From: John Best Subject: Re: CENTRAL FRONT vs FULDA GAP Kerry Anderson was asking about the CENTRAL FRONT games and Fulda Gap: >What is the general opinion regarding the CENTRAL FRONT games and FULDA >GAP. It looks like Kevin prefers the former over the latter, which is >the opposite of my preference. > >I played FULDA GAP a couple of times and thought it was quite good. The >untried units were a little strange but otherwise I thought it was a >fine system. A good adaptation of the PGG system. > >OTOH, the CENTRAL FRONT series was a bit weird for my taste. The >friction points I could handle (sort of) but the sequence of play where >all movement and combat is conducted at once by individual units always >left a sour taste in my mouth. Is there a term for this sort of a >sequence? > I have BAOR on my table now, and I'm having a pretty good time with it. I don't think there is a name for this kind of sequence of play, and I agree with Kerry's implied point that, whatever you would call it, it's definitely an acquired taste. I find myself looking back at the rules lots of times with an idea of verifying that what I'm doing on the map is actually permitted by the rules. Do you have those gaming experiences where you think "I guess this is the way this is supposed to go, but I'm not too sure about it"? That about sums up what's going on with me and BAOR. There are some things about this system that are really funky. Like in BAOR, all the Pact forces enter as reinforcements, and the reinforcement entry procedure is a big whoop-to-do, with allocation of units to march order columns and strict adherence to one and only one entry path through the hexfield for each column (look it up, that's what it says--seems crazy to me). And the attack helicopter rules: I really have no idea if I'm implementing them correctly. But the basic idea: push each stack by itself through movement and combat, and then that stack is done for that player phase, but you can pick up a different stack and push it, that idea is so interesting. There's no apparent limit to how many times you can keep belting the same enemy unit (they can retreat to reduce friction points--but they have to take the first friction point), and so you have to think in terms of one division as consisting of multiple maneuver groups that keep hitting the same target, or shifting off to different targets. Are you guys familiar with the expression in American football called "stunting"? It's when two linemen cross over each other at the line of scrimmage with each lineman blocking the other lineman's opponent instead of his own. That's kind of the impression I get when I maneuver the Soviet mechanized divisions. Pretty cool. Don't know how accurate this model is, but considering the whole thing is alt.hist now, what's the diff? And now let's take a refreshing dip into the history of these games. I think it was Kevin Trainor who authored the following: >I did participate in a multiplayer game that combined FIFTH >CORPS and BAOR plus the third game of the series. You can't really integrate >DONAU FRONT and NORTH GERMAN PLAIN because Chuck Kamps >(or someone) monkeyed with the system so that it's not the same as >the fone used in the first three even though the scale is similar. > I think that's right: the first three were Fifth Corps and BAOR in the magazine, with Hof Gap as the boxed game. And I think all three could be put together. These three games used that friction point model that I referred to above. The two later games Donau Front and North German Plain were pretty good games too, but I think SPI was already runnin' scared of complexity at that point, because these later games were way dumbed down compared to the earlier incarnations. Chuck Kamps was not afraid of a complex design (for example, I think he was the designer of BAOR too, as well as Donau.), so I don't think he was responsible for the dumbing down. I don't have a culprit for you, all I have is a theory, like everyone else in America. As these comments imply, I have a somewhat different view of the first three games than does George Michaels who described them as fun games. I think the first three games are just plain *hard* to learn, and hard to master. That's been my experience anyway. So while I can say I'm having fun with BAOR, I definitely feel that I'm working the old neurons, and maybe, according to some peoples' theory, staving off Alzheimer's by doing so. Thanks for reading this long post. John Best jlbest@tuscola.net