#FirstImpressions – #1754Conquest by @Academy_Games

On the table for this weekend’s RockyMountainNavy Family Game Night was a full 4-player game of 1754 Conquest: The French and Indian War (Academy Games, 2017). I usually do a “first impressions” post after playing a game for the first time and I guess this posting is no real exception. Well, except that since 1754 Conquest is part of the Birth of America-series and we have previously played 1775 Rebellion and 878 Vikings, we actually have a great familiarity with the basic game system. So this is more of a “ongoing thoughts” after the first play of another game in the series. Bottom Line: 1754 Conquest is a great family wargame and beautiful on the table.

Like other games in the Birth of America/Europe-series, 1754 Conquest is team-play, strategic-level of conflict, lite-rules wargame. The core gameplay is the same; Reinforcements, Movement/Event Card play, Battles, and End Turn. 1754 Conquest introduces several advanced rules (that are changes from 1775 Rebellion and 1812 Invasion) including Strategic Forts, Muster Areas, and Harbors. The later two determine where reinforcements arrive (British and French Regulars enter at Harbors, British Colonials and French-Canadiens enter at Muster Points). The Fort Rule thematically captures the important roll of forts in this war.

banner-for-webpage_1754-conquest-v2
Courtesy AcademyGames.com

Beyond the familiar gameplay, another part of 1754 Conquest that captures my attention (literally) is the fantastic art. I recently listened to a podcast (can’t find it now) that talked to Steve Paschal, the artist who did the cover of 1754 Conquest. Mr. Paschal has done lots of work for Academy Games, and his work is quickly becoming a favorite of mine. The cover of 1754 Conquest is by far my favorite because I think it captures so much of the spirit of the game. Not only is the cover nice, but all the components nicely compliment each other and make the game extremely beautiful to lay out on the table and adds immensely to the joy of play.

Playing games, and especially wargames, has an important role in the education of the RockyMountainNavy Boys. When playing 878 Vikings, I discovered just how much the Oldest RMN Boy loved Viking history, and how much the Youngest RMN wants to learn. Personally, I have a love of early American colonial history and the French & Indian War and American Revolution are amongst my favorite periods of history to study. So this time we did something a bit different and I read aloud from the Historical Notes at the back of the rulebook. The Boys were fascinated learning about George Washington’s role in the war, and were awed when they realized that their mother’s favorite movie, The Last of the Mohicans, is on the board (Fort William Henry). When I got to the section labeled The French Plan, Youngest RMN Boy stopped me and suggested we not read further until after the game so they could explore the situation for themselves. To say I was proud is an understatement!

The game ended after Round 4 with the British having played both their Treaty Cards. The result was a very narrow victory for the British, 6-5. Total playtime was a very short 70 minutes, which is very fast for us in a first-play of a new game. Again, 1754 Conquest is not a truly “new” game to us, and the fact we have familiarity with the core game mechanics meant the introduction of the new rules did not slow down our learning of the game.

1754 Conquest is less complex than 878 Vikings due to the absence of Invasion and Leader rules. It is more complex than 1775 Rebellion given the different reinforcement rules and forts. But in no way can I say that 1754 Conquest is better than or lesser than either of those other games. 1754 Conquest is superior in what it delivers; an easy to learn, simple to play, team wargame that captures the feel of the French & Indian War period. Additionally, it is a beautiful game!

Advertisements

#FirstImpressions – 878 Vikings: Invasions of England (@AcademyGames, 2017)

This Christmas was a very merry Academy Games Christmas in the RockyMountainNavy household. Our Birth of America collection was completed with 1754 Conquest: The French & Indian War and 1812: The Invasion of Canada. The first of the Birth of Europe titles, 878 Vikings: Invasion of England also landed under the tree. This weekend, 878 Vikings found it way to the RMN Game Night in a full 4-player scenario. 878 Vikings delivers a fun family game that strikes a nice balance between playability and teaching.

