Wednesday, December 29, 2021

"One-Hour SKIRMISH Wargames" by John Lambshead - an overview

Another Glossy Cover:
Fortunately, this book is not best judged by its cover!

Firstly, this game is not a direct sequel to Neil Thomas' "One-Hour Wargames: Practical tabletop battles for those with limited Time and Space". It IS however another game that fits into the "one-hour to play" ethos, so the title is a bit confusing thanks to Pen and Sword's marketing department, but "bidness is bidness".  

SIMILARITIES:
  1. Both cover a variety of eras / genres. OHW starts with Ancients and ends at WWII. OHSW starts with Napoleonics [could easily be pushed back to the flintlock musket era, say Nine Years War] and ends at sci-fi. Both sets could easily be pushed into eras not covered in the books, either forwards or backwards in time.
  2. Both require a modest number of figures, terrain and space, and time, thus falling into the entry-level side of wargaming.
  3. Both allow for a wide variety of combat results possibilities in the short-term that tend to smooth out over the long-term, but not always - both games can have some drama!
  4. These are "Desert-Island Books". If you were stranded on an island, these books and some sand table skills and you'd be playing until rescued. I'm willing to say that with a bit of rules tweaking, you could play your entire wargame hobby life out, altho some like more complicated rule sets.
  5. Both have multiple scenarios to play. OHW has 30 distinct scenarios with interesting challenges each, while OHSW has 6 plus a tool kit to make your own, emphasizing that skirmish gaming is heavily dependent upon good scenario making.
  6. Both offer campaign game ideas that could keep one busy - with a little imagination - for a long time.
DIFFERENCES:
  1. OHW takes place at a higher level of combat - platoon in WWII, company / battalion in horse and musket, perhaps a bit larger in ancient rules. OHSW is 1 figure / vic is a Unit.
  2. OHW uses an attritional combat model with a few simple modifiers [double, half].  OHSW uses a 50-50 high card wins [essentially, a dice off] model, with a few additional cards drawn for terrain, firepower.
  3. OHW requires math - doubling, halving. OHSW is virtually math-free [some adding, subtracting]. This makes us liberal arts types happy...
  4. OHW has a predictable IGO-UGO turn sequence, e.g. Move, Shoot, Melee, and every unit gets to act every turn. OHSW has an unpredictable turn sequence - at any moment, it can be interrupted [unless all four Jokers have passed already, putting one at turn 4]. This can be frustrating but it is certainly  dramatic.
  5. OHW has no morale and minimal quality differentiation.  OHSW has a morale mechanic at the end of each turn.
  6. OHW is a very traditional wargame. Things unfold in a pretty predictable manner [albeit with lots of variety] except for combat dice rolls, which are quite variable. Thing of OHW as "beer" - moderate, predictable effects over time, a pleasant evening of mild conversation resulting in a light buzz. OHSW is unusual - more like tequila shots: you are uncertain just what will happen, especially if you eat the worm, resulting in wild shouting and table pounding [occasionally head-pounding] and you could end up wondering where your pants have gone. This can be frustrating but it also brings you back for more.
Book Format
Pros: Historical step-by-step shows evolution of weapons and game mechanics nicely.
Cons: won't lay open on table, information is scattered around, e.g. weapon effects, and there's no QRS.

This post is intended to add to other reviews and some comments by the author. Therefore, I will not repeat things they have already noted [at least not much]. I base it upon around 20 actual plays of the game, Most of them RAW [Rules As Written], several with some simple modifications that changed game flow without changing the turn mechanics completely. 

A great place to start reading is the excellent review by Dale Hurtt [CLICK] which includes his play example and follow-up from both gamers and the author. I've also included below some errata and additional AAR comments by John Y over at "54mm or Fight!" blog [CLICK].

1) DESIGNER'S INTENT
The book should be judged by the author's design intent, so the below comments are from author John Lambshead's blog here [CLICK] with my comments in BLUE below JL's:


I have always like the idea of skirmish games because 

(i) one can experiment with a small unusual army that one has no intention of turning into a 2000 point force, 
(ii) one can have a great game in a small area, and
(iii) a game can be played theoretically in a limited time.
But many skirmish systems have only allowed points (i) and (ii) but not (iii). 

Agreed. OHSW successfully handles all points, including iii.

The logic has been that because a skirmish involves a limited number of models then each one has to have lots of complicated special rules. The trouble is that these slow the game right down until a thirty second encounter in game time takes an hour to play out in real time.

Agreed. OHSW successfully shows you don't need lots of special rules - whether complicated or simple - to have an enjoyable, flavorful, tactically challenging game.

