MGPRP: Strategy & Tactics pocket reviews
Issues 230-239
· S&T #230: Downfall
· S&T #231: French and Indian War
· S&T #232: Catherine the Great Solitaire
· S&T #233: Dagger Thrusts
· S&T #234: Lest Darkness Falls
· S&T #235: Cold War Battles: Budapest and Angola
· S&T #236: They Died with Their Boots on: Custer's Last Stand and Quebec 1775
· S&T #237: No Prisoners!
· S&T #238: Marlborough and the War of the Spanish Succession
· S&T #239: Winged Horse
230-239
"My second subscription to "Strategy & Tactics" began with Issue #229 "Khan"
and continues to this day [S&T 241]. I intend to resubscribe." DB
"The first part of the 230:s were a bit of a letdown for me, with a number of games
I thought I would like more than I did. I felt the quality was picking up with the
second half, though, continuing into the 240s, which I think was very strong." EN
S&T #230: Downfall
------------------------------
“Sucks. Like a High school students senior project. crappy map. generic counters. D.” BN
“I'd revise Sedan, Downfall to a C- and give 7 Years War a B-. Sedan and Downfall aren't bad games to play,
They're just not my cup of tea.” BN
"By far the most important element of the game is the Kamikaze roll. Once I realized that this one random
die roll each turn is the key to victory or defeat further play seems pointless." BR
"I've waited for this game for a long time, and I was not disappointed. A solid look at the
planned invasion of Japan in November 1945, using the Victory in Normandy system (one of my
favorites, from Ben Knight). Ty did his homework on the plans both sides had for the campaign,
and it shows. The map wasn't as sharp as some other recent S&Ts, but overall, this is a great
game that offers a challenge for both players. A" DS
"The Victory in Normandy system goes to a hypothetical invasion of Japan. I like the system,
but the situation failed to grab me. the Japanese kamikaze attacks also seemed a bit too effective
in slowing down the US troops, making it hard for them to win. The Japanese player didn't have much
to do." EN
"A fun little GAME. And it is important to keep in mind that it is a GAME. NOT a full-bore simulation.
The system is easy; the rules are simple and repeated enough so that one read-thru is enough to
lodge them into your brain. The scale is 30 'One-Day-Turns', one Division per counter, with a
couple of Jpanese Brigades and US "Corps Support Units". The main feature of the system is the
"Japanese Kamikaze Table", which determines how many "Command Points" the U.S. player gets to
spend each turn. The U.S. has 6 points per turn, possibly reduced down to only 1 point, due
to the 10-sided die roll on the "Kamikaze Table"!! It costs 1 point to move -or land one
division-, two points to attack with one hex worth of units. The US also has Naval and Air
support, also decreased due to the "Kamikaze Table" result. One main feature, however, is:
NUKES !!! The US gets 9 of them for the whole game. a d6 -1 (roll a 6-sided die, subtract 1)
= Number of steps annihilated. So, there may be a 'Dud'. It makes stacking for the Japanese
'A Bad Idea'. It is a Fun GAME. However, due to the overwhelming role the "Kamikaze Table"
plays in it, I give it a "B+". (The 'Plus' for NUKES!!!)" DB
S&T #231: French and Indian War
------------------------------
“A simulation of the 18th century conflict for North America. The map looks period and the system uses squares rather than hexes.
The counter mix is conservative and creates some problems with unit limitations and some map errata has been found. This being
said, it is a good game. Battles are extremely variable and bad results can be devastating, forcing players to decide between massive,
but dangerous, set peice battles or skirmishing and fients. The great advantage of this game is how open-ended it is. In most games
on the topic, players are channelled into specific historical patterns. Here, one can do anything. In my first game, I had the French invade
Virginia. A fair amount of scenarios, although the campaign is the way to go. French power declines over time, so real challenging for
both sides to strike while the iron is hot. A real good effort- A-.” DL
"I Like this Game ALOT !!! The map, using squares, covers North America from "Moose Factory" on Hudson bay in the North down to Florida,
From Newfoundland over to Lake Superior and then down to New Orleans -pretty much ALL of the Colonies/possessions of both England and
France, with Spanish Florida, as well. The units are Detachtments, Regiments, and Brigades (3 Dets = 1 Regiment; 3 Regts = 1 Bde) and
come in flavors of Regular Army and Militias. There are also Naval Units, Indians, Siege units, engineers units, and stuff to build,
like Forts, Magazines and Trails. The heart of the game is the Treasury Points. You get Treasury Points from the Mother Country as
well as your Trade and Manufacturing holdings in the New World. You can buy new units, build things, and purchase Supply Points.
