"An exercise in trying to roll "ones". No command and control rules.
However, considering the ultra-complex bookeeping games that companies
put out on tactical naval, CA could be a fun diversion. Also, because
it was simple, you could layer on some nice house rules to make up for
some of the short-comings." MP
"Nowadays we'd sneer at this game as being too simple and too colorless.
(For instance, IIRC damage was inflicted in 1/3 increments to a ship's
gunnery and/or speed.) But back then -- when my collection consisted of
no more than a dozen titles -- it was plenty of fun and my friend and I
played it repeatedly." DSB
"The BBs in CA didn't work at all, imo. The way I used to play it was almost
certainly completely unrealistic--if you pool all your ships' firepower and
get off a good shot at a BB, you can put a hit on it. In that game, with
one hit, the BBs went from "super god status" to just another ship. Silly.
But if you fought just cruiser actions, then I thought this was a decent
game for its time." JB
"Great game. Required a lot of thought to play correctly, and a fair amount of
"book-keeping. I always thought this would make a good computer simulation
(usually with the computer playing the Japanese side.)" RW
Campaign for North Africa
Richard Berg
"Talking about big games!
Napoleon used to say "l'intendance doit suivre" (supply shall follow),
CNA demonstrates how tough this can be in practice.
It covers the whole desert campaign from September 1940 to January 1943.
8 km per hex, 5 maps covering the whole theater from Marble Arch to
Cairo, plus off map areas for tripoli/tunis, and Malta. Weekly game
turns, divided into 2-3 days operation stages, battalion level units,
individual planes and trucks.
CNA was intended as a "definitive simulation": a game in which about
nothing is abstracted. With teams of three players on each side, a game
turn would last some 10 hours on average, the whole campaign being
estimated at around 1200 hours, and shorter scenarios (Graziani's
offensive, Crusader, Alamein...) ranging from 30-50 hours to 250+ hours.
The game system is fairly simple and easy to learn. Complexity arises
from the number of things the players have to do, and the volume of
information to process.
It begins with managing your units. In CNA, units are made of points (100
men, a few guns or tanks) which players may organise and reorganise as
they see fit: a counter on the map will represent "some unit", but its
real composition, how many men, guns, tanks, truck, with how much supply,
which strength, morale... is kept on numerous offmap charts.
The movement/combat system is simple and elegant: units can move and
fight as much as they want, but they accumulate fatigue, and need
supply. In CNA, every action a unit performs (including defense,
involuntary movement...) cost capability points. A unit may exceed its
capability point allowance, but get disorganised in the process, and then
fight and move less effectively, and need rest to recover. Also, most
game functions imply using supplies (essentially fuel and ammunition),
and this will always limit what units can do.
The air system uses individual planes, which are assigned individual
missions. Again, the system is not hard to learn, but means handling 500
to 1000 individual planes (and individual pilots for fighters)...
Logistics is the heart of CNA. There are four types of supplies: water
(needed by men and vehicles), stores (food and the like), fuel and
ammunition. Suplies are available in unlimited quantity in Cairo for the
Commonwealth player, and are shipped in limited number through naval
convoys for the Axis. Then, everything has to be brought up front by
truck.
This is probably the most complex and detailed part of the game. Water
and fuel will evaporate, trucks will breakdown and need to be towed and
repaired, supply availability will depend on bombing the axis convoys,
which in turn depends on axis bombing Malta. Organising the supply line,
and taking it into account when planning your campaign is what CNA is all
about.
Which leads us to the big question about CNA: can it be played?
Well, it has actually been played (not by me tho'); and seems to have
been an enjoyable experience (you don't keep 6 players harnessed to a
200+ hour game if it is not enjoyable). However, this means finding at
least 5 other people willing to spend a lot of time on one game, and not
everyone will be interested by such a long, detailed and logistic
oriented game.
As much of its complexity stems from the volume of bookkeeping and
planning, CNA would certainly benefit from a good computer assist
program. Developping one is not easy (as there are many rules in the
game), but should be rewarding: playing time would be reduced several
folds.
However, computers will not turn CNA into a small game, but its playing
time will be comparable to other (maybe less detailed) large scale games.
For those interested in wargames from the historical research/simulation
point of view, CNA is an excellent source. It provides much insight on
the complexity of mobile warfare. It can probably be a valuable source of
ideas for designers, as it has rules covering about every aspect of WWII
warfare at this scale." FC
"In 1983, while on an intership at Oak Ridge National Lab (I'm saying
this incase any of those guys are around today and looking and might
remember), one guy had the game and 5 of us dedicated a weekend to give
it a try. It took the better part of the first day to set up. We
played that evening and most of the next day, IIRC, before 'giving up in
disgust' and pulling out a game of Crusades. I've no idea how far we
got.
