From: "Paul O'Connor" Subject: Atlantic Storm Haven't seen much discussion of Avalon Hill's ATLANTIC STORM here on the list, so I might as well throw this stone in the pond. Our group has played the game twice, and our feelings are ... mixed. We really, really WANT to like this game, but we keep stumbling over some of the fiddly mechanics, and no one can seem to formulate a winning strategy (both our games ended with the winner surprised to learn he'd come in first). Brief outline of play: Each player has a hand of cards representing Axis and Allied weapon systems. A convoy card is selected for each round; information on the convoy card determines the year of the current round and which ocean (Arctic or North Atlantic) will be active. Each round, the dealer also declares if the round will be fought on the surface, with subs, in the air, or as a "combined" round (which allows all cards to fight at full value). Going around the table, players play either Axis or Allied cards. After everyone has played, you total up the value of each side; the guy with the highest individual total on the winning side wins the trick, and (in the Advanced game) decides how to split up the convoy card and any ships on the losing side between the winning alliance (most ships are worth a victory point or two, some are worth a lot ... but convoys are usually most prized, both because of the victory points they yield, and because claiming enough of them can increase your hand limit). There are some twists provided by bonus cards, and the fact that the combat value of some cards is determined by the throw of a die, but that's basically it. Player decision making is pretty simple. After you know the year and ocean of the current convoy, you arrange your hand to eliminate any cards that can't be played this round (so if it's a 1941 convoy, your 1942 cards go to the back of your hand). You then watch play as it unfolds and decide if you're going to jump in on the winning side of a round, try to turn the tide toward the other side, or discard. You want to be top dog on the winning side so you can decide how victory points will be distributed. There's a lot of table talk and diplomacy in the game, especially when a round is close. The last guy to play can be the kingmaker, tipping the scales toward Axis or Allied based on his play. Order of play rotates each round, so sometimes you have to go first (and be at the mercy of those who follow). Good points: I'm attracted to the subject. It's fun to finger the cards and read about Ultra intercepts and the first deployment of the Leigh light (well, it's fun for me, anyway). I am intoxicated by German battleships, and they're all here. The cards are attractive, and the layout is pretty good considering all the information packed onto a card. This is a six player game that you can play to completion in about an hour. I can't think of another war-themed game that fits that description, unless you count Flying Buffalo's NUCLEAR WAR (which I think it a better game, by the way). The table talk and diplomacy is fun. Having "question mark" combat values for some ships breaks up the deterministic nature of the game, and ensures there will be some tension in each round. We had the Bismarck roll snake-eyes one round (vastly underperfomring versus the competition) and take three or four German battleships to the bottom with her ... that was fun. The fated kills system is interesting, and adds a twist. Bad Points The system is a little fiddly. Some of my players tripped over the restrictions on the cards ... you have to check the year, check the ocean, check for fated kills, keep track of the current score in the round, make sure your bonus cards have the correct parent, etc ... some of our guys took forever to get it, while others were pretty quick about slapping down their cards. The game has chrome to spare but the "feel" is all wrong. The detail on the cards is interesting, but it doesn't translate to a North Atlantic game for me. It's too abstract. In an North Atlantic game I expect to be sweeping the seas for a needle in a haystack, emerging in the middle of a convoy in the night and blasting everything to hell, faning out with destroyers to hunt subs and running into the Bismarck instead. All of these things can happen in the game, but only in the form of rationalizations the players lay on top of what is essentially number-driven game play. Some rounds tell a story; others do not. None of them made me feel like I was on the bridge of a battleship or in the planning room, vectoring submarines to my targets on scanty intelligence. The restrictions on what cards can be played each turn sometimes make me feel that the game is playing me, rather than the other way around. Observations: I can't get a handle on strategy, at all ... it's hard to build a powerful hand because the year/theatre/suit of each round moves around on you. So, if you build a killer sub hand, it may come in handy, but more likely its too specialized. I