Each turn is One Year, divided into 4 'Operations Phases' -each a season- and if you want to do anything more than once a
year, you have to spend a Supply Point. Plus, your units can be supported by each hex's 'Forage Value'. But if you have more
units than the forage value, you have to spend a Supply Point. Fail to spend a Supply Point and the unit dies. With the WHOLE
of North America at your command, you get to buy your forces, as you see fit (and can pay for!) and do what ever you want.
It is huge Strategic Freedom!! And Utterly FUN!! The French start off with an advantage in Treasury Points, but the Outbreak
of The Seven Years War cuts the amount of money coming from France while the British gain in income. That is about the only
constraint that the game system imposes on you. Again, YOU get to decide pretty much everything else!! Limited by your budget,
of course. The only minor problem I have with the game is that the units do double-duty. The Front is one type of unit,
the Reverse side a different unit. So you have to flip counters and keep track of them as you want to buy the various types.
Minor problem though! So minor, I give this game a solid "A+". I REALLY Like This Game !!!" DB
S&T #232: Catherine the Great Solitaire
------------------------------
"I respect this design, but frankly it was not elegant enough to work smoothly.
I prefer solitaire designs that eliminate the need for the player to exercise discretion
on behalf of the enemy and that wasn't there. An ambitious undertaking, but it didn't
quite work. C." DL
"a valiant effort at a Solitaire game by Decision. A solid design where YOU are Imperial Russia during Catherine's Reign and you
try to increase Russia's holdings without upsetting the 'Balance of Power'. The map uses areas and the counters are Armies
and Fleets. As Russia, you expand, but doing so brings you into conflict with the neighboring Powers. And as you do, the OTHER
Powers have a say in the matter as well. The "AI" system works, to a point. It requires just a bit of your own thought to
make it work right, but it does work. There are a couple pieces of errata that smooth out the rough parts, otherwise
you have to really keep on eye on the "Balance of Power" table to avoid losing the game (which happens if you are TOO
SUCCESSFUL; but then there is a rule where you can "Go Napoleon" on them and just go for a Continental Victory"). Easily a "B"." DB
S&T #233: Dagger Thrusts
------------------------------
“This is really two separate games covering the operations in NW Europe in 1944. One game covers Market
Garden while the other is a hypothetical game concentrating on Patton’s Third Army and a possible drive to the
Rhine n September 44. This is a two player game and comes with one map sheet, with two maps on it. The counters
are 5/8th pretty much the standard now for DG. But for reasons I can’t fathom the counters don’t incorporate
information that I would have think would be fairly standard for wargaming counters, that is the Movement
Allowance is not printed on the counters, its not like this would have made the counters cluttered.
There are electronic rules and I would suggest you get these before trying to play the game (s).
I have only played the Patton game FTF and felt it was underdeveloped with no real flavour.
The Market Garden game does look a bit better. Rating C-“ CH
"his is one of the two games in #233. It covers a hypothetical situation where the Allies concentrated
supplies to Patton's Third Army instead of supporting the historic Market Garden operation. The German
and US forces are very dissimilar. The US forces are very mobile (with the exception of the airborne
units) and very strong but not very numerous and thus have trouble covering all the ground they need to
cover. All US units are multi-step. The German units are weak and not very mobile, but more numerous
and able to cover the line better, the generally rough terrain greatly aiding in this. Combat can be
very bloody to both sides and it is possible for the German player to bite back hard. It plays well
and our game was decided on the last turn when bad weather forced an end to US Operations giving a
German victory, just barely. We found it tense and interesting to play. Our only major issues were
some important errors in the printed rules (fixed by the errata) and wondering why the Allied airborne
units were completely immobile. B+" SB
"Two mini-games on the Western Allied thrust to get across the Rhine before fall. One on the historical
attack by Montgomery, including Market Garden, one on a hypothetical thrust towards the Ruhr by
Patton. I played the latter. Liked the system, simple, fast and fun. But for some reason the game
failed to sparkle for me. I've heard the Montgomery game is better. Didn't like the way the
Airborne troops had no movement factor, meaning the Germans could just walk away from them,
totally ignoring their presence."EN
"two games in one, both very fun and easy to play!! The Patton game is the "Alternate History" game,
where Patton gets to try and cross the Rhine in September '44. The Montgomery game is the actual course
where Monty tries get over the Rhine himself...and sieze Antwerp...and clear the Scheldt Estuary....
