November 2018 #Kickstarter & Preorder Update

 Total Games On Order = 22

(Wargames 18 / Boardgames 3 / RPG 1)

This month there were two new games ordered (AuZtralia and Paper Wars 84 – FINNISH CIVIL WAR) with AuZtralia already delivered!

Theoretically, six of these games should deliver before the end of the year. Theoretically…but looking more unlikely based on the more recent updates. I think I will be lucky to see three of them.

Academy Games (@Academy_Games)

Agents of Mayhem: Pride of Babylon (English first edition)

  • [Source / Order Date / Initial Delivery Date]
  • Kickstarter / Feb 2018 / Aug 2018
  • Per 13 Nov email now shipping Jan 2019

Conflict of Heroes: Storms of Steel! – Kursk 1943 (English third edition)

  • Preorder / Jul 2017 / Late 2017
  • Latest version of rules (v26) sent to ProofHQ 01 Nov
  • Latest version of Battle Cards (v7) to ProofHQ 26 Oct

Ad Astra Publishing

Squadron Strike: Traveller

  • Kickstarter / Mar 2016 / Jul 2016 LONG OVERDUE
  • PDF bundle delivered 09 Nov (still awaiting my boxed set)

According to an email late 15 Oct, this game was “supposed” to ship in the next few weeks. We. Will. See. (Am not holding my breathe….)

Canvas Temple Publishing (canvastemple.com)

WW2 Deluxe: The War in Europe (First edition)

  • Kickstarter / Aug 2018 / Dec 2018
  • Per 27 Oct email now at printer; press sample “sometime in next 30 days”

Compass Games (@compassgamesllc)

Battle Hymn Volume 2: Shiloh & Bentonville

  • Preorder / Aug 2018 / Mid 2019

Indian Ocean Region: South China Sea – Vol. II

  • Preorder / Aug 2018 / Mid 2019

Pacific Tide: The United States Versus Japan, 1941-45 (First Edition)

  • Preorder / Sep 2018 / Nov 2018 
  • Website now shows release date 15 Dec

**NEW** Paper Wars 84 – FINNISH CIVIL WAR by Brian Train

GMT Games (@gmtgames)

**Note that the GMT Games P500 program works differently. Games are not slotted for production until a threshold is met. Status per GMT Games website 18 Oct** 

Flashpoint: South China Sea (English first edition)

  • P500 / Feb 2018 / Status: 458 Not There Yet

Imperial Struggle (English first edition)

  • P500 / Nov 2017 / Status: 2866 Made the Cut Later 2019

MBT: 4CMBG (Expansion for MBT (Second Edition))

  • P500 / Jun 2018 / Status: 462 Not There Yet

Panzer: Game Expansion #4: France 1940 (First Edition)

  • P500 / Feb 2018 / Status: 720 At the Printer Nov-Dec 2018

Panzer: Game Expansion Set, Nr 1 – The Shape of Battle on the Eastern Front 1943-45

  • P500 / Oct 2017 / Status: 83 Not There Yet

Plains Indian War (First Edition)

  • P500 / Jun 2018 / Status: 331 Not There Yet 

Red Storm: The Air War Over Central Germany, 1987

  • P500 / Nov 2016 / Status: 631 Made the Cut, Art Department, Early 2019

Tank Duel: Enemy in the Crosshairs (English first edition)

  • P500 / Nov 2016 / Status: 786 Made the Cut Early 2019

Wing Leader: Eagles 1943-45 (GMT first edition)

  • P500 / Jan 2018 / Status: 529 Made the Cut

Wing Leader: Victories 1940-1942, 2nd Ed. Update Kit

  • P500 / Nov 2017 / Status: 423 Not There Yet

History in Action Games (on SquareSpace)

Tranquility Base (includes Tranquility Base: Soviet Moon Expansion)

  • Kickstarter / Oct 2018 / Mar 2019
  • Per update 31 Oct bonus Lunar Landers will be produced