Academy Games calls the Birth-series “light grand tactical play.” In reality, these games are light strategic play with little “tactical” elements. In 878 Vikings, two factions of Viking invaders are trying to conquer England which is defended by the Housecarl and Thegn. Each turn, a new Viking leader will invade and try to conquer shires while the English try to hold back the Viking hordes.

It is actually a bit rare for all three RMN Boys to play on a game night. This is usually because the oldest RMN Boy, a die-hard video gamer, often chooses to pass on boardgames. However, in this case it was he who wanted the game because he absolutely LOVES Vikings. Thus, the teams were Oldest RMN Boy – Viking Beserkers, Youngest RMN Boy – Viking Norsemen, Middle RMN Boy – Housecarl, and myself as Thegn.

As we were setting up the game it became very apparent that the game had struck a cord with the oldest RMN Boy. Without reference to any materials he was talking about the history of various Viking Leaders. Youngest RMN Boy had pulled out his Guts & Glory: The Vikings book and was trying to keep up with his older brother. You have to understand something about these two; the Youngest RMN considers himself the smartest and was not prepared for his older brother to be so far ahead of him in Viking knowledge.

This “conflict” between the two of them continued as play began. Youngest RMN considers himself a bit of a tactician and usually leads his middle brother in plan development when they play against me. This time, it was literally like watching two Viking factions arguing amongst themselves.

The initial Viking invasion went well but was stopped in the south. Aggressive Thegn play (by me) and a Reinforcement rather than another full invasion slowed the Viking advance and allowed the English to take advantage of Viking overreach. The first invasion was eventually defeated (the leader eliminated) but at the cost of many Thegn which weakened further defenses. A lucky Saxon Navy card play forced the next Viking invasion to land in a less-than-optimal location and gave time for the English defense to stabilize. When the next Viking invasion arrived, an absolutely heroic stand on the beach (with Middle RMN rolling 5 hits on 6 dice) gave the invaders pause and made them adopt a less aggressive strategy. One feature that (happily) surprised us was the many Event Cards that feature some sort of betrayal. Both Viking Treaty of Wedmore cards were out by the end of Round IV, meaning Round V would be decisive. This was also the turn of Alfred the Greats arrival and when Housecarl went first they took back two Viking controlled shires. At the end of Round V, the Vikings only controlled 8 shires, short of necessary victory.

All the RMN Boys have played 1775 Rebellion: The American Revolution which is the first of the Birth of America series featuring the least complicated rules. Although the basic game mechanics are similar in 878 Vikings, all agreed that the Leader rules and invasions makes 878 Vikings play very differently. In this case the difference is welcomed as 878 Vikings plays very thematically appropriate. The rules overhead is very light but delivers a powerful gaming experience. As an added bonus, the Viking knowledge that Oldest RMN Boy possesses has challenged Youngest RMN to go back and carefully reread his Viking book and dig into the historical notes in 878 Vikings. In this way, 878 Vikings has achieved a goal that Mrs. RMN and I both strive for in gaming; teach the Boys.

So as 2017 comes to a close I have to give a big shout-out to Academy Games for delivering not only a fun game, but one that makes my boys hungry to learn more. Such is the power of gaming. Here is looking forward to many more learning chances from gaming in 2018.

#FirstImpressions – #AgricolaMasterofBritain from @Hollandspiele

Tom Russell of Hollandspiele is quickly becoming a favorite game designer of mine. I absolutely love his Supply Lines of the American Revolution: The Northern Theater, 1775-1777 with it’s look at the logistics of the American Revolution. I had seen some buzz about his solo game, Agricola: Master of Britain, so when it came on sale I ordered it.

At its core, A:MoB is an area control game. As Agricola, the player must try to pacify the unruly people of Brittania. Military conquest in only one option; Romanization and bribery and diplomacy are also useful.

