"Robert Rossney" wrote in message news: ... "The Maverick" wrote in message news:3C7CFF82.6070006@volcano.net... > Not only are the latter two not hex based, but they aren't even area > based -- at least that's what it looks like from a quick look at the > copy of the AoS Quad I have up for trade. From what I've gathered, > these are more like miniatures style games using a mapsheet and > counters. Anyone have comments on how well these two played? They are a strange mix of miniatures and paper wargaming. The maps are beautiful -- they're essentially reproductions of period city maps with game features drawn atop them. (I think that the Lille map was actually drawn by Vauban, but I could be misremembering.) The key element of both games is the sappers' construction of trenches that approach the walls of the respective cities. The trench counters are, if memory serves, about 1.5" x .5", and the besieging player spends most of the first part of the game building a network out of these counters that constitutes the actual "gameboard" for him; he deploys his units actually on the trench counters. He has to be careful to not build trenches in such a way that the defender has a clear shot down the length of one with his artillery. And as the trench network approaches the city walls, it enters a zone in which units in the trenches are within reach of the defenders' nighttime sorties. Once the trenches near the walls and the walls have been breached, the game shifts to a point-to-point movement game: the interior of the city is represented by a network of dots and lines on which units are deployed. In all, I liked Lille more than I liked Sevastapol, mostly, I think, because the design of the fortification was really interesting. Both games seem kind of like solitaire games. The player laying siege has to be very careful to not make mistakes in building his trench network; if he does, the defender will be able to harry and destroy units when they move through its vulnerable sections. There's not that much for the defender to do except look for the attacker's mistakes. And if the attacker doesn't make any, then there's just a protracted, bloody battle in the city, which is not very tactically interesting. But the game system itself is very interesting; it's worth playing once or twice. Bob Rossney rbr@well.com