From: ROBERT GAMBLE Subject: Airbridge to Victory: Review I've looked at numerous Market Garden games before and decided to go with 'Airbridge to Victory' by GMT, when I saw it for about $20 at a local store, having heard pretty good things about it: So here's a review based on reading the rules, looking at the counters, and playing through the first scenario: 1) Graphics: Something about the box cover doesn't appeal to me. Combination of cartoonish and realism is the only way I can describe it. But hey, that's no reason to not buy a game, right? The map is functional, easy to read and probably rates about a C+ for the 'look' to me, the counters are nothing 'special' in comparison to GMT's later games but this is understandable. They're clean, easy to read, and serve quite well. I'd give them a B- (higher if they didn't have to be compared to today's games with slicker production ability). Overall: C+ 2) Play aids: I really wish that all games would come with play aid cards that include _all_ the charts and tables on them. Many do, but Airbridge to Victory has almost all of the important charts split between the maps. This is ok, but while playing the solitaire scenario, I had to lay out the large map just to see the CRTs and such. Minor inconvenience that mostly showed up when trying to learn the rules. Overall Play Aids Grade: D (Separate play aids cards are _good_). 3) Rules: An odd mixture.. For the most part quite clear, quite easy to read. Some things seemed odd though. The first is lack of proofreading. There were a fairly large number of errors in the text and the spacing between scenario listings was pretty non-existent, making it hard to tell where one ends and another begins. While the rules that are there, are clear, there's a couple of omissions that need clarifications... If anyone knows the answers to these, please let me know: A) Overruns: You have to have a 7:1 Attack:Defense odds ratio to do an overrun (which automatically succeeds). Is this modified by the terrain the enemy is in? I couldn't find any reference to this. Maybe I'm just missing something, but it seems to say that it doesn't matter if the enemy is in clear, forest or urban hexes, you simply compare attack to defense odds with no modifications... B) Airpoints: It says that you get new airpoints at the start of each turn but nowhere can I find how many, or if you have to roll to get the points, etc. The closest thing I can find to it is on the airpoints track where it shows up to 25 points and marks on it the 'maximum airpoints' for allies and axis. If I go by this, the Allies get 25 airpoints each turn, and the Axis gets 5. Overall, I'd say the rules are simple, pretty intuitive in how they interact with each other, and easy to follow, with one or two omissions as mentioned above. I like the way defense values of terrain is included in the combat system in a pretty original, yet intuitive manner. I like each unit having a stacking value printed on the counter and there being an 8 stacking point value for each hex (saves time over the 'ok.. was in 2 divisions and 3 corps or 3 divisions and 2 corps as the stacking limit). I wish this were done in more games as it's highly intuitive. I have not played a full scenario, so I'm not able to comment on the rules like airdrops, supply, and the like, but they _seem_ like they should work well together. Overall Rating for Rules: B (Could have been much higher except for the lack of proofreading and some apparant omissions). 4) Gameplay: Smooth. It really is an intuitive system in spite of some innovations (well I've seen them in other games before, but not many). I gained a decisive victory very easily in the solitaire scenario the first time because it was easy to see how the three different types of combats should be used. Of course, I _did_ use 25 airpoints for the Allies and 5 for the Axis, so if this was incorrect, I probably had it much easier than I should have. Overall Gameplay rating: A Overall Rating: A- While I don't need beautiful graphics and maps to enjoy a game, and this is a classic example as I think I will be playing it many times, it could use better production values in a reprint and become an all time 'simple' classic. It seems as though there are many different strategies that could be used during the game (more so for the Axis no doubt) adding to the replayability, and maneuver is 'king' in this game from what little I've tried of it, which is always a very good thing in a game. Robert From: "Patrick R. Collins" Subject: Re: Airbridge to Victory: Review > B) Airpoints: It says that you get new airpoints at the start of each turn > but nowhere can I find how many, or if you have to roll to get the points, etc. > The closest thing I can find to it is on the airpoints track where it shows > up to 25 points and marks on it the 'maximum airpoints' for allies and axis. > If I go by this, the Allies get 25 airpoints each turn, and the Axis gets 5. This is correct. The Allies DID have a huge air advantage by late '44. > more games as it's highly intuitive. I have not played a full scenario, so > I'm not able to comment on the rules like airdrops, supply, and the like, but > they _seem_ like they should work well together. They do. I like it a lot. > While I don't need beautiful graphics and maps to enjoy a game, and this is > a classic example as I think I will be playing it many times, it could use > better production values in a reprint and become an all time 'simple' classic. GMT is mulling this, but only with redone rules, and it's way off the horizon. Not anytime soon. Regards, Pat pcollins@prairienet.org Last Played: Fortunes of War (Mini), Naval Action, Bitter Woods In progress: Solomons Sea http://www.prairienet.org/~pcollins From: "John Mellor" Subject: Re: Airbridge to Victory: Review (long) Greetings, I took out my copy to check on your review. It has been a while since I've played but... >1) Graphics: Something about the box cover doesn't appeal to me. Combination >of cartoonish and realism is the only way I can describe it. But hey, that's >no reason to not buy a game, right? The map is functional, easy to read and >probably rates about a C+ for the 'look' to me, the counters are nothing >'special' in comparison to GMT's later games but this is understandable. >They're clean, easy to read, and serve quite well. I'd give them a B-(higher >if they didn't have to be compared to today's games with slicker production >ability). Overall: C+ In my map there is a half-hex row of gray. While annoying it does not affect the play. >2) Play aids: I really wish that all games would come with play aid cards that >include _all_ the charts and tables on them. Many do, but Airbridge to Victory >has almost all of the important charts split between the maps. This is ok, but >while playing the solitaire scenario, I had to lay out the large map just to >see the CRTs and such. Minor inconvenience that mostly showed up when trying >to learn the rules. Actually made my own chart containing all tables and turn indication. much easier than the map/card combo. >3) Rules: An odd mixture.. For the most part quite clear, quite easy to read. >Some things seemed odd though. The first is lack of proofreading. There were >a fairly large number of errors in the text and the spacing between scenario >listings was pretty non-existent, making it hard to tell where one ends and >another begins. While the rules that are there, are clear, there's a couple >of omissions that need clarifications... If anyone knows the answers to these, >please let me know: > > A) Overruns: You have to have a 7:1 Attack:Defense odds ratio to do an >overrun (which automatically succeeds). Is this modified by the terrain the >enemy is in? I couldn't find any reference to this. Maybe I'm just missing >something, but it seems to say that it doesn't matter if the enemy is in >clear, forest or urban hexes, you simply compare attack to defense odds with >no modifications... Over-runs are allowed in clear or mixed only. > B) Airpoints: It says that you get new airpoints at the start of each turn >but nowhere can I find how many, or if you have to roll to get the points, etc. >The closest thing I can find to it is on the airpoints track where it shows >up to 25 points and marks on it the 'maximum airpoints' for allies and axis. >If I go by this, the Allies get 25 airpoints each turn, and the Axis gets 5. 25 and 5 are correct on clear turns. These and much more can be found at http://www.grognards.com or directly to the errata at http://grognard.com/errata/airbridc.txt I remember the game was between HELLS HIGHWAY (VG) and ARNHEM (SPI) in complexity and playability. It was more of a game than a simulation in that you can usually get at least a REGIMENT of 1st airborne into Arnhem instead of the historical Battalion. You can actually win as the Allies by crossing the Rhine, Not just by eliminating German units, like in HELLS HWY.(that is the only way I've been able to win that game as the Allies.) Too bad Deelan airfield can't be used to airland troops. It was a teaser to see it on the map only for historical reference. John Mellor u15630@snet.net