THIS AIN’T YOUR
FATHER’S KRIMSMOBILE
BUNKER HILL by WILLIAM MARSH
from
XTR/Command
One 22” x 34” map; 178
diecut counters; rulesbook. Supplement to Command #32. For subscriber info,
call 1-800-488-2249. Tell ‘em BROG sent ya.
Reviewed by RICHARD H.
BERG
As much as any other company,
XTR is highly aware of which way the consumer winds are blowing …at least in
terms of their consumers. For the past 2 or 3 years, XTR, through its
popular magazine, “Command”, has been serving up a fairly steady diet of
competition-oriented games that used similar mechanics to both allow players to
get started quickly and to allow XTR to maintain a high level of quality
control. As readers of BROG you know that we viewed this approach as one where
overview, rather than insight, reigned, a homogenization of systems geared to
playability as opposed to curiosity. We also noted that some of the games were
quite successful at what they did, as well as being aware that such as Cortés,
et al., drifted away somewhat from the Krim-like mainstream.
XTR’s own magazine game survey
appears to reflect this, as the top-rated games, with one or two exceptions,
are those that allowed familiarity to achieve accessibility. The more
experimental systems, such as Kadesh (which fared much better the second
time it was rated), Like Lions, et al., fared less well. Tangentially,
we see that of the 28 games listed, only six improved their Overall ratings the
second time subscribers voted (not an unusual phenomenon), and, of those six,
only Kadesh showed a gain that could be called dramatic. (It jumped from
28th - last - place - to 7th!!) On the
downslide, though, was the rather depressing Port Arthur, which lost
more than 20% of its popularity. Someone must have actually tried to play it.
All this information, however,
appears to have been given an interesting interpretive slant in the Halls of St.
Luis Obispo. A look at their upcoming schedule for the next 12 issues shows a
remarkable preponderance of two-map, 1000 counter monster games. These are not
for retail sale, XTR having dropped their zip-lock line, but for their
subscribers. And the games that retain the basic magazine-size format appear to
be somewhat more experimental than previously seen, each SS Panzer
balanced by a Yarmuk. (Nice to see someone paying attention to the Rise
of Islam.) Even more interesting is the news that the non-gaming portion of
“Command” is hitting the Info Hiway and will be available through the Internet…
a great idea that could help widen our rather tenuous grasp on the populace’s
attention span. It appears as if the
last corporate board meeting must have been a real humdinger!!
Nowhere is this abrupt tack to
the starboard more evident than in the latest issue of Command (#31) and its
accompanying game on Bunker Hill. Boy, I bet the Cult of Krim is
unpacking that nerve gas even as we speak, because this is a game so unlike
what one usually gets in “Command” that the reactions to it have run the gamut
from “Attaboy and Viva!!” to “Anathema, Anathema … heat the faggots and let’s
burn some heretics.” I, for one, think it’s great stuff, and, if the game is
ultimately frustrating, it’s not for lack of creativity. If you’ve been holding
back dipping into the Obispo Pool because the idea of playing yet another game
that looks just like the previous one brings on an attack of hives, I think this is one issue of Command you
should definitely try.
The Battle of Bunker Hill is
not one of the highpoints in American Military History, despite the best
efforts of the Adams Family Spin Doctors to turn bad news into good. True,
Howe’s army took a beating, but this could possibly have been the worst bunch
of bozos ever disguised as an American military force. About the only training film these
neo-Americans ever saw was the scene from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”,
where the attacking troops are exhorted to “Run Away!!” as a battlefield
command, because the only thing that the rebels do well is to Retreat. And
that, fellow gamers, makes for one difficult design process.
Has anyone noticed the recent
slippage in “Command’s” graphics? The last three issues, including the present
one, look like nothing less than throwbacks to the ‘70s, although none of the
recent issues even approaches the minimalist aberrations plaguing the maps for Fateful
Lightning. I am a big fan of Beth Queman; unfortunately, that enthusiasm
does not fully extend to her maps. Yes, the BH map is clear and
readable… but so is “Run Spot Run”. Lacking any graphic sophistication, it is devoid of any evocation of either
period or place, resembling nothing so much as a rather quickly done playtest
version. The counters are more interesting, with unusual fonts. However, the
soft, chalk-like colors chosen would appear more apropos to an upscale bistro
than to a war game. Yes, the Brits icons are red, but that is counter-balanced
by the rebel icon that appears to show some local Minuteman preparing to shoot
himself in the foot. Luckily, it’s all quite serviceable in terms of
playability. But I do think the XTR Triad should take a closer look at what
they’ve been flashing lately.
As for the game itself, one
has only to compare this Bunker Hill to the sorry specimen in DG’s Rebels
& Redcoats (discussed herein) to understand the workings and
ramifications of creativity. Designer William Marsh, who appears to have
traversed the battlefield far more times than the actual participants, is fully
intent on doing something rarely seen in “Command” games: he wants to let you
see “Why”. And, given the course of the actual battle, succeeding in that area
is no mean feat.
