MGPRP: Command pocket reviews
Issues 20-29
· Command #20: Cortes: Conquest of the Aztec Empire
· Command #21: Blood and Iron
· Command #22: Antietam
· Command #23: Shogun Triumphant
· Command #24: Czechoslovakia '38
· Command #25: When Eagles Fight
· Command #26: When Tigers Fight
· Command #27: Proud Monster
· Command #28: Like Lions They Fought
· Command #29: 1914: Glory's End
Command #20: Cortes: Conquest of the Aztec Empire
------------------------
"A real gem. Great looking counters. I don't know why they included the
whole map as most of the fighting occurs on the central island. Someone
mentioned some killer canoes or Spanish boats that can really warp the game
if house rules aren't used. JD
"I liked it, but I can't remember why. Whatever happened to the Inca
game?" AWe
"Another true gem. The Aztecs sacrificing Spaniards on the top of their
temples... and of course the hack-and-slash through the city. Cant
comment on play balance." PK
"Gem (at least superior). Even if the Spanish have "battleships"!" TES
"Gem, gem, gem! I love the theme, the period, the rules mechanisms chosen,
the counters, the chrome rules... everything about it! It is true however
that the designer made the Spanish gunboats *way* too powerful. Making the
gunboats weaker might be a worthwhile experiment." JeH
"Played once. Liked it. Haven't played since. Can't really tell you why on
any of the above points. I do remember I was expecting a strategic game
and was disappointed it was a tactical game." CWM
"Complexity 4. The game broke down at a few areas, but overall we had a great time
playing it. The human sacrifice chrome was the best part." DEN
"Sniff. Great expectations, nice counters, fairly big disappointment
(sorry, Jens :-). Odd map area, and those gunboats. Complexity 5." 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
"Man, those counters. Never played it but am still anxious
to. One day.. one day. Heard good things about it." DA
Command #21: Blood and Iron
------------------------
"Gem. Played this a number of times and really enjoyed it. A good tactical
feel for the time. My Austrian generals wouldn't do what they were
supposed to, though. ;-)" JD
"I would say gem. I like this one a lot. It has a number of
scenarios, and gives a very good "tactical" feel in that one must
coordinate the three arms to achieve a good result." PRC
"Gave it a whirl and didn't really like it much. Probably because I had
no idea what was going on or was supposed to happen, but it didn't do
anything for me." DEN
"I played it once, the combat system just didn't gel for me." RL
"One of my favorite tactical games. It was a good simulation, IMO, as
well as a good game. Also some of my favorite counters...they were pretty
basic, but I liked the scheme of colors representing sub-commands." AWe
"Gem. Very good-looking, playable, effective command control system.
Overall a good rendering of the historical situation." MS
"I'm surprised by the aclaim Blood & Iron is getting. I enjoyed puttering with
it, but I eventually put it away as an interesting failed experiment. The
bloodless CRT allows the Austrians to adopt a point defense, and simply keep
retreating. The game comes down to whether the Austrian arty will shoot down
enough Prussians before they fail an
"impetuous" roll, they get crowded together, or they make a mistake,
for instance, leaving a unit in the woods where it neither retreats nor moves
fast enough to avoid being cut off... This just didn't seem to be a very
satisfying reflection of the historical tactical realities. BTW, there is a
bridge missing on the map...I'll have to check my copy for the details." JGo
"Cool map, average counters, a complexity level not much more than an
advanced Blue and Gray, and an interesting subject make this one a
semi-gem. Can't find a willing Austrian player in my local group. The
Command Control rules are brutal to the Austrians, making the game somewhat
one-sided in our opinion." WS
“This game covers the battle of Koniggratz (3 July 1866). The map is fine, the counters are good and the rules are well written.
There is some errata. The game plays quickly, though the full campaign can take awhile, there is a smaller scenario.
