David Hughes  - Dec 2, 2007 6:18 pm (#21142 Total: 21203)  
There is no being cleverer than Comrade Stalin 	 

On the table - A Fatal Attraction (ATO 20)

Mark Ay and I played A Fatal Attraction a couple of times face to face
on Saturday at Paddington Bears in Sydney. AFA is the game contained in
AFA 20, covering the Gallipoli / Dardanelles campaign in 1915. 

Game 1 was interesting. The Ottoman player rolled well for mines, and
especially well for mines in the Aegean. As a result, the Royal Navy was
confronted by what turned out to be an impenetrable 12 factor mine field
at the entrance to the straits (2 each in Besika & Hellas, 4 each in
Sedd-el-Bahr & Kum Kale.) After the English Admiral showed too much
Nelsonian spirit pursuing the Turkish navy (sending Goeben to the bottom
in a hail of shells,) the mines ripped the heart out of his fleet. The
carnage was dreadful. 12 RN capital ships had to face 7 mine attacks
each (!) and ALL were either sunk or crippled. There was no coming back
from this, and so we decided to start again. 

Game 2 was very different. Firstly, the Entente player rolled a "6" for
the Suvla invasion, therefore putting the Allied "destroy the forts"
quick win strategy out of reach. The mine rolls were much less
favourable too. The combination of this - especially the lack of need to
defend the entrance forts to avoid an auto loss - persuaded the Turkish
player to go for a defence in depth strategy for the straits. We reached
Turn 4 before time ran out. By the end of turn three, all that stood
between the Entente and Constantinople were 1 Turkish Battleship, the
Breslau and a single dummy minefield. However, the weather closed in on
Turn 4, a single impulse turn was rolled, and that provided the
breathing space the Ottoman player needed to remine the straits. The
Aussies were ashore at Y beach, but that was all. 

When we called the game, both players were confident of losing, which is
always a good sign. 

These were my 6th and 7th games of AFA, and my ambivalence continues. It
seems very dificult to create a plausible narrative at any level beyond
the very highest - e.g. "after the Royal Navy failed to force the
Dardenelles, an amphibious invasion of the Gallipoli peninsula quickly
petered out into a hopeless attritional stalemate." Beyond that, you
descend into farce. For example, it is very easy for the Turkish ships
to sail adjacent to the entire Royal Navy fleet - 12 capital ships -
stop, aim, fire, sink 1 or 2, conduct a second activation, then sail
back to base before the British sailors can even fire a single shot in
reply. Even if this is a wonderful piece of design for effect it is so
counter intuitive and implausible that - for me and for everyone with
whom I have discussed or played the game - it renders the narrative
ridiculous. 

However, the story does not end there. A number of the gamers present on
Saturday asked me, "if the game is so crap, why are you playing it
again?" Mark got it right I think - he said the game has a certain charm
about it. I think the charm comes from the combination of the
innovative, quirky multiple impulse and activation system, the
ergonomics of the area system, the graphics, the subject and the
relatively rare experience it provides of playing out a genuinely
combined arms assault without dozens of pages of rules. Mark also
described it as "more of a puzzle than a game" and there is something in
that too. 

It's a unique experience for me. Normally I will judge a game within
minutes of opening the box. AFA on the other hand has consumed every
second of my gaming attention for the last 2 months, and I still don't
know if I like it or not. 

Go figure