From: "C. HENDRIX" Subject: Re: S&T First Blood: Guadalcanal preview (late) I hate to rain on Mr. Stumper's parade (he makes some obvious points that are quite correct and to which I will remark below), but he makes some critical errors as well that need to be addressed. Markus Stumptner wrote: > > I've finally received my copy of the S&T Guadalcanal game (overseas mailing > delay, not the fault of Decision Games - actually, it arrived pretty quickly, > only about a month after Doug Murphy got his copy!). I've only had time for > a short look so far, but it does appear interesting. Compared to the original > First Blood, the map is the same (though of course professionally produced > and somewhat more colorful). The map is NOT the same. There are no more jungle hexSIDES, only 3 off board areas for the Japanese, no more Japanese entry points, etc. > The counters are printed with flags on the back for hidden play, which is a > > good idea. Actually, this was the one thing about the new version that I applaud heartily and wished I'd thought of. > I haven't checked for detail > changes in the rules, but the most visible change is that they did away with > the artillery units and introduced artillery strength points for both sides > instead that can be allocated to combats and are listed on the turn track > for each turn. I'm not sure what the effect will be on the game, but > arguably it reduces complexity without giving a lot away. They also have > removed air combat - there are no fighter units in the countermix, just > bombers. All these changes did not reduce complexity at all. In fact, they may have added a bit and they DECIDEDLY changed the flow and flavor of the game. I have discussed my thoughts about the drastic changes in the countermix elsewhere. > The two CRT's have been merged, with the side-specific features > removed (thethe two A2 results for the Japanese and the single DR result > on the US side is gone), which brought the two tables close enough to > represent most of the difference by a pro-US dieroll shift. Two > columns have been added for 0 and 7+ dierolls. This was a bad mistake. The differing CRTs (very much different) in the original version were done that way to reflect the differing tactical doctrines and capabilities of both sides. Making it generic (and just giving the US a column shift) does nothing for the game at all. > Apart from this, the main noticeable change is that they redid the OOB > completely. A few units seem to be missing for no good reason (the > Japanese tanks, for example :-(, but on the whole the change is a vast > improvement. The original edition had many units arriving too early (up > to two months on the Japanese side). The S&T edition also represents the > shifting of the 2nd Marine battalions from and to Tulagi correctly, and > it's the first game I've seen that allows the Japanese to take > reinforcements from the Rabaul garrison (an optional rule). I will be the first to admit that there may be mistakes in the OOB/OOA of the original version, but I was publishing those stats every other month for almost a year to the entire body of AHIKSers and I got a lot of help from some of them. Unfortunately, the books I had access to at the time were somewhat conflicting so I had to make value judgements on many of them (as did the SPI folks as Markus points out- I wonder what sources HE has and WHERE WAS HE when I needed him?!) Even so, I'll stand by the original in the format it was finished in for the most part. It wan't THAT bad. > Summary from the first look: They've made a simple game still more > simple. From the air game standpoint, that may be so, but I don't think dropping the artillery untis made it more simple. And the horrendous errata certainly doesn't make it easier (there WAS no errata to the first edition). > It's not clear whether this was necessarily a good choice in > every case (the countermix is minuscule so some slack must have been > there for the missing counters), Any "slack" here about missing counters would have to be made on a case by case basis. I remember all the brain damage I went through working up the OOB/OOA the first time. I'd almost have somebody else do it the next. > and S&T subscribers should certainly > cry "foul" if the missing rules should appear as "variant" or "advanced" > in one of the next MOVES issues! (Hm, apparently I'm touchy on that > point right now.) On the other hand, there are some significant > improvements as well, the OOB is a major change for the better. > Markus Most of the "missing rules" revolve around the drastic changes in the countermix. That includes the ground, sea, air and artillery units. I don't think you'll see them, but I do hope you all get errata so the changed game can be played at least. I have mentioned this before, I'll say it again- the components are NOT compatible (except a couple of the ground units). Sorry. Your Buddy, Chester From: Markus Stumptner Subject: Re: S&T First Blood: Guadalcanal preview (late) >I hate to rain on Mr. Stumper's parade Chester, my buddy, don't feel bad about it, the purpose of this list lies in such discussions. >(he makes some obvious points that are >quite correct and to which I will remark below), but he makes some critical >errors as well that need to be addressed. Very well. Now we merely have to agree which is