New Additions

 Two new additions to the War College arrived yesterday afternoon from White Dog Games---R. Ben Madison's The Mission and Michael Kennedy's Loyaulte Me Lie.  

Post-on-the-Run

I have been neglecting posting lately because I've been busy.  I am refurbishing our bedroom and the en suite bathroom, which involves all manner of activities.  My gaming time at present is limited to play-testing another game for Joe Carter (my previous being Devil Boats), and I am also doing research for a historical paper for publication.  I am also in the design stages of a game of my own, and doing preliminary research work for a possible trilogy of wargames set in Serbia.  So, my time for purely recreational wargaming is currently nil.

I have found time, however, for adding some items to the War College (my study).  Two arrived over the last month, and two more will be arriving by the end of this week.  It will be some time before I can break the shrink wrap on them, but they are worth the wait.  

Banned at BoardGameGeek

For some years, I have been participating/posting/discussing gaming issues at the large online site BoardGameGeek.com (BGG).  Over time, I have enjoyed the interactions with fellow war-gamers and game-designers, and have re-posted some of the reviews I have written here.  They were well-received, for the most part.  I liked the interface of the site, so much so that for several years I have even donated during their annual fund-drive.  

That has now come to an end. 

For some time now, there have been signs that BGG was going the way of the "woke," banning some long time users and even well-known game developers for comments the current Twitteratti consider 'hate speech' (i.e. anything outside of the Newspeak of the Left).  

When the original, cool logo (top) became the weird, abstract entity below in order to foster "inclusiveness," you knew the end was coming...

Over the past year, the Admins have fallen all over themselves furthering the cause of Cultural Marxism, plastering the intro pages with virtue signals during "Black History Month," "Pride Month," and all the other pseudo-religious holiday cycles celebrated by Marxist marionettes.  During that time I held my tongue, for I was there to enjoy wargaming discussions, not debate ideological cheerleaders.  

Today, however, I reached a limit, and I spoke out in a forum about the recent brouhaha surrounding the "refounded" TSR and one of its founders, Eddie Gygax, Jr. (son of the great E. Gary Gygax, original creator of Dungeons & Dragons).   When one poster called him a "bigot" for taking the very logical position that neither man nor woman can change their sex just by saying so, I spoke up and responded, "Yes, who would've thought anybody would take the logically-supported, scientific position that changing your sex just by declaring yourself "X" didn't actually make it so?"  Someone had to have reported me (probably the fool who called Gygax a bigot, since he didn't get banned), because within an hour I had been permanently banned from posting comments on BGG.  Here is my appeal of the decision, and the response of the upper management of the site:

Blake Lindsey

Jun 28, 2021, 11:14 CST

I have just been notified that I have been permanently banned from posting of any sort on BGG. I would like to know why. While the "offending" post in question tended to the political, there was nothing objectively false or offensive about it. The equally-political post above mine, referring to Eddie Gygax as a "bigot" for denying the objectively false premise that individuals can change their biological sex simply by stating they are doing so, was *not* removed. Is there a double-standard in play, or was I banned by the personal bias of the Admin who made the call? I don't know, but I would like a justification for it.
My contributions to BGG have always been intelligent reviews, discussions, and occasional criticisms of games and game design, and they have always been well-received. I have supported the site through contributions, because I think it is a great forum for gamers and designers both. I ask that you restore my posting privileges, or at least limit the time-frame of the ban if you insist on maintaining it.
Respectfully,
Blake H. Lindsey

Matthew M. (BoardGameGeek, LLC)

Jun 28, 2021, 11:18 CST

Hi Blake,

Our moderator team has decided that your recent comment conflicts with the values of our community - that is why your account has been permanently suspended. I understand this is a frustrating outcome, but we believe it is best for everyone involved to part ways completely in terms of forum participation.

-Matthew M.
(Octavian)
Community Manager
BoardGameGeek.com
RPGgeek.com
VideoGameGeek.com

So, no justification was offered other than "We don't like what you said," and for my apparent thoughtcrime I have been prevented (permanently) from doing anything other than spectate---no more reviews, comments, discussions with designers, or posting game mods.  I doubt I will be on there much, anymore, as there is little point.  ConsimWorld and The Armchair Dragoons are better sites for wargamers, in any case.  

UPDATE

I decided it was time for BGG and I to go our separate ways.  I pulled all of my reviews, then posted the following letter:

Blake Lindsey
Tue 6/29/2021 7:48 AM
To: BoardGameGeek, LLC

Matthew:

In answer to the form letter you sent a mere two minutes after I posted my appeal, I find I agree with you: I most definitely do not share the "values of the community," since logic and actual tolerance are not among them.
Over the last two years, I have seen numerous long-time users and designers either silenced by a ban such as mine, or leave for reasons of conscience in the face of increasing politicization of the site in favor of the so-called "woke." I now count myself among them, and I will be deleting my account within minutes of this posting.

