Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page
Search the Web

SPI Games: Mini-Reviews from Consim-L

- Compiled by Danny D. Holte


Ba - Bk



Battle of Austerlitz, The
David James Ritchie

"I don't know, maybe it is the battle but I really disliked this game. The system didn't have an elegant bone in its whole body, and I'm being nice." RM


Balaklava (Crimean War Quad)
Thomas Gould

"Best of the Crimean War Quad. I played this last and reluctantly since I had not been overwhelmed by the other games in the quad. This game played much better than expected and is one that I would play again." RM


Barbarian Kings
Greg Costikyan

" Fun multi-player game." RM


Barbarossa (1st edition)
James F. Dunnigan

"I've never played any of the published Barbarossa games, but I play-tested this one. As I recall, the play-test version had larger than normal counters and correspondingly larger hexes.
The only game I really remember was one of the most humiliating wargame defeats I've ever suffered. As the Germans early in the game, I put all four of my big Panzer Korps in a single salient in the central area thinking that the USSR had too little to attempt a credible counter-attack.
I was wrong.
The Russian player attacked all four at low odds, attacking the one at the base first. He pushed it back and occupied the hex. Now all the other three were out of supply (supply being calculated at the instant of combat resolution) and the formerly low-odds attacks were now reasonable-odds attacks. Still not enough to get a destroyed result directly, but he was able to get a defender retreat result on each one in turn and since there was no place to retreat to, I lost 3/4 of my German armored force in one turn.
For some odd reason, ever since then, East Front games have been my least favorite. Go figure." CJ


Barbarossa (2nd edition)
James F. Dunnigan

"Never saw the first ed. Reminded me of all things: AH's Russian Campaign..." DM

"Don't know about editions but...This game was fun to play with that little map and armies of men. Almost a predecesor of Axis and Allies for the Eastern Front. Didn't learn a thing about history with this game but is was easy and fun." SF

"Not a bad one map east front game. It has its limitations but it has a high enough fun factor to make it replayable." RM

"I've never had or played the 1st ed, but have played around w/the 2nd (1971) ed (easy/fun to season to taste w/house rules) quite a bit.

"I don't think there was a large difference between the two ed's. Anyway, you most likely had four big Panzer _Armies_ in that single salient! IIRC, this is the Axis (normal) full complement, i.e. 4x 11-8-8. Since I'm not familiar w/the 1st ed I could be wrong, but I think your memory might be playing tricks on you. In Barb 2nd - you state _early_ in the campaign, I'm est'ing late '41/early '42 - it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to lose 3 of 4 Pz XXXX to the early Sov's OOB in one move.
Did you have a few too many by then ;-) It's very difficult, but w/i reason if major gambles are being undertaken, to lose 3 of 4 Pz XXXX in the mid to late periods of the campaign - certainly in ONE move. More likely only looney "hold ground at all costs" mid-late play could ever bring about such heavy losses to the, by then, superior in quantity Sov's. Were the two ed's (esp the CRT) THAT different?
The loss of 3 Pz XXXX at almost ANY juncture of the campaign in Barb 2nd - ever more if lost in one month - would call for an immediate resignation. Unless you want to see just how long it takes for the Red Army to roll back the Axis. Unless the Sov player is/was a rank beginner the outcome of a Sov win is a virtual _certainty_. That's true w/plain vanilla Barb 2nd or any fair (to both sides) amount of "seasoning." JCJ


Bastogne
Larry Pinsky

"Quad game? Yes! Not much of a history leason. No hard fought defenses by engineers or paratroops. No triumphant entry of Patton's armor. Just another push-push game in the Quad world. I keep it to play not to learn history." SF


Bastone/Anzio Beachead

"A game for the archives! One of my first, never really fully played. The Bastonge map looked like, well, hell ... like the wiring instructions for a long out-of-date computer or something." JM


Battle for Cassino, The
John Prados

"This was an S&T game that missed the mark by a bit. It wasn't bad, it just wasn't much of anything." RM

"I liked it for a few playings but found the Allies were forced to act historically (head-to-head in the town, up the gully to the abbey). This made for a boring, fairly unexciting game. The high movement allowances took some getting used to and the use of rubble and roadblocks effectively ended any use of the armor (which couldn't operate off-road) in the game. I never got around to house rules that would make the game more fun to play." TES

"Really disapointing. The map was zipless, and the game really bogged down. Not one of the best SPI offerings." JM

