Any self-righteous blog that reviews games need to have a post where they go in detail about how they actually review games, right? Well, this is where I explain how I review games. My reviews are divided into the following sections:
Name of the Game: If you don't know what this part is for, this blog might not be for you.
"The Meat": This section is not literally about meat. Do I need to spell it out for you? Good lord, it's the meat of the review, it's a common phrase: I shouldn't need to explain this. This is the section where my incoherent ramblings can be found with a nice mixture of objective and subjective analysis and where I expound at length about the philosophical importance of doubling down in Caylus after someone moved back the provost in order that, as well as your actions, HIS actions are also excluded. Yes, i'm spiteful like that. Hopefully this section also incorporates actual analysis of how the rules affect the game at a level above mere explanations followed by 'I like this mechanism!'.
Conclusion (Optional): Who needs conclusions anyway? Is it really necessary for me to summarize my findings here so that you, the reader, instead of eating from the fruits of wisdom that I have given in the rest of the review can have a Cliff's Notes version of the review that accommodates your fast, active, busy lifestyle (and let's be clear, you play board games, there's nothing fast or active about them and you certainly aren't busy if you can afford to spend 4 hours shuffling wooden/plastic blocks around a board).
Scoring: This is where I score things out of 5 Angry Scowling King Philips. Why? I mean, just look at him in the background. Wouldn't you want to score things out of King Philips after seeing his cross-armed look of utter disgust? I thought so.
Sunday 27 January 2013
Napoleon's Triumph
Alright so Napoleon's Triumph is my favourite game ever and it's awesome! Go buy it!
Wow, this review business is easy, I should have done it before in order to roll in the mad cash. Oh, you need something more substantial than my entirely subjective assessment above? Okay, fine.
Napoleon's triumph is a wargamer's wargame. If you have ever played any wargames before, it is truly a breath of fresh air: if I was going to use another metaphor, more convuluted and of more dubious quality, it would be like being stuck in a desert, seeing mirages or sampling pools of fetid water and then suddenly finding an oasis in front of you and drinking cool, refreshing water. Crappy similes aside, Napoleon's Triumph manages to break a lot of the conventions of wargame while still being both strategically and tactically compelling without having the ridiculous time requirements of a big, complex wargame.
What makes the game stand out from other? The most important aspect is the completely diceless combat. Dice are usually endemic to the wargaming experience, because they allow you to simulate the uncertainty of battle: there's not a whole lot of ways within wargames to represent the weather, or show troops not moving for whatever reason, or attacks not being conducted due to the incompetence of weak officers. Thus, dice have had a long important role within the development of wargaming as a whole and several methods have been used in the past in order to fully simulate combat on a variety of scales (a topic on which I will talk more about since I've had a lot of arguments involving bad perceptions of maths, both by me and my opponent). Napoleon's triumph complete lack of dice is therefor rather anomalous, considering the history of wargaming. It would also be possible to argue that a completely diceless system does NOT actually model combat and war effectively due to the fact that the random chance that is actually a huge factor within war and you would be right. On the other hand, the way that NT manages to pull it off allow it to be forgiven of that minor fault, since the necessary randomness is replaced by systems that allow it to be simulated without taking control out of the player's hands. Still with me so far?
How does this diceless system work and why do I think it is so innovative? The system within Napoleon's Triumph primarily works by creating a fog of war about your troops and your opponent's troops. This is not an innovation within the genre: block games have had hidden strength and capabilities of troops since the golden age of boardgaming (this is also a reason why NT can be classed as a block game). This both creates a lot of confusion and means that you never know if an attack is going to succeed until it is completely resolved. This also means that the game feels like playing a game of poker with 8 different hands, each opposed by an equally large number of cards. Once an attack has been declared, though, the mind games are not over since there is a huge number of choices available both to the defenders and attackers when an attack occurs. I won't explain all the rules, but some of the choices involved are to retreat immediately or not (which can be a brilliant move if you manage to draw the offending enemy corps out of position), if the attack is a feint or not, what units the defender is going to use to 'lead' the defense, what units the attacker is going to attack with and who leads them (which allows for bombardments if you choose an artillery piece), if the defender is going to counter-attack or not etc. All of these mini-decisions really create an atmosphere that you are there, commanding the corps troops at a minute level while still allowing you to control the battle as a whole.
