From: Dave Kohr Subject: comments on WEG Fireteam My original question, posed on CONSIM-L, the Contemporary folder on Consimworld, and USENET (rec.games.board and alt.games.wargames) : Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 15:49:05 -0800 (PST) From: Dave Kohr Subject: West End hypothetical games In a fit of wargame collecting madness 3 years back, I snagged 3 West End hypothetical NATO/Warsaw Pact games: Air Cav, Air & Armor, and Fireteam, when they were being dumped by WEG for the firesale price of $5 each. Naturally they've been sitting in the closet since, still in shrinkwrap.... I have since seen Air & Armor played, and heard multiple positive comments about it, so this one sounds like a keeper. I've heard mixed comments about Air Cav (e.g. interesting system, but it has ugly, generic counters and maps that require you to look up stats for everything based on the scenario). And I haven't heard anything about Fireteam except that it's kind of complicated. So does anybody have any more opinions about these games? Thanks, Dave Kohr Be sure to remove the SPAMFOILER! ---------------------------------------- from USENET: >From paceto@ihug.co.nz Thu Dec 7 21:34:26 PST 2000 From: "Paul Aceto" Newsgroups: rec.games.board,alt.games.wargames Subject: Re: opinions on West End's Air & Armor, Air Cav, and Fireteam? Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 16:09:59 +1300 Organization: ihug ( New Zealand ) Lines: 8 Message-ID: <90cdfc$qg2$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> Paper Wars reviewed Fire Team a while back and gave it a glowing review. Based on that I picked the game up on e-Bay and have fiddled around with it solitaire. It seems to be a keeper. Lots of randomness and a very unique command/control system. ---------------------------------------- from Consimworld: Nick Hyle - 04:03pm Dec 2, 2000 PST Fireteam is basically Squad Leader in the 80s. ----- A.J. - 09:58pm Dec 2, 2000 PST I, on the other hand, have played "Air Cav" and "Fire Team". All those times playing FT and I never knew it was an SL adaptation. [....] Fire Team: Interesting use of Command Points to illustrate doctrinal differences between US and SOV units at the team level. Basically, US teams have more initiative (uses less CP to do things at team level) and SOV units tend to do things at platoon level (massed fire is easier to do for the SOVs), IIRC. I liked the way the game tried to show individual weapons differences (SAW vs.RPK). [....] Both "Air Cav" and FT benefit from FtF playing. I'm more a hardware guy, so I would keep Air Cav. ----- Nick Hyle - 10:12pm Dec 2, 2000 PST I didn't say it was a Squad Leader adaptation - it isn't. But it's a game by the same designer at the same scale of time and units, and the same level of complexity. Except instead of WWII, it's WWIII NATO v Bloc. So for someone who didn't know anything about it, my one line description was "basically Squad Leader in the 80s". ----- John Alsen - 08:04am Dec 4, 2000 PST Actually, Fire Team was designed by Jon Southard, who, as far as I know, had nothing to do with SL. Sadly, Jon has not done much lately that I know of although Pacific Rim has a title of his on their schedule. FT usses a chit-draw activation mechanic where you can spend the activation points immediately or save them for future use (normally necessary for a Soviet move/fire). Opportunity fire also consumes APs and total APs used are tracked so you can run out of available APs even though there may be chits in the draw cup. FT is a highly interactive game and fast moving with a complexity level of about 7 on a 1 to 10 scale...and that complexity is more from the "what do i do now" side of things rather than the rules side. ----- Markus Stumptner - 10:35am Dec 4, 2000 PST What kept me from trying Fire Team was its narrow focus - it's just US vs Soviets. The possibility of such an expansion was hinted at in the designer's notes but second to the notion of applying the system elsewhere in the world. [....] even back then it appears that this particular possibility (a more in depth look at European forces) was of less interest to Southard than moving to a new theatre.