------------
"Gem. Good coverage of the battle. Wicked British artillery. A model
for future games IMO." JD
"This is the only one I have of the bunch. Very tactical in scope,
odd in a Napoleonic game. Lots of fun and more than a little brutal
for the French. I was a bit put off by the squares (versus hexes)
movement system, which reduces some of the tactical flexibility
IMHO." WOH
"Nice tactical game. Very bloody for the French and I remember having trouble with the map and LOS tracings (I was very new to the hobby)" PK
"Gem. Great tactical Napoleonic game. You don't see many of'em." TES
"Gem. Played it a couple of times and really enjoyed it. I'm very fond of non-WW2 tactical games like these ("Devil's Den" and "Defense of Rorke's Drift" spring to mind). Lots of atmosphere, very exciting to play." JH
"I liked the concept, set up once and played a couple of turns. Always meant to return to it but never have." CWM
"Kind of neat, but since Napoleonics aren't my thing, I didn't play it
much. It felt more like Napoleonic Squad Leader, but then I may have been looking for something with overblown formation rules and the like. Complexity 4. DEN
"Gem. This is a surprisingly complex game for the size, but a unique
scale and works well. I liked the deformed hexes, which gave the map a feel of authenticity that the one of Bunker Hill misses completely (but I still find Bunker Hill interesting). Complexity 7." MS
"Pretty good. fire rules "boom and zoom" a little strange, but intresting. I was irrittated with the skipping of unit ID on the counters." RL
12 Chaco
------------------
"9. I thought it was great. I love obscure wars, especially ones like
this. You can usually almost *see* blood running off the map by about
halfway through. A good strategic matchup." AW
"I bet I wasn't the only one who played this hoping to recapture just a bit of the magic that the GDW game was. Well, that didn't happen for me. This was an ok effort, but that's all. Neither a gem nor a dud, but I think for those of us who remember the GDW game, the Command Chaco is always going to be the equivalent of drinking a Miller Lite." JB
"Great game! Too bad it has almost nothing to do with the war that is
supposedly the subject of the game. Very biased towards the Bolivian perspective, which is undertandable since the designer had lived in Bolivia (if my memory isn't failing me). The published supply rules were apparently simplified from the original. Which is probably too bad. The published rules involve moving around a lot of trucks and such. We found only a couple of situations where a standard line of supply rule would not have worked the same as the published rules." TR
"Not bad. GDW did it better." TES
"Perennially on my "to play" list. I love the topic and the map, but
it seems a bit much for solo play, and my main "I like supply systems"
opponent and I so far always ended up in North Africa." MS
"Tried once, supply rules were tedious. Good effort though." RL
"My first subscription issue. I played it once but found the supply rules too cumbersome, so it's back on the shelf." SO
13 Desert Storm
------------------
"Gem. The Allied Worst Case Scenario is the most fun to play. I've
been dying to try Phase Line Smash to compare. This is the one with
Godzilla." JD
"7 if you're coalition, 2 if you're Iraq. NOT a good strategic matchup.
Thus it's much like the real thing, although in this version there is an
outside chance a Coalition unit could take a step loss. Even teleporting
the Grossdeutschland Panzer Corps didn't help too much--Iraq should have
'ported in the Luftwaffe instead." AW
"It was a quick play of the Gulf War, useful for getting a rough feel for
what happened, but not much else. The Iraqis needed Godzilla or
something for balance, which was fortunately provided in a later issue.
Complexity 5." DEN
"Vastly inferior to Phase Line Smash [GDW], but OK otherwise." RL
"Nice game, but slightly one-sided... All the allied player has to do is to
make sure that none of his attacks are at less than 7-1 odds, and then there
is no risk of suffering a step loss and thus lose the game." SO
14 Victory at Midway
------------------
"Didn't like it. Too small and too random. The search was
pre-ordained and the attack wave were so luck based that strategy took
a back seat." MP
"Not a big fan of naval battles. I started asking myself, as the
Japanese no doubt did, "Why did I bother with battleships?" (XTR pet
peeve: all these naval battles (what is it now, two?)--where are the
air tactical/strategic games? Luftschiff would have been such a good
Command title.)" AW
"We played it three times or so in a Hotel Room during our school trip to
Paris. We had fun, although the Japs won all three engagements due to
American faults. It was a very easy to play system with not so much
historical value. Good for teaching novices." PK
"Enjoyed the concept. I like naval and the system is simple and elegant.
