Wargames Illustrated 374

The latest issue of Wargames Illustrated crossed my path this week and, having had a perusal, I thought it worthy of comment. You see, the December issue has a piece about Warlord Games latest cash grab, Cruel Seas and as I have more than a passing interest in naval warfare, the article piqued my curiosity.

So, Cruel Seas, a new boardgame  wargame that centres on small scale naval actions in World War 2. The starter pack costs £50 and for that princely sum, you get 10 1:300th scale plastic vessels and all the gubbins including the rules to get you going. Think MTB's and E-Boats and there you have it. Needless to say, there are expansions planned but I'll get to those in a moment. As a gift, WI also includes either two MTB's or two E-Boats on sprues, worth about £6 if you go by the flotilla prices on the Warlord Games website. They're not bad, but my better half (who doesn't wargame at all) did comment that they looked like something out of a cereal packet - I can see her point.

Coming to some cornflakes near you soon???

So, onto the article and it sets the scene and describes a game played at Warlord HQ in some detail, reading like a very long infomercial, truth be told. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing as it means I have no interest in buying the game even though the period is of interest. Let me explain.

The play through guides us through the familiar Bolt Action dice system used by Cruel Seas, ship movement and weapons firing. The scenario they use is one of the simpler ones suggested by the rule set and it does seem to play quite quickly, though they don't half like their dice throwing. The torpedo attack described uses a total of 17(!) dice to ascertain one hit and its effect. True, one dice to determine whether the torpedo was a dud or not but 16 for effect. All I can ask is why? I know some rules use buckets of dice (Tactica being one that I have played but I can see why, one dice per figure, you have lots of figures, therefore lots of dice) but it seems to me that the "need" for 16 dice to determine the effect of one hit is plain overkill and extremely gamey. I don't think that you need that many dice and I don't wargame purely for the dice throwing. Never have and never will.

Another observation - the lack of realism, taking this another step away from an historical wargame and more towards a fancy boardgame. Despite being 1:300th scale and a skirmish game, weapons ranges are a lot shorter than reality and the range bands are suitably "unreal". Similarly, the "advanced" rule section contains aircraft that are one shot wonders that have no mechanism for loitering. How advanced to you need to be to understand loitering fighter/bomber cover?

If it feels like I am being too hard on Cruel Seas without even playing it then maybe I am. But there are plenty of other rule sets out there that cover the same type of naval action and to greater detail and historical accuracy. Ok, you don't get pretty models with them but there are plenty of suppliers who will sort out any requirements and scale you need.

That brings me to the add on packs. You can get additional flotilla's for £18 that contains 6 ships. There are also Fleet packs containing 6 to 10 ships (some metal) and one aircraft for £65 (numbers vary depending upon which country you select). Bear in mind that in the US Fleet pack, five of the ten ships supplied are landing craft, so in effect scenery. Finally, there are the Coastal Forces for £95 (discounted from £103). They have between 12 and 16 ships and comprise of a Fleet and Flotilla pack plus a rule set. That might seem a tad pricey but that is a discount instead of buying the separate national forces and the rule set, which alone costs £20 in softback. I do, however, think they are royally taking the piss with the limited edition hardback rule set for £75!!!

The cynical part of me thinks that Cruel Seas will be the Cinderella of the wargames scene for a couple of years before fading away. You can spend a ton of money with Warlord Games or you can do a bit of research and shopping around and get something that'll do the same job for less money. And be more historically accurate. Unless it's just about the game (innit!) in which case the nice packaged boardgame Cruel Seas will do you nicely.

As for the rest of the magazine, well, it was fairly crap, the most enlightening quote being in a profile piece on The Plastic Soldier Company: "... a rule set only exists to sell your miniatures." Whilst I know a few manufacturers who would disagree with that, certainly Warlord are on it like a bonnet!

Interest or Hobby?

Part of the joys of work is that you interact with people of different ages and this can lead to some interesting conversations. I got talking to a gentleman who is a few years younger than myself who has an interest in videogames. Aha, I thought, this could be enlightening. It was, but not necessarily in a good way. You see, whilst he has fifteen years of console and PC gaming to his name, he has very little awareness of the history of his chosen hobby and, more importantly, no interest at all in expanding his knowledge. His is a transitory hobby, whatever new thing is in front of him is either great or shit. There are no levels in between these two extremes, just a binary yay or nay. So me being me, I raised this question: "Is this a hobby or an interest that you have?"

