MGPRP: Command pocket reviews
Issues 10-19
· Command #10: Alexandros
· Command #11: Hougoumont: Rock of Waterloo
· Command #12: Chaco
· Command #13: Desert Storm
· Command #14: Victory at Midway
· Command #15: I am Spartacus
· Command #16: 1918: Storm in the West
· Command #17: Gettysburg: Lee's Greatest Gamble
· Command #18: Tet '68
· Command #19: Port Arthur / Plan 1919
Command #10: Alexandros
------------------------
"Dud. Without the errata the Persian can just run and never fight
until they build the countermix. With the errata, it's better, but
the melee CRT is weird, (the persians want their troops to rout as
Alex doesn't have enough troops for a good pursuit force)." RL
"Compexity 3-4. Wanted to love it, really felt let down by the
battleboard. Seems stacked against Alex, if he goes into battle. Just
did not capture the flavour of the campaigns." RF
"Don't like area games. It bored me." MJP
"Really wanted to like it but after about two turns I realized the
Persian, if played right, couldn't lose. Just avoid fighting the
concentrated Macedonians and occupy every other area on the map.
If you avoided that strategy I suppose it was ok." DLF
"This was the third Command I bought. I think it was the first Command game with massive errata.
We now use a completely different system for combat (thanks to Charles Vasey) and only play the D
iadochi variant any more because the strategic situation is more interesting, and we are still
tweaking it, but it's lots of fun. Strangely, the graphic appeal of its map was never quite
equalled for me by any of the many siblings and descendants of this game (Spartacus, Bellum
Gallicum, Belisaire). Despite the flaws still a gem, kind of a Medwar affair en miniature.
Somebody whack Mike Markowitz over the head and get him to do Byzantium. Complexity 5." MS
"this covers Alexander's attempt to rule the world. The map covers the Greek and Persian world and some of the other areas
Alexander was tempted into, but battles are resolved using a battle grid that contains "left, right, center and reserve"
boxes. IF the Alexander player can bring the Persian player to battle then he can usually win, so the Persian player has
to concentrate on killing Alexander. However, the sequence of play makes it difficult to do this as the Persian player
can move before any battles are resolve. This was fixed in the expansion variants that came in later issues covering
the Successors and Xenophon, improving the game considerably. C+ as published, B with variant." SB
Command #11: Hougoumont: Rock of Waterloo
“Good looking counters, nice map, like what they tried to do with the walls/hedges/buildings depictions on the map.
Not a bad rule book, but you do need to read it carefully to get what they mean. Plays fairly fast and good tense situation. Rating B” CH
“I give this one an A-. It's one of my favorite Command games, and one of the more unusual Napoleonic titles that you're going to find.” JW
Command #11: Hougoumont: Rock of Waterloo
------------------------
"Gem. Good coverage of the battle. Wicked British artillery. A model
for future games IMO." JD
"This is the only one I have of the bunch. Very tactical in scope,
odd in a Napoleonic game. Lots of fun and more than a little brutal
for the French. I was a bit put off by the squares (versus hexes)
movement system, which reduces some of the tactical flexibility
IMHO." WOH
"Nice tactical game. Very bloody for the French and I remember having trouble with the map and LOS tracings (I was very new to the hobby)" PK
"Gem. Great tactical Napoleonic game. You don't see many of'em." TES
"Gem. Played it a couple of times and really enjoyed it. I'm very fond of non-WW2 tactical games like these
("Devil's Den" and "Defense of Rorke's Drift" spring to mind). Lots of atmosphere, very exciting to play." JeH
"I liked the concept, set up once and played a couple of turns. Always meant to return to it but never have." CWM
"Kind of neat, but since Napoleonics aren't my thing, I didn't play it
much. It felt more like Napoleonic Squad Leader, but then I may have been looking for something with overblown
formation rules and the like. Complexity 4. DEN
"Gem. This is a surprisingly complex game for the size, but a unique
scale and works well. I liked the deformed hexes, which gave the map a feel of authenticity
that the one of Bunker Hill misses completely (but I still find Bunker Hill interesting). Complexity 7." MS
"Pretty good. fire rules "boom and zoom" a little strange, but intresting. I was irrittated with the skipping
of unit ID on the counters." RL
Command #12: Chaco
------------------------
"9. I thought it was great. I love obscure wars, especially ones like
this. You can usually almost *see* blood running off the map by about
halfway through. A good strategic matchup." AWe
"I bet I wasn't the only one who played this hoping to recapture just a bit of the magic that the GDW game was.
