Here's one I prepared earlier...

A quick introduction
Regular readers might remember my article 'Roleplaying as art? Not for me' from back in September 2006. Sometime thereafter, I realised that I was changing my mind. So, sometime last year, I wrote an article, recanting my previous opinion. I then lost interest in the subject, and the article wasn't published.

And just why have I finally decided to publish now? Because, as alert readers who've visited the site might've notice, I've started using facebook, the inspiration for which was my use of the widget which links your BGG account to your facebook account (BGG users can find this on their profile page). Looking for British gamers to network with, I met BGG's Angry Jedi, who turned out to be a fellow blogger. His I'm not Doctor Who has a title almost as snappy as my own! When you read the first post of Angry's that I read - Art/Fart, you'll see why I was prompted finally to post this piece from the rack where's it's been sat for at least a year.

I present the article exactly as it was written, so there's at least one reference to time which is out of joint. ;)

**********

It's art Jim, but not as we know it!
Remember, remember, what I wrote last September
Last year I wrote a post called 'Roleplaying as art? Not for me', in which I developed my basic criticisms of the idea that roleplaying games are a form of art. This was an issue which had been of interest to me one way or another for many years, but my taking it up at the time was motivated by Elliot Wilen's and John H. Kim's replies to an earlier post of mine on the same subject.

Those 2 articles, especially the 2nd, attracted more widespread attention and comment at the time than anything I've posted here at RD/KA! before or since. The reactions at the time were interesting.

Quite a few comments- eg. Eliot Wilen commenting on the Sept. 2006 piece, and others commenting on John Kim's notes on his replies to my posts- revolved around issues of semantic wrangling and of elitism. Eliot at least noted that the point at issue had to be about more than mere semantics, while both he and John shared the anti-elitism which underlay my arguments at the time. All the same I was left with the feeling way back then that neither of them had effectively come to grips with my core argument, which was a capsule sociohistorical account of how roleplaying games can't be art because they are part of the very 20th century cultural developments which have most decisively undermined the old 'high art' versus 'low culture' distinction which, I claimed, remains at the centre of artistic/cultural discussion these days. (This was a point more-or-less recognised by Thomas Robertson, in his own comment last September.)

If all of these comments were interesting, perhaps the most entertaining were those posted by Victor Gijsbers to his blog The Gaming Philosopher a few weeks later. Victor pronounced he found my article "infuriating", to which my immediate response was simple amusement.

I mean to say: I wrote what I thought was a fairly simple account of something I thought might be a bit controversial, but which would be ultimately hard to deny: namely that the artistic products of the high bourgeois period, and the theoretical reflections thereupon, were as much as an expression of the self-image of the bourgeoisie as they were of any genuine human or natural universality. Further, I asserted, from these flowed the distinction between 'high art' and 'low culture', which was the cultural world as seen from the viewpoint of that bourgeoise elite, and whose essential assumptions retain a strong influence to this very day.

Against this I tried to suggest that the past century or more of cultural development has rendered this dualistic conception increasingly bankrupt. This is partly because of its inherent elitism, which should offend the most basic egalitarian sensibility. It is also because the new cultural forms, eg. roleplaying games, simply cannot be understood through these outdated aesthetics. Metaphorically then: I was trying to argue that calling roleplaying games art amounts to trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Now OK, I knew at the time that I wasn't being at all original in the core sociohistorical part of my argument. If I thought I was being at all original (and I wasn't that bothered about originality really- I was just trying to get something off my chest, as bloggers do), it was in using this argument to say that roleplaying couldn't be art because roleplaying games are a quintessential product of cultural developments which I had argued were completely incompatible with the idea of art as defined above. Like I said: not terribly original really.

So you can imagine my surprise when I read Victor accusing me of all sorts of things I wasn't aware I'd written about: the death of beauty, consumerist dumbing-down, children not doing their homework, anarchy- oh lord- anarchy! I was bemused by how my short article had inspired such a tizz in Victor, but I'll admit it was satisfying enough to be a pebble in his little pond.

But something wasn't right
I didn't pursue the discussions prompted by my article very far last year. There were various reasons for this.

One was that I wasn't sure what the topic was worth. I mean to say: I was still running my WFRP campaign back then, and I was facing various issues about which I could've used some fruitful discussion. And that was one thing that I couldn't see coming out of any discussion about roleplaying and art: practical ideas which would help me actually improve my game.

Another problem I had with the discussion at the time was that it was tainted by the so-called 'war on the Swine' launched by that infamous internet self-publicist the RPGpundit. It was the Pundit's anti-Swine rants which had revived my interest in the whole debate about roleplaying games and art in the first place, and I thought that the RPGpundit has had one or two good points to make. But the longer the Pundit went on, stating and restating his same old points, posting and reposting his tired old diatribes, the more deranged I felt he was becoming as he sank ever deeper into his own private sump of vitriol.

So, when I posted my article last September, I was a bit disenchanted with the very notion of the debate I was joining because I was thoroughly fed up after too many months of pointless internet trolling. I wanted less heat and more light but wasn't sanguine that internet discourse could provide this to an effective degree which would make all the time spent at the monitor and keyboard at all worthwhile.

My doubts about the practical value of the debate about roleplaying and art, and my frustrations at the online culture in general were circumstantial though. There was a far more serious reason why I didn't follow through on the discussion last year: I was beginning to wonder if I really believed what I had written.

The seeds of this doubt had been in my mind all the time I was writing on the topic of roleplaying games and art. They go back to an article I first read online several years ago, 'I Have No Words & I Must Design', by noted games designer Greg Costikyan. A man who still commands my respect because of his RPG design work from the early 80's, Costikyan's opinion that games are- or can aspire to become- art was one that I could never quite put behind me.

It was Costikyan again who was responsible for the germination of the very seeds of doubt he'd been responsible for planting. This time it was his January 2007 article 'Super Columbine Massacre: Artwork or Menace?', written in defence of a controversial computer game. Costikyan's account of why a game like this one should be recognised as a work of art hit me right between the eyes: I simply didn't want to argue the toss with him on that one. I could see where I was heading already.

The inevitable flowering of my change of mind came in April, when Shamus posted 'Games Are Art' over on Twenty Sided, the home of the his wonderful DM of the Rings webtoon. After reading that article I not only knew that I'd changed my mind on the matter of roleplaying games and art, I also knew that sooner or later I'd be posting my recantation here at RD/KA!.

And the final countdown to this post started a couple of months ago, when I posted about the return of Katana in the supers game Bill ran. Writing about the genesis of the character, I talked of his creation being an act of "pure self expression". If you'd followed the original discussion you could easily've missed this remark made in passing, but the cat was out of the bag I felt, and I wanted to set the record straight as soon as possible.

And yet, strangely enough
So, I've accepted the proposition that roleplaying games are art. So what? Seriously: precisely what is this proposition worth? Exactly what does it contribute to our capacity to organise, play and enjoy our roleplaying? I have no idea myself. Commenting on my Sept. 2006 post, Jonathan Walton suggested 4 benefits:

1. Raises its social status in certain circles.
2. Enables the government funding occasionally enjoyed by our Nordic friends.
3. Sticks it to elitist art snobs.
4. Reclaims art for the geeks.