"The Italian Campaign gets so little attention from publishers that I played this extensively when it first appeared (enough to get an article published in MOVES #45). Nowadays, however, I don't think I would pay so much attention. The game was TOO faithful to history in that game play mostly revolved around hex-by-hex attrition despite the enormous movement allowances the units had.
Another problem was that opportunity fire against moving units was a major feature of the design. IIRC op fire had no range limitation, and the topography of the area was quite detailed. Thus the game tended to bog down in repeated LOS checks on SPI's infamous graph-paper elevation display. (This was the earliest I ever wished for a computerized playing aid -- just type in two hex numbers and get an instant result.)" DSB

"I play tested this one, and boy did they screw-up the final map. The Ravine used to cost 8 MP and was not practical to traverse. It now is almost a highway, aimed directly at the Monte Cassino. They also removed a key town hex that helped the German defense immensely. I really enjoyed the playtest version, but I cant say the same for the released version." BE


Battle for Germany
James F. Dunnigan

"Fun game and an interesting solution to who wants to play the Germans. Still works as a three player game." RM

"A great little game, one of the true classic games. I just picked up the DG version one copy or the other should be in everyones library." CD

"Two snaps up with a twist. Wonderfully simple game with one player taking the Allies and the east front Germans and the other player playing the Russians and the west front Germans. The Germans really have no chance, so it is a race to see which side (Allies or Russians) can occupy most of Germany. The Allied and Russian units are fairly generic (except for the Polish, Bulgarian, and Yugoslav units on the Russian side) and the German units are an eclectic mix of strengths (from a 5-11-4 paratroop corps to 2-3-4 infantry corps). German free setup is the best scenario to play. Otherwise there is a bias (IMHO) towards the Russians (weaker opposing units and you gotta hate those 8-20-2 front units)." TES

"To this game's credit, it is one of the few old SPI games I've played in the past few years, Even more so, I played it with my wife, and we both enjoyed and won it. One of the finest little nuggets to be put out in S&T. Great replay value. By the way, my wife is no gamer, so this is a significant compliment." JM

"What a great game. Simple, beer-and-pretzles fun. One of my favorite "quick" games. Even though it's a little game, I like the fact you can play with 2, 3 or 4 players." JB

"This was a standard SPI WWII operational game made special by the fact that each player plays both the Germans and Allies. In retrospect, it's interesting to contemplate what a "dog" this game could have been considered had one player played both the Allies and the other player played the Germans." MJG

"Most of the posters have said it. A classic. And I've seen tenacious Germans win in three-player games. Another one which my novice cubs enjoy." GG


Battle for Stalingrad
John Hill

"I really liked this game the one time I played it. One of those games I should drag out and play again." RM

"In my opinion, one of the FINEST games SPI ever put out. The only nit picking drawback is the lack of unit designations, but once you start playing, you'll know why this is and not care. While I've lost each time I've played, my frustration has been temper with true enjoyment. I don't think this unique and bloody battle has been simulated in a better way. Just a great game, which any east front fanatic should try to nab, but they are no longer cheap!" JM


Battle of Moscow, The
Dave Williams

"For its time it was fun. Unfortunately, its day is pretty much over. Wouldn't pick this up unless I was a collector." RM

"The map had a look unlike any other SPI map of the period--it was pre-Redmond. If you want rules completeness--keep looking. Time has passed it by in terms of mechanics and research--it's of little use in that sense. As a game, it still has its moments." JB


Battle of Nations (Napoleon at War Quad)
Edward Curran

"For some reason the Nappy at War quad games were much weaker than the Blue and Gray games. This was one of the weakest." RM

"The Napoleon at War Quad takes a nap in this snoozer. It's clear they shoehorned the battle into the quad format. It's a dud." JB

"The game which first illustrated to me the limitations of the quadrigame concept. In order to fit this game within the 100 units per game limit, all of the artillery were left out and factored into the infantry units. This has two very negative results: 1. You lose one of the key features of the Nap at Waterloo system: the use of concentrated artillery to disrupt lines and 2. The resulting infantry units have unusually large strengths, so the loss of even a single infantry unit can put a player in a serious hole. BoN is similar this way to Cemetery Hill where, as in BoN the quadrigame counter limit and the size of the battle, result in double digit strengths for many of the infantry units; at least Cemetery Hill has artillery units (even if their effect is limited by their small size and short range)." MJG

"I see it being panned so I'd best not tout it as being all that realistic. Here, I've used it to introduce two novices to wargaming and they really enjoyed it and the hobby. Use this for simple Leipzig and Napoleon at Leipzig for something more complicated." GG