To represent the unknown and constantly shifting allegiances of various tribes, a three-cup system (Friendly – Unfriendly – Hostile) is used to pull chits that are blindly moved between cups by the game engine. These blind moves really make the solo game experience intense. The other part of the game I like is a Tom Russell design nugget: you can lose the game before the end of the campaign. In A:MoB this is represented by several sudden death conditions like losing ANY battle or not gaining enough Victory Points in a turn.

In my first game this is exactly what happened to me. In the second turn I was one VP short of the necessary amount but I purchased the extra point and was able to continue. Unfortunately, this strategy did not work by the end of the fourth turn where I had fallen too far behind and was sacked by Rome!

Usually, my gaming interests skew away from pure solo designs because I tend to find them formulamatic and uninteresting. I have to say that Agricola: Master of Britain is different and I feel it is because of those sudden death conditions. Having these in-game makes every turn feel important and the experience becomes one of not just getting to the end, but assuring you get to the end of the campaign.

Hollandspiele rates Agricola: Master of Britain as a Medium-weight game. I am not sure why this is as the game engine is actually very straight-forward and easy to learn. The rulebook and charts could use a little bit better organizing and cross-referencing. Oh, all the information is there; it can just be confusing as the chart on the back of the book has not rules numbers to reference, or the Agricola’s Actions, Legion Actions, and Housekeeping Phase lists are arranged on the page in an order not related to the sequence of play (i.e. I would have liked to see them reversed). These are minor quibbles; the game is excellent and can still be played easily (albeit with a bit of attention).

Of note, as I write this post Hollandspiele is having a special offer for a mounted boards for Agricola: Master of Britain. Although the printed paper boards are perfectly serviceable, being able to pick up a mounted board for the same cost is a real bargain and will only make this game a more enjoyable experience in play.

Another challenge Agricola: Master of Britain delivers is in the next game, Charlemagne: Master of Europe. This looks to be similar to A:MoB but in addition to tribes there are “intriguers.” As the publisher’s blurb states:

Like its spiritual predecessor Agricola, Master of Britain, this game models the consent of the governed (or lack thereof) with a series of three opaque containers, the contents of which secretly change in reaction to the actions you take. Do something that people like, and the populace leans friendly. Do something they don’t, and they lean in the other direction, inviting rebellions from within and invasions from without. Over the course of your long reign, these subtle adjustments will pile up, resulting in a game state that reacts to you and reflects the character and effectiveness of your rule. This makes it a solitaire gaming experience in which your decisions matter. You’re not fighting against the vagaries of an event deck, trying to outsmart a braindead AI, or finding loopholes in a flowchart. Your job is to govern a vast and fractious empire with a savvy combination of wisdom and ruthlessness.

Tom Russell is boasting here about how his solo game design is different. The reality is he can because Agricola: Master of Britain shows it is true.

#WargameWednesday – A Conventional Revolution #AmericanRevolutionTriPack (GMT Games, 2017) #FirstImpressions

As much as I am an Old Grognard, I missed out on more than a few games over the past 38 years. After moving to the East Coast of the US, I took an interest in the American Revolution. So last year when I saw that GMT Games was going to publish the American Revolution Tri Pack with the battles of Saratoga, Brandywine, and Guilford I jumped on the P500. It recently delivered and I have started playing the games. My first impression of the game series is that it is a welcome conventional hex-‘n-counter wargame that is simple and fast playing.

The American Revolution Tri Pack (TriPack) is actually four battles. It updates Saratoga (first published 1998), Brandywine (first published 2000), and Guilford (first published 2002) that includes the bonus Battle of Eutaw Springs. TriPack has two 22″x34″ double-sided mounted mapboards for the four battlefields with each battle getting one counter sheet (176 chits). There is a Series rulebook and each battle gets an Exclusive rulebook and player aid card. This really is four games in one box! First impressions are important, and out-of-the-box TriPack is impressive; the high quality of the components is ready apparent.