Without commenting on any one of these in particular, notice that they all have one thing in common: having nothing to do with actually doing roleplaying. So again: what's the point of roleplaying being art?

And as if accepting a proposition which appears to have no practical consequence for an eminently practical activity isn't enough, there is a final irony, although one I admit I find strangely satisfactory. If you actually go back and read my Sept. 2006 article (go on, give it a go if you haven't already- this next bit'll make more sense if you do), what I hope you'll find is that most of it still stands up even though I've changed my mind on the matter of where roleplaying sits in relation to art. Just to make myself clear here: most of what I wrote can be used to argue that roleplaying is art even though my arguments were marshalled in support of the view that roleplaying isn't art.

What I mean is that I was arguing that roleplaying games aren't art because it was wrong to aspire to be brought under the wing of a bankrupt elitist aesthetic whose decline is caused by a long historical development to which RPG's are a recent addition. In other words: by being part of a trend slowly but surely overturning the old 'high art' versus 'low culture' duality, roleplaying games are part of a movement towards the unity of what was held in an artificially forced polarisation under the reign of the classic high bourgeois aesthetic. Oddly enough it makes just as much sense (or should I say more, now, I hope?!) to argue that roleplaying games are art on the basis that they are part of that recent period of cultural innovation which has pushed that long historical development forward into entirely new territory, namely the art of games.

So it seems I might've arguing a bit at cross purposes eh? Maybe that's why Victor Gijsbers' response was so amusingly overwrought? I mean to say: I have to grant him that he picked out some contradictions in my argument, even if I'm not sure he gave a very good account of them. Funny thing, eh?

Related@RD/KA!
The emperor's new clothes? The state of roleplaying theory
- #1: General gamism
- #2: A funny thing happened on my way to this article
- Roleplaying as art? Not for me

Food, glorious food!

In which misfortune turns up a happy ending
This story really begins last Saturday, when Tony and I were playing Conflict of Heroes. Games over, I was in the kitchen, cooking. Our dinner for the night was to be haddock with bacon and mushrooms, from Good Food for Busy People, a really handy little book for the everyday cook. Before attending to that though, I had to prepare the first stage of Sunday's dinner, the first I'd cooked in some weeks. For the sake of simplicity, I'd chosen to 'do a Delia', cooking a spanish pork casserole from her stalwart Complete Cookery Course (you can find an updated version at DeliaOnline).

So there I was, beavering away at one thing and in a hurry to do another, a situation which you will realise is a recipie for disaster. And disaster duly struck. While browning the meat for the casserole I tried to shoogle the meat by flicking the pot instead of giving it a proper stir, using, y'know, a spoon. And so it was that I was splashed by a lick of hot fat, which left me with a burn stretching some dozen or more centimetres up my forearm, including a livid raw patch about the size of a £2 coin.

Preoccupied as I was with cooking 2 meals, I paid the wound as little attention as I could get away with, treating it as something of a joke as it oozed throughout the evening. Arriving the next day for our Sunday session, Donald said he thought it should be checked out at hospital, but, well, we had games to play. (Yes, I was being really clever about it all, wasn't I?!) Long story short: I finally had to go the Accident and Emergency today, where the first dressing - Donald's work - was carefully removed; the wound - thankfully not infected - was cleaned; and a new dressing was applied.

And what, you might be asking, is the happy ending in all this? Well, the Western General Infirmary where I'd gone is on Dumbarton Road in Glasgow, where only last week I'd spotted a seafood restaurant which goes by the name of Two Fat Ladies (a reference to the bingo call for 88 - the restaurant's street number, not to the 2 celebrity chefs who had a TV series of the same name). So, as you can imagine, I decided to treat myself. I really had no idea what to expect from this place, if only because its size and location are both quite unassuming. But I really like seafood, and have wished I knew of a decent seafood restaurant for years, so I had nothing to lose by giving the place a try.

By now, readers will have the idea that I liked Two Fat Ladies. Indeed I did. I liked it a lot. I liked the food, I liked their style, and I liked the atmosphere. I had Cullen Skink, north-east Scotland's legendary fish soup, to start. I just had to really, because I'd never had this before. It was lovely, with rich smokey aromas, a tasty creamy stock, and lots of nice chunky bits - real good soup in other words. I followed this with cod on a bed of tabbouleh accompanied by a pomegranate sauce. This too was utterly delightful, right down to the last carefully-scraped mouthful. It was the sort of taste sensation I've been hearing professional chefs and fulltime foodies talk about these past few years on TV programs such as Masterchef Goes Large, but which is frankly beyond my own skills. That's one thing cooks want from restaurants, something they can't do at home.

Two Fat Ladies, 88 Dumbarton Road, Glasgow is one of the most exciting restaurants I've visited in years (up in a shortlist of 4 in the last 3 years, to be precise), as witness the fact that I knew I was going to blog it even before I'd finished eating! I'll be back. In the meantime, I can give it a wholehearted recommendation to any of my readers who might find themselves in Glasgow looking for a classy eatery. ;)

Oh my, it's mine again, at long last!

I've made another score with that topped-up Paypal account the 'dangers' of which I mentioned on Saturday, this time combined with the similarly seductive eBay. And what did I get? Well, regular readers might remember when, talking about D-Day last year, I mentioned in passing the "book which was my bible as a WW2 wargamer". So yes, you've guessed it, that's the book I've just bought again. And what is it? It's John Ellis' 1980 classic The Sharp End of War: the Fighting Man in WW2.

I first got this book as a teenager on its initial release, from the book club through I which built up my collection of teenage tankie books, sadly long since sold off in a bout of poverty. It was one of those books whose unassuming appearance concealed a veritable treasure trove within. The key theme of the book is succintly summed-up by a note on the dust jacket, "the theme of John Ellis' book [is] human experience, not strategy".

It was this slant which made the book so unique at the time. Instead of the familar accounts of CO's dilemmas as battles and campaigns unfolded, The Sharp End offers profound overviews of the practical realities of life as a frontline soldier, from the terrain, through combat, and including matters such as discipline and patriotism. The result is a distilled appreciation of the concerns of the actual fighting soldiers which breathed new life into the rules-tinkering of a teenage tankie nearly 30 years ago.

This book is truly so rich that it is difficult to find any one element to pick out as an example of its content, so I'll just refer to the bit in the bibliography that always delighted me. Under the section for eye-witness accounts can be found reference to the first 2 volumes of Spike Milligan's war memoirs, Adolf Hitler: My Part in His Downfall and "Rommel?" "Gunner Who?". At the time I thought it was neat that these humourous memoirs my dad owned featured in a book like Ellis'. I came to realise that it's also a sign of the unique perspective which marks out The Sharp End from the most thorough of campaign histories, or even the most personal of war memoirs.

