Recommend
13 
 Thumb up
 Hide
60 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

Wargames» Forums » General

Subject: Defender firing first in block games rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Twisk of the Blue Feathers
United States
flag msg tools
My name is Twisker, and I am a baby parrotlet.
badge
For no discernible reason, I like hanging trapeze-like in towel folds.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was just eyeballing Richard III: The Wars of the Roses here on BGG. Looks like a beautiful game but reading a review made me realize it has the now-standard Columbia combat system of A's, B's and C's for fire order, and "defender firing first" for ties (which will be most of the time).

I have to say this really bugs me and has put me off buying more than one Columbia game.

The A,B,C thing I am long familiar with, and though it often makes no sense, I understand its original purpose. (For you whippersnappers, it comes from "Magic, Missiles, Melee" and was the standard order of attacks used in fantasy roleplaying games, the idea being that spells went off first, then arrows, and finally the meatheads in the front line crossed swords.) I have seen boardgames where it made sense, like King of the Tabletop/Kings & Things (but of course there it was actually used for Magic, Missiles, Melee) but Columbia for some reason seems to use it for everything now. I can see it as a unit quality thing, the idea being that better units hit first and thus are more likely to survive since the lamer dudes get killed before they get to attack. So it is a form of defense strength really.

But the "defender fires first" (which works well in WWII games, like EastFront and Rommel in the Desert) seems totally out of place in a War of the Roses game, or a Roman game like Julius Caesar. It is hard to think of any reason why the "defender would fire first" in a clash of legions, or medieval cavalry forces. These guys weren't dug in and manning machine guns. Even in WWII I find the mechanic breaks down on a large enough scale; in Europe Engulfed for example you could not attack enemy units without first absorbing a wallop from every unit in the enemy army. Not only is this unrealistic, but it also encouraged enormous blobs of units.

Such mechanics typically mean you can't attack unless you have a significant advantage in numbers, since you have to be able to absorb the first shot in every round before getting to reply. In WWII, this simply wasn't the case, as attacks tended to be on narrow fronts with very local superiority, with most of the enemy army preferably surrounded by a breakthrough and exploitation - the idea of frontally attacking up and down the entire line would mortify anyone but Brusilov. I can see it as a sort of abstraction though. But in ancient and medieval settings, it seems particularly absurd, since battles in fact were often fought between evenly matched armies, or even launched by a smaller attacker, with dramatic results.

Does anyone else have a problem with "defender fires first" being used by seemingly every block game under the sun, regardless of setting? Do you think it works? I am trying to imagine how Richard III would play, if the attacker always has to somehow obtain a significant numerical advantage in order for an attack to be worth it.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Does anyone else have a problem with "defender fires first" being used by seemingly every block game under the sun, regardless of setting?

Yes.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Heberer
United States
Lake Stevens
WA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Boy, that escalated quickly. I mean that really got out of hand fast.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't have many Columbia games anymore as they have the same combat system for all their games. I don't know what it's supposed to represent after the first round of combat, to be honest.

I prefer games for older wars to have fronts that are engaged with one another. Pocket battles, and some of the Worthington games I've played had left center and right fronts that you had to assign to.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enrico Viglino
United States
Eugene
OR
flag msg tools
Slowed - BGG's moderation policies have driven me partially from here
badge
http://thegamebox.byethost15.com/smf/
Avatar
mb
I think there's a clear point with Coumbia block games - they aren't really
much in the way of simulations. Just as the other early wargame
designs, it was more about dropping a veneer of theme on a core system
than anything else.

There are people who want that, and like that they get the nice
wooden pieces to chew on along with the simple designs.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I haven't played many block games but it doesn't bother me. I don't think of it as 'firing' so much (nobody in a phalanx is firing) as of more mobile and/or elite troops being much more effective, therefore having the opportunity to do damage first.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Twisk of the Blue Feathers
United States
flag msg tools
My name is Twisker, and I am a baby parrotlet.
badge
For no discernible reason, I like hanging trapeze-like in towel folds.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:
I haven't played many block games but it doesn't bother me. I don't think of it as 'firing' so much (nobody in a phalanx is firing) as of more mobile and/or elite troops being much more effective, therefore having the opportunity to do damage first.


But why would the defender always be considered to have more mobile/elite troops than the attacker?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Russell
United States
Dearborn
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think it represents the defender getting the first attack, but rather abstracts the general advantages that a defending force often has against an attacking force. These advantages were in place before trench warfare.