The heart of TriPack is a good ol’fashion hex-‘n-counter wargame. Initiative, morale, movement, and fire combat mechanics will be very familiar to many veteran warmers. The Series rulebook is easy to follow and understandable. It incorporates nearly 20 years of errata making the game mechanics pretty tight. Tight, but relatively uncomplicated. GMT rates TriPack as “Medium” complexity in exactly the middle of their scale. For the Series rules alone, I would rate it a bit below center as the game mechanics are logical and very straight forward. Where it may creep up a bit in the complexity scale is the many die roll modifiers (DRM) in various combat actions, but the player aid cards have them all captured making it easy to step thru combat resolution. If anything, TriPack suffers from the lack of a Series player aid card; each battle gets a card but some of the Series-generic rules (like combat effects) are only found in the rulebook. Battlecards add tactical flavor and are a welcome additional mechanic that is layered in without harsh rules overhead.

The Exclusive rules for each battle add nice flavor, but without major rules overhead. I look forward to playing the Brandywine Intelligence rules (“Muddying the Waters of Brandywine Creek”) and I really enjoyed the Looting rules in Eutaw Springs. These battle-specific rules really bring out the distinct character of each battle. It also doesn’t hurt that each Exclusive rulebook has very good historical notes making reading about the battle more than half the fun.

At first I was worried that the mapboards were too large for the battles. For each countersheet only about 1/2 are actual combatants, split amongst the two sides (Guilford/Eutaw Springs use only a half-sheet for each game or 88 counters). Thus, each player “gets” really no more than ~20-40 units each. Even in larger battles, with up to 80 units on the board, stacking rules will allow some to occupy the same hex. For each battle, the major area of combat seemed confined to about a third of the board. I was worried that the games would devolve into a long, boring approach battle with a major action confined to a small space. Fortunately, in play I found the balance between scale of units, distance, and time work out well and the approach battle goes quickly (and interestingly) with the major battle not always where one expects it.

IMG_0231
Battle of Eutaw Springs

The smaller counter density enables faster playing games. I played the Battle of Eutaw Springs for my first solo/rules exploration experience partially because the counter density looked to be the smallest. From set-up to finish was less than 2.5 hours. The simple rules and handy player aid cards made stepping through turns quick and efficient. In the RockyMountainNavy household, table space is a bit limited so getting a game down, played, and put away in an afternoon (or evening) is most welcome. TriPack meets this desired requirement quite well.

Although I consider the RockyMountainNavy Boys to be gamers, I am shy to play the more “grognard” games in my collection. They are quite happy with “light” wargames like Memoir ’44 or 1775 – Rebellion. We do play Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! (second edition) but it is a medium-complexity wargame using many “modern” game mechanics making it a less-than-conventional hex-‘n-counter wargame.  TriPack, with its easy rules, lower counter density, and handy player aids may just be the hex-‘n-counter “gateway” game to move them towards the more grognard part of my collection.

 

#FirstImpressions #TheExpanseBoardGame (WizKids, 2017)

From the publisher’s blurb:

The Expanse, a board game based on the Syfy television series of the same name, focuses on politics, conquest and intrigue similar to the board game Twilight Struggle, although with a shorter playing time. The card-driven game uses key images from the show, along with action points and events that allow players to move and place “Fleets” and “Influence”. (BGG)

IMG_2055
Authors collection

It is not often that a publisher’s blurb captures a game so completely as WizKids has done for The Expanse Board Game (TEBG). After purchasing the game and playing it a bit, I am torn in my feelings for the game. To me, TEBG feels very much like a “classic” Eurogame – in a negative connotation of the definition; great mechanics with a pasted on theme.

The BoardGameGeek Wiki defines Eurogames as follows:

“Eurogames (or alternatively, Designer Board Games or German-Style Board Games) are a classification of board games that are very popular on Board Game Geek (BGG). Though not all eurogames are European and not all of them are board games, they share a set of similar characteristics. A game need not fit ALL the criteria to be considered a Eurogame.

