MGPRP: Strategy & Tactics pocket reviews
Issues 190-199
· S&T #190: Gauntlet
· S&T #191: Sea Devils
· S&T #192: Great War In The East: Brusilov and Serbia/Galicia (reprint)
· S&T #193: Crimean War
· S&T #194: Forgotten Axis: Murmansk/Sea Devils II
· S&T #195: Borodino & Friedland
· S&T #196: Vietnam Battles: Hue & Khe Sahn
· S&T #197: Great Medieval Battles: Bannockburn & Tamburlaine (reprint)
· S&T #198: Over the Top: Verdun & Lemberg
· S&T #199: Forgotten Axis: The Finnish Campaign
S&T 190-199
“Not a great period for S&T in my mind.” AS
S&T #190: Gauntlet
------------------------------
“An exciting game, featuring the asymmetry of UN air power against Chinese infiltration tactics. One of the best modern wargames
available, although airpower was so effective, as a UN player, I felt like I had 1990s era aircraft instead of 1950s! Be warned:
it's a large game, with a significant setup and playing time. Errata also is a problem, but once you have it, this is a fine game.
A-, downgraded because of errata.” KL
“Yes, hidden gem describes this one. Korea games just do not draw a crowd like WW1, WW2 or Vietnam games do.
This one has good sweep and a real sense that you’re in trouble as the UN player with hoards of Chinese swarming south.
Graphics are excellent for both map and counters with clearly written rules and almost no errata. While the situation is
straightforward (fighting withdrawal) the game is still fun to play particularly if you like the subject. When the companion
game is published in S&T that mates maps we’ll finally have the first playable multi-map single campaign game from the
Korean War. I can’t wait. Easily the best of the 190s!” RK
"Very nice map. Good game. Good history." BR
S&T #191: Sea Devils
------------------------------
“As supplied in the initial edition of S&T (191, I think), totally unplayable. As a result, several issues later (194, I think),
a new set of rules, map, and counters were supplied. The second version is barely playable, but still a Valiant Failure
as a charitable description. Too bad, since the idea of an ACW naval raiders game is a very interesting one, and the
concept has been done successfully once before with WWI raiders in THE FAR SEAS, another S&T game.” SNb
S&T #192: Great War In The East: Brusilov and Serbia/Galicia (reprint)
------------------------------
“Nice pair of games (with excellent maps) on a neglected theater of a (then) neglected war. B” DS
“I played both of these in the original SPI version. I'm not sure if DG made any changes so I'll caveat my review with that.
The system had some real innovation, with it's core being the tactical ratings of the armies. While the concept was great,
it didn't work as well in practice. A tactical rating of 1 was almost unbeatable while a tactical rating of 4 was almost helpless.
Balancing the capabilities out a little more would make for better games because the games themselves looked great and
covered interesting subjects/theaters.
Serbia/Galicia was the most interesting with split theaters for the Austrians to fight. They had to crush Serbia
while holding off Russia in Galicia. The Brusilov Offensive demonstrated one of the few times the Russians
performed well on the offensive. C” MJP
S&T #193: Crimean War
------------------------------
“This game and Krim finally convinced me that the Crimea, regardless of what war, makes for a dull game. It all sounds good in theory.
