Travis Reynolds: Basic Training – Target Arnhem, 1960

This month I was lucky enough to attend a Games Day put on by the Appalachian Gamers‘ own Charlie Davis. The Games Day was held on the campus of WVU Tech in Montgomery WV. Last year’s event was plagued with bad weather – Ted Cheatham almost killed me on an icy bridge traveling home! – and this year’s was similarly stricken with uncharacteristically good weather, a bane for indoor activities in the spring. Nonetheless, the turnout was good and the fun was great.

The Appalachian Gamers took a large library of board games and played them pretty much non-stop all day long. I enjoy the opportunity to teach games to folks who have not played them before. At CharCon I am so busy, I not only don’t have time to teach, but in two years I have played only one game. (Ferkin & Steve of Columbia Games taught Kris & me Crusader Rex.) So not having so many responsibilities gave me the chance to show great games to people who may not normally play board games. I taught Ra, Yspahan and Silk Road (camel included). I also watched a new player learn to play Memoir ‘44. It is always fun watching as players gradually grasp the concepts and mechanisms of new games.

In addition to teaching, I got to play a lot of different games. Two of those were games that I specifically planned to play while at this event: Target Arnhem and 1960:The Making of the President.

Session Report: Target Arnhem: Across 6 Bridges

Target Arnhem is a game I have been curious about for a few months, plus I figured it was a great fit for this column, so asking Dave Gilligan to bring it with him to the Games Day was a no-brainer.

This game is meant to be a short simple wargame that is easy to teach to beginners. It was originally published in a Japanese magazine (Games Journal vol.43) and had since been picked up by Multi-Man Publishing. In what I think is both a generous and genius effort to support the hobby, MMP produced this game with the intention of giving it away. It was handed out for free at Origins 2005. Tthe company continued to have it available via its webstore for the low, low price of free (with you paying only shipping). Alas, it’s currently out of stock.

In Target Arnhem, two players take opposite sides and aspire to recreate Operation Market Garden. This game is intentionally very easy to learn and play. However, it does manage to create a solid game with basic mechanisms.

The objective for the Allied player is to control the road leading to Arnhem and occupy the town. If he is able to do that after nine days (each turn is one day) he wins; if not, then the German Forces will claim the victory. This puts the Allied player in a very aggressive role, thus ensuring lots of action early and often.

Further making sure that players will see plenty of battle is the design of the map. The game is played on a map that is 16 hexes top to bottom and 5 or 6 hexes wide. The road to Arnhem starts at the bottom and runs to the top. Along the way are entrenched German forces in various towns and villages. The allied player has to fight to gain ground on this road and make his way to Arnhem. Complicating this effort is the German Forces’ ability to move troops in off board areas. This allows them to quickly reinforce areas or move in behind allied troops.

Finally, the Allied player also has paratroops that he can drop any place on the map. The placement of these troops is key, as it will almost certainly drive the pace of the game.

Combat in Target Arnhem is very simple. All troop markers (which are on a regimental level) have two numbers on their face. One is Combat Strength and the other is Endurance Value. When two forces clash, commanders simply total the sum of their forces’ Combat Strength and compare it with their opponents. This comparison will determine a ratio, which is then cross-referenced with the single chart in the game. Finally, a die roll on this chart determines the results of the battle. Losses are represented as a reduction in Endurance Value (damage markers included). If a unit’s Endurance is reduced to zero, it is eliminated.

The game also introduces players to the basics of supply. Supply lines must be maintained in order for troops to receive reinforcements. When supply is available, a troop’s Endurance Value is increased (assuming it had already been reduced). If a unit is cut off from supply, not only can it not receive reinforcements – it will lose one point of Endurance and fight with reduced effectiveness until it comes into supply. Supply points are limited (with one exception), so deciding how to use them is vital. The one exception to this is the Allied push from the South. As long as the allied commander can trace supply to the southernmost road hex, he can make use of unlimited supply, thus fueling his aggressive push north toward Arnhem.