Even within a fairly basic
Igo-Hugo play sequence, Mr. Marsh is intent on giving us more, much more. With
the map scale at 35 yards, turns covering 10 minutes, and unit Stacking Points
at 25 men per, we’re heavily into tactics here. Add to that microscope slide
the fact that the two “armies” are totally different. The British, except for
their Grenadiers and Lights, are highly Frederickian in their linear approach,
while, with the Americans, it’s typically every man for himself. The latter
factor is represented by some interesting, albeit understandable, stacking rules,
while the morale ratings - those of the Brits run about double that of the
Americans - pretty much separates the professionals from the amateurs. Thrown
in that the British are fairly well led, as compared to an almost useless bunch
of capos for the rebels, and it’s not hard to tell which side you’re playing
here. Some of the Americans are so “bad” that, for the most part, the only
movement they will make in the entire game will be retrograde. Interestingly
enough, that’s when they turn dangerous.
The basic system will be
pretty familiar to anyone who has played musket-era tactical games:
move-and-fire, taking return fire while you approach, and then, if you so wish,
the Grand Old Melee. The twisty hook that Marsh applies, though, is with the
extensive Reaction rules. Command has decided to make the Reaction rules
“optional”; our suggestion is that you make them sine qua non, for,
without them, the gamer is dumber than a Jim Carrey film festival. On the other
hand, this is where Command’s Krim Corps is going to start howling in pain.
Each unit has a six-hex Reaction Range. Any unit moves within any of those
(rather wide spread of) hexes can React, and that means the phasing player
stops while the non-phasing player goes … unit by individual unit.
I think we first saw this sort
of thing in the old GDW game, Torgau, which everyone professed to be
fascinated by but no one could bring themselves to play. Here, there are far
less counters, and the Reaction system is not quite the free-for-all we saw in Torgau.
Reaction may consist of fire or movement, and, for the rebels, Reaction is
about the only way they get to move their units. Each stationary unit can react
only once, but, while there are some limits and restrictions therein, virtually
all American movement is going to be during the British turn! This is not as
“weird” as it would initially appear, as it reflects the very amateurish
American leadership, giving us an army that Reacts, rather than Acts.
It also gives the rebel player
many difficult decisions to make, as he must decide whether he should stick
around and take advantage of all the walls and fences … and his deadly “whites
of their eyes” fire capability, or move rearward, delaying the King’s Inexorable
Fighting Machine from reaching its appointed victory conditions. Throw into
this mix a rather neat rule that not only provides the American player with
even more interesting decisions, but forces him to play the game with a rather
pervasive “Great Cooga Mooga Gemme Outa Here” mentality: the General Retreat.
At some point in the game -
and deciding just when is not only most important but a great tension-inducing
moment - the American may declare a General Retreat. What this does is remove
the lack-of-command restrictions hamstringing virtually all their troops.
allowing them to move at will. Then again, they can only move back towards
Boston; they cannot conduct any form of offensive. But because they have the
capability to Fire and Move Away as part of Reaction, a General Retreat gives
them a fluidity far greater they had at the start of the battle. The problem is
you can’t do it too soon, as it gives the Brits too much time to regroup -
“eliminated” units, as well as units out of ammo, can be brought back into
play, albeit with some difficulty … a nice touch here.
Aside from the difficulty of
undertaking a fighting withdrawal, it can be a very frustrating position to
play. Add to this the fact that the Reaction rules produce their own share of
frustration - the turn is very herky jerky, and there is no reaction to melee,
which creates some highly anomalous situations wherein 1 or 2 British units can
shock their way down, and through, an American line like demented Pac Men - and
you have a game where the system is probably superior to the situation.
For me, that was not that much
of a problem, although I did have a nagging feeling that some of the game
mechanics could have been done a bit more elegantly, and many of the rules were
jury-rigged to ensure that the battle followed its historical flow. That’s
piddling stuff, though, compared to the overall effect of what is really a very
nice, small-battle tactical system, a much more dignified and learned
descendant of that used in Hougoumont. As we all agreed, we’d really
like to see this system pop up for one of the more “normal”, small battles of
the Revolution, such as Cowpens or Eutaw Springs.
COMMENTS
Graphic Presentation: We’ve seen
better.
Playability: Somewhat
unusual system and interwoven reaction mechanics make for some frustration,
although nothing is overly difficult.
Replayability. Too channeled to bear repeated playings.
Creativity: Lots, and
well applied.
Historicity: Very high -
perhaps too much so - although most of
it insightful..
Wristage: Acceptable.
Comparisons: Very little at this scale, but easily the most
insightful of pure linear musket-era tactical games.
Overall: Most intriguing, most insightful, but rather
frustrating in pure “play” terms. Still and all, worth a good look.