If the effect this book had on me is anything to go by, I'd have to say that it should be on the shelf of every actual or aspiring WW2 wargame designer. And, if you followed that link above (to Amazon.co.uk), you'll see that the book is easily available, and is in fact returning to print- its 6th print run- early next year. This pleases me, because it makes me feel that my own high opinions of John Ellis' masterpiece are widely shared. ;)

Brilliant beginnings and feeble finales

More than 2 years ago and full in the flush of my 2-year haul through Richard Borg's Memoir'44, I wrote 'another hymn of praise to cardplay', in which I listed some geeky stuff the reading or playing of which had most affected me. Looking back at that list I now realise that I inadvertently forgot where some of it began, namely the late lamented Avalon Hill's Squad Leader. That's a shame really, because it was with John Hill's masterpiece that I perfected the grub-and-gaming trick to get a regular WW2 boardgaming session going. And it was about Squaddie that I wrote, in a Top-10 (sadly no longer available) this was "the first game I knew I always wanted to play."

Like I said, it's a shame that I left Squad Leader off a list upon which it really deserves its place. Why? Because my experience so far of the new Conflict of Heroes- Awakening the Bear! has pushed me over an edge on the brink of which I've teetered for months, thanks, naturally enough, to Combat Commander. What am I talking about? About the fact that I have a still horrible feeling that I might never play son of Squaddie, a.k.a. Advanced Squad Leader, ever again. So it's a shame that this landmark game didn't enjoy its pride of place in that wee list of mine before better games came along definitively to render it a museum piece for this gamer.

You'll've gathered then that Tony and I really enjoyed playing CoH on Saturday. We played 2 games of Firefight 1- Partisans, a really well-considered introductory scenario: the barest minimum of pieces- 5 on each side; an objective the control of which will typically be the key to victory for either side- generating 5VP/game at 1 VP/turn, it starts under Soviet control; and simple setup variations meaning that each side faces a distinct tactical situation- the Soviets hold the field against Germans entering with immediate strength of numbers and superior firepower.

My Germans mauled Tony's Soviets 8-2, then my Soviets won 7-4, a bit of a comeback for Tony, especially since he had a great 'hail mary' play for a draw, but chance fell just the wrong side of mean for him at that crucial moment. Those scores also hide the fact that I only killed 1 more unit than Tony- if any- because 4 out of 8 of my Germans' VP were down to the objective, whereas my Russians held the objective for at least 4 turns out of 5. And it turns out that we'd been bringing the German reinforcements in in the wrong place too- they come in behind the Soviets, which would've made the firefight a whole new kettle of fish.

The simplicity and flexibility of the core AP/CAP system was what had been most striking to me last time, before I'd played CoH. What excites me most now is the realisation that CoH does something which I believe is unique in squad-scale, company/battalion-level WW2 tacsims- it handles absolutely all combat by the same single set of rules. This is such a bland statement that its significance might be lost on some people, so let me expand.

ASL has 3 different core combat systems, which are based on infantry and armour being defined by quite distinct statlines:

• Fire attacks resolved on the Infantry Fire Table.
• Fire attacks resolved on the AP To Kill table.
• Close Combat.

These 3 systems each come with their own lengthy lists of DRM's.

Even Combat Commander has 2 core combat systems:

• Fire attacks.
• Close combat.

You could say that this is actually 1½ core combat systems, since the attack rolls are functionally identical in each case in CC.

In any event, units in CoH, be they infantry, ordnance, or vehicles- soft or armoured, all use the same statlines. This sample armour unit shows the full statline, with the typical 7 stats plus facing indicator. These are the same for infantry as they are for trucks as they are for horse-drawn units (some units have less stats because they lack the abilities those stats represent, eg. horses and carts have no FP). Different coloured stats are used to mark the differences between the key aspects of the various units:

• Target type, ie. soft target or hard target.
• Munitions, ie. AP or HE.
• Movement type, ie. foot, wheeled, or tracked.

These sample foot units show some of these variations. The way the different colours of FP and DR work to give the effects of AP and HE is devilishly simple: red FP versus blue DR is halved, and vice versa. The AT gun shows the sort of neat effect this rule creates, with the blue- armoured- front DR to represent the effect of the gun shield, the single most elegant implementation of this I have seen (you should see the lengths ASL goes to to handle this detail).

And there's more. Not only do all units in CoH use the same statline, resulting in a single combat system, but the combat system involves just 1 dice roll per attack- 2d6- and a tiny handful of modifiers. Part of this is because damage is handled by chit draws, so that extra dice rolls aren't needed to determine the success and/or the effect of attacks. The simplicity of this means that you can make quick, easy and meaningful assessments of your chances in any given attack, which is a great help to a player's tactical appreciation of the situation, as you can well imagine.

The effect of all this is amazing as you leaf through the scenarios book, looking at the huge 2-4 player scenarios, using perhaps 6 or 7 times as many units on 3 or 4 boards, and you realise that all of these are done with the same, single set of combat rules which are just a delight to use. For example, a neighbour popped in for a quick visit. This guy's no gamer, though he knows another grognard, and is curious about these games. I had CoH out on the table. I showed him a map and a playing piece. He was instantly fascinated, and was soon telling me that he felt like Rommel as he pored over the scenarios and the rules. He was really excited. I was quite boggled.

That's it for CoH just now. Expect to hear more.

Score
Tony: 0
Me: 2
:)

Meanwhile, elsewhere... Ack!
Our recent long run of Descent came to a close on Sunday. Regular readers will probably remember that it had fallen to us to save the world after our previous heroic victory had delivered it, neatly wrapped, to another common-or-garden megavillain with the usual plans of total domination of what remained after the all-too-familiar mass carnage. I'd expected Andy to want to take his chance to win a heroic victory himself, but he had other ideas.

The result doesn't bear much examination, if only because our efforts were so feeble. Our brave party of heroes took the wrong turning, with the result that we attacked some very strong monsters with the minimum of loot (you might remember I talked a couple of weeks ago about the levelling-up effect inherent in the different grades of treasure). Andy pulled some fancy footwork to get past our fighters to attack the weaker heroes, and we were trashed without getting past the 1st room. So much for saving the world then.

We're going to take a break from Descent for a wee while now, but we'll be back.

Score
Andy: 1
Useless no-marks: 0

Settlers
We finished off with this old favourite: Dave had never played before; and Andy was interested in seeing how it worked with more than 4 players. Dave took to Settlers as quickly as he'd taken to Descent, and he made a good showing too, which just goes to show that the game's merits aren't overrated even as it becomes as achingly familiar to adventure gamers as family boardgamers are to the general public. It wasn't going to be Dave's day for a newb's upset though.

It wasn't going to be my day though. Left with a tricky choice of regions I just couldn't find a fit I liked the look of, and ended up with one which was somehow worse than what I'd imagined it could be- I had neither sheep nor grain in my initial setup. I didn't expect to get far, and I expectations were fulfilled.

Tony meanwhile followed a by now familiar tactic of going for a quick city; Andy followed his example; and Donald grabbed the longest road which he held onto despite Dave's best efforts (and my dashed hopes). As the midgame drew to a close, the other 4 were poised neck and neck around 7 while I trailed, hoping to pull off a coup with both the longest road and the largest army to surprise everyone. It was not to be though. Tony hit 8VP, enabling me to explain to Dave the importance of an all-out trade embargo, as you do. But before it could bite, Tony stole the longest road, to win with an unexpected 2VP leap. Gutted! But a good show by Tony.