I did so; everything is gone.  It is a shame, but it was time to take another stand against those forces that are striving to destroy the fabric of American culture and government.  Like so much else on the Net these days, BGG is in the hands of people who view culture and language as weapons, and have no desire to embrace classical Live-and-Let-Live liberalism.  So be it.  

I took my stance in the Cold Civil War we now find ourselves some time ago, and this is just another skirmish.  

Mystery Muzzle-Loader at Middle School

This piece is a muzzle-loading field cannon on an iron carriage.  It is on the grounds of Fort Miller Middle School in Fresno, CA, a school with a gated, fenced campus.  Although the piece is easily visible and photographed from the street, close access was denied.  

No markings are visible, but the piece is preserved with a heavy coat of black paint which may have obscured them. The carriage appears to be undersized for the weapon, and is likely not the original. Although I was unable to measure the bore I estimate that it is a 6-pounder, although that may be inaccurate.  

Years ago I was told the cannon came from Fort Miller, a cavalry fort in the San Joaquin Valley that is also the school's namesake.  Fort Miller was founded and built in 1851-52, and housed at various times elements of the Mariposa Battalion, the 1st US Dragoons, and the CA 2nd Infantry.  The post was abandoned by 1866.  

Surviving documents from Fort Miller mention only "two 12-pounder field howitzers," which given the fort's role were probably Model 1841 Field Howitzers (or, "Mountain Howitzers") which were common in California up to and during the Civil War.  This gun was not mentioned in any surviving military documents, so its provenance cannot be stated with certainty.  

A Bit of Crafting

 I took some time out between the end of one game and the start of another to craft a home-built dice tower.  

In Process

I retrieved a very good design off of Instructables.com from the user "Whamodyne."  He created a dice tower using materials designed to be quiet, eliminating the constant rattling made by towers made of wood or acrylic. 

I used foamcore for the basic material: easy to work, easy to cut, and good for softening sound.  I deviated from Whamodyne's plan a bit, substituting foam padding (he used felt) to line the dice steps.  I believed foam pad would create more friction when the dice are rolling, eliminating the possibility of "sliders," and my belief was correct.  It also is more effective at quieting the dice as they drop down the steps.  

In Process II: Dice Tower Boogaloo

When I first found the plans I was worried about the finished tower's sturdiness, but as it came together according to instructions I realized just how tough the thing was.  Short of weakening the glue joints by submersion in water, it's not going to come apart without cutting or hammering.  

When it was completely assembled, I spray-primed it and painted it using a partial can of "flek stone" paint I had laying about, the color being Desert Sunrise.  Since I do a lot of naval wargaming I wanted the final product to have a nautical theme, and I believed the flekstone would give a sandy texture to the surface.  It did, even though it came out a little more pink than I intended.  

The Finished Product

I used shells from an old shell lei my wife had laying around, and the pebbles are all from Moonstone Beach on the Central Coast.  The "rope" is cotton line purchased at Hobby Lobby.  Finally, the nautical items are leftover cast lead fixtures from a pair of RC ship/boat models from the mid-1950s made by Sterling Models of Philadelphia (they weren't cannibalized; they are from two boxes left in a garage drawer by the previous owner of our house when he and his wife moved out).  

I am happy with the end result, and I look forward to using it in my next game.  

  

In Gallant Company

 It seems wargamers are in good company when it comes to tabletop naval wargaming:

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/research-guides/board-war-games-collection-navy-department-library.html

I notice the heavy presence of Avalanche Press, Avalon Hill, and Victory Games titles in the mix.  I’ll be playing Avalanche’s Great War at Sea: The Mediterranean for the first time by the end of July.  It will be my first run with an Avalanche title and their presence in the Navy Department Library fills me with anticipation.  

2nd Deluxe Edition, 2001

‘These Men Were Not Cowards’: A Review of Paul Rohrbaugh’s "Brave and Noble Fights"

 “No, these men were not cowards. There were cowards present, as there have been on every battlefield; but here, as elsewhere, there were brave men to detest them.” – Philo N. McGiffin, advisor on the Chen Yuen, Battle of the Yalu River, September 17, 1894 