tried at various times to build a hand by carefully considering my discards, and at other times just played more or less at random, and got similar results. So, either the strategy of the game is much deeper than I appreciate (which I concede may be the case), or there isn't much "there" there. How could it be better? Hmm. Give me more meaningful choices beyond Axis/Allies, or this three point sub versus this two point sub that is available in more years. Let me come up with a plan, build a hand to execute the plan, then put my plan into action against other players doing the same thing. In UP FRONT, or even RISE OF THE LUFTWAFFE, I can do this, manipulating my hand through the draw/discard mechanics with an eye toward rushing the farmhouse, or getting that bandit off my tail with a scissors ... none of that feel in ATLANTIC STORM (which, to be fair, isn't that sort of game ... just WISH it was). I could go for maybe 20% less chrome ... don't mind having to account for different years in play, but splitting action between Atlantic and Arctic really doesn't add _that_ much ... and come to think of it, the years system doesn't add much either, because a different year is in force for each round, so you can't even watch the war in the Atlantic unfold with different weapons entering the fray, as you can as easily play a 1943 round, followed by 40, followed by 41, then 43 again. Bottom line: shrug. Neither good, nor bad. I'd be hopping mad if I payed full retail for it (got mine second-hand, for about fourteen bucks, which I consider about right for the fun I've gotten back out of it). I'll probably keep it in the collection, just because of the six players/wargame/one hour thing, but damn, I wish it were better. Sorta fun, but far from great, and these days, with so many great games going unplayed ... well, I'd much rather spend that hour playing NUCLEAR WAR or ACQUIRE. Too bad neither of them has the Bismarck. Damn. From: Aforandy Subject: Storming the Atlantic >It's the engine. It's the core of the game. There isn't one. It's a box of >chrome with no core mechanic other than dropping cards on the table and >adding 'em up. > >Or maybe it's just me. so is it the game or is it the gamer? The answer is fairly clear, and it is the usual one, confirmed by the fact that a number of efforts have been made to ask the question. The game contains numerous design successes, and is quite popular judging by sales to those who have played other peoples' copies. Discussion of tactics seems to promote a desire for more playings but personally i thight the game would die fairly quickly, mainly because it is played in a series of essentially discrete rounds with very little continuity overall. Being unable to keep score as you go along is a flaw which reduces the excitement of a close finish to a gentlemanly totting up of points at the end which simply isn't a very big deal. Maybe if you are more familiar with German-style games this one will present itself more easily. Certainly the choice and discussion between each players about whether to play Axis or Allied is a particularly clever feature which has not really been seen before. It is possible to extract, or rather be freely given, information about someone else's hand which can be exploited. Unique & very clever. Paul wrote: >The game has chrome to spare but the "feel" is all wrong. The detail on >the cards is interesting, but it doesn't translate to a North Atlantic >game for me. It's too abstract. In an North Atlantic game I expect to be >sweeping the seas for a needle in a haystack, emerging in the middle of >a convoy in the night and blasting everything to hell, faning out with >destroyers to hunt subs and running into the Bismarck instead. All of >these things can happen in the game, but only in the form of >rationalizations the players lay on top of what is essentially >number-driven game play. Some rounds tell a story; others do not. None >of them made me feel like I was on the bridge of a battleship or in the >planning room, vectoring submarines to my targets on scanty >intelligence. lead me to the boardgame that has all this!! and lets not forget the recently delisted and excellent Attack Sub which no one bought. You are expecting a hell of a lot from a card game. A little while ago i said all CCGs were crap and maybe this is one of the reasons why -- cards are a rigid, limiting format. The fact that "some rounds tell a story" is a major success, maybe it is necessary for someone to mention it. There is a bridge between the history books and a game, and this is design technique, which is something that can be done well or badly. Again I think there is a lot to be learned from the German family/abstract game designers, insomuch as they can produce a brilliantly clever game that has about two rules. If you play enough of this sort of thing you begin to appreciate the quality of thought that goes into it. >The restrictions on what cards can be played each turn sometimes make me >feel that the game is playing me, rather than the other way around. It seems to me you could take control, or acknowledge the game is beating the gamer, which happens rarely but is nearly always a good sign. >Observations: > >I can't get a handle on strategy, at all ... it's hard to build a >powerful hand because the year/theatre/suit of each round moves around >on you. So, if you build a killer sub hand, it may come in handy, but >more likely its too specialized. I tried at various times to build a >hand by carefully considering my discards, and at other times just >played more or less at random, and got similar results. So, either the >strategy of the game is much deeper than I appreciate (which I concede >may be the case), or there isn't much "there" there. how do you "build a hand"? Clearly there is little connection between rounds.. >How could it be better? Hmm. Give me more meaningful choices beyond >Axis/Allies, the dreaded underwater Anarchists? >or this three point sub versus this two point sub that is >available in more years. Let me come up with a plan, build a hand to >execute the plan, then put my plan into action against other players >doing the same thing. In UP FRONT, or even RISE OF THE LUFTWAFFE, I can >do this, manipulating my hand through the draw/discard mechanics with an >eye toward rushing the farmhouse, or getting that bandit off my tail >with a scissors ... none of that feel in ATLANTIC STORM (which, to be >fair, isn't that sort of game ... just WISH it was). well Atlantic Storm is a strategic game and six month is a long time in dogfighting, and convoying also, where your strategy might be subject to all sorts of conflicting influences. The game will be much improved by the expansion set that should include a lot more bonus cards and cards that affect those already in play. It is however just a card game played with a relatively small number of cards, and designing something like this that not only isn't crap but actually has some things going for it is extrememly difficult, but again TAHGC have succeeded. >I could go for >maybe 20% less chrome ... don't mind having to account for different >years in play, but splitting action between Atlantic and Arctic really >doesn't add _that_ much ... and come to think of it, the years system >doesn't add much either, because a different year is in force for each >round, so you can't even watch the war in the Atlantic unfold with >different weapons entering the fray, as you can as easily play a 1943 >round, followed by 40, followed by 41, then 43 again. i think this is the game and the strategy, with the bonus-type cards on top of that.. >Bottom line: shrug. Neither good, nor bad. I'd be hopping mad if I payed >full retail for it (got mine second-hand, for about fourteen bucks, >which I consider about right for the fun I've gotten back out of it). >I'll probably keep it in the collection, just because of the six >players/wargame/one hour thing, but damn, I wish it were better. Sorta >fun, but far from great, and these days, with so many great games going >unplayed ... well, I'd much rather spend that hour playing NUCLEAR WAR >or ACQUIRE. Too bad neither of them has the Bismarck. Damn. full price here is $30....Just how much do you want from 100 cards? Dixie: Bull Run has 200. Titan: the Arena has all the heavyweight presence of most German card games, which is not much. Similarly lightweight were the Gamewright games. None of these were exactly bursting with innovative design features. Indeed RotL was overly simplistic IMO, with the Hurricane and the French fighter being _exactly_the_same_, for example. And UF is a game with cards, not the other way round. As for Nuclear War and Acquire, well, they were good in their day, and for long afterwards, but their day was twenty-five years ago... PS: <> Andy Daglish aforandy@aol.com From: "Paul O'Connor" Subject: Re: Storming the Atlantic Regarding Atlantic Storm, Aforandy wrote: > The game contains numerous design successes, and is quite popular > judging by sales to those who have played other peoples' copies. Is there marketing data out there someplace to support this point, or are you going on the basis of your group? Just curious. I've occassionally (_very_ occassionally) met gamers who will buy their own copy of a game enjoyed by their club/group/whatever (in one case, because the gamer felt that he so enjoyed the game, that the publisher and designer deserved to benefit in the form of another copy sold, even if he would never play his own copy), but more often than not, gamers seem content to enjoy the community copy, regardless of how much they like a game. > Being unable to keep score as you go along is a > flaw which reduces the excitement of a close finish to a gentlemanly totting > up of points at the end which simply isn't a very big deal. We offset this somewhat by making it the dealer's responsibility to tote up the points as they are laid, announcing the count aloud to the group. > Maybe if you are > more familiar with German-style games this one will present itself more > easily. German games are pretty much all I play these days. Alas, Atlantic Storm can't lay a finger on Modern Art or even Titan: The Arena when it comes to having a clean, fun, central mechanic, and that's my main problem with AS. Whereas Modern Art is a killer core mechanic without any chrome, AS is a box of chrome without a killer mechanic. > Certainly the choice and discussion between each players about > whether to play Axis or Allied is a particularly clever feature which has > not really been seen before. It is possible to extract, or rather be freely > given, information about someone else's hand which can be exploited. > Unique & very clever. Agreed. > Paul wrote: > > >The game has chrome to spare but the "feel" is all wrong. The detail on > >the cards is interesting, but it doesn't translate to a North Atlantic > >game for me. It's too abstract. In an North Atlantic game I expect to be > >sweeping the seas for a needle in a haystack, emerging in the middle of > >a convoy in the night and blasting everything to hell, faning out with > >destroyers to hunt subs and running into the Bismarck instead. All of > >these things can happen in the game, but only in the form of > >rationalizations the players lay on top of what is essentially > >number-driven game play. Some rounds tell a story; others do not. None > >of them made me feel like I was on the bridge of a battleship or in the > >planning room, vectoring submarines to my targets on scanty > >intelligence. > > lead me to the boardgame that has all this!! Of course there isn't a boardgame that's going to put me in a slicker and belt me in the face with salt water, but it is reasonable to expect that the mechanics of a game will bear at least some resemblance to what they're trying to simulate. A board game achieves this by having a geographically accurate map, units sizes that are correct for the action at hand, and rules for their interaction that create reasonable and expected results. A good design gives the player sufficient control to feel that he has an effect on the game, while hopefully introducing sufficent variation and fog of war to prevent perfect plans and introduce unexpected twists. When these elements are present in sufficient quantity, the game transcends its mechanics and provides a window onto its subject that (for me, anyway), creates a narrative within a game and provides a convincing period "feel." Games that have accomplished this, for me, include Victory's Civil War, ASL, World in Flames, Columbia's East Front, AH's Hannibal, and Up Front. > You are expecting a hell of a lot from a card game. Yes, I am. I wouldn't be so hard on Atlantic Storm if I wasn't convinced it was such a near miss. And in the scheme of things of course it doesn't matter whether I like the game or not, but this is a wargame discussion list and it's fun to kick things around. > The fact that "some rounds tell a story" is a major success, maybe it is > necessary for someone to mention it. The fact that some rounds tell a story, but that most do not, is proof of the game's failed potential. > There is a bridge between the history books and a game, and this is > design technique, which is something that can be done well or badly. > Again I think there is a lot to be learned from the German family/abstract > game designers, insomuch as they can produce a brilliantly clever game > that has about two rules. If you play enough of this sort of thing you begin > to appreciate the quality of thought that goes into it. Agreed, absolutely. The aforementioned Modern Art falls exactly into this category. The first time I played it, I thought ... well, this is a so-so game, but it plays fast, let's try again. And again. And again. And each time I played, another depth of strategy was discovered. We've played it twenty times to date and I fully expect to play it twenty more. It is an extremely mature design that has confidence to be what it is and nothing more, presenting itself to gamers without the armor of extraneous bells and whistles. It works because the central mechanics of bidding & buying (with subtle variation in method) coupled with a simple but effective market simulation of supply and demand is enough to carry the game. I think Knizia caught lightning in a bottle with Modern Art, and I certainly don't expect every game to be as good, but excellent games create a benchmark against which all others are compared, especially when time is limited and there are so many good games to play. > >The restrictions on what cards can be played each turn sometimes make me > >feel that the game is playing me, rather than the other way around. > > It seems to me you could take control, or acknowledge the game is beating the > gamer, which happens rarely but is nearly always a good sign. OK, maybe the game is beating me. I'm no genius. My distress stemmed from the fact that the range of available decisions seemed so