Even with the amount of choice given above, some might be troubled by the combat resolution outline above: due to the lack of randomness, the battles are going to be pre-decided with whoever has the best troops winning, regardless of the choices available since the best choice is always going to be to maximize your result within a single battle. This however, is largely prevented by the system of counter-attack (which only the defender can use) which allows a defender to sacrifice troops in order to win a battle.This, along with the heavy penalties for losing (loss of morale as well as forcing corps to become detached) means that attacking within the game is a losing proposition most of the time. How does that make it possible to attack, then? You told us this game was good Tekopo! YOU LIED! Now now, wait for my explanation. The reason why attack is still feasible is because the crux of the game resolves around feints and manuevering/flanking your opponent. Feints allow you to fix an enemy into position while diluting the resources that he can use to defend: thus the usual attack is to feint from several sides and then smash through another side once the enemy defenses are spread out. This accurately reflects how the battle would occur in real life, with cavalry screens harassing the enemy flanks in order to both slow them down and also force them on the defensive. This also means that usually the correct response when you see one of your corps surrounded and the enemy is attempting to do the above tactic to you is to retreat immediately, since that is likely to reduce your losses in the long term.
The map itself also features an interesting innovation: instead of the hexes that are commonly found in most other wargames (or spaces in case of CDGs), the spaces within NT are known as locales, with their most striking feature that they are irregularly shaped. The irregular shape of the locales is used in order to replicate the effects of terrain without needing to resort to a terrain chart: in other words, large, open areas are usually represented by large, open locales while treacherous terrain is represented by smaller locales. Two other important features of a locale are the locale limit, which tells the player how many units can fit within that locale and the approaches (ie the edges of the locale), which can have penalties when attacking through them. Units within a locale can either be in reserve (and thus placed in the middle of the locale, reay to face threats coming from any side) or on an approach, which mean that they are able to defend any attacks from that approach better. This system of locale really allows the player to imagine the armies squaring off, or of cavalry making sweeping flank charges.
Another great part about NT is the sense of aesthetics. The game was deliberately designed in order to simulate those maps of battles in which the different armies are represented by lines, facing each other. The game really feels like what a 19th century gentlemen would be playing, pushing wooden blocks with simple illustrations around. The overall quality of the build is also outstanding, from the map, to the wooden pieces, to the corps commanders with their little flags and names. About the only problem I have with the aesthetics is the tiny numbers and symbols present on the map itself, which for someone with eyesight as bad as mine means that I really struggle to read the board.
Finally, there are great little touches to the game that add to the authenticity of the game. The Allied player only has a limited number of corps that he can command per turn and can only move 3 independents per turn, while the French commander has no such limitations and can command up to 4 independents a turn: this is meant to replicate the superior command and control structure of Napoleon's Army as well as show the higher independence that the French generals had. Another great aspect is the initial deployment, which largely resolves around the Allied player attempting to outbluff his French opponent and keep him guessing about the direction of the attack. A major part of this is that overall the Allied pieces are qualitatively worse than the French player, but the Allied has more of them, which means that he can potentially stack a flank full of bad units and force the french player to keep good units on a flank that the Allied player has no intention of attacking. Finally, the way that the game attempts to simulate the surprise attack of Davout and Bernadotte's corps is handled really well. The Allied player will always know that the French player has those units available, but of the French player brings them in, he is now forced on the offensive since the victory conditions of the game drastically change. This simulates both the initial attack by the Allies as well as their eventual shift to the defensive.