and breach the WestWall. BOTH games get to use the Allied Airborne Army. In Patton, the AAA
(four 4-step divisons: 82nd, 101, British 1st and 52nd, and the 2-step Polish Bigade) starts on the map,
having just dropped and then the US Third Army enters. The US units are Regimental, with a hefty Divisional
Integrity Bonus. The German, in both games, have a Plethora of units, almost all 1-step and usually low
strength -the remnants of the German Armies that escaped from the Normandy Debacle and the Ad-Hoc
Replacement Army refinforcements. In Both games, the situation is much closer than you would imagine,
the Germans have a good chance of winning in both. In the Montgomery game, you have the freedom of
not only which one of three victory conditions to fufill, but also to carry out Market-Garden as
YOU want, though limited to using the Historical three Airborne Divisions. There are also some
more units added to the game in S&T#235, though not really needed. This gets an "A+" from me:
TWO Great Games, very much replayable and totally enjoyable.!!" DB
S&T #234: Lest Darkness Falls
------------------------------
“(Note - I am listed on the play test credits for this game) This game covers the Romans struggle against the ‘barbarians’
around AD 235 to 285. This is a two player game using a hex map, with larger counters. The map is not bad, and the counters
are clear and functional. There is an electronic copy of the rules on the DG website that covers Q&A and clarifications.
There is a chit system for random events, I don’t think this works all that well, but it doesn’t have a big negative impact.
The game situation is interesting and does provide a reasonable challenge and there are some options for both players.
Plays quickly enough and can be played in an evening. Rating C+” CH
"A simple strategic game of the Roman crisis in the mid 200s AD. I didn't like this one as much as I thought I would,
given the subject and ease of play. There is a certain all-or-nothingness to the game, meaning the romans kick the
Barbarians to crap, unless a certain series of misfortunes happen, causing the Romans to totally collapse." EN
"an odd game. I havent decided if I like it or not! Big Hex Map, Big Counters. The Romans have Infantry, Cavalry, Leaders,
"Legion Base Elements" and Garrisons versus Barbarians Hordes and Parthians. There are no numbers on the counters. Cavalry
moves 8, all other mobile units move 4, garrisons/bases dont move. Everyone has a combat strength of 1, except:
1) Garrisons/Fortifications which defend with the strength of the Treasury Point value (city has a value of 2, town is 1, Rome is 4)
and 2) Germanic Barbarian Hordes which have a strength of a d6 +1 (or anywhere 2 -7 !). Rome collects Treasury Points from
towns/cities and from client states and colonies, which the Barbarians want to Loot,and Hopefully, reach Rome, which wins the game.
There are Event Chits which are random events, Combat Modifiers and also one that ends the turn. Each Turn is 10 years, but
the way it works is that the players alternate taking "Actions". Move or Play an Event Chit or Attack or make Treachery/Diplomacy
attempts, Create or Assassinate Co-Emperors or rebel Co-Emperors...all manner of movement and mayhem. It's actually simple
mechanics with very good interaction. Even though I havent decided whether or not I like the game, I give it a B because
it works and it IS interesting. (it just strikes me as 'too bland'; I dont 'feel' particularly engaged by it....maybe
if there were Named Emperors and Rebel Emperors)." DB
S&T #235: Cold War Battles: Budapest and Angola
------------------------------
"Score: A- Two 1/2-map low-complexity games using the old SPI Modern Battles Quad system. Angola is a wildly fluid meeting
engagement on open terrain between communist govt. forces with Cuban backing and Unita guerillas with SADF support.
The sweeping flanking actions and huge back & forth swings in fortune make this seem almost more like a 30 Years War battle,
but with tanks and airmobility. A quick-playing gem. The second issue game is Budapest '56, an urban battle, where heavy
Soviet forces try to smash the heroic Hungarian defenders as quickly as possible and without too many casualties.
Reminiscent of Berlin '85; could have been a slog, but actually a very tense, exciting game, and the Hungarians
have a fighting chance of holding out long enough to win, esp. if an optional set-up is used. Excellent double-pack
of 2 to 4 hour games, I must have played both about 6 times each. Just don't expect too much detail from the system." GF
"Using the old SPI Modern Battles system. I'm not really a fan of that system, but I have to acknowledge that Angola
is one good game situation, with a Afrika Korps style see-saw battle. Good game! Budapest was not so hot, not a
terribly exciting situation." EN
"Played the Angola game with a friend and we had a lot of fun. I must say that this was helped by
the "living rules" since there are some important issues with the originally published game.
There is a good amount of back and forth with both players having plenty of opportunity to
attack and defend -- in particular watch out for the units that can ride on the
transport helicopters!" SB
"My reviews of Budapest, Angola and Boots / Custer were in F & M. The long and short of it was
simply that as a player I was taken with them - so much that I still have them in my collection." LRS
"Like an old friend, "Modern Battles Quad" drops by !! Two games ! (with the "Daggerthrusts" games,
S&T is now a great 'Bang For Your Buck!") "Budapest '56 is the Ill-Fated Hungarian Uprising against
the Soviets and while it doesnt sound like much of a game, actually it is a very good game.