Setup for Wei Hai Wei

About six months ago I came upon the BoardGameGeek page for a naval wargame on an obscure subject, produced by a company I hadn’t heard of before---High Flying Dice Games (HFD). This led me to their catalog, where to my delight I found quite a few titles on maritime subjects often overlooked by the board-game community. Among these was a operational-level game (with expansions) set during the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), a conflict generally not covered outside of scenarios for Pre-Dreadnought naval miniatures rules. I was intrigued, and ordered a copy of Brave and Noble Fights: The Battles of Wei Hai Wei and the Yalu River (HFD, 2014). Judging by their product descriptions, as a company HFD seems to gear itself towards games that are introductory-level in complexity, and are lower-cost in terms of production (although they do offer a “professional” series that are on par with most other companies in terms of cost). I have no objection to purchasing and playing games with comparatively low production-values, as long as the game delivers; budget printing and BYOD (‘Bring Your Own Dice’) is fine by me, but sloppy game-design or historical inaccuracy is not. I am happy to say that BaNF’s design accomplishes what I believe Rohrbaugh set out to do and at the level he set out to do it, and I found it detailed enough to be educational and challenging yet also a game that can be enjoyed in a couple of hours. 

Brave and Noble Fights is a ‘folio’ game, packed in a large zip poly-bag and including everything needed except dice and a pack of standard playing-cards. The production is definitely desktop-publishing level: the cover sheet, maps, and counters are color laser-printed on decent light cardstock, and the rules are b&w photocopies of originals. Counters must be mounted and cut by the player. When ordering, there are a few options offered, and I elected to have the counters pre-mounted (I still had to cut them) and a set of optional cards included (also uncut). Those options added to the cost of the game, but the final price tag was still well below what I usually spend on games from other publishers. I usually prefer to have everything pre-cut, but it’s not a make-or-break issue and doesn’t deter me from ordering games that interest me. The layout and design-work was good, and I really liked Bruce Yearian and Tim Allen’s choice to use contemporary Japanese ukiyo-e prints from the war for the cover and cards; that was a well-done historical enhancement besides being aesthetically pleasing. All in all, I received a good product for the money charged.

BaNF is listed correctly by HFD as two games packaged together. One is a purely naval engagement, the other a combination land/sea battle; together, the two games bring the sad history of the Peiyang Fleet full circle. There are different rule-sets for the two battles, and even different generators involved, but they are similar enough that the transition between the two is not problematic. Naval combat is resolved the same way in both games, with the addition of Shore Bombardment. 

“The Battle of the Yalu, September 17, 1894” recreates the decisive naval battle of the war. It was not the first engagement between the Combined Fleet of Imperial Japan and the Peiyang Fleet (that battle---the Battle of Pung-Do Island---is covered in the first Expansion), nor was it the last, but it proved to be the ‘Jutland’ of the conflict and Japan’s victory gained them command of the Yellow Sea for the war’s duration. 

 “The Battle of Wei Hai Wei, January-February, 1895” combines both naval and land operations and marks both the end of the Peiyang Fleet and the end of China’s aspirations for the Korean peninsula. The destruction or capture of the remains of the Fleet and the rapid steamrolling of the Peiyang Army removed China from Korea and simultaneously demonstrated that Japan had a modern, disciplined army that was equal to any contemporary European force. 

“The Battle of the Yalu” (BY) was the first of the two games that I played, naval wargaming being one of my primary interests. The game map for BY is a blue seascape in two sections, divided into numbered, rectangular Areas on the scale of 0.5 nautical miles each. The game is divided into Turns which represent about 30 minutes of time. The counters represent single ships and are marked with various number values as well as Arc of Fire, Name, Type and Nationality of the vessel. Separate counters are placed atop the respective Flagships to denote their Flag status, which is very important to the game as will be discussed below. The combat level is tactical, with each ship being sailed and fought independently, albeit as part of a fleet action.  

Each Turn is divided into several phases. The first phase determines the occurrence of Random Events, and determines which side has the Initiative. Initiative is very important in this game, as the force which has it gets the first choice of Movement, and therefore has more freedom of maneuver; once the shooting starts, this can make or break a fleet or squadron. Random Events are just that, and can lead to reduced visibility, command-chain breakdown, or even catastrophic ship loss. Naval Movement is the second phase, and the force with Initiative has the choice to engage or disengage with the enemy, forcing the opposition to react rather than act. 

 Once both sides have completed their Movements, they engage in any necessary Combat. Combat in "The Battle of the Yalu" is heavily abstracted, but works very well for all of its simplicity. Combat between ships is resolved simultaneously, an approach to game combat which I always favor unless special historical circumstances argue against it. Ships have attack values for Primary and Secondary Batteries, as well as for Torpedoes if present. Attacks are resolved with a die roll, and there are quite a few possible DRMs for combat rolls that cover Firing Arc, Damage Level of the attacking and/or defending vessel (if any), Range, obscured targets, and whether or not the attacking vessel is In Command (more on that, below). “Hits” are an abstraction of a strike by the ship's batteries, coupled with many smaller strikes by smaller, deck-mounted guns. Critical Hits (which do double damage) are a possibility under certain circumstances, and are rolled for when a Hit is made. The target vessel opposes the Attack with its Protection Factor (PF), an abstraction of the ship’s armor and maneuverability. Ramming is included as an optional rule that can be conducted by specific ships during the Movement phase, but I chose not to use it (historically, only the Chih Yuen attempted to ram during the battle, and the rapid, longer-ranged fire of the Japanese ships cut her to pieces before she could close). Damage is not a matter of points, but of levels. The first Hit on a ship Disrupts it, and subsequent Hits can Damage or Cripple it, each sequential level reducing Movement range and Attack effectiveness. Ships are considered Sunk after four consecutive Hits. Finally, there is the End Phase during which Repairs can be made to damaged vessels (abstracting Damage Control). An effective Repair can save a vessel, and even get it back into Combat. 

