TVB Archives

TVB Archives | Back to Tri-Valley Boardgamers

Note: Games are listed with the publisher and game owner in brackets, just for reference.

TVB SESSION REPORT FOR JANUARY 21, 1998

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mark, Paul, Charles, Hank, Matt, Kevin, Sterling, and Doug

Gettysburg 88, Stonewall Jackson's Way, Before I Kill You Mr. Bond (x2),

Fast Food Franchise, En Garde (x2), Get the Goods, Bohnanza

Matt and I prearranged to play this one (a Christmas present!) the week

before, always a good idea with wargames, even one as simple as this one.

The "88" isn't really part of the title, it's just how we distinguish this

edition of Avalon Hill's battle simulation from its earlier ones (of which

there are three, I think). This was the first game in AH's Smithsonian

Series lineup, a good line of simpler, faster-playing wargames covering

popular subjects in American history. Aside from this one, all the others

are World War 2 simulations (though the Platoon movie tie-in game is one of

this series, too, in all but name--it has the same packaging and

components). Of the three-day battle, there are scenarios for each

individual day, the whole thing, and just the final two days. (For some

reason, there isn't an official way to play just the first two days.) We

played just the Day 1 scenario, the shortest, and were done in an hour.

That may not have been the best scenario to pick, since most of what

happens is that the Confederates big divisions arrive on the scene first,

with only a motley assortment of Union troops to delay them before the bulk

of the Union forces arrive later that day (and on the second).

Correspondingly, the victory conditions are strongly biased: the

Confederate player must accumulate *twice* as many victory points as the

Union to win, otherwise he loses--there is no draw. VPs are awarded for

combat losses to enemy units (1 VP/combat strength), as well as certain

strategic hexes that help guide the battle toward its historic result.

Well, that's what I think they do. There are several hills around the map,

which are useful for defensive purposes, and those have VPs assigned to

them. One more hex on the edge of the map probably represents a bottleneck

for arriving Union troops: they want to keep it open, and the Rebs would

love to choke it up.

As it played out, the Union forces only deliberately entered battle one

time, with no substantial effect. The Rebels, on the other hand, used the

big divisions to annihilate any Union forces in the way, and quickly

marched into the town and then Cemetary and Culp's Hills. But they never

challenged that reinforcements "bottlneck" hex, and Little Round Top was

just way too far. So in the final tally, my Rebels scored about 1.5x the VP

total of Matt's Union forces, well short of what's required to win.

The last time I played this game, I was of the mind that the combat system

(1d10 + combat strength vs. 1d10 + combat strength) swung too wide,

particularly when small forces fought each other. I'd suggested making the

simple mod of using 2d6 in place of 1d10. That idea might still have some

merit, but I found myself not as convinced of a problem this time. The next

time I play, it will probably be with a larger scenario and most of the

simple optional rules. I wouldn't suggest changing anything about the game

until I tried it that way.

However, this next time won't be at TVB (more likely over a lunch or two

with Hank, at work). Doug has been pitching his old Lee vs. Meade game of

the same battle, unique for its square grid with varying movement costs

from corner to corner. Published by Gamma Two, perhaps? Well, Doug,

snailmail me the rules and I'll be ready when you are, even next time.

STONEWALL JACKSON'S WAY

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This game, published by Avalon Hill, is one in a recent series called the

Great Campaigns of the American Civil War (GCACW, as distinguished from

Great *Battles* of the ACW, which I understand is an older series written

by or at least associated with Richard Berg). I sure don't profess to

understand all that it's about, but my impression is of a game somewhere

between the operational and strategic scales (about campaigns, not battles,

of course). Where other wargames might teach the players why certain

battles were won or lost, these games give more insight to the where and

when--road networks, forced marches, and so on relate to armies' mobility

in the ACW. And though it's one of the more complex wargames to be tackled

at TVB, Charles and Hank completed their scenario in no more than two

hours. Charles commented that, although the rules were somewhat involved,

they were also very well written, particularly the reference sheets. They

didn't have to poke a nose in the thicker rulebook during play at all.

