MGPRP: Strategy & Tactics pocket reviews



Issues 180-189


· S&T #180: Reinforce the Right!
· S&T #181: Fall of Rome (reprint)
· S&T #182: Balkans '41
· S&T #183: Byzantium
· S&T #184: Twilights Last Gleaming
· S&T #185: 1st Arab Israeli Wars
· S&T #186: Over The Top: Mons and Marne
· S&T #187: Risorgimento
· S&T #188: Kiev/Rostov (reprint)
· S&T #189: Charlemagne


S&T 180-189:
“One of the Better groups of S&T games/issues under Decision Games” KM

“Those 10 issues represent one of the most interesting periods in the history of the magazine, IMHO.” SC


S&T #180: Reinforce the Right!
------------------------------
"I got this out of the clear blue sometime in the last couple of months. It looks like DG is trying to get my money back into a subscription. And actually, I even thought about it for awhile, based on my play of this game. I really had no major beefs with this game, and I'm going to call it a gem. I thought it played pretty smoothly, captured the overall contours of the campaign pretty well, and was fun. At the graphic level, the counters were pretty good; the map was ok (I did not like the triangle mountains--I'm sure that David McE. has gotten an earful on this one). A good effort that I may even return to someday." JB

“A great simulation of the initial months of the Western Front of World War I when the front lines were actually fluid. Frequently generates historic results with Germans petering out around the Marne. Extra perk of political options allows players to vary historical approaches. Stresses command control. Only problem with the game is the victory or defeat often hinges on an abstracted battle on the Eastern Front (Tannenburg). A Gem.” DL

“Joe Miranda's take on the opening months of WW1 in the west, this game is one of my favorite S&T games. Easy to digest, yet challenging enough (with plenty of variants), this is one of the best simulations of this era out there. A+.” DS

“A very solid WWI game of the opening moves in France. I've found that each side has a chance in this one and it's fun to see if the Germans can make that flank attack and swing in behind the allies. give it a A+” KM

“I think what turns some people off about RtR is that entrenching is handled as a random event. Those playing this game should use J. Miranda's later suggestion that the event be ignored for the first 4 turns, otherwise the German s can get stuck very early. Overall, a very solid game, however.” DD

“I played this when it first came out, and wasn't crazy about it. Not a bad game, and it seemed to do an adequate job of recreating history, but ... I guess I felt there were not too many strategic options, so the campaign felt scripted.” RKB

“Maybe the best S&T ever. Miranda's study of the opening guns of WW1 fought out in France and the Low Countries. Rules are simple and elegant, yet their consequences sneak up on a player... neat supply rules cause apparently promising offensives to slow down as they did historically. The game is eerily able to replicate historical events. Like other Miranda designs, there are also tons of options for playing with the order of battle (at a cost in victory points). A sensible optional rule should be used that forbids the entrenchment random event from occurring until week IV. I concur with the others... an A+.”


S&T #181: Fall of Rome (reprint)
------------------------------
“Gem! Very nice job on this reprint. The rules worked well, it was fun, and quite a nailbiter for what is primarily a solitaire game.” JeB

“A very good remake of this oldie.the game mechanics & scenario's make this one to be played. give it a B-“ KM

“Lavish with great period flavor, produced seemingly as a gift to the segment of the gaming community for whom the original was a cult classic. The rules are tight, producing a good solitaire game. The strategies seem fairly straightforward, especially in the later scenarios where mobile armies become very important. Ultimately, I decided not to hold onto the game; but its intended audience has snapped this game up... it's one of the hardest S&Ts to find on the secondary market and always fetches a good price. An B+.” KL

“I played Fall of Rome many times and feel that this was a game that was unfairly bashed both then and now. Being a solitaire design, I had no problem with the rule interpretations! The game conveyed the sometimes desperate situation that the Empire found itself in with so many enemies at the gates.” VW


S&T #182: Balkans '41
------------------------------
“A good system for a one sided campaign. Simulates the German invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece. Without playing an alt-history scenario, this game is a walk-over for the Germans. Unique air tactical sub-system is the highlight of the game. Would be nice to apply system to more competitive campaign. A gem with major reservations.” DL

“Neither gem nor dud. A solid system, but as was already mentioned, the historical situation lacked excitement. If you are interested in the theater, I would recommend it.” JeB

“A nice game with a easy system to show this theater of the war. Had one of the better maps & counter graphics. The game system from this game would be good on a different subject,say East Front! Give it a B” KM

“Perhaps one of the most physically attractive S&Ts (at the time), the game was great but the subject matter made replay value somewhat low. Still, a nice game by Joe Miranda. B+” DS

"I can only reiterate the previous comments. An interesting system marred by a weak situation. I recall while being in the rules reading phase that the air system sounded fun. Then in actual play finding for most of the allies air units are immediately eliminated and never come back." BR