It is ALL of the elements described above which really allow the game to shine and allow it, in my mind, to outshine most other wargames. The game seems to be able to take the best elements of both Euros and Wargames, two genres that I deeply love and which constitute the majority of the board games I play and bring them together in a package that can take less than 2 hours to play, which for a wargame is pretty good going. There are, however, faults within the game. I mentioned earlier that this is a wargamer's wargame: I have attempted to play it with people that were not strictly speaking wargamers and it didn't go down well. As well as that, many traditional wargamers can be put off by it's very fiddly rules which don't actually explain how to play the game at all on a strategical level: i've often had to explain how to mount successful attacks involving feints, artillery bombardments followed by strong, frontal attacks. Some of the aesthetic choices within the design are also clearly done more for looks than for ease of play. Overall I think these are minor faults, like attempting to find issues with the Mona Lisa, but they are going to put people off and I acknowledge that there are many which do not seem to share the same love that I have for this game. If you do get a chance to play it and are into wargames, I would suggest to try it at least once: you might like it, you might hate it, but it just might completely change your entire perspective of how wargames should be designed.
Napoleon's Triumph gets 5 angry scowling King Philips out of 5.
How does this diceless system work and why do I think it is so innovative? The system within Napoleon's Triumph primarily works by creating a fog of war about your troops and your opponent's troops. This is not an innovation within the genre: block games have had hidden strength and capabilities of troops since the golden age of boardgaming (this is also a reason why NT can be classed as a block game). This both creates a lot of confusion and means that you never know if an attack is going to succeed until it is completely resolved. This also means that the game feels like playing a game of poker with 8 different hands, each opposed by an equally large number of cards. Once an attack has been declared, though, the mind games are not over since there is a huge number of choices available both to the defenders and attackers when an attack occurs. I won't explain all the rules, but some of the choices involved are to retreat immediately or not (which can be a brilliant move if you manage to draw the offending enemy corps out of position), if the attack is a feint or not, what units the defender is going to use to 'lead' the defense, what units the attacker is going to attack with and who leads them (which allows for bombardments if you choose an artillery piece), if the defender is going to counter-attack or not etc. All of these mini-decisions really create an atmosphere that you are there, commanding the corps troops at a minute level while still allowing you to control the battle as a whole.
Even with the amount of choice given above, some might be troubled by the combat resolution outline above: due to the lack of randomness, the battles are going to be pre-decided with whoever has the best troops winning, regardless of the choices available since the best choice is always going to be to maximize your result within a single battle. This however, is largely prevented by the system of counter-attack (which only the defender can use) which allows a defender to sacrifice troops in order to win a battle.This, along with the heavy penalties for losing (loss of morale as well as forcing corps to become detached) means that attacking within the game is a losing proposition most of the time. How does that make it possible to attack, then? You told us this game was good Tekopo! YOU LIED! Now now, wait for my explanation. The reason why attack is still feasible is because the crux of the game resolves around feints and manuevering/flanking your opponent. Feints allow you to fix an enemy into position while diluting the resources that he can use to defend: thus the usual attack is to feint from several sides and then smash through another side once the enemy defenses are spread out. This accurately reflects how the battle would occur in real life, with cavalry screens harassing the enemy flanks in order to both slow them down and also force them on the defensive. This also means that usually the correct response when you see one of your corps surrounded and the enemy is attempting to do the above tactic to you is to retreat immediately, since that is likely to reduce your losses in the long term.
The map itself also features an interesting innovation: instead of the hexes that are commonly found in most other wargames (or spaces in case of CDGs), the spaces within NT are known as locales, with their most striking feature that they are irregularly shaped. The irregular shape of the locales is used in order to replicate the effects of terrain without needing to resort to a terrain chart: in other words, large, open areas are usually represented by large, open locales while treacherous terrain is represented by smaller locales. Two other important features of a locale are the locale limit, which tells the player how many units can fit within that locale and the approaches (ie the edges of the locale), which can have penalties when attacking through them. Units within a locale can either be in reserve (and thus placed in the middle of the locale, reay to face threats coming from any side) or on an approach, which mean that they are able to defend any attacks from that approach better. This system of locale really allows the player to imagine the armies squaring off, or of cavalry making sweeping flank charges.