However, I seldom get to play anything but solitare, so after playing a
couple of times had to shelve it." CWM
"I have to disagree with the naval professionals here. This is one of
my favorite Commands ever, tense, quick to play, and true to history
in the mechanisms and results, except for the silly rule that attackers
fire second in surface combat. 2 Caveats: 1. Unless you are a total
beginner in wargaming, ALWAYS (even the first time) play with the optional
rules as suggested. 2. Don't play it if for you, detailed plane handling
is a prerequisite for carrier games. It will not appeal to people who
sneer at games below Flat Top level for the same reason that Jutland is
not liked because it does not cover damage control or signalling problems.
VaM is a game of sneaking and bluffing that is over in three hours, and
IMO that is the only way to make a situation as extreme, unique, and
hindsight-laden as Midway actually playable without massive idiot rules.
Someone asked about the Smithsonian Midway. I think at the minimum rules
level the Smithsonian edition should play about as quickly, but VaM is far
more elegant. VaM also has more historical strike ranges. Absolute
gem. Complexity 4." MS
"I tried this several times, 'couldn't get into it." RL
"Gem. I like this one. It's fast, small, and yet has the ground troops
involved. I agree there is luck involved, but it's still a good game." PRC
15 Spartacus
------------------
"Gem. A neat game that lets you build an army only to see it crushed.
The end can be tough for Kirk if the Romans concentrate their forces." JD
"3.5. I kinda like area games, and I think it works in this case. I
don't like the "roll this number or less to hit" system, which I believe
this has. Also, Spartacus--barring enormous luck in his first battle
against a true Roman incompetent--is doomed, usually." AW
"Loved the game, beautifully done on a neglected era (unless you guys vote
on my game proposal in S&T #182!). However, enthusiasm in my group waned
after about a year. Consensus was that if Spartacus could successfully
evade destruction, the Slaves were assured an end game victory on points." WS
"The Kirk Douglas Counter LOL!! The rest of the game was not so funny.
Played it twice and the slaves did not have much chance against good
Roman play." PK
"Liked the system didn't like the situation. Makes me wish XTR would try
there hand at a generic Prestags like system someday, so we can have
something between Ancients and GBOH in complexity to choose from." CWM
"Fun game, hopeless imbalence in the victory conditions for Sparticus,
who will get wiped out but win on points." RL
"Liked it, but sold it." DA
16 1918
------------------
"Partial gem. Fun to play, but it somehow left something to be desired.
Maybe it was the scale. I'm anxious to see how the new MiH divisional
level game compares.: JD
"A favorite. One of the most elegant games I've seen. I've had some really
dramatic "middle games" in this one where the German offensive, about to go
dull and shatter, is trying to hold on for one more turn before the Allied
front finally collapses. It never does, but I keep coming back for more." AW
"My all-time favorite. Played it dozen times. Very easy to learn, great
strategic situation, sometimes nail-biting tension as the German
Stosstruppen slash through the rear of the Allied forces. I lost twice
as the German player after the collapse of the whole northern sector
after an epic struggle for Verdun. Then I changed the strategy and split
the Brits and French, only to lose the salient again.
I am longing for All Quiet (maybe at Hexacon in Germany in May?)" PK
"Gem. Thank you TR for reintroducing me to WWI games which aren't
exercises in futility." TES
"Gem. Great game. This was the first XTR product I saw: I remember being
immediately attracted to the theme (a non-static WW1 game), the big,
colorful 5/8" counters, the Bruchmuller counter, etc... Actually it's been a
while since I played it. I should probably give it another shot... :-)" JH
"Gem. One of the most replayable Commands. If I didn't love TGWIE so much
this would be pulled done even more than it has been." CWM
"Complexity 4. I thought this was the best of Raicer's WWI stuff. Really
captured the feel of the last year of WWI. A good game." DEN
"I was at origins at the XTR talk when Ted dropped this off for Ty to
test. Good game. I've got the new one from MiH on order." RL
"Gem - first Command game I picked up and played it a lot." DA
Pyrrhic Victory variant (for Spartacus.)