Score
Tony: 1
The other mugs: 0

Over the weekend
Andy: 1
Dave: 0
Donald: 0
Tony: 1
Me: 2
;)

The tanks are coming!

Oh the internet is a terrible thing, a curse and a burden upon the unwary; such as an aging gamer rediscovering the geek that was a teenage tankie, and now equipped with Paypal thus succumbing to all manner of temptations both old and new. Take, for example, the package which arrived at my door this morning, hot from Second Chance Games. It was my new copy of 2008's hottest WW2 tacsim, Academy Games' Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! - Russia 1941-1942 by Uwe Eickert.

I must confess I've been putting off buying this for months. Well, more precisely, I'd been picking up the buzz from an FLGS and from across the net, and after nearly 2 solid years of Combat Commander I was hankering for a bit of a change of pace. Tanks would be an obvious choice. So it wasn't that I wasn't interested in Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! - Russia 1941-1942. Far from it. It's just that, well, I had other irons in the fire. Badger, however, wasn't biting, so I thought I'd better run another game up the flagpole before imploding into a mixed metaphor so dense it'd endanger life, the universe and everything.

Seriously though, I'd been hearing a lot about this game, and was certainly going to buy it when it eventually reappeared on my local shelves. But it was taking a long time coming, and Badger's and my 3rd annual wargaming xmas was moving ever closer, so last week, armed only with a freshly topped-up Paypal account, I went surfing in search of some satisfaction. My business done, I read the entire CSW Conflict of Heroes thread from start to finish, and topped it off with the rules to boot.

Reading some 1900 messages at 10 messages/page took some time, but it was worth the effort. I found it really interesting to see how the design changed as the game approached final production, and I particularly enjoyed the ongoing window into the designer's thought processes (I've always liked reading and rereading designer's notes). And my appetite for the game was certainly whetted. All the more so when I read the rules. All-in-all, I think I can say I knew so much about how CoH works and why that I could've got a game running in not much more time than it'd've taken to sort out the necessary pieces, some 15 minutes I'd say. It might've clunked a bit now and again as rules'd've had to be checked, but it could've been done. And I'd venture that experienced gamers could get running in perhaps 30 minutes or so from a cold start.

The key to this ease of access is CoH's Action Point and Command Action Point system. The core concepts of this'll be familiar to any fans of GW's classic Space Hulk, which regular readers might remember is a game which has generated quite some enthusiasm on my part (#1, #2, and #3). So each unit- squads, and individual vehicles or ordnance- has its own AP allocation, while there is a pool of CAP available for each side. These are spent for the units to conduct fire, movement and other actions in a fluid interactive phase structure which looks to me like a very original implementation of the 'resource management' model of command and control which cardplay handles so well.

I'm really pleased with Conflict of Heroes so far. It scratches a definite itch, gives me another fast playing WW2 tacsim which I'm sure'll see the table regularly, and fills a niche which isn't going to render any of my other favourite games of this kind obsolete. Oh, and the board and counters really are as astonishing as people say! Thick and chunky full-colour 1" counters (think the size of a 2p piece!) with a luxurious satiny texture just pop effortlessly out of their counter sheets. The maps too are bold and heavy duty. These key components strike me as being well designed to appeal to an audience wider than the usual grognards, as CoH's brisk sales seem to demonstrate.

You've not heard the last of this game, naturally enough. Tony's coming round later so we can take CoH out for a first run. Heh. The satisfaction of new ownership and the anticipation of 'battle'. ;)

You heard it here first!

In which- Shock! Horror! Probe!- I criticise Combat Commander

Regular readers will be only too aware of my love of Chad Jensen and GMT's Combat Commander series (at 107 registered plays to date, it's closing fast with SL/ASL as my most played company-level tacsim ever). Some of you might even remember my waxing lyrical (here, or even here) about CC's excellent Random Scenario Generator (RSG). But what I haven't aired yet is my major complaint about the RSG, which is the way that artillery support is called in. (NB. I'm here talking about the rules for adding off-board artillery (OBA) to a scenario, not the rules for using OBA during play.)

Adding my tuppenceworth earlier today to a BGG thread about the CC RSG, I included an aside about this complaint, which in turn gave me a flash of inspiration about what has been bugging me since that August session of 5 CC RSG games with Badger. What then, is this complaint? Naturally enough, to explain that, I'll have to give some background first.

In a nutshell, the CC RSG works like this:

• One player chooses the map.
• The other player sets its orientation.
• Nationalities, the year, and the troop qualities are determined.
• Each player then chooses a force.
• The player with the cheaper force is the defender, and goes on to: roll for support, buy fortifications, and set up.
• The attacking player may roll for artillery support, then sets up.

There are a few extra details, but that's the gist of it.

As I was saying only yesterday...

Descent & anti-climax: intrinsic to the system, or just poor scenario design?
The sense of anti-climax observed by Andy after our final encounter with the Big Boss in Sunday's long-awaited heroes' triumph in Descent was recognisable to me from my own recent victories as the Overlord. I referred to this last month as being "taken a bit by surprise". And it has to be said, in 'narrative' terms, it is true that a 1-turn kill of the Big Boss by our pocket- nuke wizard Dave wasn't the epic toe-to-toe showdown that'd've capped with dramatic appropriateness our long slog to eventual victory.

I mean to say, looking at my BoardGameGeek games-played stats for Descent says that our heroes' road to victory was a 9-game marathon running from the end of September, through October, and up to last week. These statistics aren't 100% reliable, but the fact remains that the buildup to Sunday's triumph was 2 solid months of defeats, broken only for Andy and I, the Overlords. So yes, if these adventures had been part of a narrative- whether in print or in roleplaying- the sense of anti-climax would've been more than passing, it'd've been cause for serious complaint by players or readers.

I said yesterday that there is "something in this which strikes to the heart of Descent". This idea was sparked when I read an interesting thread discussing an insightful review over at the BGG. Among the various thoughts and perceptions of the game what was immediately most striking to me was Zimeon's comment that it "feels as if the designers have taken all the joy of new shinies from World of Warcraft the online game level 1-60, and packed it into 4 hours of play." Echoed by kingbobb ("I think the game does, within each quest, attempt to capture the WoW 0-60 progression"), this made me realise that the overwhelming power of Dave's lone hero against the Big Boss might well have been a matter of chance, but it wasn't entirely accidental all the same. That this wasn't accidental, and is therefore a conscious design feature of the game, is proved by Robb's explanation, from his Descent Decrees for an Aspiring Overlord, that

"veterans... understand that the treasure dynamic is backwards from normal games of this type. In order for heroes to defeat monsters in Descent, they must get treasure. This goes against the thinking that heroes are slaying monsters to receive treasure."

All of this is confirmed by our experience of play. Heroes have no chance without good treasures. Moreover, the really good treasures- sliver/gold, or relics; or fortuitous treasure/skills combos, eg. Dave's Spiritwalker wizardry skill and Dragon's Breath rune treasure (a mere silver too!)- can indeed be utterly overpowering, as we've seen more than once before. This just goes to highlight the absolute importance, to the Overlord, of protecting the treasure chests- silver and gold at least- from the heroes, or making them pay a heavy price for each chest they open in any case.

