Christopher Hall - 04:54am May 6, 2001 PST (#729 of 729) Playing B:AGN ... Wow. And on table #2, MDG's Bittereinder and S&T #205 After several plays, I'd like to recommend SENLAC HILLto all of you who enjoy pre-gunpowder games. Norman Smith has designed a fine simulation that plays quickly, intensely, and smartly. Physical Components: The counters mounted up very well. The extra colored space between ranks and sides made the cutting more forgiving. I made the counters thick, in anticipation of no significant stacking, and I am very pleased at the result. The counter graphics are good; clear and easily recognized on the battlefield. Not high art, but very functional. The map was better than Berg's BSO maps (until the advent of Bill Ramsey's help). Not up to Scott Holmgren's or Kerry Anderson's standards, but completely playable. No complaints. The charts and aids were well composed and helpful. Again, very functional, with everything you need to know at your fingertips. Rules: These are very well done indeed. Everything is laid out in sensible order, and there is no ambiguity or gaps in the rules that I could find. Like Mark Milkos's Saratoga & Brandywine, you need to read with attention - it's all there if you read carefully. Forces The Saxons have a solid line of Thengs facing the Normans at the outset, all value '5' combat units. Very tough folks. Behind the Thengs are the Fyrd, masses of value '3' units that will move up and fill gaps in the Saxon line as the battle develops, much to the Normans' pleasure, and the Saxons' frustration. The Saxons have only 2 archer units, but also have a limited ability to hurl rocks and misc. missiles at the Normans in the first stage of the battle. The Normans start with 3 lines of units: Archers in the front, combat value '2', but missile capable and well situated to disrupt several Thegns at the outset. Line infantry in the second rank, combat value '4', making them ineffective as assault forces unless the Theng line is already disordered. The glorious knights (cavalry) occupy the 3rd line, combat value '5' and charge capable (but not uphill!). Once the shield wall on Senlac Hill is cracked, these guys can finish the fight. Game System The game sequence is igo/ugo, with interlayered defensive missile fire (which is used sparingly). The Normans fire their archers, move, receive defensive missile fire, engage in melee combat and then reorganize disordered units. Then the Saxons do the same. Each game turn moves quickly, with movement and combat shifting locally around the map. The Normans have the choice each turn to call a lull in the battle, which allows their archers to resupply arrows and get back in the thick of things, and also gives both sides a greater chance to reorganize disordered units. Using the lull properly is essential to Norman victory. The game uses rigid ZOCs and voluntary combat, allowing the attacker to focus resources on specific defender frontages, adding much to the turn-to-turn tension in the battle. The facing and LOS rules are straightforward and easy to use, as are the chrome features like the Papal Banner, feigned Norman cavalry attacks, impetuous Saxon charges and Bishop Odo. Combat is based on a strength differential, as modified by terrain and leadership, with results of no effect, disordered or eliminated. Morale is a function of unit losses, with the chance of rout rising as each side takes more KIAs. A bad rout result can turn a tactical situation on its head very suddenly. Gameplay: I've played 3 times to completion (all scenario 1, the historical set up where both sides begin nose-to-nose) and tried very hard to suspend judgement during that time. Which proved hard to do, mainly because I didn't grasp at first the key to Norman victory: combined arms. First game I simply rushed the Saxon shield wall time and again, and watched the Norman army fall to pieces. I rolled poorly for the Norman archers, and was tardy in calling a lull to get them back in the field. I ignored the feigned attack tactic, and cursed the uphill defender +1. Poor play. The 2nd game was an experiment. I left the Norman archers in the front rank, inviting a Saxon counterattack, hoping the Saxon Thegns would come down off the hill via mandatory attacker advance after combat. They obliged, wiping out 5 archer units, and largely eliminating that arm from the battle. The advances after combat which brought the Thegns off the hill were insufficient to win the day, however (Harold just called them back next turn) ... another poorly conceived Norman loss. The 3rd game brought things together for me. I used the Norman archers to disrupt areas of the Saxon line, and followed up with infantry attacks. Cavalry helped chip away at the Saxon 1st line, until the Fyrd had to begin filling in the spaces that were appearing. Suddenly thing looked very different, especially after a turn 8 lull that brought the archers back with a vengeance. It was still close on turn 10 when Harold died from archer fire, most appropriately. Huzzah!! Norman victory utilized feigned attacks, a Fyrd impetuous attack, and lots of good rolls. So I think I finally understand the essence of the game, and I think it does a fine job of modeling the combined arms superiority of the Norman military system. But the Saxon Thegns are very tough, and will use their discipline and strength to defeat a poorly coordinated attack, or one that stumbles on the fortunes of war. Overall: I really enjoyed playing SENLAC HILL, and I intend to play several more games. It even made me drag out S&T #110, which I've got in a corner, waiting for some comparison reading/playing. I think it should be stressed that SENLAC HILL deserves repeated playings before someone makes a judgement - just as Norman says in the design notes. There are some well designed subtleties that need to be explored before the full depth of the game becomes apparent. Luck does play a part in this battle, as it should. Even a well developed battle strategy can founder on the rocks of a bad series of die rolls, much like the fortunes of Harold himself. And the leader casualty rule is nothing short of brutal - I never saw fewer that 2 of the 6 named leaders dead at the end of a game. But William's 3 dead horses attest to the accuracy of the rule as written. Overall the game is a fine value for folks interested in the period, and looking for a fun, replayable game as well.