Magic Vacuum Publishing (Cam Banks)

Cortex Prime: A Multi-Genre Modular Roleplaying Game

  • Kickstarter / May 2017 / April 2018
  • Cam Banks is moving to New Zealand in December and everything is pushed to after

Stronghold Games (@StrongholdGames)

**NEW**ARRIVED** AuZtralia: Martin Wallace (The Great Designer’s Series #11)

  • Preorder / Oct 2018 / Nov 2018

**ARRIVED** Terraforming Mars: Colonies (Terraforming Mars Expansion #4)

  • Preorder / Oct 2018 / Nov 2018

Worthington Publishing (@worth2004)

Hold the Line: The American Civil War (First Edition)

  • Kickstarter / Apr 2018 / Sep 2018
  • Per 14 Nov update now in printing; delivery in 30 days

Z-Man Games (@Zmangames_)

Pandemic: Fall of Rome

  • Preorder / Sep 2018 / 4Q18
  • Website shows “At the Printer”

Quick Stats

  • 32 Months: Longest time on “preorder” – Squadron Strike Traveller
  • 28 Months: Most Overdue – Squadron Strike Traveller
  • 10 Games: P500 from GMT Games
  • 6 Games: Preordered
  • 6 Games: Kickstarter
  • 2 Games: Delivered
  • 2 Games: New Order
Advertisements

Game of the Week – or – Talking a’Bot Tokyo Express: The Guadalcanal Naval Campaign, 1942 (Victory Games, 1988)

img_2594A few weeks back I looked at Pacific Fury: Guadalcanal, 1942 (Revolution Games, 2015) as my Game of the Week. In keeping with the Guadalcanal theme, and noting that the anniversary of the Battle of Guadalcanal is this week, I pulled another Guadalcanal title off my shelf. Sitting on my game shelves unplayed for many years was Tokyo Express – The Guadalcanal Naval Campaign: 1942 (Victory Games, 1988). Thirty years later I am happy to report that Tokyo Express is my latest grogpiphany. I enjoyed playing it so much I decided to deep dive into the game as my Game of the Week. Most importantly, Tokyo Express got me thinking about opponent AI and Bots in wargames.

What makes Tokyo Express unique is that it is a solitaire game. From the publisher’s blurb:

Tokyo Express is a solitaire and two-player simulation of the night naval battles off Guadalcanal. In the solitaire version, you command the US fleet, awaiting the emergence of the Tokyo Express from the darkness. You group your ships into formations, assigning them orders, and select the targets to attack with torpedoes and guns. Simple mechanisms control Japanese maneuvers and target assignments in a realistic manner. You never know when combat will occur until the explosion of torpedo salvos signals the presence of Japanese forces who detected you first and made their surprise attacks. The two-player version modifies the solitaire game and pits players against each other in an exciting recreation of World War II naval combat. Tokyo Express is graduated in complexity to help you learn the rules as you play.

When Tokyo Express was released in 1988 it garnered critical and fan praise by wining the 1988 Charles R. Roberts Award for Best WWII Board Game. I purchased the game new in 1988 but never really got the chance to play it as that was near the end of my college days and I didn’t have a wargaming group. Being a solitaire game should have made playing it easy but I only got the game to the table a few times before packing it away.

One gripe I often have with solitaire games is that the game mechanics often require learning above and beyond other games. This is in part because the solo player must not only execute their own actions, but that of the opponent too. In more modern games, the opponent is sometimes run by a Bot usually found on a player aid card. The more “intelligent” the Bot, the more difficult the Bot is to execute.

