Lawrence Hung  - Feb 1, 2006 11:15 am (#12116 Total: 12132)  
Now playing Triumph of Chaos,Into a Bear Trap,Blue vs. Gray,
6 Days of Glory,Sword of Rome,Bitter Woods,Empire of the Sun,
Group of Soviet Forces Germany,ASLSK,Thirty Years War,The Big Push,
Iron Tide,Sun of Austerlitz,Clash of Giants 
	 
AAR : Triumph of Chaos

Moved this game up my schedule as I can't wait to play this Russian
Civil War game with such a rich history. It is about the Revolution. It
is about the struggle of ideologies in a country. It is about heroes.
The most wanted game in 2005. The map and counters are simply gorgeous,
and the cards are also packed with historical detail, as well as having
contemporary artworks/photos. The cards alone worth more than the price
already. Some may, however, think that the card art could be a little
bit larger for more enjoyment. 

Overall, a really cool game. The game really offers tons of historical
flavour and strategic options available to both sides. The counting of
VPs at the end of "every" turn is very exciting. The factions control
could be a take or break since there are so many interested parties in
the stake of Russia. I am happy to tell wargamers that the Faction
Control Markers ("FMC") simulates the interaction of relationship with
the Red and the White in the most elegant way I have not expected. 

Bear in mind to read the political phase rule in the separate supplement
book well before starting the game. It is essential to get the full
flavour of how the political game system works. It is very simple at its
core, comparing influence points garnered on a particular side by
reading the political cards horizontally in a line up. It is the faction
specific rules that gave us some eye-strain problem... 

To start with, Triumph of Chaos is a good story-teller, with all the
main cast of heroes. Lenin, Trostsky, and Stalin and all the brutal
White generals. At the core of it, there is an Action Cards system
whereby Operation Points on the above right of the card are spent on
either movement or combat, or else the events take place instead of the
operations. There are quite a few Action cards with a little white line
saying that Take 1 Activation, Take 2 Activations, Take 3 Activations,
etc. It means that if the event was played instead of taking the number
of operations on the right corner of the card, take the number of
specified operations instead. Apart from movement and combat, they can
also be used to bring replacement and reinforcements into the game. 

Simon took the White and activated the powerful Czech Legions in the
Russia East victory city of Kazan and green peasant troops surrounding
the city of Moskva, putting Lenin under direct threat. Believe it or
not, Lenin is not allowed to move outside Moskva so he is kind of like a
sitting duck waiting to be hit. Undaunted by the threats, Lenin directed
Trotsky to coordinate with Stalin to conduct a southern strategy of
offensives into Don, planning to a meeting engagement in the city of
Rostov. 

The leadership in the game appears to be less than any significant
impact from my historical impression about the war. There is no direct
influence by the leaders on a particular battle, but merely the ability
to coordinate combat much better from different spaces to a single
target city. I can see that how the leadership can influence the game in
a subtle way in a number of aspects. I guess there is a deliberate
design decision to downplay the inciteful Stalin, Trotsky and Lenin on
their military role. Since the game does not have the concept of unit
morale, there appears to be a less direct leader influence on a the
outcome of a particular battle - the sort of direct DRMs on the battle
by the leader ratings. The "passion of revolution" as both Lenin and
Trotsky repeatedly showing to their armies and mobilizing the masses
would be largely overshadowed by the military action on a grand
strategic scale. Besides, it is understandable because the game designer
thought of Trotsky a mere "decent" leader. 

However, on maneuvering side, leaders are used to reinforce, withdraw,
or pursuit etc. These capabilities – often tying to a die roll, can have
a huge impact on the general development of the course of military
conflicts. Additionally, some leaders have special capabilities, like
Makhno and his cavalry surprise attacks. 

The White player should take note of his activation restrictions. He
couldn’t activate multiple spaces in a region, except for one
specifically designated. So the White player should basically do one
region at a time, limited by the lack of general coordination of the
White forces for war efforts. Regardless, White player should still have
a leader presence in the region to have multiple attacks from adjacent
spaces to a target. 

Infighting among a White or Red side is common. The game utilizes a
chit-drawing system to determine which factions counters are restricted
somewhat as to the combat and movement capabilities. One thing to note
is that the counter drawn would be put back into the cup again for
another drawing. There are 3 camps among the Red and 5 camps among the
White. Accusation of treason would happen to Red leaders and they could
be removed from the game! (except for Stalin and Trotsky, not even
Lenin…) Other things happen like “One Russia” policy whereby the
factions would be more united to the Red or the amount of losses
inflicted would be reduced. Defeatism would have a 50% chance of
no-fighting. Desertion could also happen to both sides. A violation of
the infighting restrictions would bring penalties in Victory points to
the side. 

Another thing crucial to the game is the gaining of the numerous
factions to a side. There are more than a dozen factions in the game,
swinging in the political mood of the Russian people, joining to a
particular side by political moves. This adds another layer of depth to
the game. So the better player would coordinate the military efforts
along with the political ones, striking a big blow to a particular front
at the right moment and grabbing the most out of it. 

The use of Influence Points during the political phase by playing action
cards on the political box, one for each and a neutral box, in an
attempt to bid the factions control. There are 2 basic cards to do this,
Influence and bluff cards. They could not be used in the normal
activation rounds. So if you don’t use them, they are lost. Obviously,
if you want to bid higher, you can always use an Action card in your
hand to do so, sacrificing the use of it later on in the action rounds
of course. In our game, both sides played cautiously on the political
front. Astrakhan joined Red thus scratching the back of the White. 

At the end of the political phase, however, there should be no IPs
remaining on any Faction. But there are other IP 'bonuses' from action
cards (mostly by an events) in action phase or purchased in logistical
phase, which are "AFTER" the political phase. They help to "boost-up"
the control over the faction on the faction control table. The IPs can
be carried forward to the next turn until Political Phase. Moreover, it
is harder for any faction to turn back to the other side because 2 IPs
are required to move in but 3 IPs to move out of a side’s control box. 

As someone new to the game, we played the 3-turns introductory scenario
in 4 hours, excluding the one hour set up time. By turn 3, we were
'clicked', suddenly finding the gameplay very easy, except for the
time-to-time reference checking to the faction specific rules. Our game
concluded with a White winning the most VPs as the Red inflicted on
himself violating the infighting rules and the White retained most of
the Victory Cities. Simon and I are greatly satisfied by the game and
decided to give it another spin the next meeting to capture more fully
the depth of the game.