Paul Koenig’s Market Garden: Arnhem Bridge - A Review

This is a review from a series of articles I am writing about my foray into wargaming. The introduction to these articles, with a bit of background can be found here.

Over the past few months I have been taking a journey into the world of hex and counter wargames. Facilitated by Victory Point Games' varied and beginner friendly catalog, I have been learning to enjoy a genre that, to me, was shrouded in complex rules and drenched in history that I regret to say, I didn’t really pay attention to in high school. As I grow older, however, my interest in learning and understanding this history grows, and I am finding these games to be both fun and interesting. I am bringing my two teenaged kids along for the ride, and I have enjoyed witnessing their reactions to these games.

Today we take on a Paul Koenig designed game about the 1944 World War II conflict “Operation Market Garden”. Aptly named: Paul Koenig’s Market Garden: Arnhem Bridge. This Koenig designed game has players experiencing part of the Allied operation that sought to utilize paratroopers to gain control of several strategically important bridges in Germany; an operation that, had it succeeded, would have opened the way for an armored attack on Northern Germany.

Components:

The components are typical Victory Point Games quality. They are printed using Desktop Publishing equipment, but are clean, and serve their purpose well. The maps are supplied on thick card-stock, with vivid colors that do not bleed or smear, and the chits are double-sided in full color, with a matte finish.

The map itself is clear and colorful, and the graphic design allows enough detail in the terrain to be interesting, but not so much that it becomes overwhelming. Player aids are printed at the top of the map, allowing for clean, easy access to the most commonly referenced information.

There are three parts to the full-color rulebook: The general rules that are to be shared by all of the games in Koenig's Market Garden series; the exclusive rules that apply only to the Arnhem Bridge game, and optional rules that allow players to add some extra flavor to their games. I had to read through the rules a couple of times to understand how everything worked, and the separation of rules across two sections made that process a bit more difficult than it could have been.

Gameplay:

Like the previous games that I have reviewed in my beginning wargame series, Paul Koenig’s Market Garden: Arnhem Bridge (PKMG:AB), is a hex and counter based game. But, though it has many of the same cosmetic underpinnings as others I have explored, it plays very differently.

The most notable difference is that Arnhem Bridge does not utilize zone of control as a game mechanism. Units can freely pass adjacent enemy units, and even enter the same hex as an enemy unit to perform close combat. This lack of ZOC gives the game a very claustrophobic feel, which works well in the close urban spaces that are being simulated. Hexes are restricted to containing two units - a mechanism called “stacking-limit”, which opens up some interesting strategies. Simply occupying a hex does not limit an opponent’s movement into the hex; only by doubling up on defense in a given hex, can movement into that hex be truly blocked. Since the Arnhem Bridge itself acts as a bottleneck between the north and south portions of the map, taking advantage of the stacking limit is critical.

Koenig’s design also steps away from a structured, predictable turn sequence, opting instead for a “chit-pull” mechanism. When determining the units that can be activated, a representative “HQ” chit for each color-coded group of units is placed into a cup. During play, these chits are are randomly drawn, allowing the corresponding units to take their actions. Due to the random nature of activation, players never know the order that the units will move, which makes it somewhat difficult to coordinate tactical maneuvers between the different units. Since disorganization and loss of communication were some of the major hurdles that the Allied soldiers faced during Operation Market Garden, the chit-pull mechanism makes strong thematic sense.

Combat in Arnhem Bridge is interesting as well. The design does a lot to simplify combat calculations and forgoes lookup tables by calculating success through the comparison of a die roll against the strength of the attacking units. That’s not to say combat is simple, though. In fact, PKMG:AB allows for 4 different types of unit actions, three of which are combat related: Full fire, mobile fire, and close combat. All of these combat types can result in damage to the attacking or defending unit; or an exchange, causing damage to both units. Units in Arnhem Bridge are fairly resilient, and can withstand multiple hits before being completely destroyed, using small double sided “Hit” counters that slide under the chits to show how much damage they have taken. A unit can sustain a single hit without any negative impact, but the second hit causes a loss of attack power, and a third hit destroys the unit entirely.