----------------------
"Played a friend's copy with him. Seemed to work ok. Did not in any
way catch our imagination the way Alexandros and its variants did.
Perhaps I should take another look at it." MS
17 Lee's Greatest Gamble
------------------
"Looks like a great game on the subject, have not had a chance to play
it yet. I like the scale better then their other game on the subject,
Fateful Lightning. The rules appear to be clean and when I get to
Minnesota I'll be looking for someone to play it against." PB
"Though I've heard it panned, this is one of my 2-3 favorite ACW
games. You're not tied to terrain and the armies may or may not do
what you want. After slamming randomness in VaM, I feel it's well
balanced here." MP
"A true gem, loved the system, after figuring out the inherent wierdness
of an innovative system such as this. Keep begging Chris P. to do another
game in the system." AR
"For some reason I can't put my finger on, I really didn't like this one." DEN
"Semi-dud (we had a discussion on this recently). The command system
is a fascinating experiment that did not work, and the terrain-free
victory conditions work well up to a point and then no more. I really
liked the hidden march rules, but the attacker-favoring CRT was odd.
Complexity 6." MS
"I didn't like the command system, and felt it was rather solitaire hostile." RL
"A different feel to Gettysburg with unusual victory conditions
(ie. don't take the round top). Gem, I guess." DA
18 Tet 68
------------------
"Partial gem. Some strange victory conditions (both players could
win). A lot of neat specialty units." JD
"Great fun, clean, fast and easy to play. Just short of a gem due to
same old/same old mechanics." AR
"Traded for this one, then wished I hadn't. Game seems essentially over
after 2nd turn. NVA VP c(ances ride heavily on first turn attacks." CWM
"Complexity 5. The focus seemed wrong. The North Vietnamese player would try to
maximize points, rather than go for any type of military victory. The
US, knowing he had a military victory locked up from the start, played to
minimize NVA points. Didn't play it enough to say much else, since the
feel was all wrong." DEN
"Looked good (kind of a slicker cousin to Holy War: Afghanistan), nice
map and counters, but doesn't work well. Propaganda is so powerful
that it makes combat near irrelevant, and losses are far too high.
(Try playing the first scenario and comparing the results to the setup
of the second.) Complexity 5." MS
19 Port Arthur
------------------
"I own all the Commands in this series, and this one the only one that
I really gave a fair shake to. Which is too bad for me, because the
game is a waste of time. Somewhat interesting mechanics aren't saved
by the situation, where the Japanese have a lock on victory and the
Russians don't have much to do." DT
"I was disappointed. The removal of the naval game hurt. It played a
lot like the Crimea game but didn't have any period flavor." MP
"Yes, the Russians are doomed. Along with DS, the perfect game for the
masochist, when (like me) you like to play the loser. Of course, the
Russians were incompetent in real life, too (didn't they get drunk before
every battle? I heard that somewhere)." AW
"Very painful. We decided that unless the Japanese landed a unit on
the peninsula adjacent to the RR, the Russians could rail in a ton of
units and hold the Port forever (or nearly so). It kind of annoyed us
that only this strategy was viable." AR
"I probably didn't figure out how to play this one right. 3/4 of the board
seems unnecessary as result of the strategic movement rules and Russian
strategic situation." CWM
"Only played this a couple of times, left me with a so-so feeling.
Can't really support either side of the extreme imbalance claims. Bit
disappointed that the siege map was left out (even if it sounds
reasonable that it would not have been much fun). No gem, but not
really a dud. Complexity 4." 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
"Hated it - I played this 3 times and demonstrated each time
to my opponent that the Japs. had no hope. The Russians just
bottle the peninsula up on turn 1 or 2 before the Japs
can invade and then there's no hope for them. I suppose
some errata was in order to fix it, but I never saw it." DA
20 Cortez
------------------
"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?" AW
"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." JH
"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