Now we each have our own approach to our hobbies. Indeed, how we approach a hobby defines that hobby's appeal to us (so the history and design of console hardware is of particular interest to me as an off-shoot to actually gaming itself). In the case of this younger gentleman, his was almost proud announcement that he knew nothing of gaming before he started playing back in the early 2000's and had no interest in what had happened before then, even to the point of not playing games that were released on his first console before he started gaming. I wasn't particularly surprised but it was quite saddening to hear.

The gentleman's first console was the Sony Playstation 2. A fine piece of hardware that hosted some of the best games of its generation, but my colleague expressed a narrow minded view that other console hardware released around that time (the sublime Sega Dreamcast, Nintendo's under-appreciated GameCube and the ground breaking original Microsoft X-Box) didn't matter because the PS2 won the sales war and as the other three lost, they didn't matter. As he wanted the best (in popularity at least), all other alternatives were discarded. Once the PS2 was replaced by the PS3, the older hardware was discarded and the games collection sold on. They were now old and of no further use. The latest was now, in his mind, the greatest.

A classic of its time.

Horses for courses I suppose, but then I have always been a collector (or hoarder as my better half would have it). Since the last house move, I have sold on most of my collection due to space issues but I did keep a few titles that have never been replicated since their original release. For example, Sky Odyssey for the PS2. The aim of the game is to pilot your aircraft successfully from A to B, encountering various obstacles and challenges along the way. There is no shooting, no whizz bang explosions, just pure flying. This title was in some way a slightly more realistic spiritual successor to the "Pilotwings" series that had releases on the Nintendo SNES (1990), the Nintendo 64 (1996) consoles. That such titles are few and far between demonstrates their sheer niche appeal and since then, only the lightweight Pilotwings Resort, released for the Nintendo 3DS (2011) has offered anything similar in the flying genre. I know Pilotwings Resort is lightweight by the fact that I have played both of its predecessors. Sky Odyssey, by the way, is still a great experience today and well worth a try if you can pick up a copy and have the hardware to play it on.

But what really made me think was how shallow my young colleagues approach to his hobby was. I struggled to bring together the two ideas of loving a hobby but having no knowledge or interest in anything outside of your own sphere of experience. In fact, he wouldn't countenance any move to expand that knowledge - it's old and therefore it's shit. That attitude, it must be said, is not just limited to videogames. Wargaming also has a similar issue.

Now, to be fair, I am not going to be tarring everybody with this brush, but lack of knowledge seems to be a badge of pride, and not just for the younger generation. Without a depth of knowledge in your hobby, how do you put what is current market offering into perspective? How can you judge any perceived improvements when you have no background on the subject you are purported to enjoy? That was evident when, at a show a couple of years back, one guy wanted fighting camels for his forces. When told they weren't used for that during the period he was fighting, he replied "It doesn't matter, you can still put them on the table." Historical wargaming indeed!

Back to my colleague. As gaming to him doesn't exist prior to 2002, he has never, and proudly claims will never, play classics like Command and Conquer, any LucasArts point and click adventure, Super Mario 64, Goldeneye, Resident Evil, Half Life and countless other titles because they don't matter. Yet without those titles, we wouldn't have the games we have today. True, time has not been kind to most of these, but some have aged well and to miss out on those today, if you are a gamer, is a crying shame.

From a wargaming perspective, I'll use Team Yankee. I like them for what they are (and the chance to tinker with them at will adds some of the depth that a hobby needs), but subjectively, how different is the core mechanism from Operation Warboard? Or Featherstone's rules? Not much, but because TY has shiny hard-backed rule sets with lots of pictures, they are perceived by quite a few gamers as better - and that is a conversation I had at the Durham show this year where I ran a demo game. It also revealed that most of the people who asked questions about my amendments (which were based on my reading of texts both modern and contemporaneous) had taken what was offered in the rule sets as sufficient knowledge of the period - further reading was something that seemed like an anathema to them. Woe betide anyone (i.e. me) to use actual knowledge to dis-abuse them of their ignorance. Hey ho.

Take your pick...