It was an excersize in paperwork, nothing else. I, as the German ground
commander, was more worried about making sure that I had enough water
than I was about attacking the Brits. In real life, Rommel's staff
would have done that, not Rommel." SB
"Beautiful to look at; no way that I could ever play it... or even learn the
rules . Definite requirement to be owned by any "real" wargamer from that
period. Sold my unpunched copy to someone who offered me hundreds of $...
figured since I wasn't going to play it, maybe someone else would get
enjoyment out of owning it. And look at all the other wargames I could buy
with the money!" RW
Canadian Civil War
James F. Dunnigan
"A political game of the end 'o Canada. I liked it but then again I liked Plot to
Assassinate Hitler. Not enough blood in it." DM
"Being Canadian, I was really keen for this game when it came out, and even
gave it a bit of the benefit of the doubt. Oh, was it surreal, with a
parliament type map, with liberals, conservatives, socialists, and
separatists battling for control of issues, all the while contesting
provincial and national elections. And the real meat, though it was down
played by the designer, was a wacky combat game on the same House of
Commons-ish map. This game was either designed drug induced or a cynical
ploy to make a few bucks after the election of the Parti Quebecois. Or
both." JM
Caporetto (Great War in the East Quad)
Albert A. Nofi
"An interesting system (Great War in the East) but the games were
hopelessly one-sided." MP
"A.A. Nofi went on to write a pretty mediocre history of the Waterloo
campaign. (You can get it for bargain prices in the Scholar's Bookshelf, or
in the Barnes and Noble catalog too, I'm pretty sure). But he sure
designed one humdinger of a game here didn't he? Great period "feel",
pretty accurate historically, decent looking, a cool system, good excitement
value, not too difficult to learn (unlike some games: "Goodbye honey, I'm
going to try to learn a new set of rules and so I'll be gone for the next
couple of weeks. Tell the kids I'll really miss them.") What more could
you ask?" JB
Cauldron (Battles for North Africa Quad)
Howard Barasch
"One of the North Africa folio quads. UGOIGO. Very hard for the Axis to
win." DM
"While hard for the Axis to win, this was probably the most realistic
(compared to Crusader) and fun (compared to Supercharge) game in the set.
But, while I liked the North africa Quads, this isn't saying much, as they
all were sorta lame." JM
"This system was tried in a number of venues (West Wall, Island War,
etc). It's a fun system but locking ZOCs don't belong in a North Africa
game." MP
"Cauldron did a pretty good job of brining this battle to light for me.
It was only recently that I became interested in the desert battles and
this game always comes to mind when thinking of a game to play. Haven't
made the time to play Moments in History's Triumphant Fox or XTR's
Rommel at Gazala but Cauldron should be a nice middle ground game.
Triumphant fox is about the same scale but more complicated while Rommel
at Gazala is seriously short of units. 64 total division/brigade
counters and the same size map as the other games? Cauldron, if you can
find it has room to maneuver, rules to keep the British armor in
historical slow motion and minefields galore." SF
Celles (Battles for the Ardennes Quad)
Danny Parker
"I don't remember this well, but I liked it and it was fun. The quad games
worked much better than the two campaign games (40 and 44)" JM
"The whole is definitely greater than the sum of these parts. Still, one
of my favorite Bulge systems." MP
"By itself? Pull the other three maps and play a campaign, on the
weekend, with the family gone to Grandma's, out of state/country. The
full Battles for the Ardennes is the second best game on the Bulge (if
you don't mind simulating the road crowding problems)." SF
"This was so un-memorable that I had to consult my solitaire notebooks to
remind myself of play. I suppose the game was intended to feature a Nazi
thrust followed by an Allied counter thrust, but in my sessions the Allied
defense could stop the enemy offensive and the counterattack simply gave a
higher level of victory." DSB
"Don't go there girlfriend. As part of the BfA quad, this is a necessary
piece. By itself: The question is "why?"" JB
Cemetary Hill (Blue & Gray Quad)
Edward Curran
"The dog of the quad. This system din't work at the division level and
the victory conditions were fatally flawed. The Confederates could get
all the VPs they needed beating up on I and XI corps the first day.
Then, they sat back and let the Union make fruitless assaults." MP
"Worst one of the Blue & Gray. Just the wrong scale for this battle.
