From: Chris Mattern Subject: Re: Twilight's Last Gleaming Rob Citino wrote: > > Any S&T subscribers out there? What do you think about > _Twilight's Last Gleaming_, the most recent issue game (three > battles from the War of 1812)? I like the set a lot--but there > are some rules glitches (mostly omissions). > Yo! I just bought it--first issue of S&T I've bought in years. Looks interesting; I'm playing the Bladensburg game now. Interesting; I've already figured out that trying to seriously hold out for the 10VP bonus for keeping the British over ten hexes away from their exit hex is a great way to get killed (unless you use the optional activation rules and can bring up some regulars to help). Should be interesting to see if the British superiority in infantry (the US 1-morale militia regiments don't really count) can overcome all that artillery. Yeah, there were some nasty omissions. These are the assumptions I'm playing with at the moment: 1) Artillery does not need to be in command control, 2) Any officer can rally artillery, 3) Stacking limits do not apply to artillery (They don't consist of *strength points*), 4) Routed units suffer the same penalties as demoralized units while in their routed state, 5) Officers who are out of command cannot place units in command control, 6) American artillery is *not* halved, rounded down, in melee for not being regulars, 7) Units in entrenchments do not have to leave for retreat results in melee, for being demoralized, or for being out of command. They *will* be forced out if they rout, 8) strength points lost as a result of rout *do* count for VPs, even though a unit routed off the mapboard by failing a morale check while routed does not, and 9) even though artillery doesn't consist of strength points, killing artillery still racks up VPs. These sound reasonable to you? I could get to like these three; quick, small games are always nice, if they're at all well done. In spite of the rules problems, Bladensburg, at least, seems to have promise (haven't played the other two). Chris Mattern From: gcollins@magmacom.com (Gilbert Collins) Subject: Re: Twilight's Last Gleaming In article <3415D59C.677B5C38@moon.jic.com>, matternc@moon.jic.com says... > >Rob Citino wrote: >> >> Any S&T subscribers out there? What do you think about >> _Twilight's Last Gleaming_, the most recent issue game (three >> battles from the War of 1812)? I like the set a lot--but there >> are some rules glitches (mostly omissions). A friend and I played "North Point" last week. Actually maybe the artillery SHOULD count for stacking. The British sort of ran around with a little "tank" battery, which is a little annoying. The only other thing that bothered me was a problem that has cropped up in Wargames from many different periods for years. This is especially bad for the Napoleonic era. The problem is those old "woods" hexes. Why does every designer feel complelled to add a combat advantage to woods but never have a Disadvantage !! The net result is, that you just sort of "look" for those woods hexes and just "hop in". I mean it only cost 2 mps. Anyone who has wargamed miniatures will know all about this. If the use of woods was as they portrayed in wargames, it is strange that all those commanders throughout history didn't know how to read maps. The old simple "Napoleon at Waterloo" had the right idea-AVOID. For the War of 1812 all kinds of mix ups occurred when troops tried to manouver in woods. eg: Chateuaguay, left flank at Chippawa, and others. Overall though, glad to see this subject finally being treated. Should have done some more representative battles though such as: Lundys Lane, Chippawa, Cryslers Farm, Stoney Creek etc... New Orleans, I am sad to say is no game at all.