Well, that didn't happen for me. This was an ok effort, but that's all. Neither a gem nor a dud,
but I think for those of us who remember the GDW game, the Command Chaco is always going to be
the equivalent of drinking a Miller Lite." JB
"Great game! Too bad it has almost nothing to do with the war that is supposedly the subject of the game.
Very biased towards the Bolivian perspective, which is undertandable since the designer had lived in Bolivia
(if my memory isn't failing me). The published supply rules were apparently simplified from the original.
Which is probably too bad. The published rules involve moving around a lot of trucks and such.
We found only a couple of situations where a standard line of supply rule would not have worked
the same as the published rules." TR
"Not bad. GDW did it better." TES
"Perennially on my "to play" list. I love the topic and the map, but
it seems a bit much for solo play, and my main "I like supply systems"
opponent and I so far always ended up in North Africa." MS
"Tried once, supply rules were tedious. Good effort though." RL
"My first subscription issue. I played it once but found the supply rules too cumbersome, so it's back on the shelf." SP
"This is a favourite among many. Me, I played it several times and really wanted to like it, but we were unable to get anything but a massive
Bolivian victory. It had something to do with the emergency reinforcements that allowed the Bolivians to pump out units faster than the
Paraguyans could reveive supply points to attack them with. Maybe we did something wrong." EN
"This game covers a rather obscure war fought in South America in the early 1930's between Bolivia and Paraguay. Units are 'roughly'
brigades and Regts, and there are leaders who play an essential part in the game. Map graphics are okay, counters good, and the rules
are generally good but it pays to read the rules regards supply and combat losses carefully. there are also a couple of other small twists.
It has short scenarios and a campaign game. I have only played the first scenario but that went fairly smoothly though the supply rules are
a little fiddly, but then supply did have a major impact in the campaign. The VC's for the scenario seemed to have players undertaking
unhistorical actions due to the short time frame involved. Each turn played reasonably quickly. I certainly liked it. Rating B" CH
"This is one of, if not my top, favorite magazine games of all time. I love the subject, especially as it's both important and obscure,
and it's a labor of love from a designer who is also expert in the subject. Some criticize the supply rules as being too fiddly and complex,
but they're no worse than the average North Africa game, and were actually modeled after Joe Balkoski's in The Korean War. There is a lot of
shifting momentum over the long term, and unpredictability. DISCLAIMER: I was a playtester on Chaco, and also wrote about it in Line of Departure.
Grade A" JW
"I played Chaco about 10 times, most of which were the campaign game. Excellent game, with epic back-and-forth, map-edge to map-edge swings of fortune.
Despite its rep, the supply rules are not that bad. I hate overly involved supply rules but this was no problem. Also you have the option of
diverting trucks from the supply chain to create a proto-blitzkrieg motorized kampfgruppe. At one point I actually made up about two pages
worth of house rules and a random events table for this one. Hidden trails, mines, the firing squad for inept leaders, command car ambush,
recon units, some step loss counters ... man, I was into this game. Actually submitted all the varants to Command but they said there wasn't
enough interest in the game." GF
"This covers a rather obscure war in South America during the 1930’s, (perhaps its not obscure to the
South Americans). Graphics are sound, counters are clear and functional, map is also nice and clean,
and well laid out with the charts and holding boxes on it. Rules are very well written, its all there.
It has a couple of different scenario’s. Played it with RAW and the little bit of errata available,
but we didn’t use the ‘new’ supply rules. Found the game played very well, it was an interesting
situation and you do have to spend time thinking about and coordinating supply. First scenario plays
fairly quickly. Rating B+"
Command #13: Desert Storm
------------------------
"Gem. The Allied Worst Case Scenario is the most fun to play. I've
been dying to try Phase Line Smash to compare. This is the one with
Godzilla." JD
"7 if you're coalition, 2 if you're Iraq. NOT a good strategic matchup.
Thus it's much like the real thing, although in this version there is an
outside chance a Coalition unit could take a step loss. Even teleporting
the Grossdeutschland Panzer Corps didn't help too much--Iraq should have
'ported in the Luftwaffe instead." AWe
"It was a quick play of the Gulf War, useful for getting a rough feel for
what happened, but not much else. The Iraqis needed Godzilla or
something for balance, which was fortunately provided in a later issue.