Most Eurogames share the following elements:

  • Player conflict is indirect and usually involves competition over resources or points. Combat is extremely rare.
  • Players are never eliminated from the game (All players are still playing when the game ends.)
  • There is very little randomness or luck. Randomness that is there is mitigated by having the player decide what to do after a random event happens rather than before. Dice are rare, but not unheard of, in a Euro.
  • The Designer of the game is listed on the game’s box cover. Though this is not particular to Euros, the Eurogame movement seems to have started this trend. This is why some gamers and designers call this genre of games Designer Games.
  • Much attention is paid to the artwork and components. Plastic and metal are rare, more often pieces are made of wood.
  • Eurogames have a definite theme, however, the theme most often has very little to do with the gameplay. The focus instead is on the mechanics; for example, a game about space may play the same as a game about ancient Rome.”

TEBG hits all of these points, but with mixed results.

TEBG does a good job of capturing the feel (theme) of The Expanse TV series. Using Eurogame mechanics the players place influence (tracked using small wooden cubes) on various bases throughout the Solar System. To place influence usually requires a fleet in the orbital above the base. Although the game mechanics are simple, each player/faction has unique asymmetric abilities which allow them to “break the rules” in thematically appropriate ways. For instance, while is usually cost 1 Control Point (CP) to take the second action card, the United Nations (UN) player has Planning as their initial Technology which means the first two action card slots cost 0 CP. As the game progresses, more thematically-appropriate technologies are gained by each faction.

“Combat” in TEBG consists of removing influence or fleets (which can be rebuilt). This is not a cooperative game; ruthlessly building your influence while reducing your opponents is the real core mechanic.

TEBG uses much artwork from The Expanse TV Series. Although this makes the game appear like The Expanse, some of the artwork does not have a clear connection to gameplay. For instance, the action card Scopuli can be used for 2 Action Points or as an Event by the Martian Congressional Republic (MCR) or UN. The Event states, “Place 1 influence on each Saturn Base where you do not have influence.” I do not see how this is related to the Scopuli in the TV series which is [SPOILER ALERT]:

…a Martian light transport freighter from Eros that was in service to the OPA. One of its crew was Julie Mao and it was attacked by the Stealth Ship Anubis. It was later used as a lure in the ambush and destruction of the Canterbury.

To me this is a thematic disconnect. I think Scopuli should be used as an Event to the advantage of the Outer Planets Alliance (OPA) or ProtoGen. Granted, most of the action cards have a picture that ties well to the event described, but I think to make the connection one must be a real fanboy. If a player is not knowledgeable of The Expanse the immersion into the game will not be served by the graphics.

The full impact of all these design and graphics decisions is an area control game that looks like The Expanse. The game comes across as very functional; simple game mechanics with some asymmetric differences in a kinda staid, plain package.

Finally, I have an issue with the component quality in TEBG. The board uses a non-glossy finish that, while good for pictures, has already shown rubs and scratches after just two plays. I also have a major problem with the Quick Start Rules which use white text on a semi-transparent background over a starscape page. The font, smaller than that used in the main rule book and the third layer of printing has lost all its edges and is nearly impossible to read.

It is going to be interesting when The Expanse Board Game lands on the Family Game Night table. All of the RockyMountainNavy Boys know a bit about The Expanse, but none are fanboys, Thus, the success of this game will stand not on theme alone (which appears to be much of the buzz around the game) but on its ability to blend graphics and gameplay into a enjoyable gaming experience.

 

#FirstImpressions #TerraformingMars (@StongholdGames, 2016)

This week’s Saturday #GameNight brought Terraforming Mars (Stronghold Games, 2016) to the RockyMountainNavy gaming table. This game, currently ranked #12 on the BoardGameGeek “Hotness,” has been out for a while. The game was strongly recommended by Uwe Eickert at @AcademyGames to me way back in August as a good engine-building, resource management game. I was a bit slow to acquire (hey, even I have a budget…as much as Mrs. RMN tells me I exceed it) and only this month got the game to the table.