Personally, I don't follow the "newer is better" mindset - after all, I am typing this on an 18-year old Alphasmart 3000. Yes, there are new niche text entry products (looking at you, Astrohaus) but I'm not willing to spend a few hundred quid on something when a more convenient (and cheaper) option exists. The same can be said for wargames rules - our recent attempts at playing Charge (I picked up a re-print at Salute this year for my own perusal after the first kicking I received) and other older rule sets have been interesting. They don't have lots of pictures or specialised kit, but they do the job and (this is important) they follow the historical period they model. Certainly compared to some more modern rules (Black Powder, Pikeman's Lament and others), the older set's adherence to history is refreshing, possibly demonstrating how far the modern wargaming market has lost its way from historical knowledge and focuses on rolling lots and lots of dice.

It does make me wonder if we are moving to a point where the history and context of any particular hobby no longer matters to the individuals partaking in that hobby. Whilst people may demonstrate a breadth of knowledge, there is so little depth that the individual misses out on the richness that makes a hobby enjoyable. Without that depth, could the hobby be classed as such at all? Is it not just then a passing interest? Also, without context, how do you judge whether the latest rule set/game/whatever is an improvement on what came before or just a money making enterprise by the creator and will it enrich your enjoyment of your hobby? As far as hobbies go, surely this is a bad thing? 

Amstrad GX4000 - Swansong for the 8-bit console era

The box in all of its glory

The Amstrad GX4000 was, for me, and only for a short time, the dream machine. Launched in the autumn of 1990, Amstrad hoped to prolong the life of their CPC home computers by bringing in an updated range of CPC+ machines and an associated 8-bit games console, the GX4000. It turned out these were the last throw of the dice for 8-bit machines in the UK. Indeed, it was probably not the greatest business decision by Amstrad to launch an 8-bit console as the era of the 16-bit Sega Megadrive and Nintendo SNES was beginning but by this time, Amstrad were turning away from home computing and focusing on the expanding PC market, leaving their older machines to die off slowly.

Still in decent nick

What did the +plus machines bring to the market? Well, some fancier graphics modes (compared to the older models), a SCART socket and a cartridge slot that permitted software to access the new graphics modes. And that was part of the problem, the requirement to use the cartridge slot to benefit from the new capabilities. The plan was that the new fancy games on cartridge benefited both the home computers and the console and Amstrad made more money from the use of cartridges. Bear in mind that this was also the period of breakout sales for the Commodore Amiga and Atari ST, computers that hovered around the £300 to £400 mark that Amstrad had also priced the +plus range at. Ok, you got a dedicated monitor with the Amstrads' but portable TV’s were also decreasing in price and in most cases, people already had a portable TV before buying a computer so didn’t really need another display on their desk.

Ports at the back - 2 x power (mains and monitor), RBG, SCART and RF.

Ports at the front - headphone, 2 x 9 pin controller, 1 x 15 pin analogue and RJ11 for light guns.

Still, they released the new range, with an unlikely competitor from Commodore with their C64GS which was basically a Commodore C64 computer without the keyboard. With nothing new to add to that platform, the C64GS disappeared with barely a whimper. Amstrad did gain the support of quite a few European software houses, with the likes of Ocean, Titus and US Gold promising new titles. What consumers ended up getting, however, were conversions of CPC titles that cost £24.99 to £29.99 due to their cartridge format. Most of these looked no better than their cassette brothers retailing for under a tenner. Lazy conversions and pricing aside, the GX4000 carts also suffered when compared to similarly priced 16-bit software, which looked better, had a higher resolutions and offered better sound quality. Yet, for all of that, early reactions were positive and at £99, the GX4000 compared favourably to the existing 8-bit Sega Master System and Nintendo NES machines, especially when programmers took advantage of the extra graphics modes the cartridge access allowed. One final +plus (see what I did there) was that the machine had a distinctive look, similar to a Cylon fighter from the original Battlestar Galactica TV show. It certainly looked different to the usual black or grey box under the TV.

Evil, just evil.

The one other downside that needs to be mentioned is the controller. Yes, you got two of them in the box, but they were and are horrible. They’re tiny, cause hand cramp within 10 minutes of use and the response from both the d-pad and buttons is mushy and lifeless. The plastic also creaks alarmingly.

