From: "C. HENDRIX" <chendrix@manznet.com>
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 <mst@DBAI.TUWIEN.AC.AT>
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" <chendrix@manznet.com>
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, <big snip> (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