As the publisher’s blurb for Terraforming Mars (TM) puts it:

In the 2400s, mankind begins to terraform the planet Mars. Giant corporations, sponsored by the World Government on Earth, initiate huge projects to raise the temperature, the oxygen level, and the ocean coverage until the environment is habitable. InTerraforming Mars, you play one of those corporations and work together in the terraforming process, but compete for getting victory points that are awarded not only for your contribution to the terraforming, but also for advancing human infrastructure throughout the solar system, and doing other commendable things.

Game Play

Our first game was 3-player with each using the Beginner Corporations. There were several rules mistakes made including a major faux pas of not counting budget right the first few Generations (turns). This is because the game arrived Thursday and I rushed it to the table after just reading the rulebook twice and only looking at one How-to-Play video. I also failed to adequately explain the various Milestones and Awards meaning that some were missed or scored differently than all players understood. That said, the game is not overly complex and the problems we had are the fault of me rushing and not a negative reflection of the rules. Once we got the budget right the game started to click right along; I think playing in the advertised 60-90 minutes may be possible.

Cards & Actions

The cards in TM are also incredibly thematic; more then a few times we had short halts in the game to discuss what the events on the cards were describing. RMN Mom really likes listening to this part of our game nights because it demonstrates the teaching power of games. The incredible variety of Actions (Standard or Cards) ensures that there is no “one way” to win and that no two games of TM will ever be alike.

Components

I had read some criticism about the component quality in TM. Suffice it to say that I generally agree with the critics. I will definitely be sleeving these cards. The RMN Boys and I are already looking at GamerTrayz to replace the Player Mats. We do like the footprint of the game; this game can be played on a 3’x3′ card table if necessary.

Component quality aside, Terraforming Mars is a spectacular game that has already earned a repeat slot in our family game night line-up. It is also another tangible piece of evidence of my evolution as a gamer. One year ago if you asked me if I was ever going to play an engine-building game (loosely) based on science about terraforming a planet I would of asked how many space battleships were involved. These days I cannot see our family game night without games like Terraforming Mars landing on the table because of their incredible game play and teaching potential.

#FirstImpressions #SupplyLinesoftheAmericanRevolution from @Hollandspiele

IMG_1917
Initial Setup

Supply Lines of the American Revolution: The Northern Theater, 1775-1777 (Hollandspiele, 2016) is a very interesting design. Supply Lines looks like a wargame, but plays more like a Eurogame – and its not just because it has little wooden cubes!

First off, Supply Lines has a very eurogame-themed focus – logistics. Many games have supply rules (some too many rules) but none in my collection have placed logistics in this sort of prominent role. Before you go off saying logistics is unimportant, take a look at a few of these historical quotes:

“Gentlemen, the officer who doesn’t know his communications and supply as well as his tactics is totally useless.”
– Gen. George S. Patton, USA

“Forget logistics, you lose.”
– Lt. Gen. Fredrick Franks, USA, 7th Corps Commander, Desert Storm

“Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics.”
– Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC (Commandant of the Marine Corps) noted in 1980

“Logistics is the stuff that if you don’t have enough of, the war will not be won as soon as.”
– General Nathaniel Green, Quartermaster, American Revolutionary Army

“There is nothing more common than to find considerations of supply affecting the strategic lines of a campaign and a war.”
– Carl von Clausevitz

“Leaders win through logistics. Vision, sure. Strategy, yes. But when you go to war, you need to have both toilet paper and bullets at the right place at the right time. In other words, you must win through superior logistics.”
– Tom Peters – Rule #3: Leadership Is Confusing As Hell, Fast Company, March 2001

“Logistics sets the campaign’s operational limits.”
– Joint Pub 1: Joint Warfare of the Armed Forces of the United States

“Logistics … as vital to military success as daily food is to daily work.”
– Capt. Alfred Thayer Mahan, Armaments and Arbitration, 1912

My copy of Supply Lines is the boxed version that comes with a 12-page rulebook, a 22″x17″ map, 88 counters, 2 dice, and 100 wooden cubes. The game has only one scenario (campaign) beginning late 1775 and progressing to the end of 1777 with 5 turns each year. Armies are represented by generic leaders (few) and numbered chits that represent  the size of the force with no relation to any real unit organization or echelon.