Mostly Urban Terrain bogs down any Soviet "Blitz" and Untried Units for the Hungarians leads to
nasty,but fun, surprises in combats. PLUS, there are variants to be played as well, such as the
Hungarian Army joins the Revolt in full force or NATO sends various amounts of aid, in the form
of Air Power and up to the 82nd "Pentomic" Division! The Angola game is great! Fast Moving, rapidly
changing conditions, BOTH Sides get to attack and defend, to thier utmost, with the whole map getting
use. Check the Decision Games Website for more Optional Rules. (Also, look on the back of the
Artillery Impact Markers -there are markers for BOTH games.) This gets an "A" (misses the 'Plus'
because the Optionals Should have been in the rules themselves!)." DB
S&T #236: They Died with Their Boots on: Custer's Last Stand and Quebec 1775
------------------------------
"Score: B+ Two 1/2-map low-complexity games using a formation-based activation system and random events chit play
to simulate wild, chaotic sweeps of fortune on the operational level. Custer's Last Stand is the better of the two;
it has three US Cavalry columns converging on Native American encampments around the Little Bighorn. Crazy Horse and
the combined tribes have to try and knock out a column quickly and exit the board before the bulk of the US forces
can corner them. Always a wild game, with lots of surprises for both sides. Quebec '75 sees the American militia and
Continentals invade Canada to try and seize Quebec from the redcoats before massive reinforcements arrive with Gen.
Burgoyne. A good game with serious challenges for both players, though the British have little to do for the first
half. Also, the activation system is good at modeling independent commands, but has no way to handle combined commands,
as Arnold and Montgomery did outside Quebec. This is a problem, as Arnold is too weak on his own to do anything.
Easily fixed with a house rule, though." GF
"This was the unexpected gem of the 230:s for me! I REALLY like the nice, simple system, which is chit-driven in a
way that makes it a card game in disguise. Simple and fast-playing too. Played and really liked Quebec, haven't tried
Custer yet but have heard it is also really good." EN
"My reviews of Budapest, Angola and Boots / Custer were in F & M. The long and short of it was
simply that as a player I was taken with them - so much that I still have them in my collection." LRS
"TWO MORE FUN GAMES !!! TWO ! And they are both Easy to learn, Exciting to Play, Great Replay Value.
It is hard to go wrong with this issue. "Custer's Last Stand" is an Operational-Level treatment of
the 1876 Dakotas Campaign. The half-map covers the Montana, Wyoming and Dakota Territories and the
units are pretty much Battalion-size (Custer's 7th Cav is 3 counters) and the "Hostiles" are "War
Party"-size (maybe alot, maybe not alot, there are Dummy counters, go ahead...try it, you know you
want to). I like this game because I have family that was involved in it. (I was born on PineRidge
Reservation), PLUS! DG thoughtfully includes Deadwood on the amp. It never lasts in my games. The
"Quebec '75" game is not only the Canadian Campaign, but also the British response with Burgoyne's
Invasion of New York, the Saratoga Campaign. Both games have as a star attraction Sub-Commands and
"Heroism Markers". You draw Sub-Command markers out of a cup to determine who goes when and Heroism
Markers provide Random Events and Combat Modifiers; All of which insures No two games play
the same. This Issue gets an "A+" from me, I can always play these games and have a great time!!" DB
S&T #237: No Prisoners !
------------------------------
“This is Joe Miranda's take on the Great War in the Near East. The map is functional if not beautiful (it is hard to make
desert maps look great). The hexes are large and the counters match. A lot of chrome in the game and allows
players to play the game ala Battle for Germany with each player playing the Turks in different theaters.
Unlike 3W's Lawrence of Arabia, the game is more fluid and really has a swash-buckling feel of the Arab Revolt.
Unlike Miranda's Over the Top Megiddo module, Lawrence is not a sideshow and a significant player in the game.
The only problem with the game is that the Revolt itself is triggered by a Random event, which can leave the Eastern
Front stagnant if not triggered. B+” DL
"Another one of those games I didn't like as much as I thought I would. I find the situation exciting, but for some
reason the game failed to grab me. I like the split-front system borrowed from Battle For Germany, but felt it gave
strange results here, as the Turks were being beaten to pulp on one front and winning on the other, but the invisible
barrier prevented them from shifting forces." EN
"I enjoyed "No Prisoners". So much so, that I wrote an article for F&M. Just the right mixture of rules and situation.