S&T #183: Byzantium
------------------------------
“Attempts to simulate the broad sweep of Byzantine History in several scenarios. Uses the same basic system as Thirty Years War (S&T #173) and 100 Years War (S&T #177), but before the refinement of the system in the subsequent Charlemange (#189) and Xenophon (#203). Didn't seem to work as well as its it predecessors or followers. Felt like players simply ran around on the board undoing the work done by their opponent in the prior phase, with whomever went last having the advantage. Dud.” DL

“The game did a o.k. job of showing the campaigns and the variant scenario's and options from Web-Grognards really make this game better. give it a B” KM

“The only S&T since the low 100's that I actually played. It helped remind me why I haven't been playing them. I didn't think the system was that interesting, and the outcome of combat was pretty random. Worst of all, the game's random events table was really in charge of affairs, the players were just spectators. A dud.” DK

“I've set this one up a couple of times, but I can't coerce anyone into playing it with me! I guess the topic's just a little too obscure for many. And there are a lot of games out there competing for our time!” DC

“An interesting game on a relativey obscure topic. Our group played the heck out this in three player mode. Rules need to be tweaked slightly to make the game work properly ( i.e. make pillaging more difficult, give Byzntines a better income) I think it is one of the best S&T multi-player games. Grade B+” EB

“Probably the weakest entry in the Charlemagne series. Random events are too powerful, and the off-board players didn't feel right, either they were too weak (the Franks) or too resilient (the Arabs). I realize that the Byzantines should have only a 1/3 (1/4?) chance of winning, but it comes out even lower than that. Still, there's something to be said for a multi-player wargame. Rating: B-“ ZJ

“Played this one solitaire, ftf, and multiplayer, but it never quite lived up to the hype. It is too easy to lose an army, and nearly impossible to rebuild it. Historical, but dull.” BB


S&T #184: Twilights Last Gleaming
------------------------------
“I tried to like this game( really i did) but it just left me flat. give it a C-“ KM

“I wanted to like this one. The topic was interesting and needed some tactical coverage. The rules were straightforward and easy to learn. The command structure, while probably accurate, made the game awkward and annoying to play. Nothing interesting or unexpected ever seemed to happen and this one was retired after one or two plays.” HM

“I wanted to like this one, since there are few games on the topic. Came up with a bunch of questions, which as I recall I could never get answered (publisher didn't know where to reach the developer as I recall). The battles were interesting, once.” RKB

“I liked the game and have played it, if I remember right, three times: BLADENSBURG twice and NEW ORLEANS once. I enjoyed it, although the New Orleans game is so lopsided that it isn't worth playing twice. The others are decent, though.” DC

“Has three scenarios or mini games with it, the maps are okay, counters look good, another rule book that needed a lot more work, there is counter errata and rule book errata, not all of it has been addresses either, experienced players can make house rules so at least they can try to play the games. However the scenarios are a mixed bag and an unusual choice. Bladensburg seems to be a fantasy scenario with little relationship to history. Deep down there might be a good game in there but life's short. Rating D” CH


S&T #185: 1st Arab Israeli Wars
------------------------------
“I really like this game, S&T got back on the right track with this one. It was great to be able to fight the whole war. The Israeli's have their hand full in this game. Give it a A” KM

“I played AIW just last month and we put it away after a few weeks. Seemed sort of generic. Singapore (S&T 96?) was even worse in the same sort of way (played the month before). I might go back to AIW (for topic novelity at the very least) but will be armed with a lot of rules issues answered for the next time. I was really looking forward to it. Perhaps my expectations were too high. Nice under-utilized map as well.” AS

“First game on often ignored topic of wargaming. I loved the simple system with it's multiple use of supply units. It dispelled the David and Goliath myth conveyed by movies like Exodus. The Isrealis are stronger than the Arabs. They cannot lose.” LR

“Probably my favorite S&T game. The escalating mobilization and armament levels are perfectly represented, and the supply rules model the historic issues well with little bookkeeping. The game follows the actual pace of the warfare well, starting off with localized skirmishes and escalating to a chaotic mix of manuever and positional warfare, with random cease-fire interruptions. It probably favors the Israelis, but the Arabs are still interesting to play, with lots of diverse units and options. Rating: A+” ZJ

“An innovative game, focused on low intensity conflict where supply must be saved from turn to turn to allow a successful offensive to happen. It's attractive, with a wide variety of Arab forces and a nice map (although much of the southern half is superfluous to play). There is good scope for strategy and conservation and planning of forces. It's very interesting. I was put off by the game's terrorism rules, which do not merely allow but encourage players to engage in localized ethnic cleansing. Coming to the game long after its publication (and in the aftermath of personal experience with Bosnia and 9/11), I found these aspects troubling and distracting. Notwithstanding my personal qualms, I recommend it as a game and simulation -- though perhaps not for the fainthearted. A-.” KL