There are some good optional rules and I played using all the optional rules. These rules tend to hinder the Austrian but even so it was a fun game,
both players have some options though with the optional command rules it is more difficult for the Austrian player. I felt the Prussian player had a
little too much freedom of action. Still a good solid design. Rating B+” CH
“Blood and Iron (Konnigratz)...not quite a solid "A" (an A- [+]?), IMHO...one of my fave games of all time.” AP
Command #22: Antietam
------------------------
"Punched, clipped and set up. Started to play a few turns and then went
back to Talonsoft." JD
"A game. It was a decent treatment of Antietam. Not worth playing
twice." DEN
"This game is fast playing and really captures the feel of Antietam
without massive idiot rules. You activate the Union by corps but can
only have a couple active at once. Tough decisions on deactivation
since it's hard to get them back up. How far do you push them? Gem." MJP
"I had waited for this but somehow once I got it it seemed kind of bland." RL
"Found it OK, but did not feel the desire to play again, possibly
because it's an odd battle, and the step loss counters were a hassle
(in retrospect, a taste of what was to come with Glory's End). The
solo rules worked though, which makes it memorable." MS
"Cool game on this battle. The rules are modest in complexity and the game plays quickly. The Union player has the required
idiot rules but they are not bad enough to keep him from actually doing something productive most of the time, just not
enough to let him overwhelm the Confederate player with his numbers. B." DCl
Command #23: Shogun Triumphant
------------------------
"Again punched and clipped. I really wanted to like this one, but seem to
recall some disconnects in the mechanics." JD
"Shogun lite. A fun, fast game. Clan activations can make or break you." PRC
"Fun game. Unpredictable clans may seem gamey for some but I liked it." MJP
"Not a bad game, but the fire/melee combat system seemed to lead to
a lot of die rolling for little effect." RL
"A wild 'n' wooly affair. Knowing that your units may turn coat adds a
whole new level to each tactical decision. I don't know much about Japanese
military history, sorry to say, so I don't know if it's a good simulation. If
it is, Japanese mil hist was very chaotic...A gem." AWe
"Gem. Reasonably simple but not overly so, unique, quick,
unpredictable, tense, bloody. Nice looks, too." MS
Command #24: Czechoslovakia '38
------------------------
"Although my opinion is biased on this one, I really enjoyed the game.
IIRC, the lack of roads is a problem in the game." JD
"This was a fun game. I liked the S&T game better." DEN
"Interesting to play this and Case Green. Two different approaches but I
liked both." MJP
"A intresting counterpoint to S+T's Case Green. Here the Cezchs are really
doomed from the outset. Fast playing but the germans seem way to powerful." RL
"Gasp! Alt-hist in a magazine game! I think this was the first one (in
Command). I like the topic, but I think the Czechs have to be reeealy good to
have a chance against the Germans. A near-run thing all around." AWe
Command #25: When Eagles Fight
------------------------
"Gem. Played it several times. A good game, though a little eclipsed
by TGWiE." JD
"It was a good game on a rarely simulated topic. I thought it broke down
about midway through the war, but that didn't bother me much." DEN
"Another fun game in the mold of 1918 and 1914: Glory's End." MJP
"Very good game, I reviewed it positively for Paper Wars." RL
"I got a better feel of the overall situation from TGWiE, but it's still
a good game. One of Command's best graphics ever in the main article, also,
which really made the issue for me. Midway had a good two-pager, too. Command
needs more of those, maybe as a centerfold (that'd make for interesting bus
conversation: "Who's it this month?" "Shiloh.")." AWe
"The first half is tense and a good simulation (better than TGWiE where
the Russians always seem to push the Austrians into the Carpathians).