Limited map area, no edge of the world problems, interesting terrain... but only one geographic objective and no reason to fight
for anything else! In other words, a dull and fairly realistic game that bogs down to 4 stacks besieging 2 stacks, with 5 more stacks
looking on, all in one corner of the map. Otherwise standard Miranda fare (which is a good thing), possibly with some calibration
problems (the Allies don't seem to have the problem with supplies they should have.” EN
“Very true to the war, which turns out to mean a dull game. Most of the time players spend the turns shuffling supplies forward
a hex or two. A nice big map that uses a half-dozen hexes around Sevastopol. Most historians suggest that the Allies had a good
chance of taking the city if they would have just landed near it and attacked before its defenses were prepared, but that doesn't
work in this game.” DAV
“Found it lacked good game play. Not just in mobility and excitement but the strategies were one track and obvious
(game flaws not just historical flaws).” AS
“I really wanted to like this one, but as most posters have said previously, the game didn't go anywhere. A good try to bring
the war onto the game table, just not that exciting a war to begin with. (The accompanying article was great, however.) C” DS
“A nice simulation of the battle, and nothing to quarrel about -- but ultimately not engaging. The geography and objectives
push the game to a dull conclusion around Sevastopol. Historical with no significant flaws, but not fun. B.” KL
S&T #194: Forgotten Axis: Murmansk/Sea Devils II
------------------------------
“Nice, elegant operational system with only 4 pages of rules, I really like that! Somewhat hopeless situation, that could
probably be accomodated with clever victory conditions. Unfortunately, the victory conditions suck. Most points win,
geographic points are unattainable, so all the points you get will be for losses. Due to terrain, the forces available,
and the nature of the game system, the attacker will unavoidably take more losses. The burden of attack is on the
Axis. Each axis step loss is worth 3 VPs, each Soviet 1 VP. Got it? The artillery is also a bit too bloody, and can
win the game on its own for the Soviets. A near miss, a shame on the system.” EN
“Going from hazy memory here, but I remember being frustrated by the development of this game. The rules
were patchy and some elements not well explained. An example: IIRC the Soviets have naval units based in
Murmansk, but their path to the ocean is blocked by the terrain effects chart, making it impossible to count the number
of hexes they can move in a turn. As for the situation, the victory conditions and terrain effects (tundra and rivers
especially) make it so that the Germans simply cannot win. I really wanted to like this game based on the topic,
but found very little redeeming about it. D-.” SS
“Read the rules for Sea Devils II. Unable to solitaire it, and couldn't find anybody to play it with. Seemed
really scripted into the historical course, but might be fun nevertheless.” EN
“I was excited about this one, punched it, pushed some counters around, got bored very quickly and put it on
the sale pile. Don't remember why I got bored - although I do remember the slow movement rates through the
terrain and the seeming futility of attacking were part of it.” JeB
“Still haven't gotten around to trying Sea Devils. Murmansk was disappointing. Interesting and obscure campaign, but ...
the Germans seemed to lack any options other than a straight-ahead slog, due to the movement costs and numerous rivers.
And at every river crossing, if the Soviets didn't stop the Germans cold, their artillery at least exacted a pound
of German flesh. Historical, probably. Interesting, just once. There were also some rules issues
(about river crossing movement costs, and something about getting the Soviets across an estuary).” RKB
“Doesnt work as a game, though it may model the situation correctly. Other than as a solitare study, stay away. D” BN
“[Sea Devils] As supplied in the initial edition of S&T (191, I think), totally unplayable. As a result, several issues later
(194, I think), a new set of rules, map, and counters were supplied. The second version is barely playable, but still a
Valiant Failure as a charitable description. Too bad, since the idea of an ACW naval raiders game is a very interesting
one, and the concept has been done successfully once before with WWI raiders in THE FAR SEAS, another S&T game.” SNb
S&T #195: Borodino & Friedland
------------------------------
”I playtested the second Borodino, and had a lot of fun with it. To a great degree, it was a reaction to another S&T Borodino
game, Doomed Victory, that the designers didn't like.
The second Borodino could be a real slugfust. I was also in one game in which a Russian playtester failed
to guard the flanks of some of his units in the center, and had the heart ripped out of his defense in about three turns.” JW
“Borodino/Freidland is a great game. In my opinion, one of the best ever. A simple, entertaining system. Period invoking
maps. Two seperate battles, with numerous scenarios. A throw back to the SPI era. I may be wrong, but I think it won a
Charles Robert award, too.” DL
“Like others have said, this is a good one. It's visually very nice and plays very well.” DC
“I was always wanting a game in the NaW/NLB format for these two. I even did my own versions of the battles
using that system. Borodino very good with Freidland just behind ( had some errata to make it more playable).