I wanted a skirmish game that had all the feel of the shootouts in Where Eagles Dare: I wanted to have heroes like Clint Eastwood jumping form cover and mowing down the bad guys with a schmeisser fired from the hip. The problem is that one can’t just simplify the rules or one ends up with something completely bland that has no feel for the period. So that was my first task: to speed up the game without simplifying the rules.
Maybe. British rule sets seem to emphasize over differentiation. There needs to be a balance between differentiation, historicity and playability and most importantly, PACE. I think one can emphasize the most important points and let the little details be ignored, and have a great game. Pace is another matter, however.

I started to experiment back in 2006 with my long suffering regular opponent, Shaun. Much of the tedium in skirmish games concerns the dice-based randomiser system. This inevitably involves lots of tables with lots of modifiers. Clint Eastwood jumps out from cover and checks the hit number of his ballistic skill, modified by the weapon, range, target and concealing terrain and carries out a deal of mental arithmetic before...being gunned down by a stormtrooper firing his schmeisser from the hip on full auto.

I'll disagree here.
Dice systems aren't the cause of tables with lots of modifiers - you COULD end up with the same problem using cards as JL does. Fortunately, JL sticks to the *most significant differences* of modern weaponry without getting bogged down in "Private Snuffy goes from prone to kneeling position [2 Action Points], and readies his weapon [1 AP] then takes careful aim [1 AP, +1 to Hit] at a moving target [-2 to Hit] and his Quality is lower [-1 to hit] but he has a laser-guided sight [+5 to hit...]. There are rules like that out there, that have the temerity to use the term "game" with them...

The "inevitability" of the lots of tables / modifiers has to do with:
1) The mentality of elderly game designers  who say that "more modifiers is more realistic" and provides better "feel", and, 
2) Game marketers who say "we need people to buy additional rules, codexes, and special figures" which propels a need to over-differentiate certain newly sculpted figures in terms of game mechanics, almost always giving them new special advantages - a sort of "keeping up with the Joneses" marketing ploy. While it is easy to pick on GW for pioneering this dubious effort, it has been shamelessly imitated on both sides of the pond.

It is a fact the skill in mental arithmetic is age-linked. 
The advent of cheap, powerful, easy to use, portable digital machines means that mental arithmetic skills are going the way of calligraphy as a universal skill. 
Calligraphy is no longer a universal skill??
:)
Agreed. Lots of math is out of the question for games today. One should note that Charts make math easy to handle, the charts of modifiers mentioned above...

I solved this by switching to a playing card based system. Playing cards offer a wide range of various probabilities from 1:2 to 1:52. Randomisers become simply a matter of drawing additional or fewer cards against the opponent, highest card wins. This system is mechanically fast and simple but very complex with the range of probabilities. 
In playtesting, we found the act of turning over cards against each other competitively was fun in itself….kinda like pontoon. 
Partially Agree.
You can get the same simplicity or complexity with dice as with the card deck, but it would require polyhedral dice or modifiers [with charts]. A card deck makes for ONE mechanism, which is easy, BUT you still need to remember the variable of Number of Cards to Pull, for example.

The question remains, "How many modifiers is too many for a fast-play game?" NT simplifies his game designs by stressing a few, significant modifiers. JL mostly does the same, but by nature skirmish gaming has lots more weapon variables. Still, one has to look up the difference between throwing a grenade v. firing an LMG, until one has them memorized.

This means that all the unit-data needed to play a game can be summarised in a few lines on a 
card that the player keeps in front of them. The player spends 99% of his time considering what to move, where to move it and what to shoot at. The game is not bland, because the wide range of modifiers easily available using a single mechanism means that it is no hassle at all to give individual figures special skills. 

Mostly Agree.
"A few lines on a card"...wait, isn't that a chart? The popular Black Powder and Bolt Action games have pretty short charts, but the rules are lengthy and confusing and suffer from over-differentiation. 

So the real argument here is actually for simplification, not the card mechanic vs. the dice mechanic, both being equally susceptible to over-design with modifiers. I think JL could just say that OHSW is a simple game, but not a simplistic game. This a quote from Neil Thomas.

For example, an ace sniper might draw two extra cards when shooting; a scout with concealment skills might draw an extra card over and above the terrain normal; and a skilled technician might draw three cards when trying to start a machine compared to a normal bod against a fixed number depending on the scenario rules).

So, an Ace Sniper might roll two extra dice when shooting...etc. How many special rules will we use per game? That will increase how complex it is. JL provides plenty of attributes and weapons, 53 by the Points Chart. If I run a scenario that uses all 53 special rules and attribute between the two sides, I'm back to the bogged down game of GW, WarmaHordes, and so many others. The key is for the scenario host to limit the special rules, and let the ordinary Joes predominate.

