JULY GAME NIGHT: MORE BORSCHT AND GOULASH

The usual suspects assembling for the evening's festivities.

Recently, our club held its July game night.  Given the time of year, with summer vacations and the recent holiday, the turn out was (predictably) light. Nevertheless, there were still three games on tap and all were played, to include another round of my Chocolate Box Wars, reprising my Russians vs Hungarians game in order to roll out the system in a "public" forum in a multiplayer mode.  A bit more on that at the end of this post. There were other games in the room. As usual, you may clix pix for BIG PIX in this post...

Phil put on an ancients game, "Eagles in the Valley," pitting Romans vs Gauls using the Hannibal at the Gates rules produced by our very own Ralph Gero. 

Given the light turnout, there were only two players at this table: Michael (standing) and John took part. But still, it's never a bad thing to belly up and play at toy soldiers. 

Rob Z hosted an Iron Cross WWII game, set during the Battle of Arracourt, 1944, pitting the US vs the Germans.

There were four players in this game, which was designed for 4-6, so things were on track. I didn't follow the action, but Rob runs a good game and based on the post-game chatter, a good time was had by all. 

Which now brings us 'round to my game. Pictured is your humble correspondent, mouth open (of course), briefing players at the start of the game.  The scenario was for four players, and that's how many were at the table (AJ, playing but not in the picture, took the photo, for those who like to count heads).

Left: AJ (black shirt) and Dave (baseball cap) took up the Russians, while (Right), Gordon (blue shirt) and Warren took up the Hungarians. AJ was the only one who had played the game before. He graciously came over from Rob's Iron Cross game to make a fourth for my game. For more about the scenario, I would direct you to the July 6 Post. 

The view from behind the Russian center prior to deployment. In addition to handing each player an OOB, I added these stand-up tents to identify the units and their key information (morale, any special attributes). They were pulled once the game began, but were very helpful for orienting players and setup, particularly for players not familiar with the era, the units, or the game system.

AJ would wind up matching vs Warren and Dave vs Gordon. General Dice was not with Dave this night (to say the least), and so the Russian effort suffered for it. 

Left: A shot of the table, mid battle, as seen from the end of the table on the Hungarian right/Russian left (Gordon and Dave). Right: The center as seen from behind the Hungarian line, mid battle. The Russian battery had been taken out by counterbattery early on (the gap in the Russian position on the hill at the top of the picture)--Dave would advance the Russian infantry and Gordon would push the Hungarian columns seen in the foreground forward and deploy them into line--and in the exchange, the Russians wound up getting the worst of it (did I mention General Dice?)

One new thing that happened in this game was cavalry-on-cavalry action. Above, the Hungarian hussars, in green with the blue shakos (run by Gordon), are about to finish off the Russian hussars (run by Dave). Despite this being an even affair, things did not go well for the Russians (did I mention that General Dice was not kind to Dave this night?).  There was a similar cavalry clash on the other end of the table between AJ and Warren (with a more even result). In short, the rules handled cavalry vs cavalry well, and so that aspect of the system has now been proofed, too.

Based on feedback from this game, I also added these inch indicators to my measuring sticks. I've found that time and energy invested in player aids and tools is well spent. 

I did gain some good lessons learned from the debut of the game system as a walk-up, participation style game (of the sort that might be run as an event at a US convention, or a future club game night).  Assuming no familiarity with the rules, four players is about as many as can be handled given a four hour time slot. The start of the game, in particular, was very slow going--and that has been the trend in all the playtests with new players. The rules are not complicated, but there is a learning curve involved.  I probably would shave down the number of units in the next game to move things along--maybe by having fewer on the table at start and then adding them as reinforcements as players pick up the system. Although the rules worked well (again), there were two or three points that came up during the game that called for some adjustment afterwards--consulting with my playtesters, I have made a few tweaks to address them. I am now shifting my focus to writing the rationale and supporting information. I'm on track to post the package by the end of August (fingers crossed).  In the meantime, I've got another playtest coming up with some new players in the next week. 

Excelsior!