Game Review: Clash for a Continent

By Tom Vasel
August 17, 2006

Publisher: Worthington Games / www.worthingtongames.com
Designers: Mike Wylie, Grant Wylie. Matt Burchfield
Artist: Don Troiani
Graphic Designer: Sean Cooke
Price: 49.95 US$

Rating: 6 / 10

When I first heard of Clash for a Continent: Battles of the American Revolution and French & Indian War (Worthington Games, 2005 - Matt Burchfield & Grant and Mike Wylie), I didn’t give it much thought - other than the fact that the name was a bit lengthy. I really don’t enjoy the war game genre very much - other than light games, such as the most superb Memoir ‘44. But then I was told that Clash for a Continent (CfaC) was very similar to the Battlecry system - the one used in Memoir ‘44 and Commands and Colors: Ancients. In fact, some online went so far as to accuse Worthington games of “ripping off” Mr. Borg’s well designed games. This, of course, brought me to view the game in a much more interested light - and so I tried it out.

And my thoughts are rather mixed on the game. Yes, it’s a light war game that does a decent job recreating battles from two of the earliest American wars. Also, the system is one that I enjoy and works well in the settings of earlier wars such as these. The problem is that the components aren’t as nice, and the gameplay isn’t as compelling as the Memoir ‘44 game kit or the Commands and Colors system. For someone like me, who only needs a few war games and likes pretty bits in the ones he plays, Clash for a Continent really won’t see much play. For those who like that sort of system and are interested in one or both of the wars represented in this game, CfaC will be a nice addition to their library.

Some comments on the game…

1.) Components: Once again, another game that involves placing stickers on wooden blocks. It wasn’t too difficult, although I had to be careful to make sure that the backs and fronts matched up, as they weren’t exactly the same. The blocks are different colors (brown, blue, white, and red) depending on what country they represent - and are fairly thin. The remainder of the components, such as the hexes and the board, aren’t as high of quality - they are made of thin cardboard, and only have printing on one side. Still, they are functional, and look pretty good when set up, and I’m glad that the board was made so that multiple boards could be attached together. Everything fits inside a white box with a printed slipcover (does anyone like these things?) It’s not bad quality but could have been improved, and the game will pale besides its cousins Memoir and Commands and Colors.

2.) Blocks: While not miniatures, I certainly can deal with using chunky blocks, which is why I find Commands and Colors: Ancients a very enjoyable game. But in Clash for a Continent, the block system often caused us some problems when it came to functionality. Each block stands for one unit and is rotated or flipped to show the size and strength of the unit. This may sound like a good idea, but it’s often a bit of a pain to rotate the pieces and remember if they’ve been rotated or not. I prefer the system where there is one block or miniature for each point of the unit’s strength. This certainly doesn’t make the game unplayable, but it does detract from its enjoyability a bit.

3.) Rules: The rulebook, which did include all of the rules, did so in a bit of a disorganized fashion - one that caused a bit of confusion for me, even though I was pretty sure that I could easily figure out the game. The actual game itself isn’t that complicated; while there are different exceptions and rules for some of the armies, it’s rather simple to explain and would be classified as many as a “light” war game.

4.) Copy-cat: Some have accused Worthington Games of simply “knocking off” the incredible Battle Cry system. And after playing, one will be certainly aware that the games are remarkably similar. However, there are some major differences - one being the cards, so prevalent in Borg’s games, are absent in this game. Personally, I really miss the cards - sure, they added a bit of randomness to the game, but they also added a lot of flavor, both in mechanics and historically. I’m going to say, after multiple playings of Clash for a Continent that it doesn’t resemble Borg’s games enough to be a rip-off. But I also will state that the other games are more elegant and fun.

5.) Scenarios: Now, lest this seem like all my comments are negative, let me emphasize that there are parts of the game that I do enjoy, and one is the scenario selection. I enjoy how many of the major battles from the American Revolution and French and Indian War, two wars often ignored in gaming, are represented here. The scenarios feel accurate (although are occasionally unbalanced - something war gamers seem to heartily enjoy). The feel of the battles fits the eras, and the game is the best game of this period I own (but look at my collection and realize that isn’t saying much). There are fourteen scenarios, ranging from Fort Duquesne to Yorktown, each with a few special rules and different victory conditions. A few historical notes are included which help put the battle into perspective, and add to the enjoyment of the game.

6.) Leaders: Leaders play a critical role in the game - have them taken out, and your precious action points dwindle. They can also rally units, increasing their morale, and helping units increase their firepower. I’ve come to the conclusion that leaders are invaluable, and the player who best uses their leaders (not me!) will do the best in the game. When a leader is killed (not a tremendously easy task), it’s a devastating blow and one that is often remembered as a high tension point in the game.

7.) Action Points: To replace the cards, a player receives a certain amount of action points per turn. This allows units to move or shoot, not both. For someone who likes fast firefights, this was a bit of a drawback for me, although I’ll certainly admit that it makes sense given the era. It also allows the feeling of marching under fire - something that causes great tension and a feel of dread. The stupidity of battles back then comes out through the gameplay.

8.) Fun Factor: The game works well (except the block annoyances), and it comes across well both historically and in gameplay. But at the same time, it just isn’t that much fun for me. This is most likely because I keep thinking about Memoir ‘44 the entire time while playing, and it’s hard to come close to that masterpiece.

But that’s not the entire truth - it’s not simply the comparisons with the vastly superior Memoir ‘44 and Commands and Colors: Ancients that bring down Wars for America. I think it’s simply that the gameplay; while fast in real life (games take only about an hour), it still manages to feel plodding and slow, and “winning” isn’t very satisfying. Sometimes a player wins because of a lucky strike on an opponent’s leader, and that just doesn’t really come across as a victory to be proud of. I can’t place my finger on it, but my end analysis is that with mediocre components, decent mechanics, and some fun, Clash for a Continent ends up being simply an “okay” game. And that’s really not enough for me in a decade of hundreds of great games. If you’re looking for a game about this period of American history, then you’ll probably be interested. If you’re a fledgling war gamer, looking for an introductory game, I would point you elsewhere.

Comments:

< Back Home