Of the three combat types, full fire is the one that is the most familiar; a unit in an adjacent hex can use his entire action to roll against his strength and see if he hits the enemy.  Mobile fire is the second type, and acts as a movement/combat hybrid; while only half as effective as full fire, a unit engaging in mobile fire can move using half of his movement, and then perform a half strength fire, or vice versa. Both Full fire and mobile fire only take the attacking units' strength into consideration when calculating the outcome of a battle. As long as the number rolled on a 6 sided die is less than the combined strength of the attacking units, the defending unit takes a hit.

Close combat however, is a bit different that the previous types and gives an advantage to the defender. In close combat, the attacking player enters the same hex as the defending player, and combat commences, with each player rolling against his unit strength until a player takes a hit or chooses to retreat. In this scenario, however, the defender gets the first attack. This is a very important rule that has some very dramatic implications. I overlooked this rule for my first couple of plays, and it resulted in a shockingly unbalanced experience that allowed the attacking player to steamroll the competition. When played correctly, however, close combat is quite a gamble for the attacker. But, with the density of units in the close quarters of the urban landscape, it is often critical to take a gamble with close combat in order to move forward in the greater strategy.

One of the most interesting aspects of wargames is the use of terrain, and Paul Koenig’s Market Garden: Arnhem Bridge uses terrain effects quite effectively. Different types of terrain can affect movement, as well as the effectiveness of full and mobile attacks. In addition to terrain in a given hex, features of a given hex side can affect gameplay as well. For example, a hex side that borders a river cannot be crossed, and there are several sloped hills on the map that can affect combat accuracy. I really enjoyed the diversity of terrain on the map, and the different tactical options that could be considered. Unfortunately, most likely due to my general inexperience with wargames, I found that there was not a whole lot of opportunity to utilize the terrain on the outskirts of the map, as it was often a mad rush to get to Arnhem Bridge before it was completely barricaded by the enemy. While I wanted to sit on a hill, and rain death upon my enemy, more often than not, without zone of control to slow my enemy down, I would simply watch as they zipped past me and out of range.

Scoring in PKMG:AB was surprising to me as well. Where most of the beginning wargames I have played had very strongly defined win conditions, success in Arnhem Bridge was much harder to easily quantify. Similar to many Euro style games that I have played, certain objectives scored differing numbers of victory points, and the player with the most is declared the victor.

Destroying an enemy unit, occupying city hexes, and securing Arnhem Bridge itself are all worth differing points. These objectives aren't arbitrary though, as the scoring system takes into account the important factors that would influence the likelihood of success in the conflict after the events of the game. One of these factors is the positioning of the German 16th SS infantry batallion. This unit is introduced during gameplay, and must be successfully exited from the bottom of the board by the German player. Failure to accomplish this gives the Allied player a giant point bonus, because this unit plays a pivotal role for the Germans later in history. The introduction of this special unit adds an interesting twist to gameplay, and turns what could have been a strictly area control game, into a bit of a cat and mouse game.

Conclusion:

Paul Koenig's Market Garden: Arnhem Bridge intrigues me with smart design choices that closely fit the theme of the game. There was obviously a lot of thought put into the design to exemplify the feeling of loss of communication and cramped urban combat. The scoring system rewards actions that would have a meaningful impact on the larger conflict, confronting the players with some hard decisions about where to focus their manpower.

While I enjoyed the game and appreciate all of the thematic nuance, it's gameplay didn't really resonate with me. Much of this may be due to the nature of the conflict; in simulating communication breakdown and organizational chaos, Arnhem Bridge is inherently chaotic. Players do not know how much support they will receive in any given round, nor how many of their units will be wounded or killed as they parachute into the battlefield. The order that units are activated is completely random, due to the chit-pull mechanism, which can drastically affect the ability to build a strategy, as unit locations can change a lot during play.