There is one major game element that can affect all aspects of Movement and Combat---the Command factor. "Battle of the Yalu" depicts naval warfare in the pre-wireless era; ship-to-ship communications are line-of-sight through semaphore signals by day and signal lamps by night. Thus, the ability of a squadron or fleet commander to maintain command and control is limited by visibility. Rohrbaugh includes this through the Command rule: ships must be within three areas (1.5 nautical miles) of the Flagship in order to function effectively and with coordination, and are therefore In Command. Ships that fall outside of those three areas are Out of Command, and suffer various restrictions and penalties in Movement and Attack. The second game of the set---“The Battle of Wei Hai Wei” (WHW) ---uses the same combat system for naval attacks that BY did, but also incorporates a card system for Turn progression and land combat. Although the card system seems cumbersome at first glance, in practice it adds a “chaos of war” randomness to the way Turns and combat proceed that I found I really liked, once I understood what Rohrbaugh was aiming for. 

WHW depicts a siege by the IJN and Japanese land forces of the principal Peiyang Fleet anchorage and the main jumping-off point of Chinese military operations in Korea. The city and bay were surrounded by coastal fortifications designed and placed by European advisors, and most outside observers considered it unassailable; with well-placed, armed forts, mine barrages for harbor defense, the remains of the Peiyang Fleet, and the cream of China’s land forces dug in, it should have been. The Japanese proved them wrong. 

In contrast to “Battle of the Yalu,” WHW relies on Unit Activations rather than Initiative. The number of Activations---and which side gets to make them---is determined by card draw from a standard deck of playing cards (the process and effects of Card Draws are laid out in the Rules and I won’t go into it here, but I will say that the process is greatly simplified by using the optional card set offered by HFD; that's not a plug, just my experience and opinion). Activations are drawn for until both Jokers have shown up in the draw, at which time the Movement and Combat phases of the Turn are over, any Repairs are made, the Turn is ended and the deck is reshuffled. Lather, rinse, repeat for seven Turns, at which point the game ends. Along the way there is a lot going on, and Turns can be quite long, depending on how the cards turn over. 

Another significant difference between the two games is the importance of Morale and its effects on combat in WHW. Morale adds or reduces the number of Activations available to each side. In BY, the war had just begun and both sides were confident of victory; by the Battle of Wei Hai Wei, the Chinese had suffered one serious defeat after another, and morale in Qing forces had dropped accordingly. Although the game is set up with equivalent levels of Morale in both forces, a more historically-accurate variant rule (8.1) starts Chinese Morale fifty percent lower than the Japanese, as well as reducing the effectiveness of some ground units. Ground Assault is resolved by using the value of a Card Draw, then adding or subtracting a unit’s Combat Factor and various modifications. As with Naval Combat, successful attacks on ground units reduces their effectiveness by Levels rather than points.

How does BaNF hold up as a pair of historical war games depicting a specific conflict? At the Battle of the Yalu River, the IJN won a stunning defeat over a numerically-superior force. Indeed, at the time the Beiyang Fleet was the largest naval fleet in Asia, and many powers expected Japan to lose the encounter…or avoid it in the first place. Size isn’t everything, however; the BF suffered from a number of shortcomings that became all too obvious once the shooting started, and which are reflected in the game. Although well-armored, the Chinese ‘heavies’ were slow, with main batteries which were devastating at shorter range but which were outclassed by the lighter (but farther-reaching) IJN guns. The endemic corruption in the Chinese Imperial Navy also meant that their ships were saddled with rounds which were either badly-out-of-date “condemned” European imports, or locally made munitions of such poor quality that ‘explosive’ shells were often filled with sand or concrete rather than guncotton and other explosives. And the level of training given their crews by the Qing admiralty was inferior to that of the Imperial Japanese Navy, although that did not necessarily lessen fighting spirit. These factors are incorporated in BaNF by having all Chinese ships roll a d6 To Hit, as opposed to the d10 for the IJN vessels---a simple, well-chosen rule that reflects several historical realities of the conflict. 