I would say that JL has provided a tool kit that is just as likely to be abused and become a boring game with lots of references to the book as "Kill Team". However, he and NT provide an ETHOS of fast-play that has a chance of impacting game play. It is still up to the players to not overdo it!

Looking at the forces in his scenarios, JL does a good job of having a over half the force be "regular Joes", and often it is higher, e.g. the RAF has 2/3 Joes and 1/3 someone with a special weapon or attribute, while the Troons are 9/11 Joes and 2/11 special types.

The second major point after speed of play that I wanted to address was chaos. Large ‘things’ with multiple sub units, like one division versus another, are easy to predict because all the chaotic interactions cancel out.
Agreed - that is the OHW level of combat, not OHSW.
Tiny subunits, like one person against another, are controlled by chaotic processes and so are unpredictable. That’s one reason why one needs a wide range of probabilities for a skirmish gameThis game rewards players who can handle chaos and exploit changing circumstances: it is poker rather than bridge.
Agreed!
A skirmish game should have more possibilities and be more like managing chaos than larger forces who are often - if subject to discipline - more predictable by means of inertia.

I introduce this chaos by the way the game turn is structured:

  • A turn is divided into phases. 
  • The player who wins the phase initiative draws a card to get command points that are spent moving and firing figures one at a time. A single figure can make up to three moves before firing (or doing something technical) but each extra move cost exponentially increasing command points. The extremes are moving lots of things once and not shooting or moving a few things a long way. 
  • Command points can vary between 1 and 13 depending on the card drawn. 
  • When a player has used all their points, initiative switches to their opponent. 
  • This continues until a Joker is drawn by either player whereupon the turn ends immediately. 
  • Players go to the end of turn phase. Check Army Morale - if one fails, games ends, if both pass, check status of casualties with card draw, "Red is Dead".

Army moral is tested to see if one (or both) armies have had enough and retreat. This is based on a card test on the actual number of soldiers that have been killed. Using an absolute measure rather than a percentage makes the game self balancing and introduces the ‘heroic’ Hollywood-feel that I wanted to simulate.
Fair enough - 90% of Soldiers have nearly no idea what is going on 90% of the time and certainly won't be looking at a big picture issue that may not even be know for a few days, like % casualties 
Having lots of indifferent troops lurking in the middle distance will not stop your army from withdrawing but leadership is critical because they add extra cards when testing morale.

Assuming both armies survive, models knocked down by shooting are tested to see if they are permanently out of action (doesn’t necessarily imply killed - they could have gone to ground) by drawing a card for each: Red is Dead.

There is no bureaucracy in the game to slow things down.
I'll say this is true unless you use a lot of special rules and additional gear like artillery and tanks - but don't most of us?
Models defeated in close combat are removed, shot models are knocked down. A good tactic is for one of your figures to make the knock down and the another to close combat the down figure whereupon a kill is automatic. 
Very true!

The book is structured into eras, with each era introducing special rules for the period and an historical scenario with army lists based on a real event. The scenarios get more complicated as appropriate new rules are added, eg automatic weapons, armoured vehicles, guided weapons and, er, rayguns and psychic powers. The eras are 

(i) Early Days - Age of the Musket, The Rifle Era, 
(ii) The Twentieth Century - Wars Within Peace, World War II, The Cold War, 
(iii) Extending The Game - Pulp Action. 
There are rules for campaigns, including a WWII example. A points system is included, although the system is forgiving for asymmetric warfare, and ideas for modifying scenarios to refresh them. 
I'll agree with this also. However, it is not going to be easy for a newbie game to do this - more experienced gamers will find it pretty easy after a few mishaps.

The book is to a large degree a skirmish tool-kit. 
Because skirmish games are so dependent on scenarios, I wanted very much to provide an open ended system so buyers got the maximum value for their hard-earned dosh. 
Success!
But "Very Successful" would also have included a dozen scenarios [30 is quite a bit] that generally work in all the periods. 
Also, suggestions on how to design forces and scenarios based upon your time and space limits would have been most welcomed, e.g. "If you want to stick to an hour long game, have no more figures than 10-15 and keep figures with a special weapon or rule limited to less than half the force, preferably under 1/3."

What made me turn what was intended just to be an experimental system to test new ideas into a commercial product was a constant reaction from each new playtester: “This,” they said, “is fun!”

Yay! That's why they call it a "game"!


I do hope that I have been very fair in beginning with JL's own stated design intent regarding his rules before expanding it into a full critique! 

2) Dale's Errata, John Y's thoughts
In an excellent playtest and review by Dale [CLICK] some clarifications  were offered. These largely fell into the "so basic they weren't fully explained category" which means that they are more like Errata than Addenda.

You shuffle the cards after the deck has been used up so one starts again with a newly randomised deck. Stops players memorising where Jokers were, etc. 