Determining success during game was difficult too, as the myriad of conditions that generate victory points need to be analyzed, opening up the potential for analysis paralysis. Personally, I like to have a concrete goal in 2 player games, and feel that victory points can often kill the tension of the end-game when players move to tally their points to see who won. There is something viscerally rewarding about a game that slowly converges to the ultimate end where the point of success is inherently known by all players.

Playing Arnhem Bridge got me thinking about wargames as simulations. It seems that wargames can be very different things to different people; one could almost say that some titles may have a bit of an identity crisis. They work to both simulate historical events, but also provide a fun, competitive gaming experience. Some gamers take the "game" out of wargames entirely by calling them "Conflict Simulations" - and I can certainly see how this distinction rings true in some games. Paul Koenig's Market-Garden: Arnhem Bridge succeeds wonderfully as a conflict simulation. Its mechanics and rule choices really drive a rich, emotional, thematic experience. In order to effectively portray this historical conflict, a feeling of hopelessness and chaos was necessary. Unfortunately, that chaos did not personally make for a great gaming experience. During some of my games, I would get frustrated as I lost units due to combat or being shot down before I had a chance to utilize them. I felt that I had no control over this, and things often felt very unfair. I want to say that the game would have been made better by decreasing the amount of randomness, but in that conversion it would lose a lot of it's thematic flavor.

So I'm torn. Arnhem Bridge succeeds in one area, but leaves me wanting in another. It's success is largely determined by what you are looking for in a game. If you are looking for an unrelenting, chaotic, and often cruel simulation that puts you in the shoes of the brave soldiers who fought in Operation Market Garden, then Arnhem Bridge is a definite success. If you are looking for a balanced game as a military themed contest of wits between two players, then Arnhem Bridge may not be your cup of tea. I find myself somewhere in the middle - Arnhem Bridge is a great place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

Battle for Moscow - A Wargame Review

This is a review from a series of articles I am writing about my foray into wargaming. The introduction to these articles, with a bit of background, can be found: here.

My previous review in this series looked at Strike Force One, a very basic introduction to some of the main ideas found in hex and counter wargames. I enjoyed playing it, and it piqued my interest, but after playing it several times I was interested in tackling something with a bit more depth. Luckily I found just that in Victory Point Games’ printing of Battle for Moscow.

Battle for Moscow is a small, beginning level hex and counter wargame that simulates the Battle of Moscow during the start of World War II.  Battle for Moscow takes the ideas introduced in Strike Force One (zone of control, retreat paths, combat tables, etc..) and builds upon them to deliver a deeper play experience. Due to this added complexity, and the actual historical setting of the game, it feels much less abstract than Strike Force One, and stands on its own as a game that can be replayed multiple times, while remaining enjoyable.

Components:

Battle for Moscow comes packaged in a plastic bag, with 40 full color double sided counters, a foldout cardstock map, and cardstock turn tracker/player aid. The 4 page rule booklet is concise, but informative, and the full color illustrations do a good job in describing the different movement and attack scenarios that the player will encounter. A welcome bonus for the new wargamer is the BATTLESSON sheet that goes into some detail about the wargaming hobby.

All of the components have a matte finish, and have been handcrafted using high end desktop publishing equipment, so the artwork on the map, counters, and in the manual is vivid and readable. The only complaint I have with the components is the fact that the handmade nature of the counters can cause the front and back of the counters to be slightly misaligned. This is purely a cosmetic concern, however, and doesn’t affect actual gameplay at all. Victory Point Games is looking into upgrading the equipment they use to create die-cut components, which should alleviate this issue in new games manufactured after spring of 2012.

Setup:

Setup in Battle for Moscow is fairly easy: players place their pieces on the indicated hexes of the game board. Each unit in Battle for Moscow is double sided. This is one of the new concepts introduced in the game. Both sides of the unit counter have numbers printed on them, representing the unit’s movement allocation and strength of the unit. One side shows the unit’s full strength capability, while the other displays the unit’s half-strength capability.  During gameplay, a unit can be damaged, but not completely destroyed; and likewise, reinforcements can be brought in to bring a half-strength unit back to full strength.

