Dutch, GorGor, Campoverdi and I cracked open Strike of the Beagle, on
the Russo-Polish War. Campo and I took the Russians while GorGor and
Dutch assumed the Poles. This is a point-to-point block game that draws
elements from several systems and adds a couple of its own. 

Turns are 'rounds' consisting of five operations phases each. Within the
ops phases, each player places order tokens. Orders include move, force
march, defend, withdraw, reorganize, recon, and rail movement. Move and
force march orders have two flavors: the dispersal mode is placed on a
friendly force, and allows the blocks in that space to go several
different directions, while the concentration mode is placed on a given
space (friendly, enemy, or unoccupied) and allows blocks from any number
of areas to move there. Force marches are like moves but add one to the
movement allowance but halve combat values, fractions rounded down. The
defend order enhances defense, the withdraw order allows a force to
refuse combat albeit at the cost of a step, reorganize allows you to
restore a step to a single block, and rail movement allows a force to
move eight spaces along rail lines. With infantry normally moving one
space and cavalry two, rail movement is significant. 

Choosing your orders is difficult, but deciding what to do with your
cards is agonizing. Each card has values for orders, combat, and
replacements, plus an event/battle impact/reaction. At the beginning of
each ops phase, you can play a card as an event, to enhance your orders,
or to add to your reinforcement pool. You can also choose not to play a
card at all. Many of the events are tempting, but the real pull is to
enhance your orders. Normally each front can assign two orders, of which
is a 'recon' (inspect an enemy stack) order. The order values on the
cards range from two to four, which is a real force multiplier. You also
must consider holding cards back for combat. Combat sums the strength
points of each side, plus the combat value of a card. You may play a
card from your hand or pull one off the top of the deck. If you pick one
from your hand it gets an extra +1. Your total value is compared to a
table to see how many casualties you inflict; the side with the highest
losses is the loser with ties going to the defender. Thus, if you play
something from your hand you have a very good idea of your combat result
(barring an enemy reaction card), and the +1 could seal the deal.
Alternatively, if a card has a battle impact or a relevant reaction, you
might use that instead and take your chances with a draw. Having grown a
little tired of no-brainer choices in a host of CDGs, I found this sort
of tough decision-making welcome. 

Besides the order process and the cards, the initiative system and the
sequence of play round out the game's personality. Whichever side has
initiative (determined separately for the northern and southern fronts)
decides who places orders first, with players alternating thereafter.
Then, during the orders execution phase, the initiative player again
determines who acts first, by each order type. Orders are executed in
the order of forced marches, recon, movement, reorganization, and rail
movement, with combat occurring after normal movement. Thus, the
initiative player might want to strike first with his forced marches,
but then wait and see where his opponent goes with the regular moves
before responding. Deciding whether it's worth the risk to go into
combat at half-strength can be a nail-biter, and I have to admit I made
the wrong call at least twice. 

We played the opening of the war, with the Poles on the attack but with
ample Russian reinforcements waiting in the wings. Campo held his own in
the north but I foolishly went on the attack in the south and was soon
falling back in disarray toward the Dneiper. Fortunately, Hero City Kiev
held strong in the face of two Polish cavalry assaults before Comrade
Stalin arrived to shoot a few malingerers and consolidate the survivors.
At that point it looked like a solid Polish win, but we all had a great
time with the game. We had a couple small questions but overall the
rules are solid. I always I felt I was short of either troops, time, or
space, and often all three - very tough decision-making throughout. The
multiplayer dynamic, such as it is, doesn't add much to the game beyond
the fact it functions well with little downtime. A solid eight thumbs up
at this point, and sure to see the table again very soon. 

JR

Dan "Dutch" Raspler - Dec 21, 2011 5:59 pm (#47314 Total: 47506)  

“When starting a world war one has to think very carefully.” -- General
Helmuth von Moltke (the younger) Thoughts on Strike of the Eagle (in no
particular order) 

1) As JR said, it's a strange mix of mechanics from a handful of older
games, but everything seemed to hold together extremely well once we got
into the strange rhythm of the turn. 

2) The way initiative jumps back and forth based on combat success is
terrific. Taking full advantage of the initiative was extremely tricky
but really rewarding once we got the hang of it. For example, both Steve
and I had grand plans at the start of the game, but we both blew our
first attacks and lost the initiative which threw our plans (well, my
plans, at least) into total disarray. 

3) Victory in combat is based on inflicting greater casualties on the
enemy, which is no mean feat. Numerous times one player was able to
better his opponent with troops and cards, only to have his pieces
forced back because the casualties equaled out for one reason or
another. (Note: this is a good way for the attacker to lose the
initiative...!) 

4) Planning your forced marches is really tricky. The forced marching
units move first and move further, but they are halved in combat (and
each piece is halved rounded down... so the 3-steppers counts as a 1's).
But orders are hard to come by, and I was desperate to take advantage of
the fleeting Polish troop advantage at the beginning of the game... so I
did a grand forced march into the teeth of JR's biggest stack. He flung
me back, of course, and I lost the initiative (again), but when the
smoke cleared I had managed to concentrate much of my strength into two
powerful groups, which served me well in the turns to come. 

5) The game is really lovely. That said, I WISH wargame graphics guys
would talk to some professional graphic designer friends before
cluttering up the board with overly distracting details (like fully
rendered and irrelevant forests, fully rendered and irrelevant city
paintings, fully detailed and sparkling metallic-looking outlines for
every single space on the map, etc.). 

6) The 4-player version is really just two simultaneous 2-player games.
That said, I always find team games provide a lot of extra fun. 

7) In the interests of full disclosure, I must report that the game
features my least favorite dynamic in all of wargaming: the possibility
of retreating forwards through enemy lines if your troops are cut off.
JR and Steve very patiently explained how in the wide open steppes of
Poland blah blah blah, but I never liked it and I probably never will. 

8)The individual country decks are very asymmetrical. We knew the
historical events would be distinct but we were surprised at how
different the numbers were on for the two sides (Poland has much better
order and combat cards, it seems). 

9) The rules could use a thorough edit... there were a few
inconsistencies and surprises for everyone. 

With Steve and Dan on the same side I might have just conceded before
the first die roll and had a beer. 

Kind words, Joe... but I would definitely say the same thing about JR
and Campo.