Starmada: Klingon Armada Review

Yesterday I had the pleasure of playing Majestic Twelve Games‘ game Klingon Armada. This is MJ12’s Starmada generic spaceship combat game that has been reconfigured for Amarillo Design Bureau’s Star Fleet Battles Universe (SFB)

SFB has long been the standard for ship-to-ship combat in the Star Trek universe. It is a very detailed and technical game and not for the faint of heart. A few years ago, ADB released their Federation Commander version of SFB as a much simpler and more streamlined game with more attractive color based ship logs and pieces. While Federation Commander is easier to play than SFB, it is not well suited for large, multi-ship engagements.

MJ12’s Klingon Armada finally brings the ability to play large fleet battles in the Star Trek universe. With a license from ADB, Klingon Armada effectively replicates the feel of the SFB Universe in a rather quick and easy game. I was fortunate to be able to play this game with three other players. Since we were all new to the game, rather than play a scenario, we would instead each start out with two ships and once those were destroyed, replace them with two progressively better ships. In this manner we would continue until we ran out of time or wanted to play something else.

Klingon Armada is intended to be played with miniatures on a hex board so it is a simple matter to replace the miniatures (which I don’t have) with counters (which I do). ADB provides all of these cardboard components available for sale at their website if you don’t have them. I was able to provide the pieces I need from my copy of Federation Commander.

The game turn in Klingon Armada is rather simple, ship moves are plotted at the beginning of the turn in secret, the ships are then moved, and then combat takes place. Since all combat results do not take place until the end of the turn, order is not that important. We decided to move the drones (missile salvos) after ships moved since drone movement is not plotted. We also made each player declare their attacks before anyone started rolling.

The plotted movement is just one of several movement options available in the Stormed rules. MJ12 has done a good job of creating a plotted movement system that works well. However, the description of the movement mechanics in the rules can be difficult to comprehend for a few points. This posed no real problem and we just agreed on a common interpretation and moved on. Ships can move ahead or turn left or turn around completely. These maneuvers can be combined but how they can be combined is a function of how many hexes the ship will move this turn as compared to the previous turn. There is not much more to movement than that and our experience was that we spent more time decided where to move our ships rather than how to move our ships.

Combat is simple but involved rolling dice multiple times using just 6-sided dice. All combat attacks require three die rolls. The first die roll determines if the battery hit. The second roll determines if the hit penetrated the ships. Another roll is made to determine what gets hit on the ship. The middle step can be ignored is a ship does not have shields. While this may seem tedious, we very easily adapted to these mechanics and quickly sped through each attack. We learned to first count odd results on the damage rolls since odd results inflict a hull point of damage, if a ship was destroyed outright then there was no need to continue rolling.

Klingon Armada describes all of the basic weapons from ADB’s Federation Commander: Klingon Attack game in that players have phasers (Phaser-1, Phaser-2, Phaser-3, and Phaser-4), photon torpedoes, disruptors, and drones. The Romulan plasma torpedo will have to wait until the next game module. Each weapon system has different characteristics in maximum range, to-hit probability, shield penetration capability, and damage capability. The game makes use of Starmada’s weapons characteristics to give phasers a range based rate of fire which allows the player to roll more attacks at short and medium range and allows for photon torpedoes and disruptors to be overloaded at short and medium range. In the game, photon torpedoes are all or nothing hits. Either you hit and penetrate the shields and do significant damage or you do not. Disruptors are not as powerful as photon torpedoes but you have a better chance of doing some damage. These characteristics provide more than enough flavor to differentiate the weapons and to provide interesting choices on how to use them in the game.

In our game, we charged right into each other, fired all of our weapons, and unleashed a torrent of drones. The Klingons took the brunt of the fighting with atypical die roll results which quickly resulted in heavier reinforcements arriving on our side. Eventually, the first four Federation ships were destroyed but one of the Klingon D7 Battle Cruisers was combat ineffective due to a rather brutal dual overloaded photon torpedo hit that destroyed all weapons but nothing else. By that time, we had spent about 2-3 hours playing and we had to quit. We all agreed that we had fun which is a good measure of any game.

In the future, I would like to see all of the SFB races and systems modeled using the Starmada mechanics. I would have preferred that this be delivered in one volume of rules, especially since ADB just released their combined rules for Federation Commander. I would also like to have seen better ship logs made available at the release of the game. I made my own for my game but one of the reasons why Federation Commander is successful was due to the presentation. Supposedly, ADB will release better quality ship logs sometimes in the future. If possible, I would like to see some recommendation on how to convert SFB/FC ships into Starmada. I have plenty of ship logs for those game, it would be nice to be able to unofficially convert them over.

On the game mechanics, my only quibble is the lack of damage results for ship Special Abilities. Since Special Abilities includes the drone racks, this makes a major weapon system invulnerable in the standard rules. Players who have the Admiralty Edition of Starmada have some options on this topic but I feel that this should have been included in the standard Klingon Armada rules.

Klingon Armada is a good game of fleet combat in the Star Trek universe. The most similar game in I can think of is Agents of Gaming’s Fleet Action games set in the Babylon 5 setting. However, that game went out of print when Agents of Gaming closed down and Klingon Armada is a much easier game to play than Fleet Action. MJ12 has an active discussion forum supporting this game and the rules can be purchased from either MJ12 or ADB. ADB also has counters and maps available for purchase for those needing them.