The heroes' extreme power curve and the spread of its variations give Descent a peculiar razor-sharp balance. I say 'peculiar' because halfway successful heroes will effectively turn the game inside out, as their superior treasures will enable them to turn the tables on the Overlord, subjecting him to the grind they'll already've had to endure. The taxing mid-to-end-game slugathon as the heroes start to overwhelm the Overlord's monsters is something I held against Descent at first, and that BGG thread plus another over at F:AT show that some people never got over it.

I wouldn't want to be too dogmatic about these conclusions, especially since other players- eg. quesodog at the FFG Descent forum- think that the expansion scenarios are radically different from the basic ones. All the same- and finally coming back to that sense of anti-climax- barring haplessly choosing all the wrong doors to open and corners to turn so that you stumble upon the Big Boss before you've properly powered up, I suspect that surviving long enough to meet the Big Boss in the first place will typically require hero parties to have got their hands on something powerful enough to make shorter work of that Big Boss than the Overlord (who 'is' that Big Boss, after all) would wish. Otherwise, I would expect the Overlord to win before the party is ready to face the Big Boss in any case. Built-in anti-climax almost by defnition it seems to me.

If true this perhaps isn't the best of adverts for Descent, but to be honest I don't really care. The game gives me exactly what I want, and I find myself looking forward to playing it as much as almost any other game in my collection. I'd call that a palpable hit! Definitely not the last word. ;)

Related@RD/KA!
- As I was saying only yesterday...

Hoo hah!

So, as I noted last time, it was Andy's turn to Lord it Over us in yestersday's game of Descent. And yes, at last, we (ie. the heroes) won! It took 8 long games, but eventually good prevailed over evil. Except, well, in 'narrative' terms it turned out to be something of a phyrric victory, because it turned out that we had delivered a dangerous relic into the hands of an evil villain. So I expect that the next dungeon, the last in the basic set, will feature heroes trying to clear this damn mess up.

As I said last time, I did go and pick out a hero in advance. Knowing Tony and Donald's penchant for fighters, I decided to opt for a roguish ranged combat specialist. I found one I liked, Silhouette. The key features which attracted me to Silhouette were:

• The ranged combat trait and starting subterfuge skills of 3 each- I wanted to try a specialist rogue before taking a look at 'multiclass' heroes.
• The hero ability, which I quickly realised would enable me to spend 3 Fatigue in a turn, go to Dodge, then spend those 2 remaining Fatigue to swap that Dodge for a Rest to reset the Fatigue to 5 before taking my next turn. I used this trick often in the game.

I also had a plan for Silhouette, which involved saving all her cash for training tokens so that I could push her ranged combat trait to 5 as quickly as possible. I managed to do this too.

I'd like to be able to say that all this preparation was crucial to our victory on the day, but I'd be kidding myself. The truth is that the major contribution I made was using my speed to get through to treasure chests or to glyphs to open or activate them. This is a very important part of Descent to be sure, but lone heroes are always vulnerable to the Overlord's monsters, lone and fragile heroes all the more so. Sure enough, it was Silhouette's death which put us within a mere 8 turns of defeat as we neared the end of the midgame.

In fact, I'd thought we were doomed to defeat long before that. We'd taken so long to clear the first area that the sight of a 2nd area with the same layout and harder monsters convinced me that we simply couldn't win. Moreover, it was precisely what Silhouette was good at- ie. grabbing the treasure- which I feared would take us so long that we'd lose simply by running out of time. I was wrong fortunately.

All the same, my useful contribution wasn't decisive. I would have to say that that honour belonged to our new 4th hero, Dave. Offered his choice of hero archetypes, he plumped for magic-user, ending up with Landrec the Wise.

Dave was a quick learner, and was soon charging about zapping monsters like a veteran. He was dangerous enough equipped with a rune which gave him access to the Breath template, so that he could waste whole handfuls of monsters in a single turn; but when he gained a skill which enabled him to use other heroes as the point of origin of his attacks, he became, as he said, a nuclear device with remote targetting. And when he got his hands on the rune for which we'd been searching, well, let's just say that he was powerful enough so that our final encounter, with the Big Boss, was, as Andy said, a bit of an anti-climax.

There's something in this which strikes to the heart of Descent, but I'll come back to that later. In the meantime, HOO HAH! ;)

Argh! You evil £$%&#!! Etc.

Regular readers can be reassured that this past 4-week bloglag wasn't caused by a descent into the slough of despond, but was instead down to a family visit and the same dearth of inspiration I noted a couple of months ago. Gaming in the past month has continued to be as steady a diet of Descent as availability for Sunday sessions would permit. The Descent score is now Overlord(s) 7, heroes 0. Tony and I almost managed to take Andy down, but, well, I decided to pull some fancy footwork to get the game over and done with so's I could get to work on the dinner, and instead of being the hero I ended up the goat.

It was quite funny really. There I was, a puny magic user outnumbered in close combat with 2 master monsters (the tougher ones of each kind, for those who don't know) because my supposedly game-winning blow with the nemesis relic Sword of Mighty Piercing Stabbiness against the pesky Invulnerable Beastman Minion had, well, missed (a mere 1/6 chance, sheesh!). I died, inevitably. No worries I thought, Andy could kill my hero 4 or 5 times over before we'd have to worry about losing. Then, when it was his turn, Andy rather shamefacedly moved the pesky Invulnerable Beastman on top of the only weapon which could hurt it, and then pointed out that he had won the game, because we couldn't get the weapon

Andy was right too, in the end. Feeling guilty at such a cheesy win in a game in which the heroes had had everything their way thus far, he chipped in to help Tony and I find a possible winning strategy. There was one, which involved raising all the cash we could to invest in skills, in the hope of getting Acrobat, which enables a hero to enter an enemy occupied square. (I've since discovered that there is also the Telekinesis skill which could've moved the damn thing.) But no, our luck wasn't in.

Andy's winning tactic has provoked some discussion since, with both Tony and Andy voicing thoughts that there was perhaps something wrong with it, one way or another. Painful as it was to have to admit it though, I had to disagree. As Andy evidently swithered over his move I quickly concluded that it would be asinine to expect him to throw a game just because he was embarrased to exploit my stupidity. Beyond that I also reasoned the scenario's designer must surely've been aware of this possibility, and nothing had been written in to preclude it. Further, I thought there was something tragically apt about the whole fiasco.

The dungeon in question was very lucrative, so that Tony and I were soon tooled up with lots of lovely treasure which we used to cut a gleeful swathe of destruction through everything that Andy could throw at us. We were cruising to what looked like an easy victory, only to fall foul of the relic rules, which we were seeing in action for the first time; the most important of which being that, unlike everything else heroes carry, relics are dropped on the spot when a hero is killed (to be sent back to town). Awesome treasures, carefree carnage, a deadly relic, and hopes of easy victory cruelly dashed thanks to my complete failure to grasp the implications of my extravagant scheme falling through; this rollercoaster ride of a game wasn't just fun, but it was thematically satisfying to see an evil Overlord win because of a hero's hubris!

When I first commented on Descent last year, I noted that it "might represent a real breakthrough in dungeon-bash boardgaming". Recent games have convinced me that this is indeed so, even if only because it gives me the "honest-to-god dungeon-bash in a box" I set my heart on when I first heard about Talisman 25 years ago. I just hope I'm not the first vanquished Overlord as I was the first losing Invader player in Doom: the Boardgame last year.