The front lines tend to run East to West instead of the fishhook in the
real battle. The Confederates have better command and control than
historically and chase the Union around too much. OK for beginners to
learn but forget history." SF
"I don't have my references at hand, but I remember the designer mentioning
(either in the rulebook or in MOVES) how much care he took in creating
the map and OB, since this was the best-known battle of the quad and
would be subject to the most second-guessing. As the Union player, gotta love those super-elite III Corps
divisions!" DSB
"As others have noted, the dog of the bunch. But extremely playable
(one can pick it up and play within minutes)." DM
"This game scale just seems wrong. The units are way too big to manuver properly,
and there's too few of them. This is a real dog." JB
Centurion
Albert A. Nofi
Chariot (Prestags Master Pack)
John Young
"I like the Prestags. For those who don't think they're complex enough,
the sheer flexibility of the system makes then maleable into anything
you want. We used to use the Prestags as the tactical system for The
Conquerors. Chariot played cleanly and with a little more detail than
Ancients. On the down side, the chariot rules didn't work especially
well and the low stacking in the early scenarios made it tough to get
clean kills." MP
Chattanooga (Blue & Gray II Quad)
Frederick Georgian
"Seemed weighted in favor of the Union. They attacked with a few high
odds attacks and many low odds. Advancing the winners against the
Confederates usually forced the Cofederates to attack at poor odds the
next turn. That's a problem with most of the B&G quad games." MP
Chicago, Chicago! (w/Flight of the Goeben)
Jim Dunnigan
Chickamauga (Blue & Gray Quad)
Irad B. Hardy III
"Best of the bunch but a forward defense by the Union on the creek
usually guarantees victory." MP
"Now here is my favorite of the Blue & Gray quads. With an open flank at
start both players get right down to maneuvering for better position
while still trying to break or hold the other flank. Good excitement
for such a poor gaming system. Can't have mine." SF
"Great little game, Probably could be done better today with little added
complexity, But still a viscous fight." CD
"My recollection of game play seems to differ from some of the other
postings. My experience was that the key to Union success was not
battling the Confederates toe-to-toe but withdrawing the bulk of its
forces off the map, leaving just enough units to hold those objective
hexes at the map edge. The tricky part was carrying out a fighting
withdrawal with locking ZOC's." DSB
"I really enjoyed this game. Simple, yet gives you a sense of the tactical
situation." DM
"By contrast, this B&G Quad is a great game. The Union and CSA player
are slugging it out from the word go, with the outcome in doubt until the
end. Lots of fun." JB
China War, The
Brad Hessel
"Interesting but the play was slow and tedious. Also, with the way
supply worked, the Soviets didn't have much of a chance of penetrating
deep into China. Those impressions come from a long time ago." MP
"At the time, this game had some interest due to border flare-ups between the
USSR and the PRC. Weird map put some poeple off. True about the supply
rules but, then again, that's probably what they would have faced. SPI did a
great deal worse than tuis game." RS
"Is that crinkled grocery sacks for mountains? If the rest of the map
would have had crinkled clear terrain and skylines for cities and
villages the mountain might have worked. That hash design for the
population density works for seeing around the counters but looks too
much alike to be of real value. Colors would have worked better. Could
never get far into the game with the large amount of die roll modifiers
that could affect combat. I prefer The East is Red." SF
"Beautiful and informative map, but no game to make use of it. IMO the
worst aspect of the design was use of the Panzergruppe Guderian CRT.
In the main scenario (USSR vs. PRC), battles typically involved units
whose aggregate steps totaled quite a large number. But combat results
of "no effect"/"lose one step"/"total elimination" just didn't mesh well."
"This game came out in '79 just as the PRC was getting its nose bloodied
by the North Vietnamese (remember that little conflict?). As others have
said, game play was somewhat turgid and the CRT didn't help (with the
gigantic scale of units). I was hoping for a sort of Objective: Moscow
scenario in which everyone goes after the PRC (would've enjoyed some
US units then-- NATO/West influence was abstracted into the game.)
Though I disagree with others about the map -- which I thought was one
of this game's highlights. In a pre-digital age, gave one a great
"snapshot" of the region. I conjured up several additional scenarios
(which though it's been almost 20 years, I'm going to look for) for PRC v.
NVN, PRC vs. India and the big one: PRC vs. Taiwan..." DM
"I find this one interesting, in an intellectual sort of way, though not
really one that really raises your adrenalin level. I like the map
(although there are some stylistic incongruities), because it really
looks like something you'd expect to see in an atlas." MS
"A large scale simulation of conflicts between China and its neighbours in
the 80s.
The map represents all China, with hexes about 125 km wide. It as many
terrain types and symbols, with much emphasis on economic capacity (where
the factories are) and transportation means. I personally find it a
little stuffy, but it is a matter of taste.
Units are either divisions or corps (called armies by the Chinese), and
many of them can stack together, making some hexes impregnable. Also,
populated hexes contain "militia": an intrinsic defense strength which is
not represented by a counter. To enter these hexes, the enemy has to
fight his way in, and to occupy them, he has to leave troops there (thus
depleting his combat units).