When I first reopened the box for Tokyo Express I was a bit startled by the rules. There are TWO Rules Booklets; a 24-page Basic Game Book and a 64-page (!) Standard Game Book. In addition to the rules booklets, there is a somewhat cryptic Battle Movement Display and 10 double-sided Charts and Tables Cards. I had totally forgotten about the 120 Gunnery Cards too! Of the 676 chits in the game, only 156 are Ship Counters while the remaining 520 are Information Markers. Looking at the array of contents, especially those two large Rules Booklets, made me doubt the back-of-the-box Complexity rating of Medium-Low to High. Based on rules alone and all those information markers, Tokyo Express looks to be a daunting beast to play!

Even after reading the Basic Game Book, I began to doubt my motivation for playing the game after all these years. However, after setting up the 3.9 Basic Scenario and pushing cardboard around I began to understand the simplicity of the game mechanics. The true core mechanic is Battle Movement and the Battle Movement Display. This is the heart of the “opponent AI” and the closest counterpart to a modern Bot in Tokyo Express. The Standard Game introduces more advanced rules but Mission Movement and Battle Movement remain the heart of the AI.

6y5JyovaR6qJEURhPZgt+Q
The heart of the AI – The Battle Movement Display for Tokyo Express

I think the reason some people claim the opponent AI in Tokyo Express is difficult is that it is hard to see the flow of the AI/Bot. The front of Card #8 has the Standard Sequence of Play Track with boxes for tracking which segment is happening but there is no rules cross-reference. I see in the forums that noted designer Jack Greene of Quarterdeck Games is planning on republishing Tokyo Express. One part that certainly could use an update is the graphic representation of the flow of the Bot.

Having played the Basic Game a few times I next turned to the Standard Game. That was a whole other beast….

(To be continued)

Featured image courtesy BoardGameGeek

#Zombies & #Cthulhu are not my usual thing but for #AuZtralia (@StrongholdGames, 2018) I will make an exception

pic3665306
Cthulhu (courtesy BGG.com)

In the boardgame community zombies are probably the most overused theme for a game. Right up there with Cthulhu. While many gamers obviously like these themes (based on how many games are made – and purchased) I don’t. Horror stories just don’t grab my attention and horror gaming even less so. Given my attitude, I never should have pre-ordered designer Martin Wallace’s AuZtralia: The Great Designers Series #11 (SchilMil Games/Stronghold Games, 2018). After all, the game has both zombies and Cthulhu! However, after listening to several podcasts discussing the game I succumbed to the Cult of the New and ordered it. I am very glad I did because AuZtralia is a good game that smartly uses a mixture of game mechanics to bring a theme I have no real interest in to life. It does such a good job that I find myself wanting to play AuZtralia despite my negative attitude towards the theme.

AuZtralia is thematically linked to an earlier Martin Wallace title, A Study In Emerald. ASiE is a game I will probably never play if for no other reason than both the theme and core mechanic (deck-building) do not appeal to me at all. AuZtralia, on the other hand, was described as something near a waro, a category of gaming I positively love. After getting the game in hand, I discovered that AuZtralia is not a waro because there is no player-vs-player combat possible. Instead, BoardGameGeek describes AuZtralia as an adventure/exploration game. The game actually mixes multiple game mechanics together. Using the BGG description I see the following game mechanics in play:

  • Resource Management – Build a port, construct railways, mine and farm for food.
  • Time Management – Everything you do in the game costs time, which is one of AuZtralia’s most valued resources.
  • Opponent AI – At a point in time, the Old Ones will wake up and become an active player. They begin to reveal themselves and move, with potentially devastating outcomes.
  • Semi-Cooperative -You’ll need to prepare wisely for the awakening and may have to co-operate with others to defeat the most dangerous Old Ones.
  • Combat/Hand Management – Military units will help you to locate, fight and defend against the nightmarish beings that may be lurking on your doorstep. As well as hardware, you’ll need to recruit some Personalities who have the skills and resources to help you.

Although I was expecting a waro I am happy with the game nonetheless. AuZtralia’s mix of game mechanics delivers a relatively quick-playing game that builds a play narrative that in turn fits the theme perfectly.