More anon, for sure. In the meantime, there should be an extra player tomorrow, so that the heroes can take a full party of 4 into the next dungeon. And I think it's Andy's turn to be the Overlord again. So, I'm off to have a look at some heroes... ;)

Look on my works ye mighty...

Journeys in the Dark
Flush from Saturday's victory I was ready to take on the role of the Overlord in Descent when Andy, Donald and Tony turned up on Sunday for games. We played dungeon 4, with the end result that Descent's reputation as very tough on the heroes has proven to be more than deserved. I won while the heroes had only just opened their 2nd area on the map. I was taken a bit by surprise, because I hadn't realised that the kill I was just about to achieve would win me the game.

After 3 straight defeats for the heroes, the question of balance naturally came up on Sunday. I think the point is that the dungeons in Descent are supposed to be serious challenges, perhaps more so even than the missions in Doom, and I'm sure our marines took more games of Doom to beat the Invader than we've yet played of Descent altogether.

Clearly then we've not learned the necessary lessons about how to run a party of heroes in Descent. I have my own ideas about this, naturally enough, but as next Sunday's Overlord, I am reluctant to share them right now. But I can suggest that players who haven't yet done so read Kevin Wilson's Advice for Heroes. Of particular interest here are the thoughts of the man who designed dungeons to distract and divert heroes with trinkets and baubles. Also worth a look is Decrees for an Aspiring Overlord, which looks at the same things from the Overlord's viewpoint. Both of these articles contain good ideas about how to run a party of heroes in Descent.

Score
Puny mortals 0
His Supreme Overlordship 1
;)

Meanwhile, over at the Monolith
Descent done and with time to spare before dinner (Millefoglie alla 'guardia' as I'd done for Badger once before), we decided to play Nexus Ops. This was the first full 4-player session of the game, and it ran pretty smoothly. Even with 4 players, Nexus Ops is a game that should be playable in an hour or less.

We were following some new tactics I'd picked up off a thread over at BGG, so the game set off at a cracking pace. Donald was soon in a strong position, with a large empire and a strong VP lead. By this time though I had managed to seize the Monolith and was making good use of the extra cards this position gave me. As we entered the end game, Andy and I sat on opposite sides of a DMZ on my right, Tony had been ground down between me and Donald on my left, and Donald was looking for the breakthrough to victory.

Quite sensibly, Donald was massing to sieze the Monolith. Unfortunately for his plans, the sight of so many of Donald's units on his own borders made Andy nervous, and he launched a spoiling attack on Donald's army, which effectively saved me. Donald was justifiably miffed at this, although it has to be said that he kept quite quiet about his intentions throughout his buildup, so that Andy's misunderstanding of Donald's intentions (not shared by me I have to add) was essentially entirely Donald's fault.

In any event, with Donald's attempt to knock me off the high ground of the Monolith foiled, I swept to victory by winning 2 battles in a single turn, including swallowing up a puny human with one of my Rubium Dragons which had flown down from the Monolith.

Score
Puny humans 0
His Supreme Overlordship and Master of the Universe 2
;)

Saturday night firefight

Tony came round on Saturday night to play some Combat Commander. I fed him the lamb and fennel stew with which I'd my recent pepper catastrophe the first time I'd cooked it. I have moved on, beyond the simple caution that experience immediately imposed, to developing the art of tasting my cooking while I season it. I'm also measuring out my pepper by the teaspoonful instead of just pouring it in by the heap. The result was a hit, which was nice because fennel is a vegetable unfamiliar to most, and one with which I'm keen to cook regularly.

Tony hasn't played Combat Commander in a while, so I gave him his choice of scenario. He chose Scenario 8, Breakout Dance. I guess this choice was influenced by the low unit count in the scenario, which Tony must've thought would ease his return to the game. Whatever his reasons, Tony's choice was to prove unfortunate for him, as a quick card draw gave me choice of sides, and I chose the Germans. So not only was Tony forced to play the Russians he'd declared he wanted to avoid, but he had to play them at night and with a mere 1 order (yeah, well, I didn't fancy that much either!).

The effects of night on fire attacks, combined with the Russians' restriction to 1 order, means that the Germans can easily exploit any gap in the Russian lines. Accumulated wisdom therefore dictates that the Russians have to set up a simple line straight across the map. Apprised of this, Tony saw no reason to disagree, and promptly set up his line in hexrow G, ie. as far foward as allowed. He had a leader plus an MMG in the field to the west, and another in the woods on the hill in the centre.

For my part, I went for a main attack comprising a squad/LMG in the western objective building, led by the redoubtable Sgt. Ganz (8-2 leader), and a squad/LMG in foxholes on the adjacent hill. I also put foxholes in the hex where the road ends, immediately north of the position. I set up my 9-1 leader and squad/LMG in foxholes on the wooded hill, to the SE. My basic plan was for Ganz and his squads to shoot a hole in the Russian lines, then to exploit the gap. The immediate purpose of the other squad was create a 2-pronged attack to split and overload the Russian defences. In practice this would have to amount to aggressive exploitation of any opportunities offered by a hand otherwise to be optimised for Ganz's attack.

Tony was soon made to pay the price for what we both saw with hindsight was a foolishly foward Russian deployment. As if turn after turn of fire attacks from Ganz's hilltop vantage point from the get-go wasn't bad enough, I was also getting good use out of a German specialty I always enjoy- spray fire, by virtue of which I was able to break 2 units on Tony's most western flank. While that breakthrough point was being finally secured, I'd thrown my units forward in the east. A quick close combat ensued, with another breakthough point the result. I quickly got Schrader and his men through the Russian lines and into the woods hex on the eastern map edge.

Ganz's dash for the western gap followed almost immediately. Tony had a card for opportunity fire natually enough, so that both my moving stacks were broken some halfway, ie. somewhere adjacent to the farmhouse in those fields. Ganz's stack in particular was worrying, it being adjacent to Russian units and me with no recover cards. I was fortunate to draw an advance straight away so that a quick move to safety in the building soon followed.

The rest of the game played out with me completing my exit and re-entry on my right, while Tony quickly regrouped his dispersed force from around the central hilltop into the low ground just west of centre, from where he promptly launched a dash north along the hedgeline. His hope of establishing a firing line to block my dash for the map edge were shot down by opportunity fire from Ganz and his platoon, by now rallied and regrouped. Tony's counterthrust neutralised, Ganz and his squads began their dash for the board edge. I had the 2 move cards needed before I began, but I was slowed down for a turn or two by opportunity fire from Tony's reinforcements so carefully deployed many turns previously. An isolated squad at night couldn't do much though, and my units made their exit soon enough.

Tony's force was on the verge of surrender by this point, and he was 34VP behind, so he conceded just after the game had entered time 5.

Score
Tony 0
Me 1
:)

Afterthoughts
Setting up the Russians at the forward limit of their deployment area left Tony's units exposed to immediate fire of weight sufficient easily to break them, night conditions notwithstanding; in other words, it effectively surrenders the cover of night. So the Russians have to set up further back. My choice would be hexrow D. Stacking the 2 leaders and MMG's together has a twofold immediate effect:

• Denying, to the German player, the choice of an easier flank to choose as their primary axis of advance.
• Giving the Russians the strongest possible firebase with the best possible lines of fire.