The game system is fairly simple: phasing player moves, and may overrun
enemy units, non phasing mech and first line units may react, phasing
player attacks. However, many combat shifts are possible for terrain,
unit type and nationality, etc... This requires some time to get used
to, in the first game turns, you never quite know when attacking whether
the resulting odds will be 1:3 or 3:1.
The supply rules are straightforward: units too far away from their bases
(railroads or airports) are unsupplied, and move and fight less
effectively, "isolated" units (which cannot trace a supply line) are
reduced, and may be eliminated after being so several turns.
That is about all for the game system. It takes a while to get
used to, because of the combat shift system, the very high ratings and
stacking abilities of some units, but after that, play is fairly smooth.
An 8 weekly game turns USSR vs China scenario should take about 5 hours
to complete.
Three scenarios are provided: a soviet vs chinese war, with the
possibility of Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Taiwan stepping in; a Chinese
invasion of Vietnam, and a Taiwanese attempt at amphibious landing on the
mainland. In my opinion, only the first one is worth playing. The two
others are unadapted to the scale of the game: too many units fighting in
stacks in a very small part of the map.
The game starts as an USSR vs China conflict, but other smaller countries
may enter the game due to a political events roll in the beginning of
every turn: Taiwan, Laos and Vietnam may either become neutral or ally
with the Soviets, and North Korea may fight on both sides, depending on
the roll. This introduces a lot of replayability, while not drastically
affecting play balance.
Apart from victory points given for losses inflicted to the enemy, the
Soviet player receives victory points for occupying industrial centers in
the end of the game. This means having units on these hexes, or having
"garisonned" them, by expending unit steps. The Chinese player receives
victory points every time Soviet units are involved in combat (attack or
defense), and for occupying Soviet railroads. Thus, the Soviet player
should occupy terrain, but fight as little as possible. While, the
defending Chinese player is encouraged to counterattack as much as he
can.
This provides very varied games: in the West, the Soviets usually have
little difficulty occupying China, but soon realize how big it is... In
the East, Mandchuria is the region that the Soviets must occupy to win,
but it is very well defended...
Altogether, the China War makes interesting and balanced two player
games, where both sides have something interesting to do. It lends itsef
well to solo gaming, and gives a lot of insight on the specificities of
conflicts in the theater." FC
Chinese Farm (Modern Battles Quad)
Howard Barasch
"The Modern Battles are fun but the Israeli has the advantage here. It
seems that in the MBQs, the attacker has the advantage in most of the
games." MP
"Kind of boring but both players have to get down to business right away.
The Israeli player is forced to attack quickly and decisively to get the
bridge unit to the Suez Canal. No fun for the Egyptian Player unless
the Israeli is unexperienced. Will play it if that's the only way the
other gamer will play at all but won't be listed as any of my choices.
Other games in the Modern Battles are better like Jerusalem , Wurzburg
and Golan. Working on ADC modules for all 8 games cause they are so
easy." SF
"Not very memorable. Game play centered on how quickly the Israelis
could get their bridging unit up to the Canal in much the same fashion as
some East Front games are dependent on the Nazi rail repair units." DSB
Citadel of Blood
Eric Smith
"I liked this one. To a "serious" fantasy role-player it might have seemed
sterile and contrived, but to me it was a good fun hack-fest.
Citadel of Blood (CoB) was an Ares issue game and was a slight rewrite of the
SPI folio game Deathmaze (DM). In both games, there was no map; the action
took place in a dungeon that was generated, one room at a time, by randomly
pulling chits from a cup. Each room counter had a square room with one, two,
three, or four passageways leading out. Some rooms had special features like
a statue, fountain, or stairway. The good guy counters represented individual
adventurers, with one counter representing the entire party's location in the
dungeon. The bad guy counters were individual monsters. All the counter art
was the standard issue ugly-but-lovable fantasy images from SPI's stash of
ugly-but-lovable fantasy artwork, that only a true grognard could love.
A pile o' charts determined the action, mostly involved with monster
generation, combat with said generated monsters, treasure generation, and
related administrative tasks. DM was a generic, bash-monsters-til-you-get-bored
dungeon crawl. CoB was pretty much DM with a theme slapped on: you were
supposed to find the powerful evil wizard and do battle with him, yada yada yada. Fun, mindless." DF
"I actually played this quite a few times before the novelty wore off and I
got sick of it. Definitely nearly mindless, and it was fun, for about half a
dozen plays." RF
CityFight
Joe Balkoski, Stephen Donaldson
"Others have talked about this game before in some detail. I found it a bit
hard to grasp but considered it my failing rather than the game -- as I
never had a chance to play it FtF and it's nearly impossible to play
solitare. Overall, I prefered FireFight's approach and tactical situations." DM