I suppose I liked the GX4000 so much at the time because of its heritage. Having owned a CPC464 since 1987, and only just about to make the jump to the Amiga 500. The CPC464 was my formative home computer and I will never forget the fun playing games, programming and just plain messing about on it that took up many a weekend. Times, they were a changing though, and as far as Amstrad was concerned, they simply couldn’t compete with the likes of Sega and Nintendo who had the software pedigree and sheer volume of titles to bury the little British upstart. It didn’t help that the software support pledged was dependent upon the machine selling well. But as the machine sold poorly, partially due to lack of software, few games were released.

A total of 27 titles were released for the GX4000, most of which were straight conversions of existing CPC games. Looking at contemporaneous reviews, few of them reviewed well, with only the likes of "Burning Rubber", "Robocop 2" and "Pang" getting anywhere near above average scores. One thing of note is the cartridge packaging which, although outlandish compared to the boring DVD-style case mundanity we have now, brought a certain sense of style to any shelf and are more robust that the cardboard or plastic jewel cases used by other consoles in the ‘90’s.

90's game packaging - rather unique.

And also bigger than strictly necessary.

That the GX4000 is comparatively rare is underlined by the quite high prices they go for on E-Bay, around £50 for the console itself and more than a few sellers asking for £80+ for individual titles. The machine I have was about that price but comes in the original packaging with inserts. The plastic hasn’t dis-coloured too much and the condition overall is very good. I think this is the start of a collection for me and I’ll be keeping an eye out for games on E-Bay, retro games shows and online dealers, all the while avoiding the scalping that the rarity (and lack of popularity) of the machine seems to bring. I think getting hold of every game will be a challenge but a worthwhile one and like I said before, the cases do look good on the shelf (ok, one case, but it’s a start).

Lacking the exotic appeal of the NEC PC-Engine (which never received an official European release) or the extreme expense of the 16-bit SNK Neo Geo AES, the GX4000 is little known outside Western Europe and even then, you have to be of a certain age or a console history buff to know of it. The GX4000 represented the end of the European manufacturers in the home videogame market and, shortly afterwards, the home computer market too. The more advanced 16-bit generation was the dawn of the US and Japanese companies which had a whole different scale of operation that the likes of Amstrad couldn’t match. Nonetheless, that Amstrad tried shouldn’t be criticised. It was a worthy effort, with decent specs even for the time and as such, deserves to be remembered for that, if nothing else.

Jack Ryan - Amazon TV Show

One of them most anticipated television shows of the year and one that Amazon were so confident about that they commissioned a second season prior to the first being aired, Jack Ryan arrived with a fair amount of hype and it was something I was looking forward to. Is it worthy of the hype? Well...

I have been a Tom Clancy fan since the late 1980's, first reading a paperback copy of The Hunt for Red October at the tender age of 11 and enjoying each of the subsequent Jack Ryan-verse novels, pretty much up to The Bear and The Dragon which, although not bad, wasn't up to the author's usual standards and felt like it was ghost written.

The cinema adaptations of Clancy's books were mostly entertaining, starting off with the Alec Baldwin-leading The Hunt for Red October. This was slickly made and aimed to be an intelligent Cold War thriller. It certainly had the requisite tension and technological accuracy (mostly), but the character of Ryan took a back seat to the more seasoned and recognisable Captain Marko Ramius, played by Sean Connery. Still, it's my favourite Clancy film and works well even today. The Harrison Ford follow ups (Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger) each had their strong points and portrayed a more mature and scholarly Ryan. That style made me want them to make more of the Ford-starring films but that was not to be. What we ended up with was the Ben Affleck led The Sum of All Fears, again well made but that suffered a change of villains (to neo-Nazi's of all people) and a quite bland Ryan. The most recent film, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, was a play for a new franchise starring Chris Pine but this didn't find the success it needed and to be honest, Pine didn't fit the Ryan character as envisaged by Clancy. This brings me to the Amazon financed TV show with John Krasinski, better known for starring the the US version of The Office, as Ryan. We're once again at the beginning of his CIA career so we're getting another origin story too.