Time, the most precious of resources, is constantly ticking away. Actions cost not only resources (money, commodities) but most importantly time. The time track is used to not only show who goes next but also serves as a countdown timer for the game. This simple mechanic puts pressure on the players and both literally and figuratively builds towards a climatic showdown.

pic3860929
Old Ones Card  (prototype courtesy BGG.com)

One of the most interesting mechanics in AuZtralia is the Old Ones AI. A set of 40 Old Ones Cards is used for movement and combat. Being a wargamer, I focused in on the combat mechanic. There are no dice used for combat in AuZtralia; instead, the Old Ones Cards are used to allocate hits. The combat results feel plausible and build a narrative of desperate battles.

Even the solo version of AuZtralia is not really solo since the Old Ones are controlled by an AI. In my first solo game, I lost to the Old Ones by a large margin, mostly because I didn’t understand the strategy needed and the Scoring rules made me pay for it. In my second solo play, I barely eeked out a victory (52-49) even though I lost my Port and all my farms were blighted. The difference between victory or defeat was my Solo Objective Card which gave me a bonus 20 points for being a Railroader (place all Railroads on the board by game end). As the game was winding down I really felt the pressure of losing time and made the decision to forego protecting my farms and concentrated on building the last of my railroads. I placed my last railroad the turn before I lost my Port. The game made me feel like a heartless railroad tycoon absolutely determined to get the last rail of track laid regardless of the insanity happening around me. All very dramatic.

The RockyMountainNavy Boys have watched me as I played several games of AuZtralia solo. I think this game will be a perfect fit for our Game Night. AuZtralia is a game that should be playable in a few short hours but more importantly delivers a compelling narrative of play without a difficult set of rules to parse. AuZtralia really is an adventure/exploration game built on a solid foundation of mixed game mechanics that fit the theme and make it interesting to play.

Featured image courtesy Stronghold Games.

The Fall of Empire – Terraforming Mars: Colonies (FryxGames/Stronghold Games, 2018)

Terraforming Mars (FryxGames/Stronghold Games, 2016) is probably the RockyMountainNavy family’s favorite Eurogame. That said, I had shied away from larger expansions like Terraforming Mars: Venus Next (2017) because of time issues. We liked the 2018 Prelude expansion as it solved a (minor) issue we had with the game; game length. After the real success of Prelude, I ordered the most recent expansion, Colonies (2018), in a hope that it could find a sweet spot between Venus Next and Prelude. Our weekly Game Night found Terraforming Mars using the Corporate Era variant and Prelude and Colonies expansions on the table this week…

…and it was dissatisfying.

One of the reasons the RockyMountainNavy Boys and myself like Terraforming Mars is the narrative it builds during play. The game shows how different Corporations, each with a different way to build their empire (game engine), use them to bring a lifeless planet to life. The added bonus for us is the ability to play out this drama in less than three hours.

Our game this weekend took 3 hours 15 minutes to play (setup/breakdown was extra) – by far the longest Terraforming Mars game we have ever played. I see two major factors in this slow down; a bit of Analysis Paralysis as new Project Cards were encountered and a very slow engine build for all of us, even with the Prelude “jumpstart.”

Some people like “heavy” games with their longer playtimes. Games like Twilight Imperium (4th Edition) with a playtime rated up to 8 hours! Heck, even one of my favorite wargames, Fifth Frontier War (GDW, 1981), is rated at 6 hours. But for the RockyMountainNavy Game Night we prefer to keep game time in the 90-150 minute range so that with setup/breakdown we go no longer than 3 hours.

The second disappointment was the lack of game narrative. I just don’t feel that the Colonies expansion with its combination of new Corporations, Colony Tiles, and Project Cards, added meaningful dramatic narrative to the game. In other games I feel like my Corporation is my own littel empire I can build; in our game this weekend my Project Cards really felt more like “luck of the draw” rather than “building my empire.” The Youngest RockyMountainNavy Boy pointed out that the many Project Cards actually seems overwhelming – too many cards leading to too many choices which actually threatens the gaming narrative.