which. >> First Blood, the map is the same (though of course professionally produced >> and somewhat more colorful). > >The map is NOT the same. There are no more jungle hexSIDES, only 3 off board >areas for the Japanese, no more Japanese entry points, etc. True. Yes, the jungle hexsides are gone (another simplification that I did not mention). Jungle terrain is now in-hex only. >> The counters are printed with flags on the back for hidden play,which is a >> good idea. >Actually, this was the one thing about the >new version that I applaud heartily and wished I'd thought of. >> I haven't checked for detail >> changes in the rules, but the most visible change is that they did away with >> the artillery units and introduced artillery strength points for both sides >> instead that can be allocated to combats and are listed on the turn track >> for each turn. I'm not sure what the effect will be on the game, but >> arguably it reduces complexity without giving a lot away. They also have >> removed air combat - there are no fighter units in the countermix, just >> bombers. >All these changes did not reduce complexity at all. In fact, they may have >added a bit I'm sorry, Chester, but if the rules are shorter and there are fewer counters, then the change does reduce complexity. About half a dozen paragraphs and 30-odd counters in the case of artillery, one and a half pages and again 20-30 counters in the case of air units. >and they DECIDEDLY changed the flow and flavor of the game. Excellent! This is the kind of argument that I would like to hear more about. Since you have obviously played both versions of the game, perhaps you could comment on the effects the changes have on the flow of play, and both sides' strategy and tactics. >> The two CRT's have been merged, with the side-specific features >> removed (the two A2 results for the Japanese and the single DR result >> on the US side is gone), which brought the two tables close enough to >> represent most of the difference by a pro-US dieroll shift. Two >> columns have been added for 0 and 7+ dierolls. >This was a bad mistake. The differing CRTs (very much different) in the >original version were done that way to reflect the differing tactical >doctrines and capabilities of both sides. Making it generic (and just >giving the US a column shift) does nothing for the game at all. >> Apart from this, the main noticeable change is that they redid the OOB >> completely. A few units seem to be missing for no good reason (the >> Japanese tanks, for example :-(, but on the whole the change is a vast >> improvement. The original edition had many units arriving too early (up >> to two months on the Japanese side). The S&T edition also represents the >> shifting of the 2nd Marine battalions from and to Tulagi correctly, and >> it's the first game I've seen that allows the Japanese to take >> reinforcements from the Rabaul garrison (an optional rule). >I will be the first to admit that there may be mistakes in the OOB/OOA of >the original version, but I was publishing those stats every other month >for almost a year to the entire body of AHIKSers and I got a lot of help >from some of them. Unfortunately, the books I had access to at the time >were somewhat conflicting so I had to make value judgements on many of >them (as did the SPI folks as Markus points out- I wonder what sources >HE has I assume the "SPI" refers to Decision Games. This sentence is still a bit puzzling - does the "HE" refer to "the SPI folks" or to me? I assume that it refers to the redeveloper. In that case, it appears that the main source that the guy responsible for the OOB (Robert Barrow according to the credits) used for the Japanese (given the list of sources he cites) was Richard Frank's _Guadalcanal_ (published in 1990). My copy of Frank's book is far away at the moment, what I have available here is John Miller, _Guadalcanal: The First Offensive_, United States Army in WWII Series, first published in 1947. On the topic of Japanese unit arrivals, although it leaves many small units open, it seems far closer to Frank and the S&T game than to the AHIKS game. The other sources listed in the S&T issue appear pretty irrelevant to the Japanese OOB except possibly the Dunnigan book which I've never seen. Given that you're so intent on discussing sources, what were yours, actually? I've never seen any other book or game that gives the Japanese on Guadalcanal a strength of five regiments at the beginning of September (as your game does - counting just infantry units, I find 14 battalions in your setup and Sept I reinforcements. When I looked at the game initially, I thought the latter were supposed to be reinforcements arriving at Rabaul, but the rules seem to make it clear that reinforcements arrive on Guadalcanal immediately.) >and WHERE WAS HE when I needed him?!) >Even so, I'll stand by the >original in the format it was finished in for the most part. It wan't >THAT bad. I did not say it was "THAT bad" (whatever THAT is). I said the new edition was better in that particular regard, and judging from my sources, it is. >> Summary from the first look: They've made a simple game still more >> simple. >From the air game standpoint, that may be so, but I don't think dropping >the artillery untis made it more simple. See above. >And the horrendous errata >certainly