Charles: "In the Stonewall Jackson's Way game, Hank took the Confederates

and I had the Union. To win, Jackson's corp gets points for being close or

on top of the city of Culpepper. Both sides get the usual points for killed

"The first days battles were only some cavalry skirmishes which pretty

much ended in equal units lost(due to a very lucky die roll by me). The

second day saw Jackson's corp heading straight for Culpepper with almost no

Union forces in front of it. I was able to win an initiatve and move Bank's

entire 2nd corp down the road in front of Culpepper. Hank won some more

initiatives and brought up his last division and launched a corp assault on

Bank's 2nd corp. The result was equal units lost and both corps completely

fatigued for the rest of the day. I was then able to bring down King's

18-strength divison and Siegle's corp into Culpepper.

"The third and final day saw Jackson's corp make a move around my 2nd

corp and make another corp assault but this time on King's division. King

got routed which allowed Jackson's corp to move next to Culpepper but his

put Jackson's corp between my 2 corp. I launched a corp assault with

Siegle's corp and lost more units than the Confederates but forced

Jackson's corp to retreat. The Confederates ended up with 7 victory points

to 6 for the Union which resulted in a marginal Union victory."

BEFORE I KILL YOU MR. BOND

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Doug is on a quest to have this game challenge TVB favorites Settlers and

Air Baron for playing frequency. And you know what? In 1998 this little

near-mindless game is leading! (Which reminds me that I still need to do

TVB's 1997 report...) Well, anyway, two more games were played last time,

by Doug, Paul, Sterling, and Kevin.

Doug: "The Bond 'games' (to be generous with the term) were a hoot, as

always. I had an easy victory in the first game, but Sterling won the

second using a awesome lair consisting of The Creepy Woods on Peril Island,

leading to the Hall of Magnets staffed with the Loyal Henchlings tending

the Thermal Facisimile of Doom. Or something like that. "

The same group that played Mr. Bond went for FFF. By the way, Prism Games'

designer Tom Lehmann has been making appearances at our sister group, the

Silicon Valley Boardgamers. Doing some playtesting of new/revamped titles,

too. Contact Dave Kohr if you're interested.

Doug: "FFF was a trimuph for the Beef Industry, with the final showdown

the Burger Bros. underdog of the Central/Southwest vs. the Steak n' Salad

behemoth stretching down the entire eastern seaboard. Sterling landed on me

first. Paul was shafted early on by the too often 'land on nothing but

adverts and events' opening. He offered a suggestion that we play with the

'free rides until you pass start' variant, which seems like a good idea for

the next time. His Family style in the Pacific Southwest only had one

"I'm starting to form the opinion that SnS is really the easiest chain to

play. Sure you can over capitalize and go broke before someone lands on you

but if you can avoid doing so then victory seems almost inevitable. Not a

whole lot of decisions need to be made running it."

Ah-ha! So not quite everyone else in TVB thinks this game is a drag! (Why

do I go against the grain so often?) Matt and I had tried this one some

time ago, when I cleaned his clock. This time he had a firmer grasp of the

tactics, though, and trounced me in the first match, 5-1 or something. The

second was much closer, and I was able to squeak out a win. Incidentally,

the other night I found I'd been playing one rule wrong all along. When

corrected, it makes the charge attack a more effective tactic.

The four wargamers (Matt, Charles, Hank, and myself) changed gears for this

light, multiplayer card game. I've played this several times already with

the lunch group at work, and it's a definite keeper (and at $6 for an

easily available American game, a must-buy, too). The elements of the game

are familiar to anyone who's played Acquire, Airlines, or Freight Train:

collect the most of something, score the most points, with a dimished,

second-place award. Where those other games have spatial or linear

relationships between the commodities one can "invest" in, Get The Goods

distills the concept down to basic set collecting. The result is a game not

as deep, but faster and lighter playing. I like Airlines and Freight Train

quite a bit, but sometimes I'm in the mood for GtG, and it sure fits into a

The one modification I've made to the basic game is to ensure that no one

receives the more valuable x2 or Wild cards in their opening hand--a player

must pay dearly for them when they surface during play. As luck would have

it, four of the five x2 cards came up on my turn throughout the game.