Of course, stacking all your leaders in 1 hex is not ideal, so the Russian player can plan on moving the leader with the MMG to the appropriate flank once the primary German axis of advance is known.

Additionally, Tony helped me get round the 1-card discard imposed on the Germans by the night attack special rules. If I'd been in a position to have to move up before engaging in the firefight, then I'd've had some 17 immediately usable orders- or 24% of the deck- increasing to as much as 62% through the 28 additional actions that might spin out cardplay combos from the basic move order. Able immediately to open fire I could instead play as many as 45 orders and 16 actions, or 63% to 85% of the deck. In other words, I was gifted much increased chances of opening and sustaining a rapid attack that'd give me a card cycle overcoming my discard limitation. ;)

World of Warcraft: Azeroth beckons at last!

WoW! How weighty was thy download?!
Having been persuaded to try Blizzard's World of Warcraft 10-day free trial I registered an account and started a download. That was half past ten last night, and Blizzard Downloader has been running ever since. And I thought OO.org 3.0's download yesterday was heavy duty.

This is like no webspace I've seen before, and it's still just downloading! (99% and less than 2 minutes now... 10:48.) Yep, that was a 12-hour download. I guess that's what you get with over 10 million online. I just know that I'm going to love this to bits. I've watched the trailer, and it's lovely. This is realms of fantasy on the scale I used to dream about. I thought it was a cyberpunk fantasy. It's not. The sooner I get a character running the better.

Later still... Checking system specifications
I'm going to have to make sure my computer's well up to the mark for this. Meanwhile, I haven't got a clue as to how to being to create a character. Time to check the manual I guess. So no heroic tales of my first steps into Azeroth today then. Although just finding and recording those minimum requirements for that varied selection of hardware and software of which I'm essentially ignorant, because I've never played computer games?- I guess you could call that that a quest, of sorts. ;)

Wow, just WOW!

Open Office.org is a suite of office software derived from earlier products by Sun Microsystems. It's free and, for the average user, is at least as good as MS Office. I've been using it for several years now. I just found out today that OO.org 3.0 is now available, and that the servers are heavily overloaded. And how! When I started my download some 15-20 minutes ago, the download time was some 3 hours and 20 minutes. It's now some 4 hours and 20 minutes, having shot up past the 5 hour mark in the interim. This is crazy shit! (4h39 now.) I've got to leave the house, so I'm going to have to cancel my download and come back to it later.

Like I said: wow. Just WOW! ;)

PS. 4h13 now.

Combat Commander scenario 20: a viable Russian strategy and its opacity

A reminder of the story so far
A couple of weeks ago, I was talking about how Combat Commander Scenario 20, A March in December, is unbalanced, but not broken, despite the early wave of overwhelming Finnish victories. Today, naturally enough, I'm going to lay out the Russian strategy that I think makes the scenario a fair contest.

The core of the Russian setup is simple enough as I said: you've got 15 squads and 17 available road hexes, so just pick which 2 to leave empty. I'm sure there are good reasons to choose hexes other than those I've indicated here; the 2 I've marked here are those I chose in my last game as the Russians, my 2nd attempt to get out from under that fiendish Finnish ambush.

I noted before that the key to the Russian strategy in this scenario is the denial of exit VP to the Finns. To this end the Russians have to mass their weapons for mutual support. More important perhaps even than that in my opinion is that the Russians also have to mass their leaders. Readers familiar with Combat Commander might already have recognised how unusual is the deployment of the Russian leaders on that map, because no effort is made to maximise the number of squads within the leaders' command radii. In particular, those 5 squads strung out to the SW are very vulnerable to concerted attack, being able only to fire and manoeuvre individually because they are out of command.

Facing the Finns and those molotovs
Seeing this, I wouldn't be surprised if players faced with the Russian defence in this scenario, and thinking along lines similar to myself, were to consider spreading their leaders further down that road just a bit so as to get additional squads moving more quickly and with greater coordination. It is the expected Finnish tactics which makes me think that this would be a mistake. The keys to the Finnish tactics here are:

• The 2-hex command radius of their best leader, who can get as many as 8 squads into position on each side of the Russians strung out along that road.
• Those 8 molotovs which, by depriving Russian units of their cover, can make the early waves of Finnish fire attacks in the centre quite devestating (they're not marked on the map, but you can assume that the leader and 7 squads in those pictures has a molotov).

There are other elements to consider (not to mention other possibilities altogether), but I think that this the best approach for the Finns because of those crossfire opportunities, and because I think the molotovs should be massed for maximum effect.

Pictures B and C show the basic variants of this setup, with setup C perhaps being the better of the 2, because, by blocking the rear of more Russian squads, it allows the Finns more chances to wreak carnage with combined fire attacks and routs. Pictures A and D show more aggressive Finnish setups which take the fight directly to the Russian leaders. This would be based on the reasonable assumption that the Russian plan involves stacking 3 of their 4 MG's with leaders (the Russians get to place their MG's after seeing the Finnish setup).

So, back to those poor harassed Russians, and that temptation to spread those leaders further down that road. Consider the simplest of options: moving the best Russian leader just 1 hex further down the road, in the hopes that another Russian squad can move early and so avoid the worst of the Finnish ambush. If you look at setup A, you'll see that this would render the Russians' best leader open to an all out assault (ie. adjacent to 4 Finnish squads and therefore to as many as 5 molotov attacks) by Finns playing the more conservative of the most aggressive attacks. Similarly, if the Russians were to setup a leader 2 hexes further down that road, then he'd be vulnerable to the same onslaught from either of the most conservative Finnish setups.

Contrariwise, the Russian setup as shown means that the Finns can only maximise their attacks on that best Russian leader by using their most aggressive setup, as per picture D. This has some immediate disadvantages for the Finns:

• Only 3 squads are initially able to attack that best Russian leader, and none of them can form firegroups.
• All the Finns' advantages notwithstanding, this setup is the riskiest of them all, offering the greatest opportunities for a swift and crushing Russian counter attack (eg. a quick advance into an overstacked melee could kill the Finns' leader and leave their centre essentially paralysed).
• The maximum number of Russian squads have open lines of movement towards the Finnish map edge and the exit VP which are crucial to the Russian strategy.
• The Russians could decide to setup their MG's elsewhere, ie. in the NE corner of the map, so that the attack on the centre loses its strategic purpose.

Conclusion
This scenario is one which, for the Russians, puts a priority on a feature of Combat Commander which strongly distinguishes it from other tactical board wargames: exit VP. Sure, other games often incorporate into their victory conditions units exiting the board, but Combat Commander integrates this completely into the core system, and gives additional incentives to seek exit VP by allowing units so exited to re-enter as reinforcements. From play and from reading across the net, I have learned that recognising when to cut and run instead of standing and fighting can be one of the hardest decisions to grasp. This is therefore the first feature of Scenario 20, A March in December which makes the Russian strategy opaque. On top of that need fully to understand and apply a feature of the game which makes it unique AFAIK, this scenario also requires the Russian player to deploy and use weapons and leaders in ways running counter to all normal doctrines. It is this triple layer of opacity that I think is what has given rise to the appearance that this is a no-win situation for the Russians.