limited, at times, as to result in no real decision at all. > how do you "build a hand"? Clearly there is little connection between rounds.. Yes, this is one of my criticisms of the game. There is no real continuity between rounds. There is little opportunity for long-term planning. The card combinations are limited and provide insufficient variation. I can hoard a sub card and a Metox or F.A.T. in anticipation of gaining the upper hand in a future sub round (provided I can also match the right year and ocean), but that's about as far as it goes. In the absence of such a structure, I must rely on the luck of the draw to too large an extent to provide options. Meaningful options mean tough decisions, and tough decisions are (to me, anyway) the heart of good game play. > The game will be much improved by the expansion > set that should include a lot more bonus cards and cards that affect those > already in play. It is however just a card game played with a relatively small > number of cards, and designing something like this that not only isn't crap but > actually has some things going for it is extrememly difficult, but again TAHGC > have succeeded. I will look forward to any such expansion with interest, but I fear than an expansion of a flawed design will just lead to a bigger, equally flawed game. > full price here is $30....Just how much do you want from 100 > cards? Dixie: Bull Run has 200. Titan: the Arena has all the heavyweight > presence of most German card games, which is not much. If I play a game five times or so I consider it a good value. Atlantic Storm is wheezing after two outings. Titan: The Arena got played eight or nine times, and I'm sure we'll go back to it. I played Eagles twice and tossed it. My comment about the retail price of AS was an attempt to quantify what I felt the game was worth. If I paid thirty bucks for it and played it twice, I'd be disappointed. As I bought it used, for half of retail, and have played it twice and gotten some stimulating debate out of it, as well, it rates as a good value. > And UF [Up Front] is a game with > cards, not the other way round. Respectfully disagree. I think Up Front is everything Atlantic Storm is not, but could have been. Up Front gives me at least some idea of where my guys are in time and space (range X from the bad guys, in a gully). The card deck has sufficient variation to encourage multiple approaches to the same problem (do I rush the enemy position or try to blast the enemy from a distance?). The draw/discard mechanics let me build a hand to execute a plan. Let's see, my hand has a movement card and a fire card, a couple rallies, and something I can't use. I need to cross open ground to secure victory. I could fire ineffectually this round, or dash out into the open and lean on my rallies to rescue anyone who gets hit, but I think I'll hang back for a round or two and see if I can build a better hand ... something that has movement for my maneuver group, and good fire card for covering fire from my fire base, maybe a concealment card to help my guys if they draw fire, and most critically a good terrain card to protect my guys after they cross the open ground. All the time that I'm doing this, of course, the other guy is working on _his_ plan, so I'll have to be flexible in application of my goals, or he's going to get around me before I can put my plan into motion. Continuous, difficult, meaninful decisions. Great game. Up Front isn't for everyone, as has been endlessly debated on this list and elsewhere, but if you're willing to accept it's abstraction, it is a brilliant game. The same could be said of Atlantic Storm, I suppose, but for whatever reason I cannot as easily accept it's abstraction.. Whether this is due to a flaw in the game or in my own capacity as a gamer is a matter of opinion, and not really interesting to anyone anyway. > As for Nuclear War and Acquire, well, they were good in their day, and for long > afterwards, but their day was twenty-five years ago... Funny how they still get played around my house ... I think the heyday of chess was a couple hundred years ago, but I still see guys playing it, too. > Andy Daglish > aforandy@aol.com Good points, Andy. Good talking with you. --P From: "Andrew Walters" Subject: RE: Atlantic Storm >>> the game doesn't work... I'm not ready to reach that conclusion yet. There have been a couple of posts here and on grognard that indicate some people have really enjoyed playing it. Maybe I'm falling prey to some kind of charisma AS has that makes people want to like it, but my copy should show up any day and I'm hoping it'll be fun. Sure its a little dumb, but I have friends who are never gonna play Squad Leader or Caesar (or even Ogre), and most of us have enjoyed a few games of Nuclear War over the years, too. So there's a place for this genre. Actually its kind of an important place, since it helps tie us in to the non-wargamers in our lives (I'm told this is a good thing). In any case it should