Cruel Seas - a preview

I have posted what others have considered some unkind thoughts on Cruel Seas back when it was released and, for a good while, I had no intention of approaching the game in any form. However, as time passed, I gave it a bit more thought and considered giving the game a go because the period had some attraction. I picked up a few books on the subject and that decided it. Let me be clear though: the interest in the period dictated the renewed interest in the game. History first, gaming second as far as I go.

That decision was followed by some umming and ahhing about buying the rule set and the kit to go with it. Seeing as I only wanted to give it a go, I didn't want to spend a great deal on what might only be a single outing. Fortunately, Warlord Games' marketing department (un)knowingly provided a solution. With a couple of issues of Wargames Illustrated sporting Sellotaped sprues, one magazine purchase by myself and a couple of donations (thanks, Andy and Shaun!), meant I had the kernel of a game. First Partizan this year saw me taking the plunge and buying the rule set (the only money I have actually paid directly to support the game, by the way. Maybe the marketing trick of free sprues worked???). Incidentally, at that show, the WI stand were offering a free sprue with every purchase. Hmmm...

Miniature Wargames then got in on the act, offering another sprue, so another magazine purchase added two more boats, followed by some more donations (thanks again to Andy and Shaun). As you can see below, I now have a dozen boats and some torpedo markers to play with for the cost of £20. The magazines would have been purchased regardless of their cover gifts.

I paid for one item here...

Now, I haven't played the game yet, having just perused the rules, but before passing comment on those, I must note the method in which I have acquired the kit. Maybe the marketing of the game was designed to nudge you in the direction of buying the rules, then you'd get more plastic after giving it a go. Maybe the game didn't launch as well as expected and that led to the deluge of plastic on magazine covers. Maybe something in between. I don't know, but in past employment, when I saw so much given away so early in a product's life cycle, that raised concerns about the success of that product. As I say, I could be totally wrong, (and I am also a cynic at heart), but it just feels a little off. Anyhoo, to the rule set themselves.

Pretty, yes. useful, no.

What we have here is a very glossy, picture heavy tome. A couple of spelling and grammar issues (I know, stones and glasshouses here!) do not spoil the overall quality and the game itself seems very straight forward. The mechanisms seem well thought out and not too finicky, though I am not a fan of either the activation process or the dice heavy torpedo rules. The amount of actual historical content is surprisingly high (with a but to be included below) and is backed up by a good bibliography with some excellent sources included. An observation though: the bibliography starts by referencing the Osprey titles about the period (indeed, most of the hand drawn illustrations are from those Ospreys), before noting the non-Osprey sources. Would I be too cynical to suggest that the publisher is guiding readers to their own products first, with the high probability that the "other recommended" sources were also used in the production of those Ospreys in the first place? Possibly, but then there is the full page Osprey advert a page later...

From what I have read, I am looking forward to putting on a game with the group when I get the kit painted (stop sniggering at the back!) and see how we take to Cruel Seas. I do, however, have a few points to make just from the read through...

• The rule set is a giant catalogue. Let's not kid ourselves here. I have seen more than one interview with games designers who has stated that the whole point of rule sets is to sell toys and it is no different here. True, the photographs of the boats are lovely and certainly give a sense of action and drama, but since these are diorama style set ups, no game will ever look that good without some serious (and OTT) effort. Also of note, nearly every page has at least  illustration/image, others are single or double page spreads of photographs, and others are a mixture of both illustrations and photographs. Out of a count of 108 pages, only 12 do not have an image of some kind - and I am not counting the token counters as images. I know the game designers needs to earn a crust, but this is very much style over substance.

The layout. I'm not sure...

• Dice - they will sell me dice for each of the fleets in their own little bag. For £24 a pack. 16 dice (plus bag) for £24. Yes, I know these are unique dice for the game, but seriously, a quick internet search for dice can get me 20 of the buggers for £4! Slightly bigger dice, plus a bag will cost £4 for 10. I can work round the usage issues from there with a teensy bit of thought. And Warlord want £24 for one(!) fleets' worth. Get tae f...!
• As a mechanism, the activation process isn't something I like. I know, it's a personal thing, and it may work well with the game so we'll see. Most games I have played have been simultaneous movement so I will withhold judgement until we play a game.
• Torpedo hits - they require 16 dice (where could I get that many dice... Oh!). It also means, on average scores, you are unlikely to destroy any of the bigger ships, meaning the other player won't go into a huff early on if you sink their big shiny model. Regardless, it's finicky.
• Points - This is a personal thing again, and take into account I have never been a competition gamer, but the designers have put a fair bit of thought into this game and have nodded to historical accuracy. Why then, instead of actual dispositions and force strengths, go for a points based allocation system? Then I remembered, you build your force to the points level you are playing with, which means you buy the kit to fit that points total. Historical accuracy be damned! A lot of my ire towards points systems stems from its inability to be historically accurate unless a ton of thought has gone into it. I recall a rule set in the 90's where you couldn't field what 2 Para had at Goose Green because you didn't have enough points. But that's me, and as I have said before, I am a history buff first and foremost, a historical war gamer second and a gamer third. In any case, I will decide the scenario based on the kit I have and the points allocation will not be taken into account when we do our play through. 
• Historical accuracy. Well, it's there. It's a bit hit and miss, and as noted above, the use of points to define forces means you can do pretty much whatever you want in the game. But the biggest issue I have is that the designers have started off well and then gamed the accuracy out of the window. Would an order of battle been too much to ask for specific theatres? What about actual battles or contacts? Why not try and teach a little bit of history to players in the guise of a game? 
• Condescension. There are little dialogue boxes with hints and advice, each fronted by a nation specific character. Why? I do not need to imagine a chap giving me advice. Place this information in the body of the text and let me read it there. I can cope with this. Finally, there is the whole "have fun, enjoy yourself, treat your fellow player/players with respect" and all that jazz. If you are the type of person who has to be told by the rule set how to be civil or friendly (considering who you are likely to be playing this game with), then something went seriously wrong long before you picked up Cruel Seas.

It may seem that I am being a little harsh but, on the whole, I am cautiously optimistic about playing it. It is plain to see that a lot of effort has gone into the game and my view is tempered by my cynicism to corporate,  marketing and gaming innit bull poo. However, play the game we shall and I will place a report, alongside observations from myself and the rest of the group, on here afterwards. As for when, probably later on in the year.