Rohrbaugh’s Order of Battle is accurate, even down to including the “armed auxiliary cruiser” Suikyo Maru on the Japanese side---a converted passenger liner that was being used to ferry an IJN admiral and his staff on an inspection tour that got badly mauled in the battle. His unit placement for the opening of the battle is historically sound (be sure to use the placement in the Addendum, however, as it corrects a printing-error issue), as is the formation the units are placed in. True to history, the Peiyang Fleet is in Line Abreast formation, whereas the IJN steams Inline---a tactical difference that affected the outcome of the battle. The game is limited to ten Turns or less, which reflects the limits of Pre-Dreadnought naval technology (i.e., the size of the ship’s coal-bunkers) and also the desire of both fleets to avoid a night engagement. The same degree of historical accuracy is present in WHW, although Rorhbach allows the players a wide degree of latitude in unit placement within certain historical constraints. 

So, BaNF works very well as a pair of introductory-level war games, in my opinion. Their respective systems are straightforward with an easy learning curve, and the combat is as balanced and satisfying as possible with two mismatched forces. There are a number of rules, combat modifiers, and adjustments to the units that reflect well the historical circumstances of the respective battles and of the war in general. Their inclusion in the design demonstrates an awareness of their importance in accurately depicting the conflict, of “board war games as a form of narrative history,” as Rohrbaugh observes in his Designer’s Notes. I view education as an essential element in any war game; being fun to play is fine, but I want the game to give me some insight into the historical reality of the conflict it’s depicting. Brave and Noble Fights does both, and that makes it a “Win,” from my perspective.

Don’t Judge A Game By Its Blocks: A Semi-Grognard’s Review of Kevin Bertram’s "The Shores of Tripoli"

 

Set up for solitaire play

About three months ago I was surfing the online listings of the United States Naval Academy gift shop just to see what they had to offer.  I’m not sure what I was expecting, but I was disappointed to find that their games section consisted of a kid’s nautical knot-tying game and offerings like “Midnopoly” (a USNA version of Monopoly, apparently).  I did see what looked like one real wargame, however, although I had never heard of the game or its production company before---The Shores of Tripoli, by Fort Circle Games (2020).  The cover design was beautiful, and the topic was right in my bailiwick (give me any US naval wargame between the Quasi-War and the Cold War and you can count me in) so I immediately went to the Geek to find its page and see what it was about. 

I was...underwhelmed.  It looked like a beautiful piece of production, but it did not come across as a game on the level I look for, either in terms of gameplay or intricacy. In fact, it had just about everything that I usually avoid: it is a strategy game (“Dammit, Jim, I’m a tactician, not a strategist!”); it is card-driven, a class of games which I find in general take too much control out of the hands of the player; it is highly-abstracted, especially in terms of combat resolution, and it uses brightly-colored wooden blocks and ship-silhouettes rather than detailed counters on a game board that is more Risk than Rifle & Saber.  At the time, I decided to pass on it. 

Recently, however, I had the opportunity to play the game, and I am glad I did.  On the face of it, there is absolutely no reason other than the topic that I should like this game, yet to my complete surprise I find that I do; SoT is a very successful game, in my final opinion; it is challenging to play, and a bit more sophisticated than it may look on the surface.

As I mentioned above, with The Shores of Tripoli Fort Circle has produced a high-quality, old-school-styled product that looks beautiful: mounted board, painted wooden pieces, a whole bag of colored dice, and game-cards that have the linen feel and coated smoothness you get from a deck of Bicycles.  Add to that the slick-printed Rules, a similar book of historical background and designer’s notes, a nice sim of a historical document that ties in with the game, and a sturdy box, and you have a product that is worth the price charged, in my opinion.

There is no question that the game is highly abstracted in its gameplay, and to be frank the level of abstraction in the game was problematical to me at first.  Combat, for example, is as simple as it gets, determined wholly by die-roll.  To Hit and Damage are the same roll, with a Six being a Hit---no DRMs, no CRTs.  Just a die roll. (The one concession to actual combat is an abstraction of ‘broadside weight’; Frigates get to roll two dice for Hit/Damage, whereas smaller craft like Gunboats and Corsairs only get one.)  This holds for Ship-to-Ship Combat, Interceptions, or Shore Bombardment.  The only possible modifications to Combat rolls come through playing one of the possible Battle Cards, which can affect the outcome in various ways.  The same holds true for Ground Combat---resolution comes down to a straight-up die roll, with the only modifications coming from using Battle Cards when available. 

The Movement of your forces (i.e. sailing and marching) is also done abstractly.  Your ships can be in one of three places: in a Friendly Port, in a Patrol Zone outside a Hostile Port, or attacking a Hostile Port.  Movement between them doesn’t involve logistics, time & distance, or the cooperation of the weather, just playing a card that allows movement or ‘buying’ movement by discarding any card in your hand (which can be a major strategic gamble, depending on the card you trade for Movements). 