Real good looking maps and counters( hated Decisions way of showing counters for their 18th century games.Their NLB big time!) a "A"”KM
“Solid development of the "Napoleon's Last Battles" system.” JPR
“Beautiful graphics, simple gameplay, very easy to get into. I enjoyed both situations, which seemed to follow the
course of the historic battles well. Rating: A” ZJ
“The classic Napoleon's Last Battles system applied anew to these massive battles between Napoleon and
the Russians. The games are among the very best magazine games ever produced. They are fun, well-balanced,
and convey a good sense of history. Friedland adds a dummy unit mechanic to put some brakes
on the initial Russian attack; arguably; somewhat gamey, but it works well -- and the Russian player
still has real bite in this version of the battle. Borodino is another good one, although constrained by
geography; an unnoticed bit of map errata creates a large forest southeast of Utitsa which really should
have been rendered as rough terrain. Still, one of the five best S&Ts. A solid A, misses an A+
because the system is dated and becuase of map errata.” KL
S&T #196: Vietnam Battles: Hue & Khe Sahn
------------------------------
“Played Hue. Nice little mini-game, though the rules seemed needlessly involved for little payoff.
It really annoyed me that the most important defensive feature for the Communists was the map edge, going
just along the southern surburbs of Hue! Neither gem nor dud.” EN
“I played Khe Sahn expecting a Modern Battles Quad system with a few additions. There seemed to be a lot more
additions and, agreeing with Elias, needlessly involved for little payoff. The Khe Sahn situation was interesting,
with some good strategic decision making for the NVA. I give it a C+.” MJP
“Modern Battles Quad rules applied (and revamped) to Vietnam. Feels a bit too much like a NATO vs Pact
game than Vietnam. In the Khe Sahn scenario, U.S. artillery and helicopter mobility are overpowering.” DAV
“Another disappointing issue. In order to show the events happening around Hue and how they affected the battle
in the city, the scale is zoomed out so far that the city-fighting itself loses any interesting character. As I recall
there were some issues about the system that I did not especially like either. I set up Khe Sahn, and as promptly
took it back down. It reminded me strongly of the old Wargamer Khe Sahn issue game, with massive
stacks on the firebase. I seem to recall that it involved hidden or concealed movement for the NVA, which made it not soloable.” RKB
“I had a difficult time getting into these, for some reason the combination of combat and movement didn't feel quite
right to me. I probably haven't given the game a fair shot, but overall it felt a bit fiddly. Rating: B” ZJ
S&T #197: Great Medieval Battles: Bannockburn & Tamburlaine (reprint)
------------------------------
“I was turned off to the Medieval games issue (and almost to S&T entirely) by its lack of complete components.” AS
“I haven't played the reprint, I have played the original Tamburlaine. Interesting game on an obscure subject,
though the system could use some updating (I don't think it was changed for the reprint). Rich Berg's BSO
Games "Devil's Horsemen" is another game on a Mongol battle, and I think a slightly better game.” RKB
“Don't know how they play as games - been some time - but most have gaping holes "historically". If that detracts
from your enjoyment, it will detract mightily.” RHB
“I've played a lot of medieval battles, and I'm afraid I found these unconvincing. The graphics were good; but the
system seemed dated and vanilla. A funny mechanic focusing on defender armor type just didn't work for me. B-.” KL
“A short defense of the Great Medieval Battles system: These games were both fairly competitive as contests,
and Bannockburn, at least, could both model the actual events and provide the means to alter them.
The combat system took both attacker postition and defender armor into account, something few ancient/medieval games do.
We had fun with these when they came out, and back in the 90's on pulling the original game out again.