One such advantage is that the burden to act is on the attacking force. Sometimes both armies would march towards each other on a clear field, true, but smarter generals would take the high ground and let the attacker come to them. At Pharsalus Pompey held his men back when Caesar's men charged instead of rushing in to meet them halfway. Caesar is supposed to have halted the long charge just shy of javelin-range so his men could catch their breath and not be fighting the well-rested static force while exhausted.

There are lots of other factors that favor the defender that, at the scale represented in most block games, can't really be represented in any kind of detail. "Defender fires first" is a quick-and-dirty solution to fold all this in.

Just my two cents.
50 
 Thumb up
2.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chuft wrote:
wifwendell wrote:
I haven't played many block games but it doesn't bother me. I don't think of it as 'firing' so much (nobody in a phalanx is firing) as of more mobile and/or elite troops being much more effective, therefore having the opportunity to do damage first.


But why would the defender always be considered to have more mobile/elite troops than the attacker?


I mis-read it. But I agree with Tom, above.
8 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dom Dal Bello
United States
Santa Maria
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I also concur with Tom.... at least for Julius Caesar (as I haven't played the others.

The order of A (Archer), B (Auxilery; Cavalry) and C (Legions) does make at least an attempt at simulating the order of engagement.
And troops tend ot be more effective as move up the scale (archers only hit on a 1). Simulating morale, terrain, supply, etc., is left aside.

The defender-always-first, as noted, is a simple solution to the relatively more difficult process of moving troops to attack.
However, what about when the attacker catches the defender unaware. Or the attacker has so much morale/adrenaline/initiative that they should go first. (in J.Caesar, Caesar needs likley going to be the attacker most of the time, and he does have a few more effective troops, for what it's worth).


Perhaps a "quick-and-dirty modfication" to the "quick-and-dirty solution" of the defender-always-first is a die roll to see "who goes first" at each "battle", if not during each round of "battle."


0.5 cents.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Australia
NSW
flag msg tools
Menin Gate at Midnight, Will Longstaff, 1927.
badge
"At the landing, and here ever since" - Anzac Book, p. 35.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This
calandale wrote:
I think there's a clear point with Coumbia block games - they aren't really
much in the way of simulations. Just as the other early wargame
designs, it was more about dropping a veneer of theme on a core system
than anything else.

There are people who want that, and like that they get the nice
wooden pieces to chew on along with the simple designs.


Columbia Block games are heavily abstracted, and lie far more on the 'game' end of the game-simulation spectrum.

In Richard III, for example, the active player ('Attacker') can move a number of units a considerable distance to converge on the defender. I see the whole 'Defender fires first' is a bit of a balancing mechanism. It at least gives the typically outnumbered defender the chance to do some damage before being overwhelmed.

11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Álvaro Rivas
Spain
Madrid
Madrid
flag msg tools
Amnese wrote:
This
calandale wrote:
I think there's a clear point with Coumbia block games - they aren't really
much in the way of simulations. Just as the other early wargame
designs, it was more about dropping a veneer of theme on a core system
than anything else.

There are people who want that, and like that they get the nice
wooden pieces to chew on along with the simple designs.


Columbia Block games are heavily abstracted, and lie far more on the 'game' end of the game-simulation spectrum.

In Richard III, for example, the active player ('Attacker') can move a number of units a considerable distance to converge on the defender. I see the whole 'Defender fires first' is a bit of a balancing mechanism. It at least gives the typically outnumbered defender the chance to do some damage before being overwhelmed.



Well, you could have both sides fire at the same time and achieve the same result of the defender being able to do damage despite being overwhelmed.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R Larsen
Denmark
Naerum (Copenhagen)
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This comes up a lot, and I think often it is a bit, well, unfair.

It is true that the Columbia style block games have these features that may seem simplistic and unrealistic, but what you get in return is often ignored, namely the "realistic" lack of complete knowledge of the battlefield, which so many other games out there, that are considered more serious, entirely fail to incorporate.

Besides that, it is also not true that the "defender always fires first". In eg Richard III, if you bring better units to the battle (eg A units against B, C or D units), then the attacker will fire first.
There is a similar example in Rommel in the Desert - if you attack with artillery, the artillery fires at the defenders before they get to fire.