Setup for the Russian player is a breeze. He just places all of his units in the indicated hexes, with the half-strength side facing up. All of the Russian units have the same statistics, so it doesn’t matter where they are placed. The German player however, has to give some more thought to his setup process. The German player’s units are all brought in at full strength, but he has two different types of units – armored units, and infantry. Even within these two different types, units have different strength and movement stats, so initial placement for the German player can have huge implications during the game.

When a player is first introduced to the game as the Russians, looking at the initial setup can be intimidating. The German player has many more units on the board, and they are all at full strength, while the entirety of the Russian army is at half strength. This is a bit deceiving, because due to reinforcement rules, and geographic factors, the Russian player actually has a bit of an advantage. I must meekly admit that I have yet to win a game as the Germans, although I have come very close a couple of times.

Click to read more ...

Strike Force One - A Wargame Review.

This is a review from a series of articles I am writing about my foray into wargaming. The introduction to these articles, with a bit of background can be found: here.

The first game that I played was Strike Force One, Designed by Jim Dunnigan and Redmond A. Simonsen. “Strike Force One” was originally published in 1975, and designed as a very basic introduction to wargames. It was rebublished, and given a graphical facelift, in 2007 by Victory Point Games, as the first of their BATTLESSON line of games. Victory Point Games' BATTLESSON line is their beginner, teaching line of games that work to teach the basic mechanics found in wargames, and give the player some initial strategy to get them started.

Components:

Like all of Victory Point Games' offerings, Strike Force One comes packaged in a plastic baggie, with components printed on a high end desktop publishing setup. This process delivers colorful, clean components that serve their function nicely. The printed components sport a matte finish, so they don't have the glossy look of other games that use an offset printing process; although, in some ways this can be a boon, as overhead lights won't cast a glare across the pieces during play.

Strike Force One comes with a small, thick cardstock map; a set of 12 die-cut cardboard counters; some charts to determine combat results; and various printed booklets describing the basic and advanced rules, as well as a very insightful, illustrated playthorugh of a typical game. This playthrough is accompanied with commentary to explain the rationale behind each move, and better familiarize the player with the strategies and tactics required to play. All of the components are full color, but have a simple and direct art style.

The Game:

It is important to remember that Strike Force One, first and foremost, serves as a game to introduce the basic mechanics of wargames to new players. The basic game plays with 10 units, on a 9x8 hex based map. The game takes place during a fictional encounter between the United states and the Soviet Union in West Germany during the mid 1970's. One player assumes the role of the United States, defending the cities pictured on the map, while the other player controls the Soviets, attempting to sieze control of at least two of the cities. The game consists of only 4 rounds, so each game only takes 15 minutes or so, but the simplicity of the game allows players to focus on the core mechanics that the game teaches. There are two distinct games in the Strike Force One package, the basic game, and the advanced game, and each one of these games focuses on teaching a distinct toolset.

Click to read more ...

Greeting, Professor Faulken - My Experiences with Wargames.

 As I've mentioned before in my reviews and editorials, I tend to be a regular fixture at thrift stores. Throughout the years I have found and collected a small pile of unpunched wargames. These have remained unpunched all of these years despite a definite curiosity on my part to learn what has driven such a passionate segment of the gaming hobby for so many decades. However, whenever I open up one of these large-scale games, and entertain the idea of playing one, I get roughly one third of the way through the rulebook before my brain begins to shut down.

I'm not exactly sure why this happens; I enjoy many complex games, and usually have no problem embracing new rulesets. Perhaps it is because wargames have a storied history, and just like eurogames have a vocabulary of mechanics that are intrinsically understood by the players of that genre. Where Euros have understood mechanics such as worker placement and hidden role selection, wargames also have their own set of mechanics and ideas; concepts like: zone of control, stacking, and supply lines. Without really understanding how these these mechanics worked and interacted with each other, I had a hard time visualizing how the game would play out, especially when confronting them all at the same time, and I found myself a bit intimidated.