Overall, I really liked the game mechanics of Klingon Armada and I am looking forward to playing this game again. Having played both SFB and Federation Commander, I believe that this is a much more accessible game and makes a good introduction to the Star Fleet Battles universe. The Starmada mechanics are also very conducive to further expansions to this variant of the Star Fleet Battles Universe. If this is a topic you are interested in, MJ12’s Starmada Klingon Armada is worth looking into.

New Game Impressions

Recently, in between visits to both the Antietam and Gettysburg battlefields, I had an opportunity to play numerous games.  What follows are a few short paragraphs with my first impressions of each game that I played while on vacation.

Advanced Civilization (Avalon Hill)

Advance Civilization is the original historically themed expand and conqueror game. Published around 1981, this game is long out of print and is now a collector’s item. Each player in the game takes the role of a civilization that they must then advance from the stone age to the Roman era. Game play consists of moving into spaces around the board, building cities and generating and trading trade items. The key to the game is building cities since each city generates a single trade resource. Multiple trade resources generate more gold that can be used to purchase advances. Trading among players is a simple step in that players seek to trade with one another for the resources that they need to build sets.

After playing the game once, I cannot recommend the game. In the resource decks are calamity that represent bad things that happen to you. In the game, I went three straight turns where the calamities I suffered reduced the number of cities I had by half. Such staggering losses were simply not possible to overcome during the course of the game. Adding insult to injury, on one turn when I had just four cities, two of the trade cards I drew were calamity cards. I literally had nothing to trade so ended up suffering the calamity.

I once played a big-boxed game where it was possible for a player to be eliminated on the first turn. After experiencing this at the convention where the game was being debuted, I asked the designer why he had that in the game. He just shrugged his shoulders and I lost all interest in the game. Similarly, the complete randomness of the calamities makes Advance Civilization a poor game design. The factions are also unbalanced with certain factions having a distinct advantage over the others. A player should win or lose on the basis of their play in the game and not on how well a deck of cards have been shuffled and more effort should have been expended in making the factions more even rather than historical.

Advance Civilization also takes a long time to play. For the reasons stated above, I cannot recommend Advanced Civilization.

Imperial

Imperial is a European style board game with the premise that each player is a banker who is trying to influence various European countries in an effort to make money. Players can purchase stock (think influence) in each country, build factories to construct armies and navies, and then use the forces against other players. The game uses a roundel marked with a player’s piece to determine what they can do that turn. Players can only advance their marker three spaces per turn without having to pay for the extra moves.

The player with the most money at the end of the game wins. It should be noted that the players do not represent specific countries. Instead, the players represent independent concerns using their money to manipulate the countries in play.

Imperial is a decent game. We played it after our marathon session of Advanced Civilization and so it was not too challenging or long for an end of evening game. It’s worth looking into or playing to see if you like it.

Support your local game store

I had the distinct please of playing several games at the Family Game Store located in the Savage Mill Mall in Savage, Maryland. The store hosts Saturday gaming in the common areas just outside the store. They have an excellent selection of board games to purchase and include several copies of games that can be opened and played. If an open copy of a game is not available, then in all likelihood either they or someone in the store has played the game and they can give you their impressions.

Saturday game night is also a great way to hook up with local game players and meet new people and play new games. In addition to board games, trading card games and several role playing games were being run in the commons area so there should be something for everyone there.

This store and others like it deserve your patronage. The Family Game Store is an uncommon business in an age of ever growing on-line transactions. The store not only provides a great selection of games to purchase but also actively promotes the pastime and provides friendly service as well. If you live in the area or have a similar store in your vicinity I highly recommend you patronize them to keep them in business.

There is more to come

I have many more first impressions to write about that I will post as soon as I can. Until then …

Academy Games Conquest of Heroes

My friends have noticed that I’ve not posted to the game blog for several weeks now so I figured it was time to write about another war game that I’ve been playing recently. The game in question is Academy Games Euro-style war game Conquest of Heroes. The game is subtitled Awakening the Bear! – Russia 1941-1942 and portrays squad level combat on the Eastern Front in that time period.

This is actually my third time playing the game and I am 1-2 (win, losses) for the first scenario. I have yet to get into the more advanced rules but my basic impression of the CoH: Awakening the Bear! Russia 1941-1942 is that it is a simple and enjoyable game that is very fast paced but is rather expensive to purchase.

The idea behind CoH is to provide a simple, quick playing war game depicting WWII squad level combat with high quality components. The game delivers on both accounts handily.

The rules are printed in a large formal full color booklet.  The rules are divided into sections for the first three scenario to help easy the players into more and more complex rules and concepts as they play the game. Game rules are printed in black text, examples in red text, and comments in blue text. The rules booklet is heavily illustrated with color pictures. Finally, there is a rules index and the last page provides descriptions of all of the counters and action cards in the game. Other than the large format of the rules (makes it difficult to keep on a table), I have no complaints with the rules.

The game is played in turns with each player taking turns activating and using units to achieve the objective of the scenario. In the basic game, each unit has 7 action points with which to spend to move and attack. In the normal rules, each unit rolls two six-sided dice to determine action points. This feature makes CoH rather different from most all war games that use fixed action sequences and movement points. Units expend action points for movement and combat at different rates with the better units expending less points per activity than poor units.

