From: Sogard@aol.com
Subject: The IRON DREAM (Command #53)
Over the weekend, I played XTR's THE IRON DREAM (game by Ty Bomba found in
COMMAND Magazine #53). The supply rules and air systems are pretty basic and
easy to handle (although there is a German Attenuated Supply rule to handle
German supply at the start of the game) so this is a plus for gamers who
decry extra chrome in a game design.
The game is easy to jump into; but, also nuanced enough to invite repeated
plays. The key to the system is the land game where each player gets to
determine the order of his turn (combat first, move second; or move first,
combat second) every time he moves. Each player move roughly corresponds to
one week (each turn of two weeks is divided into two player couplets -- why
this is structured this way instead of weekly player turns, I don't know).
The map is quite functional, easy to use and actually rather attractive once
you get used to looking at it. The air aspects of the game are very simple
and involve a simple column shift in combat (no OCS convulusions here).
Weather is more detailed and quite important to game play -- which it should
anyway in my opinion.
The scale of the game is that each hex equals 20 miles from side to side and
the combat units represent German Korps (panzer and infantry), Axis Allied
Satellite Armies, Soviet tank and infantry Armies and some specialist Soviet
units (Combat Engineers, Cavalry, Artillery, Partisans and Paratroop units).
The game begins with the first week of October, 1941 and continues through
the last week of November, 1942. There is just a 1942 campaign game. So,
this game is not for those who insist on seeing Barbarossa; but rather, for
those who want to explore the options for the Germans after the completion of
the battles for Smolensk and Kiev with Leningrad already under siege.
For those of you who have played PROUD MONSTER, the game begins with the
Germans in supply difficulties (supply attenuation) and this condition
remains until the Germans finally organize their logistic situation which
takes place in game terms at the start of the March, 1942 game turn.
The game is very interesting and enjoyable although I and my gaming opponent
are still working out the best manner to get the Germans untracked. The
gamer certainly follows XTR's classic game profile of low unit density
combined with basic mechanics and reasonable play time. Anyone else given
the game a go and got any observations? So far, it looks like a winner to me.
Warren Sogard
From: Dave Kohr <davekohr@best.com>
Subject: Re: The IRON DREAM (Command #53)
Warren, I was really, really disappointed by the design of this game. In
particular, I couldn't believe that Ty combined such a low unit density
(corps/armies) with a tiny time scale (weekly turns). It seems to me that
this should push playing time up to at least 10 hours (figuring on just 7
minutes per player per couplet) for no appreciable gain in simulation
value. I was also underwhelmed by the map's geographical coverage,
particularly of the area around and to the east of Moscow and Stalingrad:
this tends to reduce the German's strategic options. With such a large unit
scale, a monthly timescale and a hexscale larger by 50-100% seems more
appropriate.
Basically, this is the game that convinced me it's time to drop my Command
sub. War Chess was awful, but I expected no better; this was a game I was
eagerly anticipating, and Ty really let me down. I can't see any reason at
all to play this instead of, say, Russian Campaign.
How long did it take you to play it? Did you play out the whole thing? On
each turn, how many of the units did you typically move around?
Dave Kohr <davekohr@bestSPAMFOILER.com> Be sure to remove the SPAMFOILER!
Bay Area Games Day IX is coming up soon! Jan. 22 at 10 AM in Los Altos, CA
http://www.best.com/~davekohr/gamesday
From: Sogard@aol.com
Subject: Re: The IRON DREAM (Command #53)
Dave Kohr responded to my post on XTR's recent game, The IRON DREAM (Command
Magazine #53).
>Warren, I was really, really disappointed by the design of this game. In
>particular, I couldn't believe that Ty combined such a low unit density
>(corps/armies) with a tiny time scale (weekly turns). It seems to me that
>this should push playing time up to at least 10 hours (figuring on just 7
>minutes per player per couplet) for no appreciable gain in simulation
>value.
The reaction of both myself and my gaming opponent (after three games) is
exactly the opposite. The low unit density and low complexity rules mean
that turn move along rather nicely and the weekly turns permit a much better
feel for the East Front campaign to come through. Our first reaction was:
"How in the heck do the Germans get anywhere" now followed by "WoW, these
Germans can really go!" Don't think we have discovered the last word on the
game yet but it seems winnable by both sides and is exciting and tense
throughout because of the victory checks made at certain points in the game
(much like PROUD MONSTER in that sense). If you want a playable, East Front
game -- than IRON DREAM is worth looking at.
