MGPRP: Strategy & Tactics pocket reviews
Issues 200-209
· S&T #200: French Foreign Legion
· S&T #201: Crimean War Battles - Alma and Tchernaya River(reprint)
· S&T #202: Taipei
· S&T #203: Xenophon
· S&T #204: Twilight of the Habsburgs
· S&T #205: Boer War
· S&T #206: Forgotten Axis: Romania, 1941-42
· S&T #207: War of 1812
· S&T #208: Back to Iraq 3
· S&T #209: First Indochina War
S&T #200: French Foreign Legion
------------------------------
“A large game of three campaigns of the Foreign Legion, using the same system as First Afghan War and Sun Never Sets boxed
set. Good fun game system, but I recall some of the campaigns were a bit one sided. Still feel first Afghan was the best in this series. B.” DL
“This was an ambitious release; Decision Games tried to put a very strong release into their anniversary issue. This is a collection of three
games using the Sun Never Sets system. It's a terrific system, with excellent 19th century flavor -- emphasizing
issues of supply, mobility, variations in European vs. native military systems, and random events that eerily seem to reflect actual
game situations. Those who don't like the system often object to the lack of play balance (the game favors the Europeans);
but some campaigns are winnable by the colonial side. This issue covers three different colonial campaigns of the French
foreign legion: Dahomey, Algeria and Vietnam. The main problem with the issue is that key rules from the SNS
system were inexplicably left out of this issue for reasons of magazine space. Dahomey is short and fairly limited in its strategic
situation, and requires some errata to fix some game play problems. Vietnam is very good and strategically complex; its balance
is ok due to the possibility of Chinese intervention (but woe to the Vietnamese if the dice don't allow the Chinese to intervene).
Algeria seemed to me too chaotic to make for a good game, but I can't say that I spent much time with it. Probably it
was a bit too ambitious; presenting just one of the campaigns with complete rules would have been wiser. All in all, I
preferred the four British cousins in the series. Maybe the subject matter was more obscure here; maybe it was the strategic
situation in two of the games; maybe it was the absence of a full rules set. I'd rate the game a B.” KL
“Heavily unbalanced. Though, I suppose it was historicaly. Solo fine, forget playing it with someone. I could never
figure how to win as the native player. Nice map and interesting situations C+” BN
S&T #201: Crimean War Battles - Alma and Tchernaya River(reprint)
------------------------------
“I reviewed this for Paper Wars, and so this capsule review is a bit of a cheat. As the header says, this is a reprint of two
games from the SPI quad. They are unchanged, except for graphics updates. There were some counter errors, but they were
pretty easy to spot. Both battles are disputed river crossings. At Alma, the Allies are on the offensive, moving south towards
Sevastopol. In Tchernaya River, the Russians are trying to break through the French-Sardinian lines to relieve the city.
They play reasonably well, and there are a few tactical options. My memory is a bit vague, but IIRC the Russian cavalry is missing
at Alma, on the grounds that they didn't do much in the actual battle--meaning that the the Russian player is forced to make
that mistake as well. These games do use 1970s-era design techniques and are thus period pieces themselves.” DAV
“Played one of the original SPI versions (Balaclava, I think). The system is a little strange though I don't remember
a lot of details. You could pretty much fire on anything on the map. The impression that stayed with me was bland.
I still have this set and will probably try them again sometime. C.” MJP
“Pretty game and interesting subject. Lots of counter and map errors marred this otherwise interesting game. C” BN
S&T #202: Taipei
------------------------------
“Interesting to contrast this game, with its systems for air power and information warfare, with the Command magazine
version of this hypothetical conflict. Great to see Miranda still doing contemporary games. Force level options make for great varieties of results. A” AW
“My favorite of the recent S&T games, despite the fact that I am normally not that interested in modern era games.
China has a lot of combat power early on, but has to transport it over and then keep it in supply. This becomes more
difficult as more and more American airpower arrives in the region. By the end of the game the initiative
has usually switched to the coallition giving both sides the opportunity to be on the attack and defense.