So yes, if even units engage, it is not really silly that the defenders have a slight edge. We can look at other systems and ask why a 19:10 attack ratio becomes a 1:1 on the CRT - is that not the same, to benefit the defender?
However, you can do something about this - you can try to bring better units to the attack, you can make sure to bring that killer artillery, and you can make sure to find that 1 extra combat factor that makes the 19:10 a 20:10 instead. Which of these three examples is more "realistic" - the block system decision or the standard CRT decision?

Ras
23 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Eldard
United States
Burke
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
tomrussell wrote:
I don't think it represents the defender getting the first attack, but rather abstracts the general advantages that a defending force often has against an attacking force. . . . There are lots of other factors that favor the defender that, at the scale represented in most block games, can't really be represented in any kind of detail. "Defender fires first" is a quick-and-dirty solution to fold all this in.

Just my two cents.


Good explanation, Tom.

Wargames reduce many complex factors to simpler mechanics aimed at achieving an acceptable outcome. When those outcomes are consistently skewed, the designer tweeks the mechanics.

If Columbia block games achieve acceptable outcomes, it shouldn't matter who shoots first.

I have no problem with the defender-shoots-first idea -- especially in pre-20th Century games where the attacker is maneuvering into a position to fire and is already in the defender's range before doing so.

That's because for decades, I always accepted a far greater abstraction: Player A moves his units and initiates combat while the Player B's units remain stationary, then when A is done, B gets to move and fight while A is dormant.

Why do we tolerate such an artificial, chess-like mechanic? Because if designed well, it is reasonable way to attain an acceptable (i.e., realistic, historical) outcome.
12 
 Thumb up
1.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Over 50 Gamer
Canada
Penticton
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Oliver......one cool cat
badge
MEOW!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tomrussell wrote:
I don't think it represents the defender getting the first attack, but rather abstracts the general advantages that a defending force often has against an attacking force. These advantages were in place before trench warfare.

One such advantage is that the burden to act is on the attacking force. Sometimes both armies would march towards each other on a clear field, true, but smarter generals would take the high ground and let the attacker come to them. At Pharsalus Pompey held his men back when Caesar's men charged instead of rushing in to meet them halfway. Caesar is supposed to have halted the long charge just shy of javelin-range so his men could catch their breath and not be fighting the well-rested static force while exhausted.

There are lots of other factors that favor the defender that, at the scale represented in most block games, can't really be represented in any kind of detail. "Defender fires first" is a quick-and-dirty solution to fold all this in.

Just my two cents.



Excellent explanation! Definitely worth more than two cents
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thom0909
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think rolling first necessarily means firing first.

Die rolls don't equate to actual firing of weapons. If they did, then we'd need a lot more die rolls for every battle. If a block wargame battle goes htree rounds, I don't assume it means each weapon was fired three times.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enrico Viglino
United States
Eugene
OR
flag msg tools
Slowed - BGG's moderation policies have driven me partially from here
badge
http://thegamebox.byethost15.com/smf/
Avatar
mb
Rivs wrote:
Amnese wrote:
This
calandale wrote:
I think there's a clear point with Coumbia block games - they aren't really
much in the way of simulations. Just as the other early wargame
designs, it was more about dropping a veneer of theme on a core system
than anything else.

There are people who want that, and like that they get the nice
wooden pieces to chew on along with the simple designs.


Columbia Block games are heavily abstracted, and lie far more on the 'game' end of the game-simulation spectrum.

In Richard III, for example, the active player ('Attacker') can move a number of units a considerable distance to converge on the defender. I see the whole 'Defender fires first' is a bit of a balancing mechanism. It at least gives the typically outnumbered defender the chance to do some damage before being overwhelmed.



Well, you could have both sides fire at the same time and achieve the same result of the defender being able to do damage despite being overwhelmed.


It wouldn't CHANGE the generic nature; it would just be a different one
then. Basically, if you can represent WWII and 1812 with the same
design, you've got a tremendously abstracted design.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carl Marl
United States
Picksburd
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have thought of the defender goes first rule as the defender having a terrain related advantage. Operationally, the attacker has been chasing the defender and when the defender finds favorable terrain, he offers battle. Maybe that's not what Columbia Games had in mind, but it sort of satisfies me as an explanation.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Eldard
United States
Burke
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
fambans wrote:
I have thought of the defender goes first rule as the defender having a terrain related advantage. Operationally, the attacker has been chasing the defender and when the defender finds favorable terrain, he offers battle. Maybe that's not what Columbia Games had in mind, but it sort of satisfies me as an explanation.