Now, it is very possible that we simply got a bad draw of random Colony Tiles and Project Cards and failed to make the best of what we got. I personally was trying to maximize my Actions and was running away on the Terraforming Rating as I tried to terraform. Maybe my problem is I actually “played” Terraforming Mars for the first time rather than “experience” the game.

By far the largest change Colonies brings to the RockyMountainNavy Gaming Family is a change in how we think about Terraforming Mars. I feel like Colonies may be the last expansion we buy for the game. If the game is played in the future, I think it may be the Corporate Era variant with the Prelude expansion; what we think about as the best fit in narrative and time.

Empires rise and fall. Terraforming Mars has a solid, respected reputation in the RockyMountainNavy household and has deservedly earned a lofty spot our pantheon of games. Unfortunately, Colonies highlighted one of the major reasons some games don’t fully earn our greatest accolades.

Featured image courtesy Stronghold Games.

Game of the Week – Pacific Fury: Guadalcanal, 1942 (Revolution Games, 2015) – Theme & Game Mechanics

I love war-games on naval warfare. The Admiralty Trilogy Games (Fear God & Dread Nought, Rising Sun, Harpoon) are amongst my favorite wargames of all time. I tend to like the more tactical-level of naval combat but always am on the lookout for games about other levels of war. I have most of the Avalanche Press Great War at Sea / Second World War at Sea series in my collection that try very hard to marry tactical combat resolution with an operational-level campaign game – and ends up doing neither very well. Thus, it was with both hope and trepidation that I picked up Pacific Fury: Guadalcanal, 1942 (Bonsai-Games/Revolution Games, 2015) a little over a year ago. I need not have worried; Pacific Fury delivers a highly thematic game using a set of game mechanics that doesn’t emphasize combat, but planning. If that sounds boring to you and you skip this title then you actually are missing out on a great game that is not only fun to play, but provides a unique view into a pivotal naval campaign in the South Pacific in late 1942.

Pacific Fury is played out over four turns with each turn composed of five phases. The simple sequence of play builds a strong campaign narrative each turn through the interaction of four key rules:

  • 8.2 Form Task Forces
  • 9.7 Counting Operations
  • 10.7 Applying Hits
  • 10.8 Return to Base (Forced Return)

8.2 Form Task Forces

This rule is really the heart of every turn. In this step players have to plan their turn – everything after this is execution, not planning. Players plan their turn by forming either Amphibious, Bombardment, or Carrier Task Forces (the Japanese can also form the special Tokyo Express). Each Task Force (TF) is placed in one of seven Operations Boxes. The Operations Boxes are the order in which the units can enter the map (9.1 Sortie) during the turn. Need a carrier? Better hope it’s the next up on the track!

9.7 Counting Operations

In every Operations Phase a TF can “Sortie” to enter the map. The TF in the lowest numbered box on the Operations Track enters the map. Other possible actions, “Move,” “Landing,” Naval Bombardment,” or “Air Strike” can only be used by TF already on the map. When taking an action other than Sortie, every TF in the current Operations Box is “bumped” up the track. It is possible to actually “bump” TF off the end of the Operations Track, meaning they won’t ever get a chance to enter the map (Sortie) that turn! This simple mechanic of Counting Operations creates a compelling dilemma for players; do you enter/sortie a TF or use one already on the map? Is the one on the map the right one needed for the mission? Do you lose time getting the right one in position? Or do you fight and maybe never get the right one into the battle?

10.7 Applying Hits / 10.8 Return to Base (Forced Return)

These two rules go hand in hand. 10.7 specifies that any ship hit but not sunk is “damaged” and placed on the Turn Track to return later as a reinforcement. This removal of the unit from battle occurs after each round of combat. With only four turns, damaged ships may, or may not, return in time for a later turn.