Great question from Dale's review and playtest:
Unknown Poster "So maybe a close combat should be treated as firing - engage in one and the figure ends all action for the turn."
Dale: I suspect this is the authors intent. This is a shooting focused game and melee should not be so over powered.
Author John Lambshead answered:
I intended that close combat ends a figures move for that phase.
Ignore the Joker[s drawn] after a turn has ended.*
*To clarify, if you turn over a second Joker while resolving the turn end mechanics - force Morale and resolving Casualties, you ignore the Joker.

Dale: I was discussing the idea of adding an extra action point in order to fire if you have a musket or a rifle. So a musket would be two action points and the rifle would be three action points and ordered a fire. The reason for this was it seems like age of musket troops fire too rapidly. I was going to give it a try and maybe blog the result, but I was wondering what your thoughts are on this.

JL: Yes, I know. I agonised over this but then left the somewhat unrealistic rate of fire for muzzle loaders on the grounds that they are unlikely to be used in the same scenario as more modern weapons and it left the game with a smooth basic ruleset. However, one can make a good case for doing just as you suggest.
Dale's Observation: Cards v. Dice
One thing that Dale very perceptively notes, is that all mechanics in OHSW could be performed with dice instead of cards. However, the deck of cards also presents a fixed number of possibilities, while dice present a far higher range of possibilities, albeit at less likelihood of occurring the more extreme they are.

Observation, re: dice v. cards. What you get with cards is a fixed storehouse of possibilities. With a card deck, there are 4 each of all 13 possibilities, Ace thru King or 1-13.  Once you use a value [card] up it doesn't not return until the deck re-shuffles. So once you've pulled all four of your kings, your chance of pulling a king is...zero. 

With dice, every time you roll a d12 you have an equal chance of all the numbers being rolled. If you roll a 12, your next roll still has a 1/12 chance of rolling a 12, just like all the other numbers on the dice. This can be hard to understand at first, I know I had trouble with it!

This may be good news for some people I know, who have a disproportionate tendency to roll low or high at inopportune times. However, you cannot control when you will turn over the card you need, so it is theoretically possible, if highly improbable, to consistently pull cards that are lower than your opponents. 

If so, I suggest you take up chess, checkers, et al, and drinking sherry in drawings rooms like a civilized person.

54mm or fight! AAR [click] by John Y:
For one, I couldn't decide if I should draw the 2nd, 3rd, etc card if the first one succeeded when defending in cover, shooting multiple shots at a single target with no one nearby (and the target was downed on the first one), or testing for the army breaking. That is, I wasn't clear if the additional card is required: "you MUST draw two cards in light cover"  vs "you may draw up to two cards in light cover". 

In the game I played, at first, I required all the cards to be drawn. This increased the possibility of a Joker coming up, to the Germans great detriment. Later, I decided to stop if the first draw resulted in the desired result.
This is what I'm doing, also, and to slow the Jokers down a bit - better flow, IMHO.

I also wasn't clear about multiple shots from an SMG into a vehicle. For infantry, if you shoot and hit on the first card, your second card can target someone nearby (because you can't target a downed figure). I decided that for a vehicle, it was more than likely that the second card would also target the vehicle since, for them, damage is cumulative and as long as the vehicle wasn't destroyed by the first shot, the second shot would target the same vehicle.
Seems likely - assuming an unarmored vic [armored vics are unaffected by weapons that do not have an Armor Piercing value] the damage should either accrue or spread to passengers. I like the latter, as IF you "hit" the car, you can THEN try to hit "nearby" figures, just like with any multi-shot weapon. Seems consistent to me.

3) Final thoughts and questions from me
A question to add: Do you draw cards if the result would be an auto-pass? 
Probably "YES", because a Joker may come up, ending the turn, causing morale checks and adjudication of Down figures as "Dead/Fled or Back". 

Action Points - what are they?
The game mechanic of AP has a few effects. They are a - severe -  limit of repeated movement with the same Unit. Second, they have a mild limit/cost for Fire or Task Actions - the main limit is that either of these ends the Unit's Actions for the Player Phase. Close Combat also ends a Unit's Actions for the Phase [I wonder if Cavalry shouldn't get a Close Combat per Movement spent...].

So the game mechanic of AP can be conceived in a variety of ways in reality. 
First, it shows a resource limit per Unit - the maximum amount of activity that people [or machines] can effectively perform in a Turn. This effectively reflects an average amount of activity but allows you to push it a bit - if you've the AP. Considering the human limits on short-term intense activity is about 10-15 seconds, with a 60 second "breather" before another burst [CLICK], I like this! It also solves the issue of short-term fatigue and changing ammo clips, etc, by providing for two basic amounts of activity.
Second, as AP come from a fairly random deck of cards, they can also be seen as a Command and Control and Communicate issue.  The commander - the Player - has a limit to conceive, Communicate, execute, modify and adapt a plan. It may be a bit unrealistic that one knows how much activity can be performed with the AP, but there is always the possibility of a Joker showing up and ending your Player Phase.

