· 21 Blood & Iron
· 22 Antietam
· 23 Shogun Triumphant
· 24 Czechoslovakia 1938
· 25 When Eagles Fight
· 26 When Tigers Fight
· 27 Proud Monster
· 28 Like Lions they Fought
· 29 1914-Glory's End
· 30 Across the Potomac
21 Blood & Iron
------------------
"Gem. Played this a number of times and really enjoyed it. A good tactical
feel for the time. My Austrian generals wouldn't do what they were
supposed to, though. ;-)" JD
"I would say gem. I like this one a lot. It has a number of
scenarios, and gives a very good "tactical" feel in that one must
coordinate the three arms to achieve a good result." PRC
"Gave it a whirl and didn't really like it much. Probably because I had
no idea what was going on or was supposed to happen, but it didn't do
anything for me." DEN
"I played it once, the combat system just didn't gel for me." RL
"One of my favorite tactical games. It was a good simulation, IMO, as
well as a good game. Also some of my favorite counters...they were pretty
basic, but I liked the scheme of colors representing sub-commands." AW
"Gem. Very good-looking, playable, effective command control system.
Overall a good rendering of the historical situation." MS
"I'm surprised by the aclaim Blood & Iron is getting. I enjoyed puttering with
it, but I eventually put it away as an interesting failed experiment. The
bloodless CRT allows the Austrians to adopt a point defense, and simply keep
retreating. The game comes down to whether the Austrian arty will shoot down
enough Prussians before they fail an
"impetuous" roll, they get crowded together, or they make a mistake,
for instance, leaving a unit in the woods where it neither retreats nor moves
fast enough to avoid being cut off... This just didn't seem to be a very
satisfying reflection of the historical tactical realities. BTW, there is a
bridge missing on the map...I'll have to check my copy for the details." JG
"Cool map, average counters, a complexity level not much more than an
advanced Blue and Gray, and an interesting subject make this one a
semi-gem. Can't find a willing Austrian player in my local group. The
Command Control rules are brutal to the Austrians, making the game somewhat
one-sided in our opinion." WS
22 Antietam
------------------
"Punched, clipped and set up. Started to play a few turns and then went
back to Talonsoft." JD
"A game. It was a decent treatment of Antietam. Not worth playing
twice." DEN
"This game is fast playing and really captures the feel of Antietam
without massive idiot rules. You activate the Union by corps but can
only have a couple active at once. Tough decisions on deactivation
since it's hard to get them back up. How far do you push them? Gem." MP
"I had waited for this but somehow once I got it it seemed kind of bland." RL
"Found it OK, but did not feel the desire to play again, possibly
because it's an odd battle, and the step loss counters were a hassle
(in retrospect, a taste of what was to come with Glory's End). The
solo rules worked though, which makes it memorable." MS
23 Shogun Triumphant
------------------
"Again punched and clipped. I really wanted to like this one, but seem to
recall some disconnects in the mechanics." JD
"Shogun lite. A fun, fast game. Clan activations can make or break you." PRC
"Fun game. Unpredictable clans may seem gamey for some but I liked it." MP
"Not a bad game, but the fire/melee combat system seemed to lead to
a lot of die rolling for little effect." RL
"A wild 'n' wooly affair. Knowing that your units may turn coat adds a
whole new level to each tactical decision. I don't know much about Japanese
military history, sorry to say, so I don't know if it's a good simulation. If
it is, Japanese mil hist was very chaotic...A gem." AW
"Gem. Reasonably simple but not overly so, unique, quick,
unpredictable, tense, bloody. Nice looks, too." MS
24 Czechoslovakia 1938
------------------
"Although my opinion is biased on this one, I really enjoyed the game.
IIRC, the lack of roads is a problem in the game." JD
"This was a fun game. I liked the S&T game better." DEN
"Interesting to play this and Case Green. Two different approaches but I
liked both." MP
"A intresting counterpoint to S+T's Case Green. Here the Cezchs are really
doomed from the outset. Fast playing but the germans seem way to powerful." RL
"Gasp! Alt-hist in a magazine game! I think this was the first one (in
Command). I like the topic, but I think the Czechs have to be reeealy good to
have a chance against the Germans. A near-run thing all around." AW
25 When Eagles Fight
------------------
"Gem. Played it several times. A good game, though a little eclipsed
by TGWiE." JD
"It was a good game on a rarely simulated topic. I thought it broke down
about midway through the war, but that didn't bother me much." DEN
"Another fun game in the mold of 1918 and 1914: Glory's End." MP
"Very good game, I reviewed it positively for Paper Wars." RL
"I got a better feel of the overall situation from TGWiE, but it's still
a good game. One of Command's best graphics ever in the main article, also,
which really made the issue for me. Midway had a good two-pager, too. Command
needs more of those, maybe as a centerfold (that'd make for interesting bus
conversation: "Who's it this month?" "Shiloh.")." AW
"The first half is tense and a good simulation (better than TGWiE where
the Russians always seem to push the Austrians into the Carpathians).