I enjoyed the split theater approach Palestine and Hejaz and the in -depth look at the Lawrence side of the campaign.
Some tight close to the wire games. I even got some normally non -magazine wargamers to play it. That is an acheivement" LR
""No Prisoners! The Campaigns of Lawrence of Arabia 1915-1918"....sorta. Oh, Lawrence of Arabia is there, but the actual game is ALL of the Suez-Palestine-Arabia
Theatre of Operations in the First Wolrd War. The map, using Large Hexes, covers from Cairo to
Damascus, with two Fronts, the Eastern which is "Lawrence and the Arab Revolt and the Western
which is the main British/Comonwealth and Ottoman Armies. The system is fun, a very bloody CRT,
the dead "recycling" -roll a die and the unit returns that many turns later. There are Random
Events Tables, fairly drab-looking, but actually rather important. The Arab Revolt occurs on a
Random Event -which is when the East Front becomes active and the other events are basically
the rest of the World screwing with you! Your troops get re-assigned/diverted to other theatres,
you get troops, the troops get sick, the Arabs go home, All of which are highly annoying but
totally realistic: Yes, you are locked in a Death Struggle, but Outside Events STILL matter!
The Large counters include all sorts of different types of units, German Specialist,
Early Air Units,Artillery, Camel Corps, Naval Support. Everything about this game is fun,
interesting and easy to play. I have to give this one an "A"...(misses a "+" due
to the Eastern Front sometimes doesnt work well, I have a house rule that the Arab revolt
Automatically occurs, otherwise the Turks get a lock on that front)." DB
S&T #238: Marlborough and the War of the Spanish Succession
------------------------------
“A successor to Miranda's Charlemagne/Xenophon/Belisarius system, this is a real good game. Like alot of his recent designs,
players are given great fluidity. Campaign markers determine the strategy players can take, where they need to take into account
economics and diplomacy as well as war making. Strangely enough, the diplomatic game is so fluid that England can even desert
Austria and fight for France. The Siege system makes conquest bloody and encourages player to seek fights in the open ground.
Map is very attractive. Counters are nice, except markers are a bit bland. Does require players to make their own political control
markers, but pennies work just fine. Victory conditions are too generic, creating a real difficulty to achieve decisive victory.
The capture of Lille is on the same par with Madrid, Vienna, or Paris. Campaign markers attempt to steer players
toward certain strategic objectives with a payout of only more campaign markers. With some tinkering of VPs,
the game can be made more historical. B+" DL
"Nice graphics for both map and counters. Rules not too bad, (living rules) and there are a couple of scenario’s. Played okay,
though set up seemed to be a bit involved. Rating C." CH
"interesting game, but the side that got most of the campaign chits/strategems that allowed a force to move a second or third time.
Other wise a campaign was over because the player could not move the force more than once." LR
S&T #239: Winged Horse
------------------------------
"The second best game of the 230:s, in my opinion. A game on South Vietnam in 1965-66. Nice system, tense game with lots
of hard choices for both sides. I felt the Vietnamese had it a bit too easy racking up a political victory by besieging
cities, perhaps the rule should be changed so that you need to have units in two adjacent hexes to execute a siege.
Counters are forthcoming that allows you to cover the whole war, as well as a possible Chinese intervention." EN
"WH does a
good job of depicting the decisions of Vietnam-style combat at the scale in
which it was designed. There is a clever
dynamic with the VC, whereby they gain a presence in any base area that the
Allied player leaves out of their control, which keeps him on his toes. I haven’t actually completed my current playing,
so I can’t speak to how well victory conditions work, but overall the game is
enjoyable, and seems worth a replay. The
components are attractive in themselves, but perhaps not exactly evocative of
the era. Magazine games often fall short
on play aids, and WH is a game that could definitely use a sturdy, cardstock
reinforcement chart to assist the setup and help store the units that get
recycled for later action. The one that
comes in the magazine is printed so tight it’s nearly worthless, and setup is
somewhat jerky, with having to peruse several paragraphs in the rules to get
the full picture. Despite that, great game and worth picking up." LG
"I like this game, but keep in mind the disclaimer that I played solitare, not the most appropriate
method for this game. There are issues. Some imporatnt parts are left mainly to the on map charts to
explain. These rules along with some terrain features could have been clearer. I had a number of start
overs because of getting things wrong. The strong points are the usual Miranda creativity, Joe
always seems to strike a good balance of making things a little fresh without reinventing the wheel,
and how well the game captures the feel of the era." BR
Back to the MGPRP main page