In addition to action points, players also have a fixed pool of command points that can be used to modify die rolls or give extra command points to a unit. In this way, command and control is abstracted in play. There are no leader counters. I like this idea since it helps keep the board clean with only the units in play being visible.

The game includes the concept of opportunity fire and in the advanced rules includes action cards so that the sequence of play is not strictly a he-go-I-go activity. There is no stacking limit in the game but attacks against a stack can be deadly since all units in the hex are attacked. The advanced rules include the concept of group actions so that it is not necessary to move units one at a time.

The counters are rather impressive at 1” in size. The counters show all of the details a player needs to use (move or fight) the counter. The counters are double sided with the back side of the counter used to show that the unit has been activated during the current turn. The numbers are color coded (blue for anti-tank, red for anti-personnel, black for everything else) but because of the large counters, the number themselves are also large so there is no problem with reading the numbers. Instead of unit symbols, each counter has an isomorphic icon (a vehicle, gun, or group of soldiers) to help differentiate each type of unit. The counters are well printed on heavy cardstock and their large size makes them easy to handle.

The maps are just as impressive as the counters. Each map board is printed on  heavy, folding cardboard. The maps contain a hexagon grid and are isomorphic in that the map edges can be arranged against one another to model the terrain desired. The game comes with five map boards and a sixth (a swamp map) can be purchased.

The combat mechanics in the game are rather simple and used for all modes of combat (anti-personnel and anti-tank). The attack value of the unit is used as a bonus to the die roll while terrain increases or decreases the defense value of the target. Units have facing with flank facings providing less defense than attacks through the forward arc. A results greater than the modified defense rating of the target is needed to score a hit. A result 1-3 points above the defense rating inflicts a hit which is determined by a chit pull instead of a die roll. A result four of more points above a target’s defense rating destroys the target. Two hits automatically destroy the target unit.

The chit pull system for damage is not very common in war games and is by far the biggest feature of the game that is un-war-game-like. The chits are different and range from a simple pin result (unit stops moving) to a single hit kill. Most chits modify the stats of the affected unit. There are also different damage chits for vehicle units.

Units must rally to remove a hit that requires the unit to be activated. With this system, it is important to hit a unit repeatedly to destroy it. After using this mechanic several times I can say that it works. Hit counters do not stay in play very long so the odds in the chit pool do not change significantly from turn to turn. I am concerned that scenarios with large numbers of units might skew the pool if multiple units are hit but not destroyed.

I have found Conflict of Heroes to be rather fast playing with the first scenario taking about from 1-1 ½ hours to play. Since I was teaching someone to play the game each time I have played this game, significant time was also spent teaching my opponent the game rules. Because of the simple game mechanics, the game is very accessible and makes a great introduction to the hobby of war gaming. It is not Advanced Squad Leader but then in was never intended to be.

My only complaint is the high cost of the game. The on-line price is $75 and retail is $80 but the cost is directly related to the high quality of the game components. The box is rather heavy when it contains all of the game components. I don’t believe that the game is over priced considering that video games now cost $60 and some of the high component density Euro style games are as expensive as CoH. In my opinion you do get what you pay for.

This is my first game from Academy Games and I can say that their customer support is outstanding. The copy I had purchased had a misprinted set of rules. All of the pages were there but they were printed out of order. I was able to download and print a set of rules but I contacted Academy Games who sent me a new copy of the rules and offered to send me the swamp map for just the cost of shipping. I declined the map since I already had purchased the map. Academy Games provides down-loadable updates and language translations for the CoH rules that can be printed on standard sheets of paper (8.5”x11”). In addition, Academy Games also offers the game components for individual sale. I wish more game companies offered components for sale, especially extra counters. Additional games in the series are planned with the next game in the series, sub-titled Storms of Steel! – Kursk 1943. According to their web-site, this game is in print in German and French and will soon be available in English.

In summary, I like Conquest of Heroes. The game is subtitled Awakening the Bear! – Russia 1941-1942 and I find it enjoyable to play. The game mechanics are simple and allow for the game to be played when time is short which is now a significant consideration since I am older. If you can overcome the steep price, then you should consider purchasing and playing this game.

PanzerBlitz 1970 and PanzerBlitz Hill of Death 2009

Two weeks ago I had an opportunity to play Multiman Publishing’s (MMP) redesign of PanzerBlitz, Avalon Hill’s classic game of tactical combat in World War II. PanzerBlitz was my first introduction into war gaming and as a consequence I have a preference for games of this type. A friend of mine and I played the first scenario from the new game and the following details my first impressions from that experience.

MMP’s remake is titled PanzerBlitz Hill of Death (PB-HOD) and models a particular difficult fight between British and German forces for a hilltop just outside the French town of Caen during the Normandy campaign of WWII.

The PB-HOD game map is based on historical maps and the scenarios use only a small portion of the map. The map is niceley printed on thick gloss paper. A corner of the map reproduces the combat tables and combat modifiers much like the old SPI games of the 1970’s. The map is printed in shades of green to represent the slope of the land to Hill 112 which all of the scenarios revolve around. There are 6 elevation levels on the map but no key to match the shade of green to the particular elevation level. The hill is not marked and some experience with war games use of lines to mark crests or map reading skills will help a player figure out the direction of slope. This is important since there are attack modifiers in the game that depend upon if the attack is uphill or downhill.