Or even more simply: The attacker can either move or shoot. To bring the defender within range of his weapons, the attacker must move to contact. If the weapons ranges of the two forces are relatively the same, then before the attack stops moving, the defender is already bringing him under fire.

But I think it goes back to outcomes. What mechanic creates the acceptable (i.e. historical) results?

Mark Herman, who for decades has been studying warfare and simulation both professionally and as a game designer, noted in researching for For the People, that regardless of an ACW battle's outcome, the casualty rates for both sides were relatively the same, so his design strives to achieve those kinds of outcomes. Much leder ACW games were satisfied with outcomes where one side is totally eliminated and the other is complete intact.

Jim Dunnigan/SPI introduced the move-shoot-move system as a way of simulating a blitzkrieg effect (i.e. contact - breakthrough - exploitation) in a way that the classic move-shoot system couldn't. Now, it would seem unlikely -- especially at the operational or strategic level -- that a unit might move the equivalent of 6 hexes, fight a battle, and move 4-6 more hexes before the enemy unit can move even once. But it does abstractly simulate the impact of blitzkrieg on WW2, and thus offers the players a more realistic simulation than say the AH classics.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Quote:

It wouldn't CHANGE the generic nature; it would just be a different one
then. Basically, if you can represent WWII and 1812 with the same
design, you've got a tremendously abstracted design.


Except the rules of the CG WW2 games and 1812 are different. The simple fact that the both have the specific order of die rolling is actually irrelevant to the level of abstraction in the broader model of the battles or wars featured.

Gringo!, La Bataille de la Moscowa (third edition), and Bataan!

All use chit pull mechanisms for activation of units. The above quoted statement applies as equally to the three linked games as it does to WW2 and 1812 in the quote.

Generally, this "problem" applies across all games.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enrico Viglino
United States
Eugene
OR
flag msg tools
Slowed - BGG's moderation policies have driven me partially from here
badge
http://thegamebox.byethost15.com/smf/
Avatar
mb
wmd8tc wrote:


Generally, this "problem" applies across all games.


No question. I prefer a game to share as much as it can with others
to give the level of detail desired.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R Larsen
Denmark
Naerum (Copenhagen)
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
calandale wrote:
It wouldn't CHANGE the generic nature; it would just be a different one
then. Basically, if you can represent WWII and 1812 with the same
design, you've got a tremendously abstracted design.


Come on, Calandale. So ASL and GBOH are "tremendously abstracted" because both use hexes and counters?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim F
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
flag msg tools
Who knew trench warfare could be such fun?
badge
Ashwin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RLarsen wrote:
calandale wrote:
It wouldn't CHANGE the generic nature; it would just be a different one
then. Basically, if you can represent WWII and 1812 with the same
design, you've got a tremendously abstracted design.


Come on, Calandale. So ASL and GBOH are "tremendously abstracted" because both use hexes and counters?


I'm not sure we are talking about equivalents here. I find Columbia games fairly generic and dislike the total lack of intelligence on the opposing forces. The question of who fires first is less flawed in my view than who moves first/second which can be decisive in a game and usually dependent on a simple dice roll.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Enrico Viglino
United States
Eugene
OR
flag msg tools
Slowed - BGG's moderation policies have driven me partially from here
badge
http://thegamebox.byethost15.com/smf/
Avatar
mb
RLarsen wrote:
calandale wrote:
It wouldn't CHANGE the generic nature; it would just be a different one
then. Basically, if you can represent WWII and 1812 with the same
design, you've got a tremendously abstracted design.


Come on, Calandale. So ASL and GBOH are "tremendously abstracted" because both use hexes and counters?


Let's be clear here - I've played one or two Columbia games.

They felt largely lacking in any real tie to their subject matter.

I do NOT know how much the system is the same between games - that was
someone else's observation. Just that observation is one that I've made
of early AH and SPI games (from about the same era as Columbia got its
start). Both AH and SPI evolved a great deal. It is quite possible
that Columbia games have evolved from that simplistic representation -
but the words on this forum seem to refute that.


The use of hex and counters is like the use of blocks alone. The game
PQ-17: Arctic Naval Operations 1941-1943 uses blocks, but I would NOT say that it is
one which does not dive into the specifics of its subject reasonably
more than my impression of Columbia's offerings. I have my gripes
about blocks (they are needlessly expensive and large for the information
they convey), but that doesn't preclude them from being a part of
detailed treatments. Simplistic games which treat every conflict more
or less the same does.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Judd Vance
United States
Wichita
Kansas
flag msg tools
Who's the master?
badge
"Just get that sucka to the designated place at the designated time and I will gladly designate his ass...for dismemberment!" - Sho Nuff.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chuft wrote:
I was just eyeballing Richard III: The Wars of the Roses here on BGG. Looks like a beautiful game but reading a review made me realize it has the now-standard Columbia combat system of A's, B's and C's for fire order, and "defender firing first" for ties (which will be most of the time).