Another great part about NT is the sense of aesthetics. The game was deliberately designed in order to simulate those maps of battles in which the different armies are represented by lines, facing each other. The game really feels like what a 19th century gentlemen would be playing, pushing wooden blocks with simple illustrations around. The overall quality of the build is also outstanding, from the map, to the wooden pieces, to the corps commanders with their little flags and names. About the only problem I have with the aesthetics is the tiny numbers and symbols present on the map itself, which for someone with eyesight as bad as mine means that I really struggle to read the board.
Finally, there are great little touches to the game that add to the authenticity of the game. The Allied player only has a limited number of corps that he can command per turn and can only move 3 independents per turn, while the French commander has no such limitations and can command up to 4 independents a turn: this is meant to replicate the superior command and control structure of Napoleon's Army as well as show the higher independence that the French generals had. Another great aspect is the initial deployment, which largely resolves around the Allied player attempting to outbluff his French opponent and keep him guessing about the direction of the attack. A major part of this is that overall the Allied pieces are qualitatively worse than the French player, but the Allied has more of them, which means that he can potentially stack a flank full of bad units and force the french player to keep good units on a flank that the Allied player has no intention of attacking. Finally, the way that the game attempts to simulate the surprise attack of Davout and Bernadotte's corps is handled really well. The Allied player will always know that the French player has those units available, but of the French player brings them in, he is now forced on the offensive since the victory conditions of the game drastically change. This simulates both the initial attack by the Allies as well as their eventual shift to the defensive.
It is ALL of the elements described above which really allow the game to shine and allow it, in my mind, to outshine most other wargames. The game seems to be able to take the best elements of both Euros and Wargames, two genres that I deeply love and which constitute the majority of the board games I play and bring them together in a package that can take less than 2 hours to play, which for a wargame is pretty good going. There are, however, faults within the game. I mentioned earlier that this is a wargamer's wargame: I have attempted to play it with people that were not strictly speaking wargamers and it didn't go down well. As well as that, many traditional wargamers can be put off by it's very fiddly rules which don't actually explain how to play the game at all on a strategical level: i've often had to explain how to mount successful attacks involving feints, artillery bombardments followed by strong, frontal attacks. Some of the aesthetic choices within the design are also clearly done more for looks than for ease of play. Overall I think these are minor faults, like attempting to find issues with the Mona Lisa, but they are going to put people off and I acknowledge that there are many which do not seem to share the same love that I have for this game. If you do get a chance to play it and are into wargames, I would suggest to try it at least once: you might like it, you might hate it, but it just might completely change your entire perspective of how wargames should be designed.
Napoleon's Triumph gets 5 angry scowling King Philips out of 5.
Saturday 26 January 2013
On the subject of 'Fun'
So you might have noticed that the name of this blog is 'No Fun Allowed' which for a blog about gaming seems pretty weird, since fun is the reason why games are created and played around the world. First of all, the name of the blog is a reference to a certain well known forum, although I have no real connection to that place and only know about it due to the ridicule heaped upon it: in essence, I thought it would be fine to imply by association that I'm often as wrong as the people in that fine forum. On the other hand, the name was created due to a piece that I decided to write due to several discussions held over the years in the board gaming thread on the Something Awful forums, which until now was the only avenue that I used in order to express my opinions about games. The discussion came to a boil recently when the following video was posted in the thread:
First of all, let's make one thing clear. I've never really had any enmity towards Tom Vasel before: his reviews were always on the periphery for me: I knew they existed and I had even seen a few and even made the joke that if I was going to start making video reviews of board games I hated, one of my set pieces would be a slow-mo video of dumping the game components straight into a bin. Apart from that, I hadn't really analysed his videos in much length, until I saw the one above. The video in of itself is perfectly inoffensive and like many of his videos that I had seen before, it wen on for an inordinate length about the actual rules of the game and didn't, at least in my opinion, elaborate enough on the actual merits of the game and how different people would like it/not like it.