The Forced Return rule is also very important. Under Forced Return, the attacking TF MUST return to base after the second round of combat or after the first round if there are no targets. This means attacking TF never hold ground. A defending TF that suffers no hits in either round of combat may remain. However, if the defending TF suffers even one hit in combat it MUST return to base. Combat in Pacific Fury becomes a game of damaging, not sinking, ships. Sure, sinking a ship is best (it cannot return) but often times it is enough simply to damage a ship and force a TF to return to base.

These four rules make Pacific Fury a much different naval combat game from many others. The game mechanics do a very credible job of reflecting the theme of planning a months-worth of operations by forcing the player to sequence the arrival of their forces. The challenge is not only to sequence their arrival, but to do so while trying to ensure the right units are available when needed. It is very easy to build one mega-TF with all the carriers together that will sweep the sea areas early in the turn…but once it attacks it returns to base and leaves the map – potentially depriving another TF of vitally needed cover.

In Pacific Fury choices really matter. The choice of what ships go into what TF, the choice of which Operations Box a TF is placed, the choice of what action to take, the choice to engage in combat – every choice matters. By emphasizing planning, the real objective of the campaign is brought to the front. The game highlights quite clearly that it is not the number of ships sunk that matters, but only who controls Henderson Field at the end of the game. The winner in Pacific Fury will be the player who plans the use of their dwindling forces the best.

Game of the Week – Pacific Fury: Guadalcanal, 1942 (Revolution Games, 2015) – Out of the Bag Impression

Almost exactly a year before this post, I wrote my thoughts on Pacific Fury: Guadalcanal, 1942 (Bonsai-Games/Revolution Games, 2015). In the time since, the game has landed on my table four times, including three times in the past two days. Every time I play the game I fall more in love with the simple design and totally enjoy the campaign narrative every game delivers.

At first glance, the game doesn’t look like much. Pacific Fury is a simple folio (bagged) game with a paper 11’x17″ map, 50 counters, an eight page rule book (double columns), and a cover sheet.

Map

Nicely done, save for a few spelling errors and holding boxes that are too small. That is not a problem, as stukajoe  was kind enough to upload a print-it-yourself replacement.

Counters

Apparently, I have the published version with “Japanese” counters where the ends of the ships are cut off. Personally, I am not sure one really needs the full-length ships given how small the counters are. What Pacific Fury really needs are blocks instead of counters!

Rule Book

According to 12.0 CREDITS, Scott Muldoon, recently famous as co-designer of Cataclysm: A Second World War (GMT Games, 2018) did the rules translation. As good a job as he did, certain sections of the rules, like 10.0 COMBAT, require a very careful reading to catch all the nuances. To help myself when playing, I turned the eight pages of rules into seven flowcharts that step me thru the turn and each combat type. I probably could use an eighth page to extract the Opposed Landing Table for 9.6 Tokyo Express and the Sunk Table in 10.7 Applying Hits but seeing as those are the only two tables not on the map it seems like overkill to add an extra page!

Playing Time

According to the publisher and BoardGameGeek, Pacific Fury is rated at 60-120 minutes. In my plays I tend towards the low end of that number, and when playing against my arch-nemesis “Mr. Solo” and using my flowcharts I can get the game down to as little as 30 minutes. This means I can try (and retry) many different strategies. As I will discuss in a later post on Game Mechanics, it is the simple operational planning aspects of the design that really make the game shine.

Pacific Fury has become a must-pack game when I travel. I totally enjoy pulling the game out in the evening and running through a campaign. This works because the game has a small footprint but builds a large battle narrative. More about that in a near-future post!

The COO Viking – Raiders of the North Sea (English 2nd Edition, Graphill/Renegade Game Studios, 2017)

Or – a wargaming family’s journey into a true Eurogame.

