of events I had the rare pleasure this year of actually spending some time on both Christmas Night and Boxing Night at my Mother's house. On both occasions I took along some games and on Boxing Night I actually got to rope in a couple of siblings to play.

We started with that poster child for the gateway game, Carcassonne. I decided the basic game would be enough and so I taught my brother, Rob and my sister, Kate how to play. After I gave them a sound defeat for their first game we went on to play it again; this time Rob took a graceful victory by lapping both of us on the scoreboard before we even considered farmers.

At this point I decided it was time to move on to something else; the game I chose was O Zoo Le Mio, a fairly simple auction and building game. Both enjoyed it immensely; it even garnered some attention from my young nephew Brian, but I decided to explain it all and involve him directly would be too much (for me). Instead I allowed him to look after the bank, the benches and the customer meeples. Kate ran away with this one, and as is usual under Simons' law I came in last place with an appalling score.

To round it all off, I brought out the Perudo set and taught them Liar Dice in the gradual way I prefer. That meant our first game was straight rolls and bluffing with no special calls and no rerolls. Again it was welcomed, but after a couple of games we had to call it a day (or rather night, as it was approaching the witching hour) so I never got as far as introducing anything beyond the basics.

This was an unexpected delight, getting to play games with my family over the holidays. I wonder if I would be able to encourage them to play Age of Steam next year?

A Thoughtful Present

I said to my Mother the same thing I said to all of my relatives when they asked me what I would like for Christmas.

"Don't even try to get me a game of any description; I already have most of the games you could buy and most of the games I want you wouldn't be able to find."

So I asked the Missus for an electric razor (I'm getting lazier as I age), my eldest lad for a DVD "or something" (24 season two was what I got) and for a wallet off anybody who would get me one (as mine is worn out from being opened so often from buying games - I mean Christmas presents). I was expecting the usual socks, underwear and/or smellies from Mother, so I left that as it was.

You can imagine my surprise when, on Christmas Eve, my Mother pointed to a large present under her tree and said, "That one's yours, you've got the biggest one this time."

"Biggest isn't always best," I retorted, following glibly with "except in my case perhaps - I am the biggest in this room". My Mother's reply left me intrigued.

"Well I think you'll like it a lot, but Pamela won't." What could she mean? Only moments earlier when I had been doing the usual cryptic fishing (just enough so I would never know for certain what was in there) she had hinted that the present was "no use for your feet but might be for your head". Well if it wasn't for Mother I probably wouldn't have gotten into all this gaming lark anyway; she still poses these little riddles at Christmas and I still enjoy them.

Come Christmas morning we had to decide who was going to be Santa. It is usually me, being the Father in our household, but this year I said Darren, my youngest, could do it because he had to practice for when he would have kids to entertain (and besides I had already decided this would be a lazy Christmas for me). Of course, his lack of experience at playing Santa meant he went straight for the gift that was biggest - which happened to be mine.

"I don't have any idea what she's got me this year," I said, as I held the package and tore off the end. It was about the size of an FFG box, but lopsided in shape being higher at one end than the other. "I think it's probably going to be a hat and scarf and some toiletries," I said, remembering the riddle Mother had posed. As the wrapping tore away, I gasped in astonishment (genunine pictures of me doing this later - my Son's girlfriend has them on her camera).

There on my lap was a copy of Dark Tower, a game I had owned around a quarter-century ago but had since passed the way of other old toys. What made it more special was that my Mother had gone to such trouble to get it. It was a copy from the United States (you could instantly tell by the different packaging - and the fact USPS tape held all the bubble-wrap together), she had placed a chancing bid on Ebay (I don't know how much and never asked) and apparently got it cheaper than the norm because of a few missing pieces (a gold key, the corner pieces for the board and a few red pegs - not exactly game-breakers).



All set for adventure! The tower was fully working so that was a bonus!


Yes, I know there isn't a lot of game to it (I've since played it for the first time in twenty-odd years), but this was such a thoughtful present I was absolutely chuffed to bits. I mean, you know how difficult it is to get hold of a copy, don't you? I must've been a good boy all year to get this. Thanks Mum!