If you expect The Shores of Tripoli to be a detailed wargame of naval/land warfare in the early Nineteenth century, you will be disappointed; on the spectrum between “Game” and “Sim,” it is very firmly on the Game side, and is a light-to-moderate one in complexity.  That, however, is not a bad thing.  In his designer’s notes, Kevin Bertram states that one of his primary goals was to create a historical wargame that was approachable by a wide audience (and he tested this by having a list of playtesters a page-and-a-half long).  One of my thoughts upon completing my first play-through was that this would be an excellent “gateway game” for people whose usual gaming sessions involve triple-word scores or the prices of hotels on Park Place, and who would find the average hex-and-counter wargame intimidating.  The game has a minimum of components, is easy to set up, and runs smoothly once underway; even on my first game, Setup took less than ten minutes, with the game itself running about an hour.  The Rules were easy to follow and well-written for both Two-Player and Solitaire. 

Approachable though it may be, SoT is not just a roll the dice/move the pieces board game, however; this is a game that forces you to think strategically in the face of challenges that the historical parties involved faced.  The main engine of the game is a card system that works very well, both in two-player and in solo mode. I’m not a fan of card-driven games at the tactical or operational level, but I admit they work well enough when the emphasis is on strategy and when they are well-designed.  My four play-throughs prior to writing this were all solitaire games, and the card system operates as a very effective SI Bertram calls “T-bot.”  With the solitaire setup, I found that T-bot makes 'decisions' which are both logical and true to the historical Tripolitan goals and actions of the conflict. 

One of my core beliefs about wargaming is that, by its very nature, a wargame is educational, and one of the things I look at when I play a game is whether-or-not the game has taught me---or given me insight into--- something about the conflict it presents.  The First Barbary War has been gamed before, but always as individual tactical Scenarios in board-based or miniatures naval wargames; to my knowledge, this is the first full-game treatment of the subject in its entirety as a military, political, and economic conflict.  The game does a good job of communicating the challenges (and subsequent frustration) of countering an enemy who is waging guerre de course while you try to counter him with inadequate resources, inexperienced officers (they really screwed up in not taking Truxtun back…), bad political decisions and weak, feckless allies.  The game is not particularly dark in tone, however, and won't drive away players looking for a lighter game which still keeps its historical integrity.  The game also succeeds (by the designer’s intention) in framing the conflict as a war between states.  The North African states were not just pirate strongholds, like Port Royal in the 17^th century; they were Ottoman-allied nations with dynastic rulers with a centuries-long tradition of extortion-as-state-policy, and they had to be treated with as such.  The young and unsure United States was ill-prepared to start and maintain a protracted war,  and the game does a good job of reflecting the weakness and lack of preparation of the US position, in my opinion. While The Shores of Tripoli does make a few deviations from history, Bertram is upfront about it and shares his thinking behind it, and I find his reasoning sound.  The First Barbary War was a complex and difficult situation to resolve, and gaming it in its various facets is not the easiest task to undertake.  Most wargame designers make some concessions to playability, and SoT makes no more than most.  

Although The Shores of Tripoli---with its high level of abstraction---is not for everybody, I consider it a success and an impressive effort for a first game design on a less-well-known topic.  Although a lighter game, Bertram doesn't "dumb down" the history, and the game still plays like a strategic-level wargame, even with its simplified elements.  It is well done, and well worth playing. 

An Honored Foe: German Field Artillery in Merced, CA

This piece sits in honored retirement in front of the Merced Veterans Memorial Building at 959 W. Main St.

The weapon is a 10.5 cm leFH 16 ("leichte Feldhaubitze 16", or Light Field Howitzer 16). This type was produced in Germany during WWI and up until 1937.

The piece appears to be in good condition, but heavy overpaint has obscured any markings. They were used extensively in WWI and in early WWII, so this weapon could be a war prize of either conflict.

The Empire Strikes Back: A Review of "Mrs. Thatcher's War: The Falklands, 1982"

In 1982, my friends and I were sophomores in high school.  We were gamers, and we were interested in military matters in general, so when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands we knew things were going to get interesting.  

Now, going on forty years later, I was interested in finding a wargame of the Falklands War that captured some of the essence of the conflict.  I had played through Falklands scenarios in Larry Bond’s Harpoon which did a good job of gaming the naval aspects of the war, but they included nothing of the land war or the geopolitics of it.  Ditto for the 80s/Falklands expansion to William Miller’s Modern Naval Conflicts: 1970s.   I looked around at the various Falklands-specific offerings currently available---both contemporary and recent---and landed on Ben Madison’s Mrs. Thatcher’s War: The Falkands, 1982 (White Dog Games, 2017) as the most likely to provide what I was looking for.  