doesn't make it easier (there WAS no errata to the first >edition). Great, congratulations (no irony here, btw). But the errata are not really that bad, unless I missed something. I saw the discussion between Doug Murphy and Terry Rooker over some clarifications. The two actual errata I noticed in that discussion were (a) a mixup in two hex numbers and (b) the contradiction about whether artillery can be used to support the defense. And the one real omission was that of the amphibious boxes, which is trivially repaired by placing units in sea hexes. >but I do hope you all get errata so the >changed game can be played at least. No need to worry, it can be played the way it arrived. Although I can understand how bad the game may look to you given how proud you are of the error-freeness of the old design, I'm not aware now of any problems fundamental enough to impede play. [There is some fishy-looking stuff, such as the uniform terrain effects for combat. They look suspiciously as if someone copied the "-1 dieroll" line five times and then forgot to edit it. But perhaps that was an alteration that was supposed to fit in with the "homogenized" CRT, and I give them the benefit of the doubt.] >I have mentioned this before, I'll >say it again- the components are NOT compatible (except a couple of the >ground units). Sorry. I don't see what you're getting at - as far as I see, the counters have the same information as in the original game (even the remaining naval and air counters, i.e., these have none besides the type). Nor am I aware that they changed the scale of unit ratings (although I think some individual unit strengths have been altered). Then again, I see no reason to mix the units of both editions anyway, I'd either play one or the other at one time. Btw, I can understand your chagrin at having your design altered after it was out of your hands, but for obvious reasons, it is not the position from which I look at the game. Do all the changes make sense? I don't know, possibly not, but then I did not claim so. Accusing me of "critical errors" because I mention the existence of changes you don't like is a bit odd, really. Markus From: "C. HENDRIX" Subject: Nailed again (S&T 178) To borrow one of Lou's little lines- "Bother" said Pooh as he noticed he had forgot to shut the bathroom door and got caught with his pants down AGAIN. I winced a little here and there as I reread my post (with your inserts). I think I got my feathers a little ruffled there- sorry about that. Will attempt to straighten things up a bit here. Markus Stumptner wrote: CH:>(he makes some obvious points that are > >quite correct and to which I will remark below), but he makes some critical > >errors as well that need to be addressed. MS:> Very well. Now we merely have to agree which is which. Agreed. And that crack about 'critical errors' was a bit much. I take it all back. :( CH:> >All these changes did not reduce complexity at all. In fact, they may have > >added a bit MS:> I'm sorry, Chester, but if the rules are shorter and there are fewer > counters, then the change does reduce complexity. About half a dozen > paragraphs and 30-odd counters in the case of artillery, one and a > half pages and again 20-30 counters in the case of air units. You're right. I'll have to beat a hasty retreat on this one. But to squeak in just one more argument in defense of 1st Ed, about half of the rules (BY VOLUME) were clarifications to try to make sure that any questions that could be raised were answered in the rules (instead of having to print errata later). They could have been redone and chopped substatially if that is not an important factor to the ruleswriter. CH: >and they DECIDEDLY changed the flow and flavor of the game. MS:> Excellent! This is the kind of argument that I would like to hear > more about. Since you have obviously played both versions of the > game, perhaps you could comment on the effects the changes have on the > flow of play, and both sides' strategy and tactics. Ooooops. Have to fess up here- I have NOT played the new version. But an integral part of the original was exactly how the Japanese would deploy the artillery units (and as a consequence the rest of the ground units since artillery deployment for the IJA is a critical factor). The air war was almost a dance that you had with the various counters between you and the American (and vice versa). With all the interaction between these units gone- how could it NOT affect the flow of the game? <-major snip-> CH:> >I will be the first to admit that there may be mistakes in the OOB/OOA of > >the original version, (as did the SPI folks as Markus points > >out- I wonder what sources HE has MS:> I assume the "SPI" refers to Decision Games. This sentence is still a > bit puzzling - does the "HE" refer to "the SPI folks" or to me? The HE was the DG/SPI redevelopers. MS: > Given that you're so intent on discussing sources, > what were yours, actually? I mentioned before that I didn't remember exactly, but they were not the best available I'm sure. I will admit to using the Ballantine booklet :) I also have a copy of THE CACTUS AIR FORCE. There were 4-5 obscure volumes that members sent me facts and figures out of. I remember I used the STARVATION ISLAND (title?) volume and another that was published in the '60s from the local library. I've never