"A design I think from 1974 of a Sov blitz of Manchuria. Corps/Army level.
You could break down Sov units into Div. Supply really hampered the
Sov attack. . . and Chinese reinforcements just keep coming. I've never
won as the Sov. -- maybe that's the point. Bloody CRT. Nukes. A bit 'o
chrome." DM
"The first "USSR invades China" game (before China War). I can't remember
whether it was before or after Mukden in the Modern Battles Quad. I
remember a pretty good beer & pretzels game (does David Ferris really mix
milk & cigars??), but that's about it." DAV
"The Communist Titans got toe-to-toe in nuclear combat - what more could you ask
for? One of the first games I ever played (my buddy had it - I just got one a month or
so ago). Not a great sim, but a fun game, as I recall. How can you NOT like a game
where you get to nuke the Commies as EITHER side? I'm debating whether or not to
punch mine and play it again (it's been 20+ years since I played it)." JB
"This came early on in my S&T subsctription and I enjoyed it a lot. I just
came to like other games better." MP
El Alamein
James F. Dunnigan
Empires of the Middle Ages
James F. Dunnigan
"Ooh boy, a strategic medieval game covering Europe from
Charlemagne to the fall of Constantinople -- right up my
alley! I had a lot of fun with this in paper /and/ computer
form. It desperately needed another round of development
(the rules are nowhere near as tight as I expected from SPI),
play balance is suspect, and there are many turns when your
pathetic 1-1-1 leader (military-admin-diplomacy, on 1-9 scale)
is best off just passing (which doesn't make for an evening
of thrills), but the overall effect is so good that it's
worth it for the experience. There was that time that, as
Sicily, I won the 13th century scenario by conquering all of
Iberia as the Holy Roman Empire and France were shredded by
Leader Dies Heirless events....
Lots of clever ideas and loose rules -- the game really
shows the strengths and weaknesses of JFD." DT
"One of the triumphs of the SPI era. A great game on an odd topic." DAV
"Though I don't have what I consider a favorite game, if forced to pick
one, this would be it. The funny thing is, I don't normally like area
games. This one captures so much of the history and in a way that the
player can't plan on it. That's the best of both worlds in a game." MP
"I got Empires of the Middle Ages (EMA) when it first came out. We had a
good time with it, although I can only remember finishing a scenario
once. For its day it was certainly a good attempt at covering a
difficult subject, but the number of players required along with length
of time meant that it soon got consigned to the 'owned but never played'
shelf.
Since then my experience of it is has been limited to a couple of postal
games ten or so years ago - that's real post, not e-mail. The impression
I got at the time was that it was an immensely popular game played this
way and most referees had expanded on the original game. The ultimate
game I played was a 36 player variant with a expanded map covering much
the same territory as the original game, but with more areas. I had the
Byzantines, and for the century or so we ran before the 'zine running it
collapsed presided over a major decline!
Pet peeves: Conquest and ruling are easier in areas with the same
language and/or religion. Thus some empires never move in directions
that they did historically, and indeed have little incentive to do so.
eg England tends to eye up Scandinavia as an area for expansion rather
that France. Secondly, empires in a corner or edge position are safer
than those in the centre. The Byzantines have a very easy time in many
scenarios because there is nothing to threaten their eastern borders
except a stray crisp or spilt drink. In the expanded postal game I
played, there were Arab nations to threaten this border, but they had
the edge position so were strong. The Russian principalities rose to
prominence in this game because of a lack of off-board threats.
Anyway, this is a classic game, but I don't see myself giving it a go
again." AS