Battle of Stalingrad
James F. Dunnigan

"A take on the the France 1940 system, moved to Stalingrad. Really didn't work. You know, at the time gamers may have been all thrilled, and Dunnigan may have been a state-of-the-art designer, but this is just one of many examples of how his 1970's stuff just doesn't pass the test of time. The most stinging verdict is that it is boring. Must be tinkered with." JM


Battle of the Wilderness
Linda Mosca

"Not the Wilderness, but if you could get over that, it was okay." RM

"Played it once; you're right--not the Wilderness. They're not Rebels, they're wood elves or dryads." GG


Battlefleet Mars
B.E. Hessel, Redmond Simonsen

"I have never played this, but a friend whose views I value claims it is the best SciFi game. He currently has 5 copies." RM

"Tried this a couple of times, it seems to be a decent game but that may just be the fog of the years. Would like to give it another try." CD

"We played the campaign game with the full tactical system. What a waste of time. There is a flaw in one of the fire tables (#6?) that makes it extra or less deadly.. Its got some interesting concepts, but with extra baggage." BE


Battles for the Ardennes Quadrigame
( Celles, Clervaux, Sedan, St. Vith)
Danny Parker

"Fun, big and easy. It is one of my favorite bulge games and Danny Parker's best." RM

"The games work better as stand alone quads than campaign games. The 1940 campaign game uses little of the map space, and the 1944 version is hampered by wacky advance after combat and strategic movement rules. Additionally, in typical SPI fashion, the drably coloured counters blended with the drably coloured map, making it an eye strain. But, the quads were fun and easy to play, the concept was great, and the game is by no means unplayable. Find the additional errata (I found some in an old F&M)" JM

"It's by no means ideal, yet I'm so satisfied with it I haven't purchased another Bulge game since. The scale and level of detail are just right. My only criticism is that in multi-map scenarios I've never been able to advance as far as the historical bulge with the Germans. The 1940 scenarios are also interesting." DSB

"Once upon a time, it was one of my faves. I even sort of liked playing the 1940 scenario. I strongly doubt I'll ever play it again--the system just feels too vanilla after playing either Ardennes, or Wave of Terror." JB

"I, along with many of the responders, found this to be very enjoyable -- the best game (and simulation -- not the same thing) of the Bulge since the original Battle of the Bulge. Not that I played it very much, but I played it more than I did anything else at the time. I soon got married and -- end of wargaming for the next 10 years.
A few years ago, I used the DG reprint as a basis for a 50th anniversary PBEM game of the Bulge, but for personal reasons couldn't complete the game. Also, it seemed to me that there was just something wrong with the DG edition. I thought the special KG Peiper rules were out-of-whack for one thing. Other than that I couldn't put my finger on it." CJ

"I really likes all of the scenarios. I thought the campaign game was ok" BE

"We did the big 1940 scenario here last November and really enjoyed it ('course we were the Germans.....)" GG


Berlin '85
James F. Dunnigan

"This is a fantastic game, but the Nato player has got to be the type that likes to fight hopeless last stands. ( IMO one of the good ones out of S&T)." CD

"Another game I loved to play. Simple with enough chrome to make it interesting. Trying to maul the Soviet forces while awaiting the inevitable collapse of the defending NATO forces can get old fast. The better scenarios are the ones that allow NATO some offensive options (interdict railways and/or add a WG J"ger battalion). Bombard a POL hex and watch the ensuing firestorm engulf enemy (or your own) forces. A fun game." TES

"With such a detailed map the game begged to be played, but I didn't have a positive experience with it. In two of the three scenarios there was a rule involving the "Honors of War" Table. The Warsaw Pact had the option of rolling on this table according to Surrender Points it accumulated for destroying NATO units and occupying geographical objectives; with enough Surrender Points and a lucky die roll it could force NATO to surrender and end the game. Well, I had one game last exactly one game-turn thanks to the Honors of War Table, and another last exactly two!" DSB

"This was a game that should only be played under good lighting conditions and between two non-colorblind players. Virtually every hex was non-clear terrain and there were numerous levels of suburb/urban/town/village/city hexes in shades of brown, gold and grey that could easily be confused under normal indoor lighting. I also remember losing the mult-colored units in the riot of color that constituted the game map; a kind of "dazzle camouflauge"." MJG