Like all board war games, PB-HOD is played with cardboard counters that represent the various different types of combat units in play. In addition, utility counters are included to represent a particular state of the counter or to modify the terrain of the hex to show road-blocks or improved defensive positions (foxholes and trenches). The counters for PB-HOD have all of the modern design features hobbyists have come to expect of game components. The counters are double sided and printed in full color. The original PanzerBlitz counters were single sided with black icons and numbers on a solid color background. Like the original game, the new counters are 5/8in in size. Unlike the old game, the new counters are packed with more information due to changes in the game mechanics. For the most part, the counters are very readable and the counters in my copy of the game were cleanly cut.

The utility counters are also double sided but are printed as smaller 1/2in counters. The utility counters represent another significant change from the original PanzerBlitz game.

Someone who is familiar with the original game mechanics and is expecting something similar but with better graphics is in for a disappointment because the new game mechanics have been completely overhauled and modernized. The most significant change is the use of a chit pull system to determine who is the active player for the current phase of the game turn. This game mechanic breaks up the typical I-GO-YOU-GO turn sequence of most war games. Players have their own set of activation chits that are then mixed in a cup or some other handy opaque container. Were PB-HOD has shown innovation is that the chits have a range rating from 0-2 and the number of chits available in the scenario can change during the course of the scenario as reinforcements arrive. Friendly units within the range rating of the placement hex of the chit can be activated to move and engage in combat.

The chit system effectively models the command and control capability of the opposing forces. As one would expect, formations with effective leadership will have more activation chits and more chits with a range greater than 0. In the first PB-HOD scenario, both the British and German forces have been modeled as elite formations so there is not a disparity in the chit pool for either player.

The combat system has been thoroughly modernized by treating anti-armor (AT) combat separately from anti-personnel (AP) combat. AP combat is most similar to the original PanzerBlitz combat system where sums of attack strengths are divided against sums of defense strengths to create an odds ratio. This ratio is cross-referenced on the combat results table to determine what die results are needed to score an effective hit. The anti-tank combat mechanic consists of subtracting the target’s armor rating from the AT rating of the attacking unit.. This difference is cross-referenced on the CRT to determine which column to use to resolve the attack. Both combat mechanics use the same CRT.

Unlike the original PanzerBlitz, PB-HOD uses the sum of two dice to resolve all combat results. PB-HOD includes the expected combat modifiers for the state of the attacker and the terrain occupied by the defender. Also new is a range modifier. Unlike many games in this scale, PB-HOD does not use halving and doubling of attack factors for different range increments. Possible combat results are similar to the original game in that effective attacks can disrupt a good order unit, damage a disrupted unit or destroy a good order unit. In a departure from the original game, disrupted units are not automatically undisrupted at the end of their following turn. Instead, disrupted units can be activated with an activation chit and then roll a morale check to recover from disruption.

The movement mechanics of the game are consistent with most typical war games in that different types of units pay movement points to enter into different types of terrain. The concept of opportunity fire has been maintained that prevents moving units from moving within clear sight of an opponent since the moving unit can be attacked while moving. With the chit pull system, this rule adds another decision point for each player since activated units cannot opportunity fire in the current turn.

The most difficult rules to understand in the game concern spotting and line sight. The spotting rules have been written to specifically eliminate some of the more annoying features of the original PanzerBlitz game that allowed units to effectively hide by moving from hex to hex that contained concealing terrain. Rules have also been emplaced to prevent non-combat units such as trucks and wagons from being used to spot enemy units. The line of sight rules are overly complex simply because the mechanics implemented are overly complex. However, the line of sight rules are usable and after working through a few examples on our own, my opponent and I were able to come to a consistent understanding on how to apply the concepts. However, my concern is that the complexity of the line of sight mechanics leaves too much room for interpretation so that if I played someone else, a new agreement on the interpretation of the rules would be required.

Aesthetics

For the most part, criticizing the look and feel of a game can be a subjective exercise. However, I do believe that there are standards to be followed with respect to game aesthetics and the design of PB-HOD makes a few mistakes in this area.

The game map has been designed more as art than as a playing aid. The map uses shades of green differentiate levels of elevation levels does. This scheme does not immediate lend itself to determining the direction of slope since tint does not correlate to order. Is dark tint higher than light tint? To determine the direction of change of elevation it is necessary to look at the crest lines. A simpler design would have just used different colors to represent the changes in elevation and dispensed with crest lines all together. GDW’s Assault used such a system for determining elevation.

The lack of a terrain key is another significant omission. The terrain key clearly indicates what icons are used to represent different types of terrain features on the map. Most games with a single map typically have the terrain key printed on the map where it is easy to find and use. Games that use geomorphic maps provide this key on the player aid chart or as a specific page in the rules. The different types of terrain are completely described in the rules for PB-HOD, but the icons representing the specific types of terrain used in the game are not described anywhere. Experienced gamers will not have much difficulty in figuring out the game terrain. However, the rules need to be written to assist the novice gamer and as the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Using color to convey information is fraught with danger since there is no universal consensus as to what specific colors represent. In addition, the use of green and red colors to convey information needs to be avoided since those two colors are the most common color deficiency in male color blindness and as we know most war gamers are men.