Recently, I decided to take the plunge, and really learn what wargaming is all about. Alan Emrich of Victory Point Games was very gracious to facilitate this process by selecting a few games for me that he thought a beginner should start out with. I hope to chronicle my exploration of wargaming through a series of game reviews of these titles. My reviews will be from the viewpoint of a total wargame beginner, so may not have the depth of experience found in a similar review from a hardened grognard, but since these games are meant to serve as an introduction to the genre, I hope that my experiences will resonate with others in my position.

I am also bringing along for the ride, my 15 year old daughter - who, at first, was abject with the thought of having to play with armies and tanks. She is definitely not a stranger to complex strategy games, and can mow through heavy hitting euros like Dominant Species. But, she is new to wargames, and has the unique perspective of someone who really doesn't think that she will find anything interesting in the genre. Although, I was very surprised at the direction her opinion turned when we began to play these games.

As of this writing I have played a few of the games, and I am really starting to understand why people enjoy this genre of games. I consider myself to be very open minded, and try very hard not to generate any preconceived bias in my thought process, but I was surprised at how much I really misunderstood about wargames. I lived my childhood as a boy growing up in the 80's, and as a result, my view of games was strongly molded by the “Ameritrash” games of that era. Often military in nature, and usually requiring a handful of dice, the typical "Ameritrash" didn't have a whole lot of deep strategy in it, instead focusing on a more narrative, luck based experience. I had assumed that because wargames consisted of dice, and strive to simulate the events that occurred during historic battles, that they would share this “dicefest” type of randomness. I was very wrong in this assumption, and wonder how many others like me may share this misconception.

What I discovered was that the dice in the hex and counter type wargames that I played did not generate a random experience, but instead were used to add a very limited about of randomness to the game - more of a vehicle to simulate calculated risk. This risk, and uncertainty played a huge part in driving strategic decisions. Like the WOPR computer from the movie Wargames surmised when playing simulations of Global Thermonuclear War, “The only winning move is not to play”; it is often strategically critical to hold off on even making an attack roll unless you are assured that any number to come up on the die will either further your strategy, or at worst, result in a draw. This completely changed my understanding of how dice could be used to simulate randomness in games - in a limited, controlled manner that did not detract from the strategy of the games.

Over the next few weeks I will post my reviews and musings about the games I have played, starting with the 2007 Victory Point Games reprint of the 1975 tutorial game Strike Force One.

Jump to an article in the series:

Strike Force One Review

Battle For Moscow Review

Paul Koenig's Market Garden: Arnhem Bridge Review

PARSEC - A Review.

Victory Point Games ascribes to the “Less is More” school of thought.  By taking the Desktop Publishing route, Victory Point Games (VPG) is able to release a number of interesting games, and expose the gaming hobby to designers and games that may have otherwise flown under the radar.  VPG was originally created by Alan Emrich as a way to showcase the quality games coming from his game design students at the Art Institute of California: Orange County.  Since then, VPG has grown to encompass games by other aspiring and experienced designers as well.

VPG’s tagline “The gameplay’s the thing” showcases the company’s focus on the meat of a game over shiny packaging and components. In fact, VPG games are very minimalist in presentation, forgoing the big box presentation of most hobby games for the simplicity of a plastic bag containing the game’s components.  The contents of a VPG game may be surprising at first to someone who is used to the expensive plastic, wood, and cardboard found in most recent hobby games, but after playing a few of VPG’s games, I think that I am coming around to the idea that the fun in a game isn’t necessarily found in expensive bits.

I had the opportunity to play PARSEC, a space themed euro style game designed and illustrated by Sean Young. PARSEC builds on the tile laying mechanics found in games like Carcassonne, but ratchets up the complexity by introducing pick up and deliver, area control, and set collection mechanics to the formula.

In PARSEC, each player takes on the role of a spaceship pilot, exploring the galaxy, and competing with the other players by scattering his army of robot minions across the expanse of space. The players score points by controlling and occupying planets, and are constantly jockeying for dominance as the landscape of deep space grows and changes. In addition to scoring points, players can also allocate resources to research technology, and gain money to assist them in their quest for points, because at the end of the game, the player with the most points wins.

Click to read more ...