I was not disappointed.  

White Dog offers the game in Boxed, Folio, or Print-and-Play editions at varying levels of price; I opted for the Boxed version, since I usually prefer to avoid making my own game elements unless I am playtesting or running a mod, and since I had never yet ordered from White Dog and was curious to see how they stacked up against other game companies.  The production quality was very good, with some beautiful art and design work on the cover and throughout the other elements.  The main maps and cards were heavy enough to stand up to frequent use, and the counters have the thickness and tensile strength of plywood, with a linen-textured finish for good measure.  White Dog doesn’t ship their games with dice anymore, which didn’t bother me in the slightest; dice are cheap and easy to acquire at local stores, and as a lifelong gamer I have more six-sided dice floating around in my desk than I do paperclips.  In short, I found the game as a product well worth the price charged, and I’ll be ordering from White Dog in the future as the opportunity arises.  

MTW is designed to be set up easily, and has a minimum of components and fuss---two small maps, a couple of player-aid cards/charts, a handful of counters, and the rulebook.  After punching out, it took me all of 10 minutes to set up the game, and even less the second time around.  Don’t be put off by this, however; MTW is not a simple game.   Although it has a high level of abstraction (if you are looking for a hex-based grognard-fest with more chrome than a ‘57 Bel-Air, you will be disappointed),  the game achieves a complex balance between military tactics and political strategy---something difficult to game and, I found, even more difficult to master.  

The military side of the game is fairly traditional. The game is divided into Turns, which simulate 3 days of real time.  Your overall objective is simple: liberate the Falkland Islands from Argentine occupation by achieving military control of Port Stanley by the end of Turn 19, or as soon as practical.  There is, however, a catch: with the exception of a number of possible SpecOps raids, you can’t actually put boots on the ground on East Falkland until at least Turn 7, and even then only if the weather cooperates.  And in MTW, the weather almost never cooperates.  In the game, as in the actual campaign, Weather gyrates between being a close ally and a frustrating enemy, and is a major factor in the success or failure of your operation.   

Air Combat resolution is Odds-based, calculated using the relative Strength Points of the opposing forces; Ground Combat is s simple “Who is the toughest?”. with Strength mods for naval gun support, air support, public perception of the war (the BBC Score), and even whether or not the Pope is on his infamous PR tour.  The system is straightforward and works smoothly, in my opinion, and some of the mods have a dark humor to them which I appreciate.  

Movement at best possible speed is a crucial factor for achieving victory for the British, whether legging it (“yomping”) or going air-mobile, and like the Combat system it is straightforward and easy to master.  Of course, it is not as simple as all that.  Units must maintain their Supply to move, and there are a number of things that can bog a unit down, whether it is opposing forces or minefields.  Helicopters can be useful, but they are not available at first landing and, depending on circumstances, may end up not arriving at the Islands at all.  Even when present, helicopters can be suppressed by Weather and a loss of Air Superiority by the British in the sector.  

If the Military side of the game has a traditional order and logic to it, the Political side of it is just the opposite.  Affecting the game in major ways, you have: the United Nations, operating with its usual blend of high ideals and low ethics; your Continental “allies” (which is an amusingly-relative concept in Europe) and the supportive but often contradictory United States; the Vatican; various Third World nations, and the BBC.  In a skillful abstraction of a very complex situation, Madison caps each Turn with a dip into the Specific Headlines of the conflict, each of which can affect the game---an engine which functions as a sort of random Chaos generator which can (and often does) throw a monkey-wrench into the best tactical military planning. This function in the game does not feel at all contrived, however; it is a well-designed way to capture the absurd degree to which internal and international politics dictated the prosecution of the war, and it is one of the greatest strengths of Mrs. Thatcher’s War, in my opinion.  

This is not to say that the Political game turns on the ‘hazard of the die,’ however; your decisions can have a major impact on the British public’s support for the war which, in turn, can affect your operation.  In the first round I played, I made a very sound tactical decision and executed it flawlessly, securing my SLOC (Sea Lines of Communication) and eliminating a major threat to my ground forces...and it contributed heavily to my losing the war as the effects of negative Public Opinion disrupted those very ground operations.  To mount a successful campaign, careful thought must be given when making major tactical decisions, and second-guessing yourself in light of potential political effects becomes depressingly commonplace.  

In closing, like all games Mrs. Thatcher’s War is not for everyone.  This game is not a detailed simulation of military operations during the Falklands campaign, nor was it designed to be.  It is a very challenging, thoughtful, and---ultimately---honest attempt to capture the basics of a very complex situation, and to give the player some feeling for the challenges that confronted those who lived through it.  I find it succeeded.  