S&T #186: Over The Top: Mons and Marne
------------------------------
"Average game. Germans have a tough road towards victory. Plays longer than it looks, with horrific casualty rates. Thus, like the real conflict, somewhat exhausting. I do like the graphics (including the controversial 'dark' Marne map). Overall, I'd rate it a 3 (out of 5)."SC

“The first in a series of World War I operational games. Reminescent of the Blue and the Grey series in the simplistic but tense system. Mons is small, but a real nailbiter. Marne is more grand, but historically inaccurate and victory seems to hinge on occupation of two hexes in the west. The artillery system is unique where the attacker and defender make individual attacks to soften enemy front or stall enemy advance. Not everyone's bag, but I'd still call it a gem.” DL

“Never got into this one. Backwards counters and a fair bit of errata for the Marne game turned me off. The game seemed to work, it just never got me excited.” JeB

“A nice addition to the boxed game, Mons is alright but The Marne had to many problems to make it work. Give it a C-“ KM

“I played MONS once and enjoyed it, but it didn't seem to simulate the battle very well.” DC

“Haven't played this game, but I will rate the system. It is a tactical system for WW1 battles, with heavy emphasis on artillery as the preliminary to battle. Frequently games in the series have stretched history and OOB to fit into the smaller game format. Not great, but not bad. B.” KL

"I actually really, really enjoyed the Over the Top: Mons game that Joe Miranda did. The Marne that came with it had some strategic flaws, but the small game in the set was taut, fun, and playable in an evening." DL


S&T #187: Risorgimento
------------------------------
“OK, so I didn't actually play it, I just set up the 1848 scenario and scratched my head. This game had some major errata problems, but even with the errata some things were unanswered with regards to the 1848 setup. Had an exchange with the designer who claimed the forts should be at full strength. This seemed strange, and somewhere there I lost concentration on the game.” EN

“Great map Graphics, I also wanted to love this one but have yet to be able to really get into it (maybe a little more effort on my part) Give it a C-“ KM

“This was a game I eagerly awaited. When it arrived, it hit the game table just a few days later. I couldn't make heads or tails of it. I'd heard this system was great, but this game completely illuded me. Couldn't figure out what it was trying to do. Goofy.” DC

“Part of the Wars of the Imperial Age Series. Nice graphics, interesting system, with a variety of scenarios. Too bad the subject matter didn't grab me. B, based mainly on subject matter.” KL


S&T #188: Kiev/Rostov (reprint)
------------------------------
“SPI was before my time, so I don't have a nostalgic connection to the "classics". I was thorougly unimpressed with the aged mechanics of this one. ZOCs that are permanently locking? Blech. Good looking, though.” EN

“Remake of two of the Army Group South games. Great map and rules, BAD counters!!. The mistakes on the counters made me not even play it, and I was looking forward to it so much. I'll take the old SPI version( or Sunrise reprint) anyday. give it a D” KM


S&T #189: Charlemagne
------------------------------
“This was the game that made me subscribe to S&T! I love it! Sure, it might be ahistorical, unstable, slower than it should be, and missing some badly needed play-aids. But it's so cool! Nothing for control freaks, since you don't even know what forces are under your control from turn to turn, but great fun for chaos managers like me. A gem.” EN

“Definitely one for the chaos fans. Hard to plan ahead at all, as twice-per-turn random event rolls have a massive effect on play. Contingency planning for unforeseen events is fair enough - hardly being able to plan at all is just frustrating. Overall though, the game still has value because: nothing else covers the topic; there is some nice period chrome; it's well-presented. Use the errata though (on Grognards), otherwise it's liable to be a Frankish walkover.” SN

“Good to see a game on a real over looked subject. Map o.k. along with the counters. Rules need going over a few times to get things square but the play was good. give it a C” KM

“This one's a winner. I thoroughly enjoyed it.” DC

“I enjoy this game (thanks Roger D. for swapping it to me!), once you fix the 'Honest Coinage' problem. A buddy with whom I played it was much less enthusiastic, he wanted more history and less chaos. It works quite well solo, too, since the Chaos/Tribal player generally has fewer options and a more obvious strategy.” RKB

“One of the better games in the series. As noted, it's more chaos than order, and making sense out of the confusion is the biggest challenge. The game generally favors the Frankish player, but things can unravel extremely quickly, so it's not a lost cause for the Chaos player. Quick solution for the Honest Coinage chit: throw it out. Rating: A” ZJ

"Very interesting game, I know very little about the period and the only game of this period I’ve played is the Euro Carolvs Magnvs. The map is very attractive, though a little hard to read some of the boundaries. The counters for the units look nice but there is no way enough information markers. A limit no doubt placed on a magazine game. The random events really swing the game. The game is quite long, the rules are reasonably clear, but there is some errata. I could see the game working well solitaire. Rating C+" CH


Back to the MGPRP main page