Barbarossa on a very small map

Jul 18 2015

Tags

I'm in the middle of a solo game of the Full Fire in the Lake scenario, card 52 of the 78 in the full deck. I'd like to say I'd finish it today, but I don't believe I have the energy for that, neither mental nor physical. Plus, the novelty is wearing off, and it's getting to be work now. That means it's time to break out something really lightweight and take a bit of a break.

Normally, I don't like having two games going on at the same time, which means I more often than not do have two games going at the same time. But Target Leningrad is a pretty small game, I'm very comfortable with the other games in the series, and I'm not planning on logging the turns in any detail on this first game. It's mostly to compare and contrast rules between Target Leningrad, Battle for Moscow, and Objective: Kiev.

As usual for games in this series, setting up is fast and easy. There are only 15-20 pieces on the board, if that.

After two turns, I can see this is definitely an interesting little puzzle. The Russians have to fall back really fast, while trying to block the Germans at at the same time.

After four turns, that is, half way through, it's not looking quite as good for the Germans. The Russians have walled up around Leningrad, and it's going to be tough for the Germans to fight through. One thing which hasn't helped the Germans early on is a lot of DR results for even fairly high odds. If even a couple more Russian units could have been eliminated, the Germans could have gotten behind them to cut off supply. No such luck this game.

And the German concede to the Russians on Turn 7, as there is no way they are going to be able to either capture or isolate Leningrad. Here's what it looks like:

End of Turn 7, Germans have no
hope

This is the usual game of this series. If the Germans do the obvious thing, whatever that may be, they're going to lose.

What to play next?

Deciding what to play next is always a tough call when faced with a closet full of games, all of which were purchased with intent to play. Here's one I'm dealing with the decision.

Something New: this means both something new to me and a game which has been published recently, within the last two or three years.
Something Classic: I've acquired a number of games properly considered "classic" which haven't yet been played. The current example would be PanzerGruppe Guderian.
Something Again: mastery requires constant practice, which means playing games many, many times to allow nuance to appear.
Something Vietnam: as I'm on a Vietnam binge. I don't have all the Vietnam games ever published, but I can say that I have a lot of them, and probably more than most people.
Something Obscure: as it's fun to poke around in the dustier corners of game design.
Something Different: break away from the same old publishers and try a game from one of the new kids on the block. Or, conversely, dip into legacy with a classic tried and true.
Something Light: once in a while it's nice to actually finish a game all the way through in one sitting, in an hour or two.
Something Heavy: if possible, it's nice to set up something big and complicated which can be left out for days or weeks or even months, for a leisurely stroll through a very large or long game.

There are surely many more ways to choose, but the above method keeps me busy enough, helps me get both breadth and depth into my play, and provides me with a sense of progress.

The odd man out

When there is an odd man out:

Have a solo game ready to play.
Keep score or advise on a game in progress.
Referee a game in progress.