The second half depends on the Verdun dieroll and little else. First
half gem, second half dud." MS
"An early Ted Raicer game. Pretty standard rules that results in a surprisingly effective and fun simulation
of World War I on the Eastern Front. I like it." EN
Command #26: When Tigers Fight
------------------------
"I didn't like this one, though I really tried. I played it several times
but came away empty. Maybe I was looking for a more detailed treatment of
Burma." JD
"I was disappointed with the game. It was lacking something. Perhaps
more detail? Maybe it just needed Godzilla destroying Tokyo instead of
the Air Force. :-)" DEN
"Dud of the bunch, if not of all XTR releases. This is one game that
really needs supply rules. The Japanese can trace full supply to Saign
through the Himilayas (conceivably). The strengths of units on the
Burma fron seem out to lunch as well. I really wanted to like this game
but couldn't." MJP
"A clever game, the usual XTR style supply rules are a little askew here,
and the Burma front is a total mess (The IJA has little chance here in
attacking India, which causes the not to attack. This makes the Allies
counteroffensive late in the game very tough. I believe XTR later issue a
couple of "iron madien" type rules forcing the IJA to attack in India
the first few turns. It would have been better just to focus on the
Chinese front I think.)" RL
"When did the variant to this one come out? I...sort of liked the main
game, with the system of untried units, which struck me as very cool at the time
(still does). The different aspects of the war (China vs. Burma) really did it
for me, though. It's almost two games at once." AWe
"Only played once. I was a bit surprised at the Japanese abilities:
those monster divisions in Burma and their ability to swamp China with
units. Historicity is suspect. As a game, it seemed OK. I liked the
inclusion of both the China and Burma theaters in one game." MS
Command #27: Proud Monster
------------------------
"A real gem if you can survive as the Russians. Play with the forgiveness
points or with house rules for the sudden death conditions. I think this
is much better than the more detailed FITE/SE. [GDW-GR/D]" JD
"It is a good game, but I prefer several other games on the subject. It
needs forgiveness points, house rules, and/or a skilled Soviet player, or
the Germans are going to win. I've got friends who "try to make it work"
every six months or so. They haven't succeeded to their satisfaction
yet, but it's worth it to them to keep trying and tinkering." DEN
"Fun, fast moving system but, again, the supply rules should have been
more of a factor (like End of the Iron Dream or Blitz '41)." MJP
"Good God. It's more than a game, it's a force of nature. I took one
look and thought, "Damn, this is big." I've played about five months' worth
before I got some other game, I forget which, and it's been on the shelf ever
since. It's going to stay there awhile, too (only so many hours in a day, only
so many square feet in the basement)." AWe
"This game has generated a lot of debate, and I think that's fine and
healthy. This was a very ambitious undertaking for XTR, and in general, I
think the game succeeds. There were some things I puzzled over, but my fun
quotient with this game was nevertheless pretty high. I'm going to call it
a gem." JB
"massive (for a magazine) game on Barbarossa. Actually, the rules are not complex but the size is a complexity
all its own as it is at the division level with lots of regimental and even a few battalion sized units. The
victory conditions are intended to force the German to keep up a very fast pace or lose before he "gets there".
Most of the Soviet units are untried until their first combat. I wanted to like this and played it several times,
but for some reason I just couldn't get into it. In particular I really didn't care for the Soviet setup mechanic
which was based on the map grid instead of anything resembling reality. Also the balance was to brittle resulting
in games ending early, which is a problem for a game that takes so much effort to setup. C+" DCl
"I experienced some of the same issues with a quick resolution, after much time spent on set-up. Also, I disagreed
that units as big as divisions and as small as battalions could or should have the same ZOC's or lack of ZOC's, and
in East Front games, the Soviet rail net is so vitally important that it really should be portrayed by more than
strategic redeployment rules. On the other hand, it was one of the more played Command games of that era on my table.
Finally, for a game of this complexity level and vision, I much prefer Blitzkrieg '41, in the first Command. It's a
shame that so many people refused to punch the counters in order to preserve the collectible status. My grade for
Proud Monster is a strong C+." JW
"It is big and simple. Rules are easily grasped, the concepts clear. The complexity arises due to its large size.
Mercifully, the opening set-up is greatly dictated by the rules thus cutting the time needed to get the game going.
The lack of Zoc's is a huge adjustment but adds great mobility to the game.
The Axis advantage in firepower and greater mobility is countered by the sheer masses of Soviet troops encountered.
Turn 3 turn reinforcements is pivotal with,...what? about 100+ more Soviet units coming in as reinforcemnts and replacements.
The Soviets can not just turn and run. Sudden death victory conditions means that the game can end at any time and usually
may do so for the Soviets. However, a more experienced Soviet player will manage to keep the Axis at bay for a lot longer
and perhaps maybe even win the game. The game's best features are: 1) the hidden values attributted to the Soviets.
