From: McCue Dr Brian G Subject: FW: Avalanche 1898 (GWAS-style Spanish-American War) is out --- In NavWarGames@egroups.com, "Brian McCue" wrote: My pre-ordered copy came yesterday. The usual plusses and minuses apply, with some extras: +: (Usual) Well thought-out operational rules with the "missions" system that keeps people from doing unrealistic wargamer-like feats of command and control, and a write-ahead system that is, in the context of the "missions" system, an acceptable substitute for refereed double-blind play. (The latter says lot, because I am a real proponent of refereed doubleblind play for practically everything.) +: (Usual) Really nice production quality in maps and counters. (But see also related minuses.) +: (Extra) Upgraded production quality in rulebook and scenario book. +: (Extra) Double-depth box (same as SOPAC). This may seem like a needless waste (double the volume for the same amount of stuff) until one looks at my other GWAS games, which (depending on how much I have done with them) may or may not still close because of the notes, scenarios, order sheets, custom-made maps, etc. that I have thrown in. +: (Usual) Quantity of scenarios. I don't have it here, but there are tactical and operational scenarios, at least a half-dozen of each. +/-: (Extra) Some scenarios require use of components from other games in the system, which is a + if you have them and a - if you don't. +: (Extra) As in GWAS IV (Russo-Japanese War), there is a campaign scenario which strings operational scenarios together in a prescribed way. -: (Usual) The brickwork "hexes." Some people don't like how these look. -: (Usual) The tactical system is extremely rudimentary. The worst part is probably that all guns bear in all directions. It is probably about right for introducing beginners and therefore should be retained, but there should also be something somewhat more sophisticated (like about the level of Iron Bottom Sound, or the hex-based tactical systems in AH/Smithsonian _Guadalcanal_ and _Midway_, or AH _Bismarck_ ('81 +/- 1), or even Metagaming _Fire When Ready_). At this point enough people own one GWAS game or another that I would think there could be a supplement that just consisted of an improved tactical system, using the same counters to get a mid-level game. I don't see a need for a high-sophistication option because people who want that can always use their own minis rules anyway. +/-: (Extra, was present in SOPAC) The tactical board is smaller than in earlier games. This is good for people who play on small tables, and bad for people who are clumsy about stacks of counters. -: (Extra, was present in SOPAC) The mounted maps. I guess the mounted tactical map might be an improvement (though questionably worth the cost), but the mounted operational map is an actual drawback, because for such a small map with so few counters and such a long game (especially one that will use one's wargame table for the tactical encounters), use of magnetized counters on a vertical metal surface is highly desirable and easy. The map is so small (doubtless part of the price one pays for mounting), one could just use the side of a filing cabinet. Bachelors could use the refrigerator. -: (Extra) The operational map covers a subset of the Plan Black map! It is different in that the "hex" rows are oriented differently and the merchant trade routes are different, but I was really hoping for more, like maybe an operational Phillipines map (might need some what-if scenarios to use it, but it would be better than nothing, which is in effect what one gets now). For operational scenarios in the Puerto Rico region, one would be directed to use one's Plan Black map, and the Phillipines map could be made to connect to the Plan Orange map, (which connects to the R-J map) for some serious campaign possibilities. (Unfortunately, SOPAC sets the precedent that the WW II games in this family are going to use a slightly different scale, precluding the possibility of using the R-J map or the Plan Orange map, or the Phillipines map about which I had been fantasizing, for WW II scenarios.) On balance, I'd say that the plusses outweigh the minuses. Presently I am getting my gaming group underway in a GWAS I scenario (of my own devising, a combination of Med scenarios 1 and 2, so that one has the Goeben chase and also uncertainty/diplomacy regarding who enters the war when--it's for people who missed SPI _Flight of the Goeben_) with the battles to be fought out in Shipbase, and it's harder than it ought to be. It takes a while to figure out which ship is which class and enter it in Shipbase, and if you leave a ship out you have to peform surgery on the file in Notepad because Shipbase lets you edit a ship, but won't let you add a ship. I really like GWAS and Shipbase (or else I wouldn't be doing this), but my #1 recommendation for any second edition of Shipbase would be that it include ready-made files for the GWAS games. Brian --- End forwarded message ---