The RockyMountainNavy Boys love Vikings. Not long ago we were in our local FLGS, Huzzah Hobbies, and my youngest saw Raiders of the North Sea (English 2nd Edition, Graphill/Renegade Game Studios, 2017) and it caught his attention. I eventually ordered it and the game arrived on Halloween and we slotted it for play on Saturday night. However, the Boys got done with all their homework and chores early enough on Thursday that they asked to learn the game.

According to BoardGameGeek rankings, Raiders of the North Sea is a very strong game with an average rating of 7.8. At the time of this post it was ranked 104th overall and 73rd in the strategy category. The publisher’s blurb certainly makes Raiders of the North Sea sound interesting:

Raiders of the North Sea is set in the central years of the Viking Age. As Viking warriors, players seek to impress the Chieftain by raiding unsuspecting settlements. Players will need to assemble a crew, collect provisions and journey north to plunder gold, iron and livestock. There is glory to be found in battle, even at the hands of the Valkyrie. So gather your warriors, it’s raiding season!

Raiders of the North Sea is a Eurogame using a worker placement mechanism. Every turn players use their worker (err…Viking) to Work or Raid. Workers Vikings come in three colors and not every action space is accessible by all colors. Players start with the black Viking which is the most common color. A white Viking is is most powerful with access to the best spaces. There is also a gray Viking that is more versatile than the black Viking but cannot access the better spaces like the white one. Each turn players get two actions; the first uses the Viking in their hand which is placed on the board and the second is from another Viking taken from the board into their hand.

Like so many Eurogames there is little actual player interaction. A few cards have a “take that” effect on another player but it usually is limited to taking a few items, trading cards Townfolk, or at worst swapping a worker Viking on the board.

Raiders of the North Sea is rated at 60-90 minutes. In our first game, which took nearly 2 hours as we learned, we quickly discovered the game can drag. The turns may be quick but the game is not. I think this is because there is a limit to the number of cards, coins, and Townfolk/Hired Crew you can have in your hand or on the table. This means your “game engine” has a governor on it. It takes a few rounds to assemble your team Hired Crew and gather Provisions to make a Raid. That assumes you get the right color worker in your hand at the right time….

After playing the game and considering it, I have two major problems with Raiders of the Lost Sea. One is the game, the other is me.

pic3816483
Courtesy BGG.com

First, Raiders of the North Sea appears to hit the Viking theme to a T. The artwork is highly evocative of the theme (even if it is a little cartoonish). However, the use of the worker placement game mechanic doesn’t fit what I expected in a Viking game. Sure, the reality is that Vikings needed to do more than just raid and plunder (i.e Work) but I want to Raid!  In the end, the Viking worker placement mechanic actually doesn’t support the theme. The players are nothing more than a Chief Operating Officer (COO) of a unit trying to organize their workers Vikings by Working in the town and occasionally getting out of the office Raiding. Indeed, the players are not really in charge as they need to make offerings to the CEO Chieftain!

Secondly, Raiders of the North Sea shows me that the RockyMountainNavy Boys and myself are more waro-gamer than Eurogamer. Truth be told, I am a wargamer first and a waro-gamer second. There are a many thematic Eurogames we like such as Ticket to Ride, Scythe, Firefly: The Game, or Battlestar Galactica: The Boardgame. Given our druthers playing a good waro is the most satisfying. Unlike 878: Vikings – Invasions of England (Academy Games, 2017) the core game mechanic in Raiders of the North Sea fails to create a compelling gaming narrative of Viking raids that we can immerse ourselves into and enjoy.

box-hero
Courtesy auztralia.net

Now, I am not ready to trade away Raiders of the North Sea just yet. I think it has a place in our collection, just not the prominent role that I was expecting given the ratings and hype around the game. Our reaction to this game does make me worry about another game I have on pre-order, AuZtralia (Stonghold Games, 2018). There is alot of buzz about that Martin Wallace title and I jumped at it because it was described as a waro. I certainly hope it is.