The Axis will not know what they are attacking until the combat is revealed. Is it a lowly 1-1-5 or a 4-6-5? The best
Soviet Units can muster a 4-10-7 or 10-4-7 factors for game play. You will experience great breakthroughs or be
stonewalled from time to time. Great drama! 2) This is the only Barbarossa game I have played that the Soviets
can manage vicious counterattacks and hurt the Axis from time to time. Advancing Axis armour must expose themselves
to win. Some will be surrounded. Some will be hurt. It is not unusual to see some Axis divisions destroyed. 3)
The game highlights the race to build the Soviet fort lines faster than the Axis can advance. Fort lines exist
in rings outside Leningrad and Moscow. It is vital for the Axis to get to them before they are operational.
But you only have so much time and so many units. Where to? 4) The game is so huge, perfect strategies are elusive.
A decision made in any turn may come back to haunt a player 3, 4 or 5 turns later. For the Axis this may mean a
small stack or two sent off on their own. For the Soviets this Drama is more vital as they have much less movement
rates. They do however have the 10 unit reserve that can show up at any city to strike fear into any Axis units
nearby. Hee, hee. 5) the Axis use of airpower is a great feature. This little Stuka units can make or break any
attack. However, there are only 5 of them and in an interesting twist, they have their maximum 10 point values
reduced turn by turn. 6) the simplistic GAST Line supply rule is easy is the key to Axis fortunes. East of this
line, attcks will suffer. And past September, they progressively worse. As the Soviets, you have that "hook". Can
you hold out long enough to hinder Axis spearheads? Finally, the graphics. The game map and counters are functional.
There is no disputing a terrain feature or a river crossing. All units are easy to read and the use of NATO symbols
greatly speeds up game play. This for me is a great plus. I rate Proud Monster as one of the top 5 wargames
I have ever played since 1969. I give it a strong A+" AK
Command #28: Like Lions They Fought
------------------------
"Ok. I would have liked a more tactical game here, with a solitaire Ulundi
scenario. :-)" JD
"Interesting game. One game I'm convinced that the British can't loose,
the next game I'm convinced the Zulus can't lose. I'm still not sure if
I like it, but since I still have it and play it after getting rid of 7
other magazines in this bunch of 10, I probably do." DEN
"One of XTR's best efforts. They cleanly integrated two wildy different
styles of combat very well here." RL
"A good simulation, I thought. If the Zulus win a big battle, half their
men have to go home. Another tactical nightmare for Chetswayo [sp?]." AWe
"Only played it a couple of times so far. Good representation of both
sides' totally differing approaches and capabilities. Semi-Gem." MS
Command #29: 1914: Glory's End
------------------------
"My first XTR game. A very good game of the early stages. The "semi-free"
set up nature makes for a fair amout of replay value, as both sides can
try different strategies. The "new" dummy counters give this one some
real Fog o war." PRC
"A good game. Lots of action, interesting decisions. The VPs seemed
rigged to produce a historical result. On the other hand it was pretty
cool." DEN
"Fun game. The simple supply rules fit here. I like the options here." MJP
"Pretty good, but I liked 1918 better." AWe
"There's nothing wrong with this one either. As I recall, this had the very
nice Mark Simonitch map that really invited play. The feature of this game
that I did not like was the on-board, off-board counter shuffle that the
4-step, two- counter units produced. I don't have a good way to physically
handle the problem of two-counter units. Either you put the counter that's
not being used in a tray, and then root through all of them if the counter
on the map takes a hit that reduces it to the substitution point, or you
keep the counters not being used organized off map in some kind of schematic
fashion to minimize the search time. But this approach then maximizes the
table space you have to devote to playing the game. If there's another way
of dealing with this situation, please enlighten me. That being said, I
thought the game itself was ok--at least reasonable historicity, and
generally clear rules compromised by the counter situation that lowered my
fun quotient." JB
"Ultimately a disappointment. A slow game with horrible counter
fiddling. I'm not against replacement counters in general, but this
game was not the place for them. Contrary to some other comments I
saw, I thought the VP rules were actually well chosen to represent the
change of goals over time, but the hiccup-like German command
breakdown rule was just silly." MS
“Covers the opening of WWI in the West, mostly Corps, no ZOC. Good map and counter art, sound rules, a small amount of errata, play's pretty well,
but it helps to sort the replacement counters (most units have two counters = 4 steps) so they can be quickly found (I made a couple of displays and
really speeds things up). Plays very smoothly and gives both sides the chance to attack and defend, surprising fluid situation” CH
Back to the MGPRP main page