The second half depends on the Verdun dieroll and little else. First
half gem, second half dud." MS
26 When Tigers Fight
------------------
"I didn't like this one, though I really tried. I played it several times
but came away empty. Maybe I was looking for a more detailed treatment of
Burma." JD
"I was disappointed with the game. It was lacking something. Perhaps
more detail? Maybe it just needed Godzilla destroying Tokyo instead of
the Air Force. :-)" DEN
"Dud of the bunch, if not of all XTR releases. This is one game that
really needs supply rules. The Japanese can trace full supply to Saign
through the Himilayas (conceivably). The strengths of units on the
Burma fron seem out to lunch as well. I really wanted to like this game
but couldn't." MP
"A clever game, the usual XTR style supply rules are a little askew here,
and the Burma front is a total mess (The IJA has little chance here in
attacking India, which causes the not to attack. This makes the Allies
counteroffensive late in the game very tough. I believe XTR later issue a
couple of "iron madien" type rules forcing the IJA to attack in India
the first few turns. It would have been better just to focus on the
Chinese front I think.)" RL
"When did the variant to this one come out? I...sort of liked the main
game, with the system of untried units, which struck me as very cool at the time
(still does). The different aspects of the war (China vs. Burma) really did it
for me, though. It's almost two games at once." AW
"Only played once. I was a bit surprised at the Japanese abilities:
those monster divisions in Burma and their ability to swamp China with
units. Historicity is suspect. As a game, it seemed OK. I liked the
inclusion of both the China and Burma theaters in one game." MS
27 Proud Monster
------------------
"A real gem if you can survive as the Russians. Play with the forgiveness
points or with house rules for the sudden death conditions. I think this
is much better than the more detailed FITE/SE. [GDW-GR/D]" JD
"It is a good game, but I prefer several other games on the subject. It
needs forgiveness points, house rules, and/or a skilled Soviet player, or
the Germans are going to win. I've got friends who "try to make it work"
every six months or so. They haven't succeeded to their satisfaction
yet, but it's worth it to them to keep trying and tinkering." DEN
"Fun, fast moving system but, again, the supply rules should have been
more of a factor (like End of the Iron Dream or Blitz '41)." MP
"Good God. It's more than a game, it's a force of nature. I took one
look and thought, "Damn, this is big." I've played about five months' worth
before I got some other game, I forget which, and it's been on the shelf ever
since. It's going to stay there awhile, too (only so many hours in a day, only
so many square feet in the basement)." AW
"This game has generated a lot of debate, and I think that's fine and
healthy. This was a very ambitious undertaking for XTR, and in general, I
think the game succeeds. There were some things I puzzled over, but my fun
quotient with this game was nevertheless pretty high. I'm going to call it
a gem." JB
28 Like Lions they Fought
------------------
"Ok. I would have liked a more tactical game here, with a solitaire Ulundi
scenario. :-)" JD
"Interesting game. One game I'm convinced that the British can't loose,
the next game I'm convinced the Zulus can't lose. I'm still not sure if
I like it, but since I still have it and play it after getting rid of 7
other magazines in this bunch of 10, I probably do." DEN
"One of XTR's best efforts. They cleanly integrated two wildy different
styles of combat very well here." RL
"A good simulation, I thought. If the Zulus win a big battle, half their
men have to go home. Another tactical nightmare for Chetswayo [sp?]." AW
"Only played it a couple of times so far. Good representation of both
sides' totally differing approaches and capabilities. Semi-Gem." MS
29 1914-Glory's End
------------------
"My first XTR game. A very good game of the early stages. The "semi-free"
set up nature makes for a fair amout of replay value, as both sides can
try different strategies. The "new" dummy counters give this one some
real Fog o war." PRC
"A good game. Lots of action, interesting decisions. The VPs seemed
rigged to produce a historical result. On the other hand it was pretty
cool." DEN
"Fun game. The simple supply rules fit here. I like the options here." MP
"Pretty good, but I liked 1918 better." AW
"There's nothing wrong with this one either. As I recall, this had the very
nice Mark Simonitch map that really invited play. The feature of this game
that I did not like was the on-board, off-board counter shuffle that the
4-step, two- counter units produced. I don't have a good way to physically
handle the problem of two-counter units. Either you put the counter that's
not being used in a tray, and then root through all of them if the counter
on the map takes a hit that reduces it to the substitution point, or you
keep the counters not being used organized off map in some kind of schematic
fashion to minimize the search time. But this approach then maximizes the
table space you have to devote to playing the game. If there's another way
of dealing with this situation, please enlighten me. That being said, I
thought the game itself was ok--at least reasonable historicity, and
generally clear rules compromised by the counter situation that lowered my
fun quotient. Thanks for reading." JB
"Ultimately a disappointment. A slow game with horrible counter
fiddling. I'm not against replacement counters in general, but this
game was not the place for them. Contrary to some other comments I
saw, I thought the VP rules were actually well chosen to represent the
change of goals over time, but the hiccup-like German command
breakdown rule was just silly." MS
30 Across the Potomac
------------------
"A quick game, and the double blind aspect makes the maneuvering more fun
than the combat. Combat seems too simple for me. Also, the Rebs can trash
several union cites in PA, but still lose if they take too many combat
losses. I think some of the VP cities up north need to be boosted." PRC
"Ugh." DEN
"Definitely a gem, it's the only Command issue game I've ever actually
played. The modifed double-blind system works well at recreating the "fog
of war' of large-scale operations in this period, leading to a game that's
tense throughout. The simplicity of the command, movement, and combat
systems lets you concentrate on intelligence and out-thinking your
opponent. My only gripes are that the victory conditions are a bit "gamey"
(they encourage you to gain VPs by sitting in small enemy towns near the
border, so you can make a quick escape), the command rules are too
restrictive, and I have to wonder if operational intelligence was really
this limited in this period." DK
"I like it, double blind worked out quite well. I even think the map
is decent (not great but decent). Low complexity but subtle." PB
"Very good, except for the ugly (but at least clear and legible) map.
No detail to speak of, but good if you want to try strategies. Quick
and very workable solution for double blind play makes this a
near unique success. Gem." MS