heard of the '90 book you mentioned. I know I checked FB against the old AH title and the old SPI BLOODY RIDGE (nobody had ever said anything to them that I was aware of). CH: > It wan't THAT bad. MS:> I did not say it was "THAT bad" (whatever THAT is). I said the new > edition was better in that particular regard, and judging from my > sources, it is. I'd argue with you if I could, but I can't so I won't. :) Seriously, I am sure the OOB/OOA could have been done better, but I wasn't trying to put together the end-all be-all. Just a fun game that worked. Anybody who's ever played it can at least agree with that part. To be perfectly fair, until I actually get up the gumption to sit down and play the new version I can't honestly say it doesn't work. CH:> >And the horrendous errata certainly doesn't make it easier > > (there WAS no errata to the first edition). MS:> Great, congratulations (no irony here, btw). But the errata are not > really that bad, unless I missed something. I saw the discussion > between Doug Murphy and Terry Rooker over some clarifications. The > two actual errata I noticed in that discussion were (a) a mixup in two > hex numbers and (b) the contradiction about whether artillery can be > used to support the defense. And the one real omission was that of > the amphibious boxes, which is trivially repaired by placing units in > sea hexes. This is a pet peeve of mine. Major items on maps such as holding boxes should NOT be missed in the proofreading step. What gets my goat about this is that I OFFERED to proofread components FOR FREE, but only got silence. Even if such an item did sneak by and get printed that way- didn't anybody check the final version of the map against the playtest versions so that notes about what to do could be made in the rulebook? CH:> >but I do hope you all get errata so the > >changed game can be played at least. MS:> No need to worry, it can be played the way it arrived. Although I can > understand how bad the game may look to you given how proud you are of > the error-freeness of the old design, I'm not aware now of any > problems fundamental enough to impede play. I'd call contradictory rules over whether artillery may or may not be allocated to defense fairly fundamental in a game where artillery is represented by a point system- especially in a game with an extremely low counter density. MS:> [There is some > fishy-looking stuff, such as the uniform terrain effects for combat. > They look suspiciously as if someone copied the "-1 dieroll" line five > times and then forgot to edit it. But perhaps that was an alteration > that was supposed to fit in with the "homogenized" CRT, and I give > them the benefit of the doubt.] Compared to the original, I agree with your assessment here. CH:> >I have mentioned this before, I'll say it again- the components are >> NOT compatible (except a couple of the ground units). Sorry. MS:> I don't see what you're getting at - as far as I see, the counters > have the same information as in the original game (even the remaining > naval and air counters, i.e., these have none besides the type). Nor > am I aware that they changed the scale of unit ratings (although I > think some individual unit strengths have been altered). Then again, > I see no reason to mix the units of both editions anyway, I'd either > play one or the other at one time. I have been asked by some people if they are interchangeable because they want to mix-n-match the components. That was what drove this remark. I don't want somebody buying the original figuring they can use the mounted counters of the redo with the original rules, etc. etc or vice-versa. It needs to be understood that they are two entirely different products in every way. I don't want people spending money on games expecting to get a mounted set with one that can be used with the smaller (size-wise) map of the original or some such thing. This comes under truth in advertising more than another gripe on my part. I am rapidly running out of the first edition, and don't want to mislead anybody. MS:> Btw, I can understand your chagrin at having your design altered after > it was out of your hands, but for obvious reasons, it is not the > position from which I look at the game. This is probably the biggest bugaboo for me. This was my first experience with selling a game and then having it come out as Something Completely Different. A lot of this is personal shock and then with the glaring errata (that I offered to help with) that I virtually crusade about... Ah well. This has been a learning experience for me. Not just in how the industry works, but now- in this conversation with you- I have to learn to take a step back and remember that you folks may have never seen the original (or not even care). That's ego deflating and if there's anything I'm full of...it's ego. MS: > Do all the changes make > sense? I don't know, possibly not, but then I did not claim so. > Accusing me of "critical errors" because I mention the existence of > changes you don't like is a bit odd, really. Not odd, just plain out of line. Sorry about that. I stepped over the line, you called me on it and it is up to me to step up to the podium and take my lumps. I appreciate your comments. You've helped me put this whole thing in a little more perspective. Hope I'm Still- Your Buddy, Chester