For the above reasons, I consider the use of red numbers to indicate anti-personnel attack information is a bad design choice. I am not color-blind but I have difficulty reading the red numbers on the counters. Using just black or white for the alphanumeric characters on the counter would provide sufficient contrast with the counter background color to make the information readable to the players. This is worth considering since it is likely that future games in the series would contain US forces with green backgrounds making the red numbers difficult to read.

Another aesthetic criticism I have is the existence of redundant information on the counters. For example, the counters use vertical bars to indicate the size of the unit. This is important due to the stacking limits imposed in the game. However, looking over the counter sheets I noticed that all front side counters are worth two stacking points and all flipped counters are worth one stacking point. Furthermore, all flipped counters feature a colored strip to visually denote that the counter has been flipped. This is an example of redundant information. The vertical bars are unnecessary and can be eliminated. Furthermore, the removal of the bars can free up space that could be used to spread out the alphanumeric characters to make them more readable or to add counter numbers so that difference forces could be differentiated on the same map.

The other redundant information on the counter is the nationality symbol shown at the bottom of the counter. Considering that MMP publishes the expansive Advanced Squad Leader series of games, I would expect them to use the same background color scheme of that game for the nationality colors for their new PanzerBlitz design. While not intrinsically obvious, it is an established color scheme and would help players who might actually play both games.

MMP is not alone in misusing color in their games and they are certainly not the worst offender. However, the availability of highly capable graphics software makes it much easier for common color mistakes to be made. In the end, it is essential to remember that maps and counters are player aids first, and works of art second. All game designers need to keep this in mind as they write the rules for the games and design the art for their playing pieces.

The Game Rules

The game rules are the biggest disappointment of PB-HOD. It appears that in order to keep costs down MMP limited the rules footprint to just 16 pages and no color graphics. Multiples of 16 are common for printing since a standard sheet of printing paper can be folded into 8 pages of approximately 8.5×11in.

By comparison, the Avalon Hill’s Panzer Leader rules were 23 pages long and the rules for Arab-Israeli wars were 18 pages long but used a smaller font and a 3-column layout. These two games were the follow-on games to the original PanzerBlitz whose rules were printed on a large sheet of folded paper.

While the rules themselves are mostly well written except for the overly complex spotting and line-of-sight rules, there are three topics missing from the rules. The most significant omission in the rules is a table of contents or an index. War games describe complex concepts and players need to be able to find specific rules quickly. That is the function of the table of contents or index. There is room for a table of contents but the first page of the rules if covered by a full size black and white graphic. It would have been better to reduce the size of the cover page graphic and use the space for the introduction (short) and the table of contents.

Another significant omission in the rules was the lack of a complete description of all of the utility counters to include a sample graphic. All modern game rules detail each utility counter used in the game and even in the 1970’s, SPI also included a counter roster. Adding a simple graphic of the utility counter adjacent to the rules that describe the use of the counter make it much easier for players to find the rules they are looking for when they need to.

The final rules omission is detailed examples of play. For this game in particular, detailed examples of play are needed so that players who might be familiar with the original PanzerBlitz games understand how the game plays differently than the original. These examples also help players new to the hobby understand the mechanics of war games. The example should be based upon the scenarios in the game and use actual playing pieces in the game. There are examples in the rules but they are sparse and not representative of actual playing pieces. Since the rules actually consume the 16 pages it easy to see that the imposed limitation forced the designer to remove this information from the final product.

While these omissions do not prevent the game from being played, they do make it harder to play the game. For experience players who are use to the style and nature of war games, this is just an annoyance but for new or novice players to the hobby this could turn them off to what is otherwise a very good game design and a worthy successor to the original PanzerBlitz.

A good reference for guidelines on how to design rules and use color in games is Dave Wood’s two articles that he wrote in GameFix magazine issues #2 and #3. The articles were written in 1994 and the magazine has long been out of print but copies can be found at used game stores and periodically on ebay. I consider these two articles essential references for any game designer.

The Sherman Firefly

All design is compromise and game design is no different. As a game, I have no real criticisms of the game mechanics or rule concepts PB-HOD. The one game I played showed clearly that the mechanics work and do generate an enjoyable experience. In fact, the only criticism I have is what exactly does the Sherman Firefly counter represent?

It is difficult designing war games since they do not actually model real combat. What they model is the designer’s impression of combat. Many tactical games try to model doctrine and unit order of battle to fine detail. At the scale of PanzerBlitz where tank units represent from 3-5 vehicles and infantry units are platoons of from 18-39+ individuals (more or less).

However, there are several vehicles that pose particular problems in this scale. They are: the French Char B1, the US M3 Grant/Lee, and Soviet T35 and the British Sherman Firefly. The first three vehicles are difficult to model due to their mixed armament of howitzer and anti-tank caliber weapons. The British Firefly is difficult to model due to the organization of British Sherman tank platoons. Since only Firefly’s are represented in PB-HOD, I’ll only speak about that unit.