This was until I heard the following sentence 'it's not mind-bogglingly difficult, it's just fun!'. Although on the SA forums it appeared like a flew in an apoplectic rage upon uttering those words, in reality I was struck at how those simple words had generated such a negative reaction within me. Although at first I was kind of annoyed at the casual dismissal of so-called 'complex' games (being a fan of them, it felt at the time like an insult), there was something which annoyed me far greatly and in the end, shows us how limited we are in the discourse of analyzing games and trying to vocalize why we think they are/are not worth playing.
First of all, let's analyze what is actually wrong with the above phrase, not-withstanding the reasons already outlined above. One of the aspects that we can speculate on is, for example, the attempted polarization of fun and complexity. The 'just' in that sentence, though, could be used to argue that no such polarization is occurring or meant within that sentence and that IS a fair point (especially after being told that Tom Vasel does play and enjoy more complex games as well). So that particular argument is out of the window.
If we dig deeper, though, there is another, more powerful argument that can be made, and that revolves around the word 'fun' (see, I told you I would explain the reason for the name eventually). I personally find the use of 'fun' very problematic when it is being used to talk, review or judge board games. The most important aspect of my argument is that 'fun' is something inherent within board game. The reason why board games exist and even other games as a whole is to make people have fun. Therefore, the argument goes, since a board game is meant to be entertaining, to describe a game as 'fun' is like saying that food makes you less hungry. It almost becomes a tautology: board games are so intrinsically linked with entertaining people that to define them as being 'fun' is just redundant.
This leads to the rebuttal that in reviewing games, people are allowed to class something as being 'fun' because it allows them to separate games in which no fun is derived due to flaws within the game itself from games that do their intended job by providing entertainment, and are therefore 'fun'. This is shown not to hold water when we see how the word 'fun' is used in the context of the reviews.
Most often than not, many reviewers (and I deliberately chose not to refer back to Dice Tower since I don't think they are the only people to do it) will talk about 'fun, short games': the word fun is overwhelmingly used to describe shorter, less complex and often more luck-based games. I find the above troubling because most of my enjoyment from games is derived from long, complex and strategically/tactically compelling games. I find those games extremely fun and normally eschew simple games especially if they are too random (which has lead some people in my group to show mock surprise when they spy me playing anything less complex than Caylus). This leads to a curious situation in which I see reviews of games that I detest that proclaim the game to be 'fun' due to their lack of complexity/randomness etc. although clearly, for me, the game is 'non-fun'.
So how is such a situation resolved? Do I have to think immediately that the reviewer is a complete idiot? In order to do that, I would have to assume that my own subjective opinions of a game are correct, which is not possible due to the inherent subjectivity of those opinions. The only solution possible is to accept what the label of 'fun' actually is: a completely subjective criteria that the viewers/readers of your videos are not going to necessarily share and therefore, in the spirit of inclusiveness, you shouldn't use. Not only would this help reviewers get negative feedback from watchers of their show that did not find fun a game that was advertised as being fun, but also allow a much wider selection of board game fans to watch your show because, as one goon the board game goon thread said, the only really useful reviewer is one that aligns himself with the same tastes as yourself, which if you are lucky enough to find one is great, but not much help for everyone else.
Hence the name, 'No Fun Allowed'. If I make reviews of games within this thread, I will stick to a strict policy of excluding use of that word (and do castigate me if I slip and use it in the future) in describing a game. This doesn't mean that I won't use the word altogether: it is useful to describe the experience itself ('I had fun', 'the session was fun'), but I will never use it to describe the game itself.
Enjoy the ride!
About No Fun Allowed
I created this blog because I wanted a place that would allow me to express my thoughts and analysis of board games in a long rambling manner that I don't want to clutter up forums with. Although I will focus mostly on general ideas and essays about board gaming as whole, I will write the occasional review of games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)