At the beginning of each turn supply is generated. Supplies come in two forms, Food (green cubes) and War Supplies (natural wooden cubes). Supply is only generated in cities that are occupied by armies. Once generated, supplies can be moved, but only if the “supply line” exists. When armies move they need Food (one cube per four armies or portion thereof). When armies fight, they gain “Battle Die” based on the number of War Supplies they expend. There are other rules which limit the amount of supplies that can be held in cities or that an army can carry with them.

In Supply Lines the Patriot player is trying to reach the Treaty of Alliance which represents the entry of France into the war. The Crown player is trying to take Victory Cities and deny the Patriot player from moving the Support Track his direction. This is where Supply Lines gets REALLY interesting, because in order to move the Support Track the Patriot player needs to win battles but for the Crown player to take Victory Cities he will need to win battles (moving the Support Track away from the Treaty of Alliance) which means calling call on reinforcements, which moves the Support Track in favor of the Patriot player. Of course, there is never enough Food to move ones armies, and it always seems to be the case that there is not enough War Supplies on hand when the battle is joined. Some battles can be big armies but few Battle Die because there are not enough War Supplies. In Supply Lines, battle favors the defender who often only has to expend a single War Supply for a Battle Die whereas the Attacker not only has to expend Food to move an army into battle but also two (2) War Supply for each Battle Die.

Thematically, I find Supply Lines evocative of the history published about the American War of Independence. The Patriots were always short of troops and trying to muster the militia (reinforcements in the game) while constantly fighting the specter of enlistments ending (seen here in a special Continental Army Disbands rule during Winter Turns). The Crown player either has to come overland from Canada or use his command of the sea to transport troops from port to port.

IMG_1918
Early 1777 – Patriots have yet to Declare Independence while Crown player has four Victory Cities – and will go on to win. Note lots of Food but few War Supplies available.

In my first game the campaign went poorly for the Patriots. Pushing out aggressively, they lost a few battles shifting the Support Track in a negative way. This gave the Crown player room to call for reinforcements while the Patriots had yet to reach the Declaration of Independence – and get more Patriot reinforcements. The Patriot player tried to hold New York City, but a large, well supplied amphibious force landed on Long Island, marched overland to the city, and after a pitched battle dislodged the Patriot defenders. From this point on the Patriots, unable to muster forces in the months of 1777, simply did not have enough force – not to mention War Supplies – to eject the Crown player from a Victory City.

Supply Lines’ focus on logistics highlights an important aspect of the American Revolution. Playing this game one gets a sense of the challenge George Washington faced in the dark days of 1777 – how to keep an Army together when you have little food, fewer war supplies, and expiring enlistments. The one blessing is that the Crown faced many of the same problems – not having enough supply at the point of battle.

The game mechanics of Supply Lines make this game worthy of replay even though there is only one campaign setup. In my first game, battles drained War Supplies at an incredible rate. But after a few combats I realized that, just like in history, it is not necessary to destroy the enemy simply to get them to retreat. In this game, retreating comes when the Defender is defeated (has less forces after the battle) AND fails a Morale Roll (where the Defender has to roll the force differential or more on a d6) which makes them retreat.

I personally have grown very fond of Supply Lines after just one play. Not only is it evocative of the American Revolution, in terms of mechanics it is yet another “simply complex” game – simple in game mechanics but complex in strategy. I also think my appreciation of Supply Lines shows my shift in wargaming tastes. More on that later, but suffice it to day for now that I enjoy exploring the different challenge Supply Lines tees up for the players.

RockyMountainNavy Verdict – PLAY MORE!