I found Target Arnhem to be a light and fun game. I think it is an excellent gateway game for someone who is interested in trying out wargames to see if they are a wargamer at heart. It introduces players to a lot of the basic elements of a wargame, without overwhelming them with details. I highly recommend the game and applaud MMP for its efforts!

1960: Wargame or Not?

Another game I had been itching to play is 1960:The Making of the President. We were lucky enough to have had one of the designers, Jason Mathews, as a guest at CharCon this past year. Jason was a great guy, but regrettably I didn’t get to play this or any other games with him (see above about stupid responsibilities). Ted had his copy at the Games Day and I jumped on the chance to play it.

1960 is a two-player game in which players take the roles of John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon during the 1960 Presidential election campaign. The game is driven by the play of Campaign Cards, which can be either exchanged for Campaign Points or played for the event on the card. Either way, the player may gain rest cubes that will eventually go toward restocking the draw bag, which is used for a variety of things, including initiative. Regardless of how you play your cards, the ultimate goal is to gain the advantage in enough states to earn more electoral votes than your opponent.

Campaign points allow you to do several things. The most basic is placing support into states in the form of red or blue wooden cubes. They can also be used to advertise, change your positioning on the issues and move your candidate. When all is said and done, the game is about having support in the states, but all of these options are valuable actions to take at various stages of the game.

Event cards are the real excitement of the game. They impact just about every facet of the game and properly using or not using cards will most certainly be a major factor in who wins the election. Timing seems to be everything with these cards. Playing the right card at the right time can really handicap your opponent’s efforts. However, take care when you play cards even if you do not use the event. Your opponent may be able to activate the event anyway if you use a card for Campaign Points. So keeping a card out of play that will provide a huge swing for your opponent is also crucial.

As the game progresses and states change hands, the candidates claw for positioning on the issues and engage in a round of debates. Meanwhile, Election Day creeps closer and before you know it, it is time for the final count. When it arrives, all the advertising and issues cubes are dropped into the draw bag and it is used for initiative one final time. The candidates then reveal Campaign Strategy cards they had tucked away. (On each of the final two turns, players are dealt seven cards, playing five and placing the remaining two face-down in Campaign Strategy.)

Each of the cards has a state printed on the bottom. During the Campaign Strategy step, players reveal and resolve their cards in initiative order. Basically, each card allows the candidate to pull three support checks for the state indicated. These are resolved by random draws from the bag. For each cube of his own color that is pulled, the candidate gains support in that state. States can most certainly change hands in this phase.

Once that is completed, any Election Day events that were played are resolved. Then, any empty states are determined. Finally, the electoral votes are counted and a new President is elected.

For the ninety or so minutes that this game takes to play, I was absolutely enthralled. The production value of the game is extremely nice, from the cards to the board to the state seals. The Campaign Cards are great, with events such as Nixon’s Knee, Lyndon Johnson, Henry Cabot Lodge, the Lazy Shave and The Nixon/Kennedy Steel Cage Death Match. All of the event cards have cool pictures and wonderful text telling about the actual historical event. Everything in the game has a purpose and cannot be ignored. It is well balanced and tons of fun. I absolutely will play this again and again and…

So how did our game go? Well, Ted/Nixon came out of the gates strong. After that, it was all Kennedy. Seriously, I dominated the entire game. I controlled all of the East and South regions just about the entire game. I won all three debates without breaking a sweat. I headed off Nixon’s efforts at every turn – until the end of the game. I still owned all of the East and South and had a huge lead in Electoral votes. (Not that I counted – don’t count as it would ruin the game!) I was well aware of what might happen during the Campaign Strategy turn and thought I had taken enough steps to prevent it. But Nixon reveals his cards and has NY and TX. That’s no problem as I have two cubes in each. He gets only three support checks per state, and even if he removes both of my cubes, those states default to me. Even if he manages to take one state, I’d still have enough to win. Well, of course he pulled six red cubes in a row from the bag and took both states. Gah!