A Turn Sequence "problem"
It is entirely possible as a game goes on and figures go Down, that one has few or even zero Units with which to act. You are now doing nothing and awaiting a joker for the turn to end. This can be brutal as you watch your enemy move into contact and automatically eliminate a Unit that is "Down".  By JL's definition, Down means ducking or hit by fire, not completely out of the fight, so this seems a bit extreme. A couple ways to reduce the impact of this are:
  1. Allow Leaders the ability to "rally" a Unit, i.e. move into contact with a Down Fig and pull the casualty card immediately. Sure, you've a 50-50 chance of the figure being removed, but you had that anyway, and now you've a 50-50 chance of the Fig being back in the fight.
  2. When a Fig moves into Close Combat with a Down Fig, draw a casualty card for the Down figure, and if it is Red, it is Dead as usual. If Black, the Fig fights Back instead of fleeing, being killed or prisoner. But possibilities can change by Army. Perhaps the Japanese will be Red=Dead, but maybe in WWII North Africa Diamonds=Prisoner while Black= Fight Back.
I think that when playing with newbies or children, or those with fragile egos [gamers...] or who expect a game to be "fair" the potentially punishing card draws make for less fun. Your typical gamers are used to an IGO-UGO game where they always get to respond or initiate in a predictable manner. Overall, those who like to play in the fat part of the bell curve will probably hate the turn mechanic and seek to decrease those possibilities or quite frankly just not play this game. And maybe it isn't for them! As JL notes, this game is for those who are ready to manage chaos...or Kaos...!

Still, below are a few ways to make the turn sequence a bit more predictable altho I think you're better off not playing OHSW! There are vast numbers of predictable skirmish wargames out there that worship the bell curve. But if you must:
  1. Remove one Joker from each deck - this will make each Turn last a bit longer, making it more likely that you will be able to act with all your figures.
  2. Decrease the hurt of AP draws a bit by removing the bottom end of the deck, say, Ace thru 4 or 5. This leaves you with 6-13 AP a turn, which is usually enough to execute some sort of plan.
  3. The same, but remove both "extreme" ends of the deck, say A-4 and the face cards, giving 5-10 as your AP amounts. You will have a half deck, so also remove one Joker per deck.
Buy or Don't Buy??
This books is a no-brainer purchase - BUY IT!
:)
I think the system as-is makes for an exciting narrative game, or series of game i.e. campaign, where I am playing solo and am not invested in winning v. losing so much as having fun and an interesting narrative. This game with its WIDE variety of possibilities definitely makes for real drama! 

OTOH But this game provides a structure that can be blatantly unfair. This can be painful for those who expect a "fair" game at least in the turn sequence - dice rolling is an accepted unpredictable event.  The possibility of a pretty painful series of Player Phases that can possibly end your game. The most likely way is for one side to draw cards in the 10-13 range for AP a couple times in a row, while the other draws only a 1-4 or so. I've had this happen occasionally, and it can turn the entire game around. You've been warned!

Still, the game offers the most unusual and in many ways the most realistic skirmish game around, and it is easier to tone it down a bit than to introduce additional drama and possibilities in a more traditional game.  So, yes, BUY IT!



Thursday, September 16, 2021

Ogre 6th Edition: unboxing & playthru

Ogre 6th Edition: hard game board and 3D Ogres - what's not to like!?
Well, getting your CP squashed by a massive cybernetic monster, I guess...

I'll have to exert myself not to fawn and gush over this lovely game.  In terms of play, it is an updated set of 6th Ed. rules from 2019 with options to use the traditional Ramming or updated Overrun rules, as well as options for some of the newer units: Mobile CP, for example.  There's a lot on the internet about this boxed 6th edition of the original pocket game, and it is still in print.

Below, the counters punch out easily, are high quality, thick, sturdy, and nicely done, as you can see.  The board is the wasteland with molten craters and is a hard board old school style, not just folded glossy paper.
Speaking of folded glossy paper, you can see the large hex GEV board that came with the miniatures box set under this game getting flattened out.  Both board and the relative size of the pieces and ogres is about 6mm / 1:285 or 1:300 or so.  One could easily use microarmor on these boards, and even more easily 3mm miniatures which are growing in popularity.

Close up of the Mobile CP, CP and Mk III Ogre.  Paneuro is blue, Combine red.

You can add craters or ridgelines, OR hide craters and ridgelines, to give the board more variety - both impede movement of various vehicles so you can also use it as a handicap for either side. The small counters for ridgelines blend in well!