"Berlin 85 simulates an invasion of West Berlin by the Warsaw Pact, back in the 80s. An excellent "modern siege" simulation, and a great solo game; unfortunately, winning the game depends a lot on one or two lucky die rolls, which spoils it for face to face.
The NATO player controls a few French (4), British (7) and American (10) battalions (plus germans in another scenario), as well as a large number of police companies (36). The WP player controls 6 divisions (each with about 10 battalions), plus a few (8) police units.
The game system is quite simple: WP player moves and fights, then NATO, units have zones of control and combat is mandatory. Some chrome has been added: bridge demolition, collateral damage (ie hexes being ruined because of artillery concentration), but altogether, the game plays very fast, even though there is quite a number of units on the map. As expected in such terrain, the combat CRT is extremely bloody: many shifts for the defender, and a lot of exchange results.
The game ends after 16 turns or (which always happens) when Berlin falls. At the beginning of each turn, the WP player has the possibility of offer "honors of war", which may result in either a combat shift for next turn, a cease fire (next turn is skipped), nothing or a surrender. The likeliness of surrender depends on how many NATO units have been eliminated, and how many "objective hexes" are controlled by the Warsaw Pact. In fact, a standard game is more around 5-7 real game turns long.
When the city falls, victory levels depends on the number of WP military units on the map, times a factor which decreases as time passes: the sooner the better.
So WP strategy is: be very offensive so as to accumulate as many surrender points as possible, so that the city falls early; but do not lose too many units in the process, as this reduces your victory level.
Terrain can make this very difficult if the NATO player uses it well. Combat shifts are impressive: a unit in a ruined urban hex, attacked through water hexsides (and there are many of them in Berlin!) get a defensive shift of seven columns, on a table which has 12 columns (and there are NO offensive shifts, except on the first game turn and when a unit is unsupplied).
Altogether, this makes a fast moving simulation, which gives a good insight of modern city combat.
However, as with many siege games, Berlin 85 is more a good solo simulation than a real two player game.
First, the NATO player does not have many things to do: use the terrain at best, and wait for the Reds to come. He has very little opportunity for counterattack (both because of the terrain and the lack of combat-worthy units).
Second, there is too much luck involved. The main reason for this is the surrender system. A lucky WP player can win the game in one turn, and this will always be a decisive victory. Even when the number of surrender point is highest, there is 1 chance out of four that a surrender offfer will actually have adverse results on the WP player.
Third, the surrender system makes the game length very unpredictable. I have played quite a few which ended in one turn: the WP player was lucky on the first game turn, and accumulated enough surrender points, then rolled a city fall on the surrender table.
This importance of luck makes Berlin 85 an excellent game for arguments and player misbehaviour... To cure this I'd suggest either a tournament mode: playing many games in a row (quite feasible given the fact most games stop after just a few turns: 1 hour games should be common), or modifying the honor of war table to make it less random.
For those interested, here are the probabilities of outcomes on the honor of war table:
(sp=surrender points; natosh= nato shift, wpsh=wp shift,...) 

sp      6_10    11_15   16_20   21_25   26_30   31_35   36_40   41+
natosh  45%     35%     25%     16%     9%      5%      2%      0%
wpsh    38%     38%     34%     26%     19%     12%     6%      2%
cease   11%     17%     23%     30%     32%     31%     28%     22%
nothing 0%      0%      0%      2%      6%      12%     19%     25%
surr    6%      11%     19%     26%     33%     40%     45%     50%
I'd suggest reajusting the table for 1d6, like this: 

surr pts 6-15  1-3= nato shift  4-6 wp shift
surr pts 16-20 1-2= nato shift  3-4 wp shift, 5-6 cease fire
surr pts 21-30 1-2= wp shift    3-4 cease fire, 5-6 surrender
surr pts 31-40 1-3= cease fire  4-6 surrender
surr pts 41+   1-3 nothing      4-6 surrender
(Note that this table increases a little the probability of surrender, maybe unbalancing the game in favour of the Warsaw Pact)." FC


Big Red One, The (aka 'Bulge')
James F. Dunnigan

"Just for collecting, not for playing." SF

"I'm not sure why this game gets slammed as above. Just goes to show that peoples tastes differ. Definitely not a sim, and does have, I admit, some oddities. The biggest flaw is the Germans ability to use the 1ssPz and 12ssPz in tandem like an unstoppable bulldozer. However, they only have one, and it can't be everywhere! I have played this several times and enjoyed it. Pretty quick playing too." RF

"Great little game, even if I never win at it. The system is ingenious." RM


  • Back to Etloh Technologies' Home Page
  • Back to the Reviews Main Page