Complexity 5." DEN
"Vastly inferior to Phase Line Smash [GDW], but OK otherwise." RL
"Nice game, but slightly one-sided... All the allied player has to do is to
make sure that none of his attacks are at less than 7-1 odds, and then there
is no risk of suffering a step loss and thus lose the game." SP
Command #14: Victory at Midway
------------------------
"Didn't like it. Too small and too random. The search was
pre-ordained and the attack wave were so luck based that strategy took
a back seat." MJP
"Not a big fan of naval battles. I started asking myself, as the
Japanese no doubt did, "Why did I bother with battleships?" (XTR pet
peeve: all these naval battles (what is it now, two?)--where are the
air tactical/strategic games? Luftschiff would have been such a good
Command title.)" AWe
"We played it three times or so in a Hotel Room during our school trip to
Paris. We had fun, although the Japs won all three engagements due to
American faults. It was a very easy to play system with not so much
historical value. Good for teaching novices." PK
"Enjoyed the concept. I like naval and the system is simple and elegant.
However, I seldom get to play anything but solitare, so after playing a
couple of times had to shelve it." CWM
"I have to disagree with the naval professionals here. This is one of
my favorite Commands ever, tense, quick to play, and true to history
in the mechanisms and results, except for the silly rule that attackers
fire second in surface combat. 2 Caveats: 1. Unless you are a total
beginner in wargaming, ALWAYS (even the first time) play with the optional
rules as suggested. 2. Don't play it if for you, detailed plane handling
is a prerequisite for carrier games. It will not appeal to people who
sneer at games below Flat Top level for the same reason that Jutland is
not liked because it does not cover damage control or signalling problems.
VaM is a game of sneaking and bluffing that is over in three hours, and
IMO that is the only way to make a situation as extreme, unique, and
hindsight-laden as Midway actually playable without massive idiot rules.
Someone asked about the Smithsonian Midway. I think at the minimum rules
level the Smithsonian edition should play about as quickly, but VaM is far
more elegant. VaM also has more historical strike ranges. Absolute
gem. Complexity 4." MS
"I tried this several times, 'couldn't get into it." RL
"Gem. I like this one. It's fast, small, and yet has the ground troops
involved. I agree there is luck involved, but it's still a good game." PRC
Command #15: I am Spartacus
------------------------
"Gem. A neat game that lets you build an army only to see it crushed.
The end can be tough for Kirk if the Romans concentrate their forces." JD
"3.5. I kinda like area games, and I think it works in this case. I
don't like the "roll this number or less to hit" system, which I believe
this has. Also, Spartacus--barring enormous luck in his first battle
against a true Roman incompetent--is doomed, usually." AWe
"Loved the game, beautifully done on a neglected era (unless you guys vote
on my game proposal in S&T #182!). However, enthusiasm in my group waned
after about a year. Consensus was that if Spartacus could successfully
evade destruction, the Slaves were assured an end game victory on points." WS
"The Kirk Douglas Counter LOL!! The rest of the game was not so funny.
Played it twice and the slaves did not have much chance against good
Roman play." PK
"Liked the system didn't like the situation. Makes me wish XTR would try
there hand at a generic Prestags like system someday, so we can have
something between Ancients and GBOH in complexity to choose from." CWM
"Fun game, hopeless imbalence in the victory conditions for Sparticus,
who will get wiped out but win on points." RL
"Liked it, but sold it." DA
"Covers the Slave revolt made famous by a certain movie, there is even a Kirk Douglas like picture on the Spartacus counter.
Fairly simple game, the Slave player goes around recruiting massively and hopes he wins battles to turn the recruits into
good fighting units, while the Roman player attempts damage control until the cavalry arrives near the end of the game.
Combat is a simple line em up and roll to hit affair. The game is marred in that much depends upon how well the Slave
player recruits the first turn and fairs in the first battle with the Romans; do well and the game likely will go to the
slave player; do poorly and the game will likely go to the Roman player. Worth a play once or twice: C+." DCl
Command #16: 1918: Storm in the West
------------------------
"Partial gem. Fun to play, but it somehow left something to be desired.
Maybe it was the scale. I'm anxious to see how the new MiH divisional
level game compares.: JD
"A favorite. One of the most elegant games I've seen. I've had some really
dramatic "middle games" in this one where the German offensive, about to go
dull and shatter, is trying to hold on for one more turn before the Allied
front finally collapses. It never does, but I keep coming back for more." AWe
"My all-time favorite. Played it dozen times. Very easy to learn, great
strategic situation, sometimes nail-biting tension as the German
Stosstruppen slash through the rear of the Allied forces. I lost twice
as the German player after the collapse of the whole northern sector
after an epic struggle for Verdun. Then I changed the strategy and split
the Brits and French, only to lose the salient again.
