Get '65 for $100!
One of my gaming pals, Ken, suggested we give this a go. Played it thrice - the first time he guided me and The Angry Dackel Steve playing it, the next two times he and I played it. Third time, we tried a new scenario.
This was an interesting game design with lovely production - counters, game board, everything. I especially loved the big hexes, which were easy to work within. No complaints there!
This is the first "take the village" scenario. The mechanics are pretty hard to explain, there are numerous factors that go into deciding victory, but the key part was taking buildings for the Americans. Unsurprisingly, causing casualties gets you victory points as well.
Below, an Event card results in the Americans taking mortar fire. Like a stroke of lightning - literally, as I had nothing to do with it - they suffered some shock and reductions. I set up with an eye towards fire lanes and ranges. The GIs split forces and approached from two directions, board west and east. There's more cover to the east, so I sent a squad into the bush to act as a bit of a tripwire and hopefully delay the Yanks. My goal was denying lanes of fire and slowing his advance. After all, I'm sitting on the win!
I believe this was a charge of my Team against the advancing US. That was pretty exciting, and was entirely due to the cards that I drew.
This was another plastering of Ken's west US forces.
My sappers were able to get in close and cause some trouble, but they ended up shaken and reduced.
We both have a weakened teams on the spot. But I can afford to hold him off and lose a team. He has the burden of attacking.
If I had to make a sweeping generalization about '65, it's the "Anti-Squad Leader".
In that classic Avalon Hill wargame, you have a lot of control of your troops and your plans, what and when you will do things. Very little reduces your all-knowing and all-seeing 1000-foot view. The main area of luck is combat and morale. But it is fair to say that you likely have a bit too much control of timing and movement.
However, once the bullets start flying, you lose control with morale results pretty quickly, and have challenges to much of your plans, as long as the enemy is engaging you. Overall, I'd rate it high on the "simulates real Army stuff" scale, with some points being deducted for relative ease of planning and execution. It'd be a bit more realistic if movement was a bit randomized and the enemy even less obvious than the "?" markers make them [altho I do like that mechanic].
Overall, '65 is a solid game that emphasizes the "game" half of "war game". It's engaging and fun to play. You try to manage chaos, take opportunities when they arrive, and hope that you get some results when you need them. In short, it reminds me of playing gin with my grandparents. However...
- The mechanics are intrusive as you constantly have to read and play a hand of cards. There's lots of fine print, and most cards can do 2-3 things, so you have to constantly check on what is in your hand while your opponent is acting, and then again while you are acting... just like 5 Crowns [which is Hollywood Gin]. So, yeah, it feels like a card game.
From the cards [not your tactical capabilities or plans] you then get to make tactical decisions - this includes basic things like Fire and Maneuver. The cards limit your options to what you draw. Theoretically, your troops might almost never Fire or Maneuver, if the cards don't come up in a way you can use them, OR you have to use them for one of the other options on the cards [like a defensive option].
- Events that in real life are carefully planned in advance, like fire support, are randomized by Event card draw. This would be fine for a solo game against a pre-programmed "bot" opponent, but feels weird in PvP games.
- The game has A LOT of rules and special rules. Each card has a number of capabilities, the rule book has lots of rules and exceptions, and each counter has 8-10 pieces of data in the form of symbols and occasionally numbers. This requires you to learn their symbol system.
Despite 80-120 years of wargame experience at the table [the three times we've played], there was a lot of consultation with the rule book. While none of the mechanics were novel, there are A LOT of mechanics and A LOT of particulars to them, so expect to have to read the rulebook numerous times and then have to consult it regularly. It took us 2-3 hours every time, with a very simple scenario, to get through with just a few minor mistakes. Lots of other games I could have played the same scenario in an hour.
- Both times I've played the first scenario, the game was close, came down to the very end a minor win [for me as US then as Viet Minh]. So the scenario is definitely balanced.
My problem with the game is that I don't really feel like I won because I played better than my opponent. Instead, I "did what I could with the hands I drew" and somehow that ended in a win. That does happen in real Army life, but usually before the operation. During the operation you are attempting to execute a plan in the face of an enemy that 'gets a vote'. That's the main area of competition.
In essence, troops have no inherent capabilities to do anything. Sort of like Command and Colors, everything revolves around building a hand best you can and then using it. You don't give orders, subordinates don't execute orders and plans. It's a bit like fishing in a rapids. You try to seize some fleeting opportunities to do something, hopefully before your opponent does. There are some card draws that make life much easier for you, I think one is called "Command Ops" or something. The third time I played I drew this a few times and made Ken's life very difficult.
So if you want a fun "GAME" with mediocre historical "feel" that constantly works against you with game mechanics, but still has a great "narrative" then this may be for you. And if you have $100 to spend for high quality production.
Personally, I prefer games where the mechanics involved enhance the "feel" of being in the role the game has put the player in, whether General, Colonel, Captain or Lieutenant or Sergeant. While I agree that many wargames make it TOO easy for players to plan and do what they want, games like this emphasize the chaos so much that it feels more like trying to play poker - if you get the hand you want, you might win. If you don't, you'll likely lose. But a hand of poker just takes a few minutes, and the skill is in playing hand after hand after hand.
That's fine for cards. But in real life military operations, training, planning and decisions matter, as well as the unit capabilities - and units sometimes make their own decisions without guidance from a higher authority! Here, decisions are opportunistic, and you aren't trying to manage the flow of battle and get inside your opponent's OODA loop. Your troops don't automatically do anything, even return fire, unless you have the cards to do it. So, that's also pretty unrealistic.
Anyway, it is a game that would be more fun with less rules. It doesn't remind me of Army, it reminds me of playing a card game. If you like card games that have a military theme, then you may like this if you're OK with the complexity level of the rules. If you're looking for something quick, down'n dirty, then this is not likely to appeal to you. And for $100, I just feel like I'd prefer to spend it elsewhere, so it's good that my pal has the game instead!