The Great Debate: Grognard, or Eurogamer?

 I posted this a few weeks ago for a general thread on Wargames on BoardGameGeek.  It was meant as a comment on the juvenile, "much ado about nothing" nature of the debate.  Personally, I tend to fall more on the grognard side of things, but I am very much a To Each His Own kind of guy.  

Cartoon from Berg's Review of Games #18

Grognards: (as viewed by Eurogamers)

1. You view anything other than ¼” monochromatic counters emblazoned with military unit symbology as “bells and whistles”

2. A ruleset less than 10 pages long is “overly-simplistic”

3. Six-sided dice are holy relics; polyhedrals or cards profane the Temple of Gaming

4. The visible universe is divided into scaled hexes; anything else is a gross misrepresentation

5. You refer to the day SPI closed up shop as “The Day Gaming Died”

6. You know who Richard Berg is and consider him a role model

7. “If you don’t like losing, you shouldn’t sit at the gaming table, kid.”

8. If a game takes more than two hours to play...good!

9. Game reviews are to be read, not seen on ‘YouTube’. 

10. “Historically-accurate” and “fun to play” are antithetical concepts.

Eurogamers (as viewed by Grognards)

1. You consider playing wargames from the 20th century akin to watching TV in black-and-white.

2. A ruleset over 3 pages long is “needlessly complex” and the result of bad game design.

3. “Who needs dice?  I have a Random Generator app on my iPhone.”

4. You proudly wear a T-shirt bearing the motto, “Abstraction Is the Spice of Life”

5. “Wargames?  Sure, I play wargames.  My gaming krew and I have Risk sessions in the dorms two weekends a month.”

6. You roll your eyes at the thought of using scaled maps as gameboards (assuming you knew how to read them in the first place…)

7. There are no Losers; there are only graduated classifications of Winners.  

8. If a game requires more time than it takes for the players to kill a pizza and a 2-liter of Dew, it takes too long.

9. If a game requires more knowledge of history than a Disney film, it stays on the shelf.

10. “How is a rectangle with an oval in it a tank?  Why don’t they just show a tank?  Better yet, give us little plastic or wooden tanks, or something.”  

Ira Harris, Jr., USN (1848-1915)

 A few weeks ago, I went to the old Pioneer section of the city cemetery in Modesto, CA.  I went seeking a pair of 1840s vintage 24-pound coastal defense guns which serve as honorable sentinels of the Grand Army of the Republic plot, wherein rest veterans of the Civil War.  I found the guns, but I took the time to examine the graves of the honored dead, as well.  To my surprise, there were three veterans of the United States Navy buried there, the only Civil War sailors known to be buried in the whole county.  

With two of them---William J. Givens and James M. Dings---I was able to find nothing beyond their names and dates of death and burial.  The third, h0wever---Ira Harris, Jr.---I was able to find quite a lot about. 

Ira Harris, Jr. was born in Smithfield, Rhode Island on November 11, 1848.  His father was a successful wheelwright and blacksmith.  On July 15 1863 (at the age of 15), Ira volunteered for the US Navy, and was assigned to the USS New Ironsides, the first in its class of ironclad steamers which had launched in Philadelphia the previous year in 1862.

USS New Ironsides under sail

He was aboard her in time to be a part of Rear Admiral Samuel Francis DuPont’s attacks on the fortifications of Charleston Harbor (New Ironsides was DuPont's flagship), participating in the attacks on forts Wagner and Sumner, including the gallant action protecting the monitor USS Weehauken. On October 5, a Confederate torpedo-boat managed to detonate a spar torpedo against New Ironsides’ starboard quarter, causing some damage and wounding a number of sailors, but she stayed on station until May, 1864 when she returned to Philadelphia.  While in Philadelphia, Ira Harris, Jr. was medically-discharged due to an embedded shell fragment, and an injury sustained while manning a gun---a true fighting sailor. 

Harris returned to Smithfield to learn the trade of his father, and became a successful carriage-maker in his own right.  In 1879 he emigrated to Colorado, then moved on to San Francisco five years later.  A few months later he moved inland to Modesto, where he worked under a few other tradesmen before opening his own carriage-making shop.  He became a successful businessman, active in many organizations and eventually being elected a City Trustee in 1899.  He would live to see his son serve with distinction as part of the 6th California Volunteer Regiment during the Spanish American War.  He died on October 20, 1913, and was laid to rest with his fellow Civil War veterans.  

Fair Winds and Following Seas, Mr. Harris.  

Sources: USGenWeb, DANFS, and A Volume of Memoirs and Genealogy of Representative Citizens of Norther California. Standard Genealogical Publishing Co., Chicago, 1901 (d0wnloaded 4/13/21 from Google Books).