The Firefly was a M4 Sherman that replaced the normal 75mm gun with a British 76mm 17pdr anti-tank gun. The 17pdr anti-tank gun was a superb anti-tank weapon and probably the best such weapon the western allies fielded. It was capable of defeating all German threats at the typical engagement ranges in Western Europe. However, the addition of the 17pdr to the Sherman caused problems. Most importantly, the 17pdr rounds were significantly longer than the normal 75mm rounds. As part of the modification, the British added a larger loaders hatch to the top of the turret to make it easier to load the tank with these rounds. Larger rounds take up more space so to keep the number of rounds available to the tank useful, the British deleted the hull mounted machine gun so that an additional 15 rounds for the 17pdr could be carried. This essentially left the tank with just the turret mounted 0.50in machine gun since the roof mounted 0.50in machine gun was not always carried as the use of this weapon required that the commanded man the weapon while standing on the engine deck behind the turret.

Another problem with the 17pdr was the lack of a high explosive round for the gun until late in the war. The lack of a high explosive round was a common feature of British anti-tank guns and is one reason the British liked the Sherman since it fired both an anti-tank and high explosive round. My references indicate that a high explosive round was developed and deployed with the 17pdr during WWII but does not conclusively state when this occurred.

Since the Fireflys were initially not available in large numbers, the British reorganized their tank platoons to consist of 4 M4/75mm Sherman and 1 M4/17pdr Firefly and this was configuration used during the campaigns of Normandy. By 1945, enough Fireflys were available to form 5 vehicle troops of Fireflys.

In PB-HOD, it is obvious that the Firefly counter represents a full troop of 5 Fireflys. It is a very powerful and capable unit in the British forces. What I find surprising is that the Firefly’s have a stronger anti-personnel rating than the normal Shermans. The lack of the hull mounted machine gun and an effective high explosive round should significantly reduce the AP rating of these vehicles. These vehicles were optimized for anti-tank combat and deployed to provide much needed anti-tank capability that the M4/75 Shermans did not provide.

It should be noted that the US equivalent of the Firefly were the M4/76mm variants of the Sherman. The US 76mm gun was not nearly as powerful as the British 17pdr but was a more capable anti-tank gun than the 75mm. However, only the US tank destroyers carried this weapon at Normandy since it was felt that there would be more need for the 75mm Sherman to support infantry than a tank designed to fight other tanks. It should also be noted that the high-explosive round for the 76mm gun carried less explosive than the 75mm round due to the geometry of the shells so that the 76mm gun was considered less useful as an infantry support weapon.

I have a feeling that the 17pdr high explosive round had similar issues that would help explain why the Fireflys were initially deployed with M4/75mm Shermans. The M4/75mm Shermans would provide the high explosive fire power needed to support infantry while the Firefly provided superior anti-tank capability to fend of the German Panthers and occasional Tiger tank that might be encountered.

The design of the Firefly unit in the game does not negatively impact the game and since it does simplify the design of the counter I can see why this design choice was made. War gamers loves to debate the nuances of the forces that are modeled in the games they play and my comments about the Firefly should be understood to be in that context.

Comparison to Other Games

There are only two games currently in print that are similar to MMP’s PB-HOD. These two games are Avalanche Press’ Panzer Grenadier (AP-PG) and Lock’n’Load’s World at War (LNL-WW).

Panzer Grenadier has the most in common with PB-HOD in that it is a WWII platoon scale game. The main difference between these two games is that Panzer Grenadier uses leader counters to model command and control. Panzer Grenadier is a rather successful game with many different modules in print and more being planned. In my opinion, PB-HOD is a better game since it is a simpler design and the chit pull system effectively models the command and control system of the leader counters in Panzer Grenadier.

Lock’n'Loads World at War also uses a chit pull system but that game is concerned with a hypothetical NATO vs Warsaw Pact war in 1985. When compared to World at War, PB-HOD is potentially a more flexible game since the chits are not tied to specific formations in World at War. This makes the PB-HOD much more suitable to design your own scenarios should MMP decide to continue the series. However, World at War is a much more accessible game since the rules and game mechanics are more simply designed and written and the counter density of the scenarios is kept rather small. Lock’n'Load has a World War II version of World at War on their P500 list so if that game is published then there will a direct competitor to PB-HOD. I like the World at War game system and if modern combat is more to your liking then it is worth looking into.

What I Want to See in the Future

I hope that MMP continues to develop their redesign of PanzerBlitz. My aesthetic criticisms are easy to correct and the rules can be updated using a living rules model that has already been adopted by MMP’s competitors.

I would like the next game to generically describe the mid war on the Russian front just like the original PanzerBlitz. I would like this game to use geomorphic maps and includes enough counters to model the company and regimental formations that would have been in common use in Russia. I also like the idea of continuing the practice of modeling specific battles in detail with smaller games using maps based on the historical terrain. I can see the publishing of several large games with geomorphic map boards and large counter sets (Russian Front, Western Front, North Africa/Western Desert, Modern Wars) and smaller games focusing on a specific battles (Sedan 1940, Arras 1940, obruk 1940/41, Mortain 1944, Chinese Farm 1973).

I would also like to see the game series extended to topics beyond World War II. MMP’s new game design should be capable of modeling more modern conflicts and even a hypothetical NATO vs Warsaw Pact war.