Above, now you see them....
Below, now you don't, and the landscape is quite different!

Below, the assembled Mobile CP and immobile CP - stand up and stand out!

Ogres in all their glory.  Large Mk V and two small MkIIIs [small...relative to Mk V]. There is a grey cardboard edge to the assembled cardboard "miniatures" but that can be hidden with a sharpie.

Closeup of Mk IIIs - nice details. Winchell Chung would approve, I believe.

Mark V - looks like it's generously weaponized.

So, how smooth does the updated 6th ed. rules play out?  Must see!  So grabbed Mr. Winkie and put him at the end of the table with me, playing against the Ogre.  The Mk III Ogre was sort of computerized, in that when it had a choice of options I just diced for them, 50-50 or 1/3-1/3-1/3 with a d6.  Our setup is below:
Ogre is salivating [dripping oily fluids] on a fairly direct route to the CP.

Below, Paneuros are looking at the approaching tower sticking out of the dust cloud. Some GEVs at the front with a missile tank and infantry, and behind a mix of heavy tanks, infantry, one howitzer and the CP.

Closeup, the counters look good. There are equal numbers of infantry figs as there are squads, so if you see three Infantry there's three squads.
above, the second line of defense - heavy tanks and infantry to get close, and a missile tank and a howitzer to strike from afar.

Below, three GEVs and a missile tank, and some infantry in the forward line.

The Ogre enters the board after dicing for which column it should enter. The GEVs dash out to harass it, hoping not to get smeared on the counter-punch.

A few turns in, the second line is engaging, and most of the first line is destroyed [at top right]. The Ogre hasn't taken much damage yet...

Finally, the moment to pounce!  Paneuros close in and hit hard on Turn 5. The Ogre rolls poorly to ram a missile tank and shoot a heavy, both are only disabled...

Turn 6, despite a bunch of firepower, the Ogre is still running full steam - the howitzer has missed every shot at the treads.  While the Ogre has lots its main gun, it still has some secondaries and all the anti-personnel guns.

Turn 7, the Ogre is starting to outrun the pursuit!  Paneuro defenders failed to slow it to two hexes of movement. You REALLY need to roll average numbers of 5s and 6s to fight an Ogre!

Turn 8, the Ogre is slowed, but it is too late...

Mr. Winkie and his unhappy face.  Our CP is destroyed by Fire.  Just to have a little more fun, we played out the Ogre's retreat back to home base.  Of course NOW our shooting starts to get hot!

"The only GOOD ogre is a DEAD ogre!"   The last of Ogre's treads are destroyed, and it will be nuked to oblivion by the missile tanks from outside of its range, but the sector's CP is down and the wetbar was nuked.  Sadness everywhere...
Sad to say, there's not a lot of good ogres around in 2080...

Well, we had a great time on a lovely board with great looking physical components.  The game is just as much fun as ever and if you make a couple of errors or roll badly the Ogre will win.  

I like that it takes a bit of finesse to make the Paneuro combined arms company work well.  I think the easiest weapon is the missile tank, especially once the Ogre has only 2MP.  The Ogre should have spent its missiles towards the beginning, and lost its main gun, so should be easily outranged.  Then it is all about slowing it down.  In this game, we failed critical rolls with heavy tanks, the howitzer, and most of the missile tanks, and then got 1:1 Hits with the infantry and GEVs, which didn't damage the treads fast enough due to their weak attack strength.

The game is a classic, and I can highly recommend the value of the latest rules, the optional rules, the lovely components and the lovely terrain as giving the game lots of replay.  I've seen it for $40 or so, and think it is well worth it.

This has me stoked to continue developing some modern rules that are fast and easy to play.  I think the basic decisions are easy to see in Ogre, a solid design, and kudos to Steve Jackson for designing and developing a classic that has people playing lots of games and thinking tactically over and over and over!

Monday, September 6, 2021

"Battlesuit" by Steve Jackson: Box opening and Playtest

Future Combat from the 1980s!
Wait...that future is, well, NOW??

Life has been Ogragious lately!  Lots of modern combat games happening in small spaces, courtesy of Steve Jackson Games [CLICK].  These included Ogre Pocket Edition, Ogre 6th Edition, and the re-issues of GEV and Battlesuit in mini box format. They've fit in to the time and space available, and I've been learning or reinforcing some game design issues that have been on my mind a while. The relatively clear-cut mechanics and quick-play scenarios make thinking about the games easier, and they are still fun!

I wasn't planning to get Steve Jackson's "Battlesuit" at all, originally.  But regarding how games come and go out of print, etc, I decided it was just easier to grab this re-release / reprint of the original game.  The bonus over the magazine release of the game [which I have un-cut] is that the counters are a larger 1" and you get BOTH die-cut and the thin cardboard counters. As I can't find the original map, and small counters are tough to handle, I broke down and bought it.

