Silver Bayonet 30

Previous:
Tags

I've played Tea Time over a dozen times most likely, and I keep finding new details. For example, I've been playing - and by extension - our competitive games with the Attack Coordination rules interpeted incorrectly, particularly with respect to Assault Combat. Rolls which are 2 or more greater than the Efficiency Rating of the attacking unit go into Frontal Assault, which means only one of the stacks may attack. I think that's too strict really, but that's the way the rule is written.

I think it would make more sense that the attacking units would make separate rolls on the attack rather than a combined roll. I might ask about it sometime.

Also, I've (we've) been playing Air Defense inconsistently at best. Air Defense only occurs when there is more steps defending than Air Points attacking. This includes when Air is being used for Defensive Bombardment.

Anyway, I played through the scenario very carefully, and recorded the results on a spreadsheet I started a couple of years ago.

Silver Bayonet Game 30

Frontal Assault is just brutally ineffective.

Here is an interesting rule:

1/9 Headhunters

The 1/9 alone accounted for half the kills in their area of operations. Do not fuck with the Headhunters.

Where to now?

My goal for this sequence of game plays was deriving a complete results tree which would show all possible outcomes at each step. The added complexity of correctly playing coordination, and the variability of the Air bombardment make this difficult. For example, supposing I only brought 5 air points to bear, then I would need to have Air Defense, twice rather than not at all. I'm not willing to abandon the project, but it's going to have to morph a bit. Building a mind mind won't be as straightforward as I was expecting.

Previous:
Tags

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.