|
Wallenstein or 'Through the Black Forest with the Northern Ragnars'
It's to Ian's for a threesome (Dave is mysteriously "involved" according to Roger, and has gone "quiet"; Ian nods knowledgeably; Phil hasn't got a clue what they're talking about). To business.
It is Phil's turn to come bearing gifts, and this time it's Wallenstein, by the splendidly named Dirk Henn. This is a true behemoth of a game. Phil has a knack of acquiring these big brutes. In the olden days, it was Phil who had those classics (twitch) such as War in the East, Terrible Swift Sword and Highway to the Reich. Not a lot has changed in terms of size. Serenissima, Java and now Wallenstein. We're talking a deep box here, and I mean deep. Count it (or get out a ruler and measure it if you;re so inclined). Take it from me, this is a box that sits in the middle of the table and says . . . well, whatever it is that game boxes say. In the words of South African captain Graham Smith, it "makes a statement". The components are chunky (in that German game kit form we've come to know and love): a solid, workmanlike map of Germany, lots of tiny wooden cubes , good supporting components, but dominating all is the 'tower'. A cardboard sleeve containing baffles - an ingenious random combat element. Put in your handful of armies, listen to them rattle, and count what comes out at the bottom - most armies out wins. It's rather neat; just how predictable it is is anybody's guess. Roger's remark that it looks like part of 'Moustrap' is neither helpful nor, strictly speaking, terribly accurate. This is probably Roger's only "statement" for the evening.
A quick trip through the rules ensues. The English translation are the weak part of the game, not because they're badly written, but because this is not a complex game and the rules seem to give the feeling that it is. They're in a bad order - too much detail comes before either the Set up instructions or the turn sequence. You skim at them thinking these seem simple enough, but then find things don't make sense. Phil has wrestled manfully with them, to the extent that he's written out his own little summary, as well as English translations for the Event cards. How long will it take, asks Ian (who has his eye on some monotonous, never-ending American car race thing at nine o'clock, not a bit like a Test match). Phil's answer of 'about an hour and a half' proves to be on the optimistic side.
Wallenstein has a neat sequence to it. A turn consists of ten different actions, ranging from invading another country, to collecting money, to recruiting, and - most importantly - building buildings, which are where the victory points come from. The ten action cards are dealt out, in order, the first five face-up the second five face-down. Each player then takes their hand of countries (oddly enough, around ten of them) and places them face-down on their board, one country to each action. The turn then consists of each action being resolved in turn. Interesting. Lots of mutual planning time, which then resolves itself as a variable turn sequence. Not dissimilar to Angola in Roger's opinion (that makes two statements). There are other bits to it - grain production, revolting farmers (I'm sure that some of them were very nice chaps - ed.), a variable player order, Victory Point calculation etc. - but that's about it. And away the players go.
How did it play? Well . . .
1. An hour and a half was optimistic - add an hour to that. Mind you, the longer the game lasted, the faster it played. It could well race along with a bit more playing.
2. The tower held up surprisingly well as a mechanic - Phil - of course - suffered from it (nasty buggers, those revolting farmers). Roger ended the evening in 'small boy at magic show' mode, curiously upending it to tip out and count how many of his cubes were stuck inside it.
3. Combat proved very random - taking 2 armies in against 1 farmer would seem sound enough, but it went wrong rather too often.
4. Rather a lot of card dealing and shuffling goes on. Phil neatly finessed a particular corner by running two segments together, and shuffling the player order and current event cards together in one small pack. Definitely, though, a sense of a few too many systems clattering around.
5. Money is important. It wasn't until well into the game that players realized that using every action would cost 12 gold pieces, and with only 6 or 7 coming in each turn, this meant that belts had to be tightened rather fiercely mid-game.
6. Who won proved interesting. Ian dominated the game with massed armies in central Germany, but came last. Roger controlled most of the north, but came second. Phil won with very few armies left at the end. Having bits scattered across the whole map seemed to help - with lots of buildings on them.
7. Most importantly of all, a very enjoyable gaming experience. Plenty to think about, and the sort of game where you sneak away and begin rethinking your strategy for the next time. Good work, Herr Henn - a worthy addition to the games list.
PS: Thought from Phil - what makes a historical simulation (which Wallenstein most certainly is not, despite all the period detail that comes with it)?. Is this true? - in a non-historical game, all players start from a level playing field; nobody has a different start position to anyone else (so Age of Steam is definitely non-historical, and, oddly enough, Kings and Castles). Is Serenissima the only historical 'German' game then (if you get Venice, for instance, you know you're going to have to contend with the canal ride known as the Adriatic). Answers on a postcard.
Return to top
|
