From: Roberto Chiavini Subject: Buena Vista review Buena Vista (XTR, in Command 40) I've recently read two short reviews of this game, both blandly blaming the confusion in the rules and the errata interspersed in the system, but otherwise praising this recreation of the battle of Buena Vista as an interesting effort, similar in results to the real events of the historical battle of the Mexican War. I do not agree on the goodness of the game. I almost totally disagree. For me, the system is too boring to play and with several parts that needed more than simple clarification, so that, as it stands, for me the game is totally unplayable without changing the rules to more suitable ones for my tastes. Anyway, here is my two-cents evaluation of the game, based on a couple of tries (I haven't really finished any complete game, for the reasons stated after in the review - like several others of my Grognard reviews, this is more a subjective impression by a long-time gamer, than a thorough analysis - so be warned): graphics quality is not very good for the map (too confused to understand clearly), but is astonishingly good, almost perfect for the counters, with colored silhouettes of the various units. Really pleasant to the eyes. Each combat unit (infantry, artillery or cavalry) is rated for morale and shock combat, while the leaders have value for morale, fire and shock combat. Morale is important for initiating shock combat (if the attacker fails the test, he cannot attack in that turn) and for limiting the retreat results of fire or shock combat. The game last at most 12 turns, each divided in three impulses: in each impulse, an activated units may move, fire or shock combat. Movement is fixed (6MP for infantry, 8 for all other units, except Mexican artillery units which have a special movement factor equal to the roll of one die). To activate a unit, this one must be stacked with, adjacent or connected to (through an uninterrupted line) an activated leader. This is the most important part of the system: the Mexican player may activate normally most of his leaders (he rolls a die, adding 2 if Santa Anna is still unwounded: the results equals the number of leaders he may activate); the American has two major leaders, Wool and Taylor, the first one may activate one leader, the second up to three (but he starts the game on the Saltillo Track, a sort of mini-game within the game, for the control of the American supply line - this is probably the only part of the game that works very well for me). So, initially, the Mexican player may move several of his units, while the American player is severely limited in his reaction (but artillery and dragoons units may move independently). To win the game, the Mexican player has to inflict more losses than the ones inflicted by the American (each step loss equals one victory points - most of the units have two steps, while a few Mexican infantry units have 4). As the shock combat table doesn't inflict step losses but only retreat results, fire combat is fundamental in straining enemy's defenses. But here are the most significant aspects of the game, that I cannot like, as hard as I try: First of all, the Random event Table is totally crazy, too based on a single lucky roll: as you roll on the table each time your army step losses record reach 4 and 9 on the track (i.e, every five step losses), the table is used very often (I've used it five times before the end of turn 1) and as the "11" result (you roll two dice adding the results) signifies "Rain", i.e. the end of the game, is perfectly plausible that your game lasts 1, 2, with luck 3 turns before the end!!! I think that this is simply crazy, absolutely unplayable. And several of the other random events are similarly totally based on luck and not on the actual events of the battle that you are fighting (not the historical ones - if they recreate them in a different fashion, ok for me; but this table is only "fantasy" in an historical game). Second, the terrain and the rules limit almost to none the effect of shock combat (this is probably historical, but I don't like this kind of effect in the game itself). Third, there are clearly important errata in both the combat effects tables, as the differential listed in the rules and printed on the tables are almost totally different, so you have to decide which to use (in the errata posted on Grognard, it seems that the corrected ones are that on the rules, but I'm not sure that this is real for all the modifiers). Anyway, my first recreation of the battle, lasted only two impulses, as the Mexican rolled an 11 on his first Random event Check and lost the battle (as he already had lost more than 10 steps against 4 of the American). My second try lasted no more than two turns, as I noted that, to be effective, the Mexican player had to try to limit his attacks to a few zones on the map (possibly the Saltillo), hoping in the Random Event Table to inflict losses on the enemy, while limiting his ones. He has to risk his attacks in the first four turns, as after the 5th turn and the activation of the Mexican reserve, he cannot recuperate his routed units. So, he has really little hopes to win, if doesn't get better results than his enemy in the Random Events department. And I don't think that a game so based on random events could really be fun. This is unfortunate, because a few aspects of the game (the Saltillo Track, for example, but even the activation system and a several parts of the impulse system) are really innovative and probably in search of a better situation. I rate this game 4 out of 10.