Conclusions

The ultimate test of any game is simply was it fun and enjoyable to play. On that account I must say yes. My friend and I enjoyed PanzerBlitz Hill of Death and I look forward to our next game. As the Germans, I lost the scenario due to poor placement of my forces. I’ve learned from my mistake and believe that I could do better the next time.

If you are a fan of the original PanzerBlitz game are looking for a more modern treatment of the topic then this game is worth purchasing. Players new to war gaming may find PanzerBlitz Hill of Death a little difficult to grasp but the ConsimWorld forum can help with any questions. I see great potential for MMP’s PanzerBlitz game system and I hope that PB-HOD is not the last of the series.

 

Game Design as an Example of Lean

In the world of US business today, the concept of Lean is vogue. Essentially, Lean is a business philosphy whereby optomization is obtained through the successive implementation of many small successive improvements. Due to the nature of the topics, wargame design follows this philosphy as well.

My frist wargame was PanzerBlitz by Avalon Hill. This game modeled armored combat on the Russian front during WWII. Published in 1970, this was a revolutionary design in this game genre. PanzerBltiz introducted large counters (5/8in vs 1/2in) with vehicle icons on the counters rather than the normal military symbols. The game also introduced geomorphic maps that while not representing any specific terraine could be assembled in many numerous ways to adequately represent any desired battlefield. The large number of counters provided allowed players to create their own scenarios to play.

PanzerBlitz was extremely successful but by no means perfect. The first follow on game using the same basic system was Panzer Leader. Published in 1974, Panzer Leader modeled Western Front combat (1944-45). This game corrected several significant problems with the original rules in PanzerBlitz and the new rules could be used with PanzerBlitz. Avalon Hill’s last game using the basic concept was Arab-Isreali Wars which modeled that conflict through the 1970’s. AIW improvements to the game included more reasonable movement rates for vehicular units, rules for modern weapon systems (artillery, guided missiles, helicopter gunships), and  a morale system. In the best practice of Lean, each of these two games modified the original game to overcome precieved limitations of the original or to expand the original in a different direction.

The success of PanzerBlitz created the tactical game genre. Previously, the only tactical wargames were naval games that modeled ships individually. PanzerBlitz was actually designed by SPI for Avalon Hill. In the 1970’s, SPI continued to develop the concept through their own games (Combat Command, Panzer 44, MechWar 77). In their games, movement and combat was simultaneous requiring pre-plotting of moves and attacks. Their games also used a single map with 1/2in counters which made the information density rather high and difficult to read.

By the 1980’s SPI was purchased by TSR and Avalon Hill had moved on from the PanzerBlitz genre. Into the void came GDW and West End Games. GDW’s Frank Chadwick published the Assault series of games that modeled a hypothetical war between NATO and Warsaw Pack forces in the 1980’s. Assault was a very complex game on a similar scale as PanzerBlitz. Although the game counters represented platoons of tanks and men, players had to track ammo type and many other minutia making the game feel more like a miniatures game than a board wargame. However, the maps were excellent and geomorphic and the technical information available was outstanding in an age before the internet.

West End’s PanzerBlitz clone was the Tank Leader series of games: Eastern Front Tank Leader, Western Front Tank Leader, and Desert Steel. These games unfortunately came out in the late 1980’s while I was busy in college so I’ve never played them. I do know that they used formation cards for activation and had geomorphic maps. However, I was never impressed with the printing quality of the few West End games that I had come across.

Assault represented a good example of what I call game design by feature. Many wargames claim to be better because they add more and more complexity in the pursuit of realism. In my mind, these games are not Lean since they don’t balance accuracy with playability. Since I’ve never seen or played West End games Tank Leader I can only surmise that the lack longevity of those games were due more to the company than to the game but I may be wrong on that.

The early 1990’s was not a good time for wargaming and war gamers. The rise of computer games and the looking introduction of trading card games was squeezing out the genre. Many of the original war game companies were gone or on their way out. However, one game showed that the spirit of PanzerBlitz was alive and well but unfortunately was not able to save the company. That game was GDW’s Sands of War. This was the game that Assault should have been. Also designed by Frank Chadwick, Sands of War was a simple yet capable platoon level tactical game covering war in the desert of the Middle East from 1941 to 1991. The game has an amazing counter mix, numerous geomorphic maps. This very quickly became the game I used to teach new players the joy of wargaming  while I was in graduate school.

Unfortuantely, the counters were rather bland (brown and green) and a printing problem with the early copies left the gloss coat off the counters so the ink rubbed off. The game focused on vehicular combat so infantry units were rather generic. GDW published an expansion to Sands of War that among other things added the French OB to the 1991 Gulf war and they also published an WWII Eastern Front variant titled Blood & Thunder. This last game, published in 1993 continued the use of rather bland counters but improved the quality of the maps by using heavier paper. The game mechanics were the same (minus the modern weapons). GDW closed it’s door soon after this game was published.

GDW’s Sands of War is one of my favorite games of all time. It was simple but contained complex ideas that were modeled in the game very simply. For example, units belonged to a formation and the formation had a leader. Units had to be within command range of the leader to move. This prevented the lone unit running ahead just to capture a victory position which in reality would have resulted in the unit’s annilation had the game lasted a few more turns. Formations had morale so that if they lost too many units, they would retreat. Each player also had an overall break point. Lose too many formations and the whole force retreats. The morale and cohesion rules forced players to conserve their forces. No more battles of annilation. I believe there was a Western Front version of the game in works when GDW closed it’s doors and I would have liked to have seen Assault remade using the Sands of War concepts. If any wargame deserves a second chance, this is it.