QUICK COMPONENT THOUGHTS
  • Rules. Small print but handy to carry around. I had to photocopy at 40% tho'!
  • Map. Interesting throwback, in an unusual reddish tinge. Woods are bit muted.
  • Counters. These came in two variants:
    • Die-cut: Thicker and easier to handle, but require a bunch of trimming to remove the little corner bits or else they stick and drag on each other when you play.
    • Thin cardboard: Bit harder to pick up, unless you have fingernails or tweezers handy. Easy to cut off - one scissor swipe carefully aimed does the trick.  
  • SJ Games Pyramid Dice. These came in purple and white. Assuming your motto is "May the Fnord be against you, always" then the emblem on the '1' side in a game where it's always best to roll high sets the suitable ambiance!
  • Giveaways. nice Box Labels, and spiffy re-issue of an old SJ Games catalogue, little zip-lock back, etc.  Fun stuff...
Final thought - is it all worth $20?  I'd say "Yes!", given inflation and the amazing amount of play in a small package, long a hallmark of the pocket games. The significantly improved carrying case over the original soft zip-lock bag releases is tight and probably water-proof. The larger counters in two sets is a big plus for me.

Below, the game in the - admittedly painful - process of having counters cut.  I got into the mood by listening to my favorite music from the 80s. Map is getting flattened under plastic weighted down by reference books and a big heavy box of - no kidding! - my cassettes from that era. Combine black and Paneuro red, with white buildings counters and pink-ish markers except for PANIC chits.
You can see the little fuzzy bits at the corners and center of each counter...call me OCD if you like, but I find them annoying, especially when they stick together in play!

First game setup - the countours show nicely in the pic.  Map easily fits on modestly sized dining table, representing 1.2 x 0.8 klick battlespace. It is presently oriented with map "North" to right, "South" to left.

Zip bags make for easy storage, altho you have to dig sometimes for the right counter you want. A comfortably sized parlor game, albeit needs more space than GEV or OGRE pocket editions. I randomly through additional buildings onto the map [white counters] as I think terrain is essential in a skirmih game.

Initial forces for Scenario 1: Training. Identical forces in a meeting engagement. Four Standard Battlesuits, one Ranger and one Assault suits, one Heavy Weapon.
Paneuro and Combine dice [sold separately] are nicely sized and roll easily, but have the cool symbols on the "1" side for a game where it is best to roll high. I find this annoying...Two Pyramid dice in center came with game, also nice dice.

Scenario has Team Red entering map first from South. They have no opposition and will be able to Reaction Fire against Team Black as they enter the map. Aside from that, nothing unusual about scenario. Faintly seen is a wood at center left, with two 'suits in it. Two suits at top and bottom are behind the hills. Don't know what I'm doing, but ya gotta learn somehow! 
NOTE: I removed the additional buildings, remembering the Golden Rule to always try Rules / Scenario as written, tempting as it is to change things up right away!

Black Team eased onto the board at the highest elevation - this gives a small advantage defending from Fire as well as attacking from higher up. The hill is 12m [40'] above the valley floor, and in general overlooks the two hills and woods Red Team has occupied. Still, after a turn of Reaction Fire then a Player Turn 2 by Red, Black Team has 4 suits in Shock with 3 damaged at the start of Black Player Turn 2.

The Morale Checks that start off the turn give some poor results, including one man panicking and two recovering but only partially effective this Turn. The panicking guy takes a shot at his closest buddy, but fortunately he misses!
Despite these problems, Red Team is also looking a bit rough by the end of Black's Turn 2, with all Suits damaged, and 4 in Shock, plus the Heavy Weapon was destroyed when the man wielding it was Hit. I think I was a bit bold in maneuvering...plus being in the open is quite dangerous, even out of line of sight.
Black finishes his Player Turn 50% effective, but better off than Red!  All this in just about 20 seconds...

Play is very choppy, with every suit on the Acting Player's side acting in sequence, with opposing Reaction Fire also occurring in sequence. The "Feel" is of a series of fragmented actions and reactions, with a lot of tension coming from trying to get the first EFFECTIVE shot off as the other uses cover and pop-ups to fight while reducing vulnerability. 

Generally speaking, the lethality is moderate because the game uses four levels of suit damage. At the first two levels suits are about 20-30% less effective. The second two levels see a suit at less than 40% effectiveness. The main reason they survive is that it is better to focus on the more intact enemy than pick the wings off the damaged enemy fly-ers!