I would have liked a little more detail in the air war, but as it is it does mesh really well with the ground
game and for the coallition player especially it will be the margin between victory and defeat. One of these
days I really want to play this game FTF using the optional information warfare rules. A+” JC
S&T #203: Xenophon
------------------------------
“Played it solitaire, so I didn't get the full effect of things like strategem chits. I can see where this could
be fun against an opponent. I realize that the turns are long (years iirc) but it seems like you can run all
over the place in a turn. I like the fact that it's hex based (not being an area move fan) B.” MJP
“A great game. A great refinement from the Charlemagne system. Really has the feel of the time and is a
challenge in empire management/destruction. An obscure topic, done well. A.” DL
“OK. Absolutely unknown campaign. Seemed artificial.C-“ BN
S&T #204: Twilight of the Habsburgs
------------------------------
“Well, this IS World War I after all, but this game goes WAY too far in stacking the odds in favour of the defender.
There's simply no way you can achieve the historical results (or any result for that matter) for any of the three battles.
Some enthusiasts have provided a fix for the Caporetto scenario, but it seemed to just try hard to go around basic faults
of the system. A pity, since I wanted to like the game and Reinforce the Right which uses the same system is supposed to be great. Dud.” EN
“Proof that a great system is not great for all situations. The Reinforce the Right rules just didn't seem to work for this Italian
slog-fest. Considerable effort has been undertaken by fans to tweak the game in a way that it works, but as published
this game just doesn't simulate the campaigns well. C.” DL
“RTR works because there isn't an unbroken frontline to bash your head against. The Germans push forward,
and the French/British are forced to fall back or suffer attacks on the Maneuver CRT. The problem with the CRT,
I felt, is the "BB" result. If you limit the attacker's losses to no more than what the defender suffers, that would
seem more believable. As it is, I saw Austrian attacks in TOTH that resulted in 6 (or more?) divisions being flipped, versus
one Italian. One unlucky die roll could shut down your whole offensive, especially with such a low rate of replacements.” NW
“Another game I wanted to like, but ended up selling. As someone mentioned above, the RtR system just doesn't work
as well as it did on the Western Front. However, the accompanying article was a good read, so not a total loss. C” DS
“I was very disappointed with this title, which is on a favorite subject of mine. Uses a great system which could have worked
here given better research and play testing. The Caporetto scenario, one of three, is by far the most interesting one.
The situation is similar to the Battle of the Bulge in that one side goes all out to shatter and drive through the other
side’s thin line before massive reinforcements can turn the tide. Flawed rules mechanics, non-historical set up locations
and a very poor level of detail and important feature inclusion on the map (MANY critical rail supply lines are missing)
prevent this scenario from being a decent historical recreation rather than a bland game. I spent many hours researching
OBs, map and starting locations with others trying to fix this one. New rules additions and map revisions made by several
folks changed this in to a pretty good game if one wants a fixer-upper project. This could have been a great one.” RK
“My first re-subscription issue after 10 years. What a dog! Attacking is death! D” BN
S&T #205: Boer War
------------------------------
“A rather complex game using some standard stuff from Joe Miranda's toolbox (political indexes, random events, unit purchases,
double CRTs...) I really enjoyed the game, despite the feeling that it (also typical for Miranda games) suffered from some
calibration problems. The Boers quickly ran out of troops to build and the British had a hard time killing off anything.
Maybe I just used bad strategy. I'd like to try it again. Semi-gem.” EN
“Boer War was one that I desperately wanted to like, as I was extremely interested in the subject. However, it seemed impossible
for the Brits to wear down the Boers in any meaningful manner.” JW
“In this design Miranda has focused on the benefits that HQs provide to units within a command radius, which makes the design
less radical than Wars of the Imperial Age. I think that scenario 1 still favours the Boers, even after the errata. B+” AW
S&T #206: Forgotten Axis: Romania, 1941-42
------------------------------
“Haven't played it, but from just checking the stuff, it seems to suffer from the by now all too familiar problems for this series
with impossible victory conditions and somewhat suspect historicity. Still, supposed to be best of the series this far, and the system IS nice.” EN
“Typically I'm even less interested in WW2 games then modern ones (for themeatic reasons - WW2 just doesn't hold my interest,
except for the Pacific Theatre). That being said, I was intrigued by the fact that the game covered one of the armies (the Romanian)
that has received scant attention in the past. Furthermore, in reading the rules, the game system looked very well constructed,
however, the scenarios fell flat. I enjoyed the actual gameplay of the system itself, but the scenarios seemed to me to be poorly constructed.