Though not everyone would agree with me, I think they have to be picked,

despite the high cost. The final scores certainly reflected the dominance

of those lucky draws I had. The final scores were 37-24-24-19.

Another one that's been played a bit at work, but not yet so much at TVB.

The expansion to this quirky little card game with "constrained trading"

permits up to seven players (the basic game handles up to 5). Though I've

read reports of gamers elsewhere that think those packed-out games are the

best, I disagree. We had six players in our game at TVB, three of them new

to it, and the game dragged a bit. If any of you weren't too impressed, try

it again with 3-5 players, and I think you'll see the game in a better light.

A gamer I know in New Orleans has mentioned that his games have ended up in

ties too many times. Up until now, I could say that my many games of

Bohnanza had never ended that way. However, our 6-player game ended with a

3-way tie for first, the rest not far behind. I thnk 12-12-12-11-10-9 was

the final score. I know Doug and I were two of the leaders, and think Kevin

TRI-VALLEY BOARDGAMERS 12/28/97 Session Report

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WHO WAS THERE: Mark, Sterling, Charles, Doug

WHAT WE PLAYED: Venice Connection, Before I Kill You Mr. Bond...,

Extinction, Wildlife Adventure

Sterling and I took this one up first to fill time before other TVBers

showed up. It's an abstract tile-laying game with strong elements of the

basic/classic game Nim. Each tile is aesthetically a little different but

functionally identical: a square depicting a straight section of canal on

one side, 90-degree corner on the other. The object of the game is to place

the tile that completes a "loop" or circuit of canal. There are 16 tiles,

and each player may lay 1-3 on their turns. The tiles placed must be

adjacent to one another (and in a line, which only affects triple tile

placements). However, note that you don't have to lay tiles at the "end" of

the canal. About the only restriction on tile placement at all is that you

can't cut off a waterway by "crossing the T," if you take my meaning.

(Remember, there are only straights and corners, no tees or crosses.)

Also note that with a limited tile set it's possible to set up a situation

where the canal loop cannot be closed with the remaining tiles. When that

happens, the player that spots it and calls his opponent on it gets the win

(unless the first player can actually finish the loop somehow).

My brief experience with the game is that the opening few moves are pretty

random, and that things don't get tight and thoughtful until there are only

a half-dozen tiles left or so. Then again, I never play these sort of

abstract strategy games at a very cerebral level, so perhaps I'm missing

some key strategies. In any case, Sterling and I reached the normal sort of

near-end game situation, I made the placement that I thought sealed his

fate...but in fact I'd placed one too many tiles, and instead gave the win

to him! I'll try to remember to bring this one along somewhat regularly for

the times when just a couple players are waiting for more to show up. (En

Garde fits that bill well, too, and is similarly small and portable.)

BEFORE I KILL YOU MR. BOND

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After the grief I've suffered for my enjoyment of another Cheapass title,

Ben Hvrt, I was a bit surprised to see Doug picked this one up. (He also

got The Very Clever Pipe Game. Together with my copies of Ben Hvrt, Spree,

and Give Me The Brain, we've got a pretty extensive Cheapass collection!)

Like many--but not all--of James Earnest's games, the humor in the rules

and game itself is better than the gameplay. Still, there are a lot of

laughs in the first few playthroughs, and for $4-5 for the lighter ones,

it's hard to complain. Charles had showed up by now, so we managed a

This one is a multiplayer card game, the theme being the ridiculous but

traditional situation where criminal masterminds like to taunt any double-O

agents they capture before killing them outright. And of course, that

megalomania gives any superspy worth his secret wristwatch the opportunity

needed to escape, destroying the villain's plans for world domination.

The game is simple enough. Everyone has a hand of cards, both green ones

and yellow ones. The color distinction is a simple way to designate spies