The general tactic I evolved was to draw out Reaction Fire with less valuable suits acting first - if they hold fire, I shoot first and have a chance to reduce their effectiveness.  Generally, with even numbers, it is very difficult to wait for your optimum target, as threats are coming at you and if they get a lucky Hit you will lose the chance to Reaction Fire with a suit or two, and the enemy will still get to wind up their turn with their best suits and the Heavy Weapon.

Below, black is learning how to use cover to best advantage, as well as Jump movement [which allows holding altitude so really it's like two teams of helicopters fighting each other]. The setting may be futuristic, but it is analogous to VTOL / helo battles in the Fulda Gap, pretty much. Tense and brutal!
Overview of battlespace: Red is still working at using the hills to pop up behind and the central wood as a base of Fire. Black is closer together and using a higher hill with woods to keep his team fully engaged and mutually supportive.

Red Turn 3 starts with truly dispiriting Morale checks - the '2' & '3' result is no change, so all Red has to fight with is two damaged suits!
Despite this, they manage to Target, Shock and Damage one Standard suit that's in the open.

Black Player Turn 3 starts with two suits Recovering and two Panicking! 
The '4' result is a fatal error with suit handling - man dies. The '2' means man goes Berserk, heads in random direction and Fires on closest friend or foe!
The one guy accidentally hits sonic toothbrush and it pops his brain or something, the Berserk guy jumps off the table - can't return, either.

A lot of the chance element comes from the Morale Checks, with generally give you a 50% chance to recover, and a 17% chance at Panicking and really having a suit become ineffective or destroyed. While it isn't decisive, it certainly gives you problems that have to be worked on carefully!  As this was my first game, I didn't use any of the optional Command Rules, or even a Command Suit.

Red Turn 4 starts with some Panicking and Recovering.
The are up to 50% able to fight, albeit all damaged.
Their Fire is ineffective, however, and Black starts to do pop-ups out of soft cover, which seems the best way to "alpha strike" on your own turn, altho it means only 50% of your Firepower gets used [can only shoot twice if you remain stationary, otherwise it's 1 Shot on the Move]. 

But Black Team's Heavy Weapon is slowly grinding down the opposition, and the Ranger is nearly impossible to hit with Reaction Fire when he's doing a pop-up in the forest. He gets an occasional Hit for Shock or even Damage.
Black Turn 4 ends with all Red 'suits in Shock or Panic.

Overview of battlespace as ENDEX gets called - Black has achieved Firepower dominance with the Ranger suit and Heavy Weapon wielded by a Standard Suit shooting with near impunity while the damaged suit Targets for them - this is a deadly combination, and will continue to result in Red Team losing Combat Power. 
The Training Staff decide that Black Team is the winner!

Despite the limited tools of three moderately different 'suits apiece and only one Heavy Weapon, the fight was interesting and heavily focused on paying close attention to Fire opportunities as well as effectively using cover. At the 700-800m ranges at which most of the fighting occurred, enemy Fire effectiveness is significantly reduced [about a -3 to -6 usually, on a 2d6 added together Combat Results Table].

Staying in the open at all is risky as ALL suits can Indirect Fire and assist each other's Fire by using the Targeting Action to improve all Fire at a 'suit.  The Heavy Weapon functioned like a long range grenade Launcher, with realistic threats out to 700-1000m even with IF, especially if against a Targeted defender.

The game includes rules and counters for three types of Drones, which support Recon [Targeting], Attacking and a significant Bomb threat that comes into the effectiveness of off-board artillery Fires - only difference is a Bomb Drone can be shot down.  All Drones are hard to Hit, with significant ECM ability.

There are also rules and counters for squishy infantry without battle suits. These can represent staff officers fighting for their CP, or an uprising of local Fifth Columnists, or just 3rd-Line Troops in standard modern combat gear.

The game as presented has lots of dynamics and plenty to learn. The choppy action mechanics are fine for small skirmishes, but I think will be harder to manage in larger scrapes.

Of course with miniatures and creating one's own statistics, the possibilities for the PBI and their gear are limitless.  The map provides the largest limiting factor, being about 1:1500 and with no templates included. Adding more hard cover with the provided counters can result in some brutal fights for small towns, which will be fascinating with the Drones and militia type infantry.

I must say that altho it is a bit hard to plow thru the rules at times, and they can be a bit granular with execution, the effort was worth it. I'm sure I will fight both sides better next time, and that there is more to learn with the RAW. Altho the rules are from 1983 [when The Police, Michael Jackson and other dinosaurs ruled the Charts - CLICK!] they've aged quite well and just need a QRS and perhaps a tiny bit of streamlining to make them as contemporary as more modern skirmish rules with total OPFIRE like Infinity.

Overall, recommend grabbing this game for not only the raw rules and components, but the future possibilities with miniatures on an open table, or just making one's own maps.

JUST BUY IT - you will be hard pressed to find as much for for $20 anywhere!