A final note
That game I referred to which Badger won because he held the initiative card was closer even than I suggested last time.

Badger had effectively cleared the centre and finished off my attempts at exit VP in the SW, leaving him ahead on VP. Pretty much all I had left were that leader, those 4 squads and a MMG in the NE (better deployed for activation by the leader by now, naturally enough). Flushed with what he was sure was an inescapably imminent victory, Badger looked at me and said that I'd have to get them moving.

OK, I said, playing an Advance and moving everything forward so that they were adjacent to the Finnish units which had been sitting there throughout the game. Badger's surprise turned to something more when I played another Advance the following turn to bring my units in melee with the Finns. This included an overstacked melee to make sure that my leader wouldn't die due to Badger holding too many Ambush cards for my comfort. This was what cost me the game. The tension of the moment (coupled, no doubt, with the lateness of the hour) meant that I sent 1 unit too many into that overstacked melee, resulting in the loss of 2VP the consequence of which was that the VP marker found itself on the '0' space. The game ended almost immediately thereafter giving Badger the win as described.

So near yet so far! Ouch! ;)

Related@RD/KA!
- Got game!: our first game goes to the Russians.
- A Winter War. Unbalanced but not broken?: we have another go.

Quiet, but still unseemly, I gloat

So I've still not been posting much, despite my hopes about trying to think my way from a zine into a journal, and despite too several gaming sessions since my last post. Thirteen games across 3 sessions in that week and a half .

Settlers
First there was a visit from Tony and Di, which saw 4 games of Settlers, 5 games of Ivanhoe, and a couple of nice curries (one chicken, as requested by Di). The question of the strategy and tactics of robber placement was as thorny in that night's 4 games as they'd been in the games played the last time we'd got together. We ended up split 2-1 on the issue, with Tony and I in favour of a strict application of picking on the person in front, and Di preferring something else.

Sweet monkey jesus!

As the world holds its breath waiting to see if there's a hole at the bottom of the big bailout's bucket, I feel a bit like I'm fiddling while Rome burns to be talking about boardgames on a blog in an obscure corner of cyberspace. That sense of a disconnect isn't going to stop me any more than my usual avoidance of leftist social/political commentary is going to stop me from indulging in a quick rant.

An advocate of the still unfashionable socialist transformation of society for over 25 years now, I am boggled to hear the future of capitalism itself being called so widely into question by people from so many walks of life. Let's face it though, no matter what happens in the immediate future, the extraction of surplus value for the sake of profits, and so the rule of capital over labour, will remain 5, 10, and probably 20 and more years hence.

All the same, the global financiers who were lauded as the greatest thing since the advent of industrial mass production, these people have had absolutely everything their way for some 25 years. And what have they done, apart from reaping huge rewards and amassing vast fortunes? They've just gone and dropped us into the greatest economic crisis in the whole history of capitalism, or 'just' since the 1930's depression that gave us WW2, depending on which pundits you prefer to listen to.

This is one of those 'no going back' moments, like the end of the Cold War, and 9/11. Hmm. There's gaps of 11 then 7 years. I wonder if the next one will be along sooner than that again?

In the meantime, fuck the lot of them! ;)

A Winter War. Unbalanced but not broken?

Badger and I returned to the published scenarios, as I'd talked about before. I'd had a specific scenario in mind all along, naturally enough. That was Scenario 20, A March In December, which we'd first played back in April.

It'd been a thread over at the BGG which'd got me thinking about replaying this particular scenario. The consensus on that thread was that this scenario must be broken because it appeared just too difficult for the Russians to win; an obvious challenge to me because I'd won the scenario as the Russians on that first play. And I'd been wanting to try out the Finns ever since I'd got hold of Combat Commander: Mediterranean.

We played this scenario twice that night. I was the Finns the first time and won a crushing victory, forcing a surrender on time 2 (and with 33VP). Playing the Russians in our 2nd game, I lost in the closest result I've ever seen in my Combat Commander career of more than 100 games. That is to say, the game was tied on VP when it ended on time 8, so that it went to the player holding the Initiative card, who just happened to be Badger.

It might seem obvious that 2 more Finnish victories provide grist to the mill of those who think this scenario is broken. It cannot be denied that the scenario is unbalanced. All the same, I think these results amplify Chad's remarks (on that BGG thread) about how the raw statistics might hide the different kinds of victories each side achieved, namely runaway victories for the Finns contrasting with close-fought near things for the Russians.

What I think this comes down to is that this scenario is unbalanced but not broken. The situation favours the Finns, making the scenario- the only one featuring the Finns in CC:M- a suitable exemplar of the historically outstanding feature of the 1939/40 Russo-Finnish war (wiki). But the scenario isn't broken, because there is a viable winning strategy for the Russians, one signalled in the special rules, in particular the rule denying exit VP to the Finns until they have eliminated all Russian weapons.

All the talk over at the BGG about a broken scenario therefore seems to me to be little more than players crashing and burning in the face of a tactical solution the novelty of which has escaped them on their first encounter therewith. I know it may seem obvious to state, but this is the nature of an unbalanced scenario. Not only will one side win more often than another, but it'll win disproportionately more early games until the underdog's winning strategy reveals itself.

Related@RD/KA!
- Got game!: our first game goes to the Russians.
- Combat Commander scenario 20: a viable Russian strategy and its opacity

Another gamers' weekend

So, Badger was round Saturday night for some gaming as noted. No prizes for guessing what we played. We got in 3 games and a nice curry supper. I took special care with the curries because I'd had a pepper catastrophe with the lamb and fennel stew I'd cooked the last time Badger was here. Long story short, it's embarassing when your guest calls out for a pizza delivery because he just can't eat what you've served up!

I've spent the week writing and rewriting my thoughts on those games we played, but I haven't been able to finish them yet. I don't expect to have more games of Combat Commander to report before those comments are completed. So I should be back to these games sometime soon.

Into the depths once more!
In the meantime, Andy and Tony turned up for a Sunday session. Andy was keen to play Descent again, keen enough to volunteer to play the Overlord, which was enough to win my agreement.

And so Tony and I ended up going into the 2nd dungeon with a sorceror and a bloodsucking undead warrior. We almost made it too, especially after we picked up a couple of magic items which turned my sorceror into a walking nuclear cannon: all of Andy's minions were instant toast unless I missed them outright (1/6 chance); while 2 hits would be enough for bosses, minor or major. Unfortunately, these mighty magic missiles notwithstanding, the crucial fact that we didn't pick up any magic weapons boosting Tony's melee attacks told against us over time.

By the way, I don't think that Tony and I really 'almost made it'. The last few turns were marked by our ever more desperate visits to town so as to avoid immediate defeat should one or other of us die. We'd've had a long way to go even if we'd've survived that moment, but the reality was that we were finding it increasingly difficult to fight our way out of Andy's endless spawns.

We're going to play again Sunday next, which means that the game has achieved one of its design goals, which is to get people to give it another try. ;)