My 6mm Cold War forces (BAOR, US and Soviet) were bought
back in 1980, just before I went off to university for the first time. They
have made infrequent appearances on the tabletop, usually only when I purchase
a potential new rule set covering the Cold War period. Initially I played using
the Armoured Warfare 1950-75 rules (WRG, 1974) and the 2nd edition
(WRG, 1979) that extended the dateline to 1985. I seem to remember enjoying
many games using these rules. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s a few new
rules sets appeared; Corps Commander/OMG (Bruce Rea-Taylor, 1986), Command
Decision (Frank Chadwick, 1992), Challenger 2000 (Rea-Taylor & Connor,
1992). Of these, I particularly liked Corps Commander/OMG and I spent many
hours reorganising and basing my forces. The games played were enjoyable but
rather long, and entailed considerable book-keeping (each model/unit had a
strength value and deployment mode etc.). As a result, the game was not
‘club-friendly’ and could only be gamed at home as an all-day affair. The toys
went back into their boxes for the next decade! The release of Cold War
Commander (Pendraken, 2006) reinvigorated my interest in the period. They
played much faster than other rule sets, had an interesting command/control
mechanism, required little book-keeping and were very user friendly. These rules
have remained my ‘go-to’ Cold War rules since, but games using the armies were
still infrequent. Recently, it seems, the period has again become the focus of
rules writers e.g. the publishers of Flames of War(FoW), Battlefront, released
Team Yankee (TY). I was tempted by TY but resisted because, (1) I’m not a fan
of FoW, and (2) the focus was on the 2nd generation Cold War forces
of the late 1980’s i.e. Abrams, Challengers, T80s, AH-64 Apache, Bradley’s etc.
My forces were earlier 1st generation types i.e. M60, Chieftain, T62
etc. and I was not going to buy more lead upgrading. In the last couple of
years, I have bought two new rule sets that have come on the market: Seven Days
to the River Rhine (SDTTRR) (Great Escape Games, 2019) and Battlegroup NORTHAG (BG-N)
(PSC, 2020). Both rule sets cover the early 1980’s period of the Cold War,
which is perfect for me! I have yet to try SDTTRR but from a read through I
think these rules definitely require an opponent and would not work solo, so
until lockdown ceases they will have to remain on the shelf.
I have tried a couple of solo games using BG-N. Before I
give my thoughts on these rules I strongly recommend the reader to look at my
earlier post on Battle Group Kursk/Overlord (Oct 2016), because all my comments
(much more detailed) remain pretty much true with this modern version of the
rules. The strength of these rules lies in the speed and simplicity of play;
games fairly rattle along. The orders section is straight forward and I like
the option to generate a random number of orders rather than going for a set
number. I use poker chips to keep track of orders and their use. The ‘platoon’
and ‘company’ orders are vital to getting your forces into position. The ‘react’
orders appear to be great, but I found them to only be useful if you have a
spare (quiet) turn to utilise them. Movement is fine (for my 6mm forces I used
cm rather than inches) but infantry are slow, so you need to get them close
before debussing. Therefore choosing the best (safest) route to the jump-off
point is important as full APC’s are a juicy target! The combat mechanism is
again smooth and fast, modern weaponry is deadly so the battlefield soon
becomes littered with smoking wrecks. The Chieftain’s were particularly nasty,
hitting and killing nearly every time, whereas the T-62’s were less efficient.
Infantry proved to be difficult to eliminate and hard to shift from BUA’s,
which were often battlefield objectives. Indirect (artillery) fire was also
effective, but positioning of your FO’s is vital, so they have a good line of
sight that ‘fits’ with your battle plan. Like the WW2 version of the rules
there is no smoke options, which I find very strange! I really like the BR
rating system for determining the outcome of the game, and in BG-N the taking
of objectives has more significance on the result. The BAOR tank depletion rule
also forces the British player to be more cautious with their MBT forces. The accumulation
of random chits means the opponent is guessing about your morale and the occasional
event chip can be important. From the games I played I quickly learnt that the ‘Forward
Screen’ forces need to be fairly substantial, you will need recce units and some
mechanised infantry to take and hold objectives, it is best to get your FO’s
placed early, and it is important to have some air defence in place. In my
first game a Hind helicopter gunship appeared early and the BAOR forces had
nothing to counter it for the first four game turns! In my games I did not use
close air support, so I cannot comment on the impact aircraft have (I look
forward to trying them out). I cannot see myself using the Chemical or Nuclear
options.
Overall, I enjoyed playing BG-N, much more than
I enjoyed BG-K/O (I’m not quite sure why?). I’m undecided about whether these
rules will take over from Cold War Commander as my preferred ‘modern’ rule set,
I need more games to be sure. I look forward to the release of BG-Centag and
the US lists. I would like to see some second line WARPAC forces included, with
T-55’s maybe? When social gaming returns I plan to try the SDTTTRR rules.
Next,
I received a delayed Christmas present of ‘Castles of Tuscany’, the Stefan Feld
sequel to the classic ‘Castles of Burgundy’ (one of our all-time favourites).
The obvious question is how similar are the two games? They are both are (1)
tile laying (2) moving tiles from a common area into a holding area before
placing on the individual player boards (3) scoring points for completed zones
of identical tiles, with effectively more points for early completion (4)
gaining a tile specific bonus when laying a tile (5) lack of any meaningful
theme. There are some significant differences (1) no dice, instead using cards
to place tiles (2) reduced options compared to Burgundy (3) faster set-up and
playing time (roughly half to a third compared to Burgundy). So, is the game
sufficiently different to be considered a unique game? I would say, ‘Yes’,
just! But I feel it is not as good as Burgundy, and I think Tuscany has a major
flaw in its design i.e. no catch-up mechanism. If at the end of the first
round, a player trails by more than 1 or 2 points, then the chances of final
victory are minimal. This is because first round points are effectively worth
triple, when compared to those earned in the third and final round. Also, the
green track is not re-set between rounds, so not only do you trail on the red
(final) victory track, but you start the next round already trailing the early
leader on the green track. I have yet to see a way that a player can set
themselves up for a rapid, late game come-back. I am considering trying a house
rule to remedy the situation: trailing players receive a bonus card for each
point that they trail by at the end of each round. This would provide a small
boost for the trailing players, but should not be an overwhelming bonus.