Chuang Shyue Chou - Feb 7, 2005 3:10 am (#8875 Total: 8878) Sinai '56, Strategy & Tactics Issue 226: "Lawrence Hung" wrote in message news:ee6e982.9166@webx.Ta3OalvfaWc... > Chou, dare you say anything about the game after 2 plays? Hi Lawrence, (do call me Shyue Chou) Let me describe the games and the circumstances. I played two games, once as the Anglo-French player and once as the Egyptian player. For the first game, my opponent was playing two simultaneous games as the Egyptian player in two tables. Simultaneous Games 1, 1. Result: Anglo-French (me) 35, Egyptian (opponent) 48 Result: Anglo-French (another player) 25, Egyptian (opponent) 62 Game 2 Result: Anglo-French (opponent) 48, Egyptian (me) 48 We made a slight deployment mistake on the coastal battery, which allowed the Egyptian player an extra 3-4 VPs at most. Here are my impressions. 1. This game is an excellent tactical puzzle. The Anglo-French player must play a perfect game, even then, it is difficult to win. As in the historical circumstances, the Anglo-French landings and the subsequent operations were brilliant but it did not achieve the political successes sought by their political masters. The Anglo-French player should have a well-thought out plan of operations before beginning. In my second game, my opponent practically played the perfect game. He destroyed every single Egyptian unit, occupied every objective except for one, but he was not able to win (even adjusting for the coastal battery) despite having moving numerous units off-map. Even if he were to extend the game, he would have to move enough units to offset the 1 die roll+1 VP per turn extension. In other words, he would have to play the perfect game (ie destroy all enemy units, occupy all objectives) and perhaps, gamble with additional turns. Given the average die roll (3.5 median +1), he would have to manage 4.5 VP worth of units per turn. Can he or she (oh really...) do that? 2. The Egyptian player has little to do except sit on the objective spaces, thus generating VPs every turn. If the Egyptian player were to attempt to move or counter attack, he would have to attack at half-strength using the frontal assault table. Don't bother with an operational mobile reserve either as allied airpower and naval support were overwhelming. In reality, there is previous little an Egyptian player could do. I rolled a '6' on my second turn in the second game and brought out six militia units. That was not good as it exposed my positions earlier. The Anglo-French forces were able to pinpoint these units and destroy them piecemeal. 3. Graphics. The map is clear and perfectly functional. Good job. I feel that the counters are lacking. My fellow players felt the same way. Here are his comments: "The counters are not well designed. First, the movement allowance should have been printed on the counters. Then no problem about which unit is static, which unit is mechanised (BTW, I supposed arty units are mechanised???) and no need to memorise 4/8 and 6/12. Second, the attack and defense strengths should have been printed for all Egyptian units. No need to have to remember that Egyptian units are halved on offense. Not impressed with DG, given that this is an extension of an old system." 4. The replayability of the game is, of course limited once the tactical puzzle has been worked out. We had that common consensus. However, the designers have given us enough options for more varied plays. (ie game extension with a political cost (VPs), additional Egyptian units at the cost of 18VPs) In my first game, I did not manage to destroy all the Egyptian units in Port Fuad. I should have. In every turn, I destroyed about 2-3 Egyptian units. I did not manage two or three objectives but I was fairly successful. (At least, I thought so.) Meanwhile, in the other game, the Anglo-French player had a helicopter unit destroyed and a few others. He could not clear Port Said until later. Port Said is key. In my second game, my forces were more or less static throughout. I had achieved what I thought was alright for the Egyptians for the holding out until the last. My opponent was too good. He was a veteran of the old SPI operational level games with the differential CRT tables. (I love those tables). On the exercise of the option of deploying more Egyptian units, it was only in hindsight that we find that the 18 VPs can be offset if the Egyptians were to hold out long enough. All in all, it was a fun afternoon and evening. I certainly had fun. Bravo to Joseph Miranda and developers for this little mental exercise and historical piece. I enjoyed it. shyue chou p.s. Lawrence, I saw your Amazon page and was astounded by your choice of The Azoic. I have listened to that band when it was initially released and that album by the Azoic was my favourite CD for that year (and I buy a lot of electro-gothic, electro-industrial and synthpop CDs annually). In case you didn't know, the Azoic has released a new single and album.