>I was also underwhelmed by the map's geographical coverage,
>particularly of the area around and to the east of Moscow and Stalingrad:
>this tends to reduce the German's strategic options.
We have not found that to be true. The reason is because of the victory
conditions. If you lose Rostov and Stalingrad and the Germans are in the
Caucasus -- you are going to lose the game so the game is decided in the
approaches to Rostov and Stalingrad. Moscow and its options is there in
detail so I don't think the map short changes the "battle for Moscow" in any
way.
>With such a large unit scale, a monthly timescale and a hexscale larger
>by 50-100% seems more appropriate.
The game seems to be just fine in the time scale given (one turn equals two
weeks and is divided into two couplets which mean each couplet works out to
roughly a week). This also means that weather is important; but, ONE bad
weather roll is not going to kill you which would be the case if the turns
represented a longer period of time.
>Basically, this is the game that convinced me it's time to drop
>my Command sub.
My reaction is completely opposite. IRON DREAM is exactly what COMMAND made
its reputation on -- a lower level complexity game which is a heck of a lot
of fun to play. So far, I have not found any major flaws in the game design
the spoil play and the game is fun and a challenge for BOTH sides.
>War Chess was awful, but I expected no better; this was a game
>I was eagerly anticipating, and Ty really let me down. I can't see
>any reason at all to play this instead of, say, Russian Campaign.
I won't defend WAR CHESS. But, I would play IRON DREAM over the RUSSIAN
CAMPAIGN at this point. The game design for IRON DREAM is actually more
interesting with the decision each player move of whether to move
first/combat second or have combat first/move second a fascinating choice.
Coupled with the fact that the rules are easy to grasp and uncomplicated --
don't see how one could miss.
>How long did it take you to play it?
So far, none of our games has run the entire game as early one; we were
seeing Soviet victories by Victory Points early on. Now, we are seeing the
Germans very close to getting their automatic victory conditions. This may
be that we are just playing the game better --- but so far, we are having a
very good time.
>Did you play out the whole thing? On each turn, how many of the units
>did you typically move around?
Because of the interlocking Zones-of-Control (ZoCs) used in the game (yes,
even in a Ty Bomba design), unless the front has been shattered, the actual
number of units being moved was only a fraction of the total. But, we have
been exploring HOW the German can shatter the front; and, we now think that
the German can do so IF the weather is cooperative and the die rolling
remains average. The game has a number of rather neat design features which
also enhance player enjoyment.
At least at this point, IRON DREAM is a keeper worthy of repeated plays.
(And, haven't we all been looking for a low complexity East Front game as of
late?) On the basis of IRON DREAM, I would subscribe to COMMAND; but then, I
already have.
Warren Sogard
From: Dave Kohr <davekohr@best.com>
Subject: Re: The IRON DREAM (Command #53)
Aaron.Silverman@kbcfp.com wrote:
> Dave estimated that it would take 7 minutes per turn, but I'm
> not sure from his comments whether he actually played it or just estimated
> the time.
Actually, I was guessing about 30 minutes per game turn, where each game
turn has 2 "couplets", and each couplet has a player-turn: so 4
player-turns of 7.5 minutes each. With 28 game turns, that gives you about
14 hours of playing time if the game runs to full length.
I haven't played it, so the 7 minutes per player-turn is purely a guess.
But after playing many games over many years, I've found that if you're
playing competently, it takes at least 5 minutes to move and fight if the
game system is ugo-igo, there are more than a handful of units on the
board, and the combat system is odds-based and therefore rewards
factor-counting. Warren guessed it took him about 5-10 minutes per "player
couplet", which I think means my estimate is in the ballpark.
As Warren pointed out, the reason the average game length may be shorter
than this 14 or so hours is that the sudden death victory conditions can
kick in. (He said he hasn't played a game that went past turn 5, for
example.) IMHO if the game is balanced and not terribly random, and the
players are competent and well-matched, sudden death conditions generally
won't kick in, so you had better plan on playing it through to the bitter
end. For me, a median (as opposed to average) playing time of 12+ hours
pretty much demands that the game itself had better be fantastic. I'll have
to see how Iron Dream stacks up....
Dave Kohr <davekohr@bestSPAMFOILER.com> Be sure to remove the SPAMFOILER!
Bay Area Games Day IX is coming up soon! Jan. 22 at 10 AM in Los Altos, CA
http://www.best.com/~davekohr/gamesday