I am longing for All Quiet (maybe at Hexacon in Germany in May?)" PK
"Gem. Thank you TR for reintroducing me to WWI games which aren't
exercises in futility." TES
"Gem. Great game. This was the first XTR product I saw: I remember being
immediately attracted to the theme (a non-static WW1 game), the big,
colorful 5/8" counters, the Bruchmuller counter, etc... Actually it's been a
while since I played it. I should probably give it another shot... :-)" JeH
"Gem. One of the most replayable Commands. If I didn't love TGWIE so much
this would be pulled done even more than it has been." CWM
"Complexity 4. I thought this was the best of Raicer's WWI stuff. Really
captured the feel of the last year of WWI. A good game." DEN
"I was at origins at the XTR talk when Ted dropped this off for Ty to
test. Good game. I've got the new one from MiH on order." RL
"Gem - first Command game I picked up and played it a lot." DA
Pyrrhic Victory variant (for Spartacus.)
"Played a friend's copy with him. Seemed to work ok. Did not in any
way catch our imagination the way Alexandros and its variants did.
Perhaps I should take another look at it." MS
Command #17: Gettysburg: Lee's Greatest Gamble
------------------------
"Looks like a great game on the subject, have not had a chance to play
it yet. I like the scale better then their other game on the subject,
Fateful Lightning. The rules appear to be clean and when I get to
Minnesota I'll be looking for someone to play it against." PBl
"Though I've heard it panned, this is one of my 2-3 favorite ACW
games. You're not tied to terrain and the armies may or may not do
what you want. After slamming randomness in VaM, I feel it's well
balanced here." MJP
"A true gem, loved the system, after figuring out the inherent wierdness
of an innovative system such as this. Keep begging Chris P. to do another
game in the system." AR
"For some reason I can't put my finger on, I really didn't like this one." DEN
"Semi-dud (we had a discussion on this recently). The command system
is a fascinating experiment that did not work, and the terrain-free
victory conditions work well up to a point and then no more. I really
liked the hidden march rules, but the attacker-favoring CRT was odd.
Complexity 6." MS
"I didn't like the command system, and felt it was rather solitaire hostile." RL
"A different feel to Gettysburg with unusual victory conditions
(ie. don't take the round top). Gem, I guess." DA
Command #18: Tet '68
------------------------
"Partial gem. Some strange victory conditions (both players could
win). A lot of neat specialty units." JD
"Great fun, clean, fast and easy to play. Just short of a gem due to
same old/same old mechanics." AR
"Traded for this one, then wished I hadn't. Game seems essentially over
after 2nd turn. NVA VP c(ances ride heavily on first turn attacks." CWM
"Complexity 5. The focus seemed wrong. The North Vietnamese player would try to
maximize points, rather than go for any type of military victory. The
US, knowing he had a military victory locked up from the start, played to
minimize NVA points. Didn't play it enough to say much else, since the
feel was all wrong." DEN
"Looked good (kind of a slicker cousin to Holy War: Afghanistan), nice
map and counters, but doesn't work well. Propaganda is so powerful
that it makes combat near irrelevant, and losses are far too high.
(Try playing the first scenario and comparing the results to the setup
of the second.) Complexity 5." MS
Command #19: Port Arthur / Plan 1919
------------------------
"I own all the Commands in this series, and this one the only one that
I really gave a fair shake to. Which is too bad for me, because the
game is a waste of time. Somewhat interesting mechanics aren't saved
by the situation, where the Japanese have a lock on victory and the
Russians don't have much to do." DT
"I was disappointed. The removal of the naval game hurt. It played a
lot like the Crimea game but didn't have any period flavor." MJP
"Yes, the Russians are doomed. Along with DS, the perfect game for the
masochist, when (like me) you like to play the loser. Of course, the
Russians were incompetent in real life, too (didn't they get drunk before
every battle? I heard that somewhere)." AWe
"Very painful. We decided that unless the Japanese landed a unit on
the peninsula adjacent to the RR, the Russians could rail in a ton of
units and hold the Port forever (or nearly so). It kind of annoyed us
that only this strategy was viable." AR
"I probably didn't figure out how to play this one right. 3/4 of the board
seems unnecessary as result of the strategic movement rules and Russian
strategic situation." CWM
"Only played this a couple of times, left me with a so-so feeling.
Can't really support either side of the extreme imbalance claims. Bit
disappointed that the siege map was left out (even if it sounds
reasonable that it would not have been much fun). No gem, but not
really a dud. Complexity 4." MS
"These two [19 & 20] seem to sum up the strengths and weaknesses of this era of Command
excellent graphics, clear rules, but odd mechanics that didn't seem to
fit the situation." RL
"Hated it - I played this 3 times and demonstrated each time
to my opponent that the Japs. had no hope. The Russians just
bottle the peninsula up on turn 1 or 2 before the Japs
can invade and then there's no hope for them. I suppose
some errata was in order to fix it, but I never saw it." DA
Back to the MGPRP main page