I would probably enjoy this game if the scenarios were fixed, but as it stands its not worth my time. D” JC
“Covers fighting in southern Russia that 'mainly' involved Romanian and Soviet forces. There are two separate games each with their own
map section and counters. Map graphics are okay, counters are okay, rules - warning this game does not come with a rule book,
there are eight pages with words on them provided with the game, but I suggest they are just there as part of the tradition in wargaming,
ie you provide the customer with a map, counters and a little booklet. Somewhere deep down there is a reasonable system and for one
of the games, its possible that there could be an interesting situation, however.... Rating Really sad joke.” CH
S&T #207: War of 1812
------------------------------
“Tinkered a bit with it. Somewhat similar to Boer War, but area movement instead of hexes. For some reason, the game failed to grab me,
though. Maybe it was the "what do I do now?" feeling after setting it up. I wouldn't mind giving it another try against someone who likes the game.” EN
“A very interesting game system with a very nice looking map. Unfortunately, it is not designed so as to make it possible to duplicate
the historical actions of the various forces. In fact, it cannot even duplicate the major troop movements indicated on the maps
of the accompanying article. But otherwise, a fun game.” SNb
“Set it up, but never got around to actually playing it. Looks interesting, and maybe someday I'll have time to pull it out again.” JC
S&T #208: Back to Iraq 3
------------------------------
“Interesting and ambitious game, with a distinct Command feel. I hadn't played the previos two editions, so I didn't feel pissed
off by a 3rd edition so soon after the 2nd. Militarily lopsided, but with a bunch of political aspects to weigh up for it.
I liked the "chase for secret installations" part of the game. Still, a bit too one-sided for my tastes.” EN
“Nice beer and pretzels game on the no-longer-hypothetical conflict, but too contrived and lacking in detail
to pass as a quality simulation of it. For example, Iraqi combat strengths are at least twice what they should be,
and Allied tactical airpower is absent (although it is supposedly reflected in some of the rules and factors).” DD
S&T #209: First Indochina War
------------------------------
“Another permutation from the same toolbox as Boer War and War of 1812. Haven't played as much as I want of it, but like
what I've seen so far. The victory conditions seemed to be leaning heavily towards a draw, but I might be wrong. Lots of cool options
like Chinese interventions and A-bombs that will probably never come in play in a serious game. A real tinkerer's game, with
lots to play around with.” EN
“The best S&T game, bar none, that I have ever played. A very intriguing Miranda design on a situation that has long cried out for a
good game. Recreates the period feel very well, with isolated French strongpoints being surrounded by Viet Minh,
and the French hard-pressed to keep their "line" intact. Do you reinforce the forts with paras, or are you sending more
units into a death trap? Do you use your air support to break up VM attacks, or do you save it fo your own offensives?
Do you build a strong, devastating but road-bound conventional force, or do you build a light, counter-insurgency force
of cadres and militia? An incredible number of strategic and operational options allow players to follow historical patterns
or try possible alternatives. Excellent system, minimal errata, and perfect graphics; only the ambush rules are a bit weak.
(The French can predict them and hence avoid them; working on an acceptable house rule alternative.) This is a game that
holds up to extensive replays, and rewards creative approaches. A++” GF
“Indochina War is my favorite and most played magazine game of the last year or so. It covered a topic that I have long desired
a game on and with a great deal of depth. I loved the supply rules and political factors. It seems moderately complex but has much
material layered on to it. That's okay, because I dont forsee any rush to do games on this topic for foreseeable future.
I think that the game should have dealt more specifically with the Red River Delta, but the war in the South had some
depth and deserved to be covered.” LR
“A winner! Great and realistic game of an often overlooked subject. Spectacular. A+” BN
Back to the MGPRP main page