I managed to counter by taking Michigan and Colorado, but it wasn’t enough. Texas and New York were worth 76 electoral votes, for a swing of 152. In the end, Nixon won by less than 30. If I were to have any complaint about the game, it would be this. After playing the whole game and putting forth a strong effort, I still managed to lose by luck. With that said, now that I better understand all the mechanisms, I most certainly will take more steps to protect myself and make better use of the Campaign Strategy cards in the end. (Colorado? Come on, it’s a great state, but only 6 votes!)

So, is 1960 a wargame or not. It certainly doesn’t have the theme one would expect from a wargame, but it is loaded with wargame-style mechanisms: head-to-head removal of cubes in the various states, the jockeying for position and momentum on the issues, the card play to directly hinder your opponent, and more. Can a game be considered a wargame without a war theme?

I ask you, does theme make a game a wargame, or is it the mechanisms? Maybe it takes a mix of both. Maybe it can be either? You tell me.

Coming in April

I plan to have an interview with Uwe Eickert, designed of the soon-to-be-released Conflict of Heroes. Plus, I will be attending another game show that will give me plenty of opportunities to play all sorts of games. Until then!

---

Comments:

You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free!

Hmm. you ask the question what makes a wargame and haven’t been flooded by banter.  Am I on a gaming website? ;) For people new to the hobby wargame will mean what they guess it to mean as a compound word: “war game” or “gamer of war”. Any game about war in other words. There is however a more specific meaning from old school hobbyist which is often also called ‘real wargame’ or ‘consim’ (short for conflict simulation).  This meaning is about adding details that don’t add to gameplay (or puzzle solving) but instead just make the game more realistic or help visualize the reenactment of the battle. Hexgrids to finely control the positioning and rule exceptions that you wont even use when you play the game but are there to keep the behavior “feeling more real” are examples of such things. I’m sure someone else can give a better definition, but that is how I try to give it. Posted by Ray Petersen on Mar 21, 2008 at 02:30 PM | #

Ray, I am not sure I quite accept that definition of CONSIM.  Back before the web was a big deal, lots of us with wargame backgrounds used to participate in something called CONSIM-L.  It was a list serve.  My read of Conflict Simulation, was that the term “CONFLICT” was deliberately broad to incorporate games like Civilization, Pax Brittanica and other strategy board games with some element of history, but which might abstract warfare. So, in my worldview, 1960 might be a CONSIM—it certainly simulates a conflict.  But it is not a wargame.  Of course, the term “wargame” became much narrower after the explosion of “Euro” games.  Prior to Euros, most boardgamers were wargamers to some degree.  Wargamers were defining themselves against “role players” not other boardgamers.  I never read a discussion about whether or not Diplomacy, Civilization or Brittania were wargames.  At the time, I am sure most people would have said yes.  Now, you kind of have to scratch you head. For my own part, I think the effort at classification is bound to fail.  There are lots of guys like me in this country—people with wargaming backgrounds that have now been playing Euros for more than a decade.  We are bound to design games that incorporate elements of both schools.  So, I guess we will also continue to inspire these kinds of debates. Jason Posted by Jason Matthews on Mar 22, 2008 at 12:39 AM | #

I’m curious what the cube count was like in the bag just before the endgame draws… did red have a lot of cubes in the bag?  If Nixon is getting low-value cards he will often fall behind in the overall field of things due to less “powerful” cards, but that means there are more red cubes in the bag… Posted by Matt J. Carlson on Mar 23, 2008 at 11:04 PM | #

Red did indeed have more cubes in the bag, but not a staggering amount.  Blue did manage to pull enough cubes to secure Michigan and Colorado during the Campaign Strategy phase, but pulled some red in the process.  I would guess it was a 3:2 ratio. TR Posted by Travis Reynolds on Mar 24, 2008 at 08:44 AM | #

< Back Home