be more fun than hearts. I haven't read the rules yet, though we all got a good review here on consim, but I'm thinking that there may be some adaptions that will make it more of a thoughtful game, more simulation-like, and if I get a chance to play a few times with some willing folks I will report back on my efforts. I'm taking a big risk suggesting modification to rules I haven't read, but specifically I'm thinking this (for example): seperate the convoy cards into piles by year, shuffle each pile, stack them up in year order. Now you'll play all the 41s, then the 42s, etc. You can count on certain cards coming into play at particular points, so it becomes more of a story. If you draw a great '45 card in the '42 period you have a tough choice to make. Maybe the Arctic/North Atlantic issue could be solved with another mechanism, such as everyone maintaining two hands, or something. If its a Arctic round you play from and draw to your Arctic hand. Pass this round and trade a card from one of your hands to the other. Similarly you could seperate Axis and Allied cards into two decks, and have two players draw from one deck, and two from the other. Now you have designated Axis and Allies players. To add back some fog of war, after seperating and shuffling them take 4-5 cards from each deck, then you don't know for sure that a particular card will ever turn up. Take this one step further and stick them in the other deck, that way the Allies may be waiting for the Hood, but it may be in the Axis deck, so they're *not* going to get it and they don't know it, but the Axis *does*! Insanity, but with a chance to apply your brain to a larger situation that just one hand. I know the game is not at all balanced for this sort of major monkeying, but that could be solved by revaluing some of the convoys. It would seem that if you ordered the convoys you should factor the early ones down and the later ones up so that the game would get more dramatic as you got your hand organized, and an early lead would not a guarantee a victory. Anybody in the North East San Francisco Bay Area (Berkeley through Vallejo) wanna help me in this? If it sounds a little wacky don't worry, we'll use our heads, start small, and not waste time playing anything that we're not going to enjoy. Andrew Walters, Typically cynical but with unexplained bursts of unwarranted optimism. From: "Paul O'Connor" Subject: Re: Atlantic Storm Andrew Walters wrote: > Maybe I'm falling prey to some kind of charisma AS has that makes people want >to like it, but my copy should show up any day and I'm hoping it'll be fun. I'm definitely a victim of that same charisma. Despite my tepid review of the game yesterday, I still kind of want to play it. It's got German battleships, dag nab it, and that makes up for a lot. > So there's a place for this genre. Actually its kind of an important place, >since it helps tie us in to the non-wargamers in our lives (I'm told this is a >good thing). In any case it should be more fun than hearts. If it was half as fun as hearts, I'd agree. Unfortunately, I can't see AS converting any heathens to our fold. If I didn't have an affection for the North Atlantic I wouldn't like this game at all ... and for a non-wargamer, the theme won't be enough to offset the pretty dull count-and-slap central mechanic of the game -- at least not in my group of "girlfriend gamers" (who greatly enjoy games like Acquire, Euprhat & Tigris, Settlers, Modern Art, Lowenherz and such). > seperate the convoy cards into piles by year, shuffle each pile, stack them >up in year order. Now you'll play all the 41s, then the 42s, etc. You can >count on certain cards coming into play at particular points, so it becomes >more of a story. If you draw a great '45 card in the '42 period you have a >tough choice to make. There's a variant for this system posted on Grognards. Haven't tried it yet. > Similarly you could seperate Axis and Allied cards into two decks, and have >two players draw from one deck, and two from the other. Now you have designated >Axis and Allies players. And another variant in the same place trying something similar. So there's definitely something bubbling in the collective unconscious of wargamerdom about this one. > Anybody in the North East San Francisco Bay Area (Berkeley through Vallejo) >wanna help me in this? If it sounds a little wacky don't worry, we'll use our >heads, start small, and not waste time playing anything that we're not going to >enjoy. > > Andrew Walters, > Typically cynical but with unexplained bursts of unwarranted optimism. Let us know what you come up with, Andrew, as I still desperately want to like this game ... but I think you'll be polishing a turd. Whoops! Too strong. Washing garbage? No, still too strong. Slapping curb feelers on a wrecked car? Maybe. It's the engine. It's the core of the game. There isn't one. It's a box of chrome with no core mechanic other than dropping cards on the table and adding 'em up. Or maybe it's just me.