I have to say this really bugs me and has put me off buying more than one Columbia game.

The A,B,C thing I am long familiar with, and though it often makes no sense, I understand its original purpose. (For you whippersnappers, it comes from "Magic, Missiles, Melee" and was the standard order of attacks used in fantasy roleplaying games, the idea being that spells went off first, then arrows, and finally the meatheads in the front line crossed swords.) I have seen boardgames where it made sense, like King of the Tabletop/Kings & Things (but of course there it was actually used for Magic, Missiles, Melee) but Columbia for some reason seems to use it for everything now. I can see it as a unit quality thing, the idea being that better units hit first and thus are more likely to survive since the lamer dudes get killed before they get to attack. So it is a form of defense strength really.

But the "defender fires first" (which works well in WWII games, like EastFront and Rommel in the Desert) seems totally out of place in a War of the Roses game, or a Roman game like Julius Caesar. It is hard to think of any reason why the "defender would fire first" in a clash of legions, or medieval cavalry forces. These guys weren't dug in and manning machine guns. Even in WWII I find the mechanic breaks down on a large enough scale; in Europe Engulfed for example you could not attack enemy units without first absorbing a wallop from every unit in the enemy army. Not only is this unrealistic, but it also encouraged enormous blobs of units.

Such mechanics typically mean you can't attack unless you have a significant advantage in numbers, since you have to be able to absorb the first shot in every round before getting to reply. In WWII, this simply wasn't the case, as attacks tended to be on narrow fronts with very local superiority, with most of the enemy army preferably surrounded by a breakthrough and exploitation - the idea of frontally attacking up and down the entire line would mortify anyone but Brusilov. I can see it as a sort of abstraction though. But in ancient and medieval settings, it seems particularly absurd, since battles in fact were often fought between evenly matched armies, or even launched by a smaller attacker, with dramatic results.

Does anyone else have a problem with "defender fires first" being used by seemingly every block game under the sun, regardless of setting? Do you think it works? I am trying to imagine how Richard III would play, if the attacker always has to somehow obtain a significant numerical advantage in order for an attack to be worth it.


I have most of the Columbia games and all of the Hammer-style games that use the A-B-C combat. I can't add much more than Tom already did on the abstraction.

I will tell you that I while I like Richard III as a game that uses "basic block strategy" (as I call it), I think it is one of the lesser at trying to create the historical results. I enjoy playing it a lot, but I think Kingmaker connects better thematically.

You may want to check out Pacific Victory for a combat system (or Victory: The Blocks of War if you like a non-historical game). It uses something like 9 different units: fighters, bombers, submarines, carriers, battleships, cruisers, infantry, marines, etc...

They are broken into 3 categories: Air, sea, and ground. Air units fire first, then sea, then ground and within those groups, there is an order: fighters before bombers, etc.

Some units can fire only at one type (ex: Submarines can only fire at naval vessels, not at air units). Others can fire at various kinds, BUT, and this is where it is cool: the "to hit" number is different. Air units might be 1-2 vs. an air unit, 1-3 vs. naval and 1 only vs. ground (just making up numbers). The result is a lot more decisions on the combat.

Asia Engulfed also has a really slick non-Hammer combat system.

You fire in a specific order: fighters first, bombers next, all the way down to infantry. They are broken into
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Caleb
United States
Seminole
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
calandale wrote:


I do NOT know how much the system is the same between games - that was
someone else's observation. Just that observation is one that I've made
of early AH and SPI games (from about the same era as Columbia got its
start). Both AH and SPI evolved a great deal. It is quite possible
that Columbia games have evolved from that simplistic representation -
but the words on this forum seem to refute that.


If anything, Columbia have been moving more and more to 'genericize' their games into having the same core rules regardless of scope, era, etc. It's what has put me off their recent offerings.

Of all the Columbia games I've decided to own, only 1 has the A/B/C system (Liberty); the rest use more unique mechanisms of one sort or another, more custom-suited to the setting of the game:

Quebec 1759
Napoleon
Rommel in the Desert
Victory

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.