Are they as accurate and engrossing as the Great Battles of History series (Alexander, SPQR)? No,
but they don't cost sixty-five dollars and have dozens of pages of rules, either. I found them to be a
decent complexity-compromise system for the subject matter, a solid B.” PP
S&T #198: Over the Top: Verdun & Lemberg
------------------------------
“Verdun turns out like the actual battle ... which means you'll want to play the game just once. Never got to
Lemberg, but liked the system enough to want to try.” DC
“The system may have reached it's limit with Verdun as it doesn't portray the brutal nature of that historic slaughter.
Instead it feels more like another Napoleon at Waterloo game. A couple of annoying details, the massive opening
German artillery barrage is missing.... And airpiower seems very powerful- because the players can use Air points
to attack the opponents HQ's, disrupting them and putting sections of the line out of supply/command, something that
I don't believe 1916 airpower could achieve. C- The Lemberg battle, is more suited to the Over the top system
and is a nice little simulation. B+” JV
“I enjoyed the system, but the battles didn't feel quite right. Verdun didn't feel at all like an attritional slugfest,
and Lemberg, on the other hand was way too sluggish. I recall looking at the Lemberg situation and wondering
how the game could ever move as quickly as the historical situation did. Rating: B” ZJ
“Lemberg is the only one of the two from 198 that I played. Quite like the system, but couldn't get near a Russian
victory. A game that I will probably revisit.” NF
“I couldn't get a Russian victory either, as it just took took long to get from the start line to the city,
with Austrians and fortresses in the way.” JW
“Again, I was really excited about this mag (particularly Verdun), but the game just didn't "feel" right - Verdun
seemed (at least the way I played it) too fluid a situation for what really happened. Guess
I just don't like the Over the Top system. C” DS
“This covers two WWI battles at Brigade/Regt level. Counter and map art is okay, the rules are fairly sound,
not much errata and no real questions came up during play, well not quite, there was one question,
who playtested this puppy? Verdun is a reasonable effort, balance seems to favour the Germans, which is a bit odd
as they historically failed to do that well in regards to territorial gains, however Lemberg is IMHO,
impossible for the Russians to win! Nor does Lemburg have the ‘feel’ of a penetrating Russian Offensive
that ripped through the Austro Hungarians, it feels more like watching spilt molasses oozing, slowly across
the map. Some good ideas rules wise but wasted with either a lack of playtesting or development
(or worse, both). Rating C- (Lemberg Dud, Verdun C)” CH
S&T #199: Forgotten Axis: The Finnish Campaign
------------------------------
“Follow up to the Murmansk game, with two half-map games on different parts of the Finnish front (Salla & Kestenga?)
Basically suffers from the same problems as the Murmansk game, though the situation is a little better. The victory conditions
still annoy me, and the ability to recreate history is somewhat suspicious. Which is becoming a pattern for me with regards to
Mike Bennighof games (Murmansk, this one, Twilight of the Hapsburgs...) Still, I'm sympathetic to this one and wouldn't declare it a dud.” EN
“Not a gem, but neither a dud. I think some scenarios have rather unbalanced victory conditions. A chit pull mechanism brings
some uncertainty to the game. A nice little game with scenarios playable in a couple of hours. Very suitable for solitaire play
or for beginners. I would rate it as B+.” SM
“Forgotten Axis is an interesting system. The VP allocated for combat losses forces the Axis player to go for maneuvre
and not combat. Punch a hole with the arty and then move in, threatening to sneak through. The Morale
table should be in the standard rules and not optional - they add a lot to the game. Not a bad game, but I was disappointed
with the poor response I got from the designer to some questions (that still remain).” NF
“Map is a bit hard on the eyes, well mine at least. Counters are okay, rules are full of holes, scenarios/mini
games are hopeless. Comes with two scenarios, each on their own map and with their (mostly) own counters.
Again, there is likely to be a good game idea lurking in there somewhere, but way to much effort to find and
then if you do, you are still stuck with scenarios that are unlikely to work. This is how magazine games get a bad reputation. Rating Dud” CH
Back to the MGPRP main page