The death of GDW was not the end or wargaming. Those companies that survived or those new to the market became much more savvy using the internet and improved printing technology to make better looking games for their visually customers. One of the first of the new companies is Avalanch Press who in 1998 published the first of their rather expansive Panzer Grenadier series of PanzeBlitz styled war games. Like PanzerBlitz, Panzer Grenadier models units as platoons and most of the games in the series use geomorphic map. An area the game system shines is the modeling of infantry so much so that there have been serious proposals to use the system to model WWI combat. Interestingly, the system uses two different mechanics to resolve combat against soft targets or armored targets. The biggest different is the implementation of leaders much like Avalon Hill’s Squad Leader. Printing quality is excellent as all of the counters are on 5/8in counters. Military icons have been replaced by isomorphic graphics and so visually, the game stands out. Avalanche Press has also supported the series rather lavishly, periodically publishing articles on it’s website that adds additional counters and content that players can use. Every now and then the company professionally publishes these additions.

While a good game, Panzer Grenadier is not my favorite PanzerBlitz like game. I find it too cumbersome to easily teach new players. I perfer the simplicity of Sands of War but Avalanche Press is still publishing new Panzer Grenadier titles and the game has a following. It is worth looking into if interested.

Today, the best platoon level game in production is Lock’n'Load’s World at War. Using a game mechanic reminecent of Axis & Allies, the game does a good job of modeling a hypothetical NATO/Warsaw Pact war in Europe in 1985. Designed by Mark Walker, the game embodies his philosophy of “more game, less gruff” by keeping the rules simple and the scenarios short. Now that I am an adult, the later is rather important since I don’t always have time to spend on this hobby. Most of the scenarios can be played quickly and present a wide variety of situations for the players to experience. You also roll a lot of dice which is always fun.

World at War has two stand-alone games and an expansion published. More titles and expansions for the series are planned. There is also a WWII variant in their P-500 pledge system. Unlike PanzerBlitz, the World at War games do not use geomorphic maps although an expansion is planned that should add these. Also, the counters are anything but simple. The game uses dice pools for attack and defense. Each player rolls their dice pool and the defenders hits are removed from the attackers hits. It takes 3 numbers to describe this process and each unit has an anti-armored and soft target attack capability. Add in a movement and morale rating along with a unit name and formation ID and the 5/8in counter gets squeezed by all of the information packed into it. This appears to be recognized as a problem since the WWII game is going to use larger 3/4in counters. 

In my opinion, color is also used poorly on the counters. Since color is used redundantly on the numbers, the Soviet units have a beige strip so that the red numbers on the counter are not hidded by the base red color of the counter. I am also not a fan of the use of the psuedo-cyrillic font in the game aids as I find the text difficult to read. Both of these are asthetic observations and many players like the look and feel of the game.

Another big difference from PanzerBlitz is that the units are tied to specific formations and by design, most of the NATO formations and many of the Warsaw Pact formations are not at full strength. Mark Walker properly notes that most combat formations are never at their full strength. While true, from a design your own scenario perspective it would be helpful to have the full organization available to start from and then pair down.

Despite my criticisms, I highly recommend this game to anyone who is interested in exploring what wargaming is all about. I find the World at War games to be interesting, entertaining and fun to play and it is always on try to play list when I get my gaming companions together. The company is also very pleasant to work with and they have shown a great willingness to help customers who might have problems. It’s worth looking into what they have to offer.

Today, it’s been almost 40 years since the release of PanzerBlitz and almost 30 years since I started wargaming. This genre of games is still going strong as companies publish new titles in this scale. Right now, the PanzerBlitz expereince is coming full circle as Multiman Publishing, who has the rights to many of the old Avalon Hill games through Hasboro has begun to ship PanzerBlitz, Hill of Death. I was hoping my copy would arrive this weekend but it looks like it will be here next week. Although designed to be a true decendant from PanzerBlitz, it has all of the features of modern wargames (double sided, multi-color counters, modern CRT concepts). I hope to post more about this game and the original PanzerBlitz in the near future.

Exploring the world of casual gaming.

The idea behind this blog is to write about board games, board game design, thoughts on games that I have played, and any other gaming related topic that I might think of.

I’ve been gaming for a long time and actually started playing D&D in the late 1970’s. My first introduction to board wargaming was in 1981 with Microgame’s Ogre/GEV and the first board war games that I owned were Avalon Hill’s PanzerBlitz and PanzerLeader. While finishing up college, I began to dabble in game design along with a good friend of mine who went on to make a good living designing games himself.

Early in the internet age, we started BoneGames as a site where we could publish and distribute our game designs for free. Since then we have published one game semi-professionally as an experiment to complement our list of free games on our site. As normal, real life has intervens regularilly to prevent us from being more productive on the game design front.

But it has been fun which is the whole point of a game. It’s suppose to be an engaging and relaxing form of social entertainment. Despite the prevalence of computer and console games which have evolved to include real social interaction and engagement, I still enjoy the simple pleasures of sitting across from my opponent and just enjoying the challenge of a good game. It’s a fun time for all.