Surprisingly for a modern limited run TV show, Jack Ryan runs for a mere eight episodes which, when you consider the likes of Netflix's bloated Marvel TV shows, is a blessing. Episode length varies from around 44 minutes to an hour and each feels about right in length, never dragging but also never feeling overly stuffed. Nope, they got this just about right. Having the Middle East as a focus, there is a great deal of location filming and, in general, the production values are high. A bit of a side trip to Paris (Montreal in reality) and you have a show that portrays a global reach very well, something that older shows (with greater episode counts per season) such as The Unit, Scorpion and NCIS often failed at as they were reduced to backlot filming and the same Californian orchards time and time again. Kudos must also be given for having non-English characters speak in their native language with added subtitles. It does get more than a little wearing that all foreigners speak with "British" accented English (as Americans would put it. As a native of the UK, I have never heard what a "British" accent sounds like).

The casting is excellent too. Krasinski is a rather good fit as Ryan, playing a former US Marine recovering from a traumatic incident and trying to settle into an office job at the CIA. He gives off the sense of being slightly out of his depth rather well but is also capable when forced to wing it as the situation demands. If there is a downside then it comes from the shows inability to completely convince about how clever Ryan is. That and the "by accident" meeting with Cathy Mueller, a contagious disease expert that fits in too neatly into the over-arching plot. Quite what they can do with Abbey Cornish's character is season two remains to be seen because there is the risk that a handy plot device in season one will just lead to a one-dimensional background character in season two and that would be a great injustice to all concerned.

Wendell Pierce plays James Greer, recently dumped in to Ryan's department to lead it after a fall from grace. Some reviewers have been a bit unkind to the actor for his bulk but that fits in with the desk-based role the character has and it works for me. However, the character's religion, Islam, feels like another easy plot device and again, I can't see what relevancy it will have an the next season. He does, however, work well with Ryan and the sarcastic banter between the two is a highlight of the show.

Ali Suliman as Mousa Bin Suleiman gives a cracking performance as the villain of the piece, as does Dina Shihabi as his wife who is put through the wringer by his actions and her conscience. Both emerge as well rounded and sympathetic characters, even though Suleiman is callous beyond redemption. Indeed, character building is a strong point through episodes one to six and it is only in the final two that this, as well as the pacing, falters and the show degenerates into the standard "catch the bad guy tale". It also demonstrates that the show is not as intelligent as it wants you to think it is. There is still enough drama, both with the primary storyline and the different secondary strands to keep you hooked and those strands are tied up reasonably neatly by the closing credits of the final episode.

Jack Ryan is not without its faults, as noted above, but it does enough to not only establish the main characters but also the TV-universe that those characters inhabit. Certainly, it succeeds in bringing to life the titular character and hopefully the second season can build in the foundations of the first and improve on its weaknesses. If you have access to Amazon Prime, I highly recommend Jack Ryan and await with anticipation the follow up season in 2019.

Team Yankee - Amendments

I have had a couple of requests to share the amendments that I have made to the Team Yankee rules, so here they are. A couple of points to note first. These are amendments that we have play-tested. There are more on the way, some of which are fully formed, some which are just thoughts at the moment, but in any case, until they have been used in a live game, I'm not going to detail them here. That can be for a future post. Secondly, the amendments were made so that the game played in what I believed to be a more nuanced manner. As such, you may (should, and indeed, will) disagree with some of the changes made. That's a good thing and I welcome comments, suggestions and points of view.

Playing Team Yankee for the first time was an enlightening experience. Very different from our usual moderns rule set (Combined Arms), TY was a fast paced and rather bloody game and this raised some questions. Undoubtedly, it filled an afternoon, but what it lacked was a sense of satisfaction. It was too lightweight, too gamesy. So here we are.

Can't fault the production values...

The first thing that I changed was the hit values on the main battle tanks. This was to counter the "BANG, You're dead!" style of game play and to bring a dose of reality to the table. Modern MBT's can take some punishment and I wanted to reflect that in the game. Once a hit was scored, I made the player roll for hull or turret. If the hit was on the hull, another dice roll decided if the tracks were hit (1 or a 6) or the main body (2 to 5). A hit to the tracks created a mobility kill which meant the tank could still fight but not move. If a turret hit, then a roll decided if it was main armour (1-2 and 5-6) or mantlet (3 and 4). Take the Leopard 2 for example: the sighting system carves out a great chunk of the turret front. For tanks with Chobham type armour, their values were inflated too. Again, with the Leopard 2, the frontal armour went from a flat 18 to 24/18/24 (right panel/mantlet/left panel). This meant that a T-72 hit (with a value of 22) could kill with one shot but it wasn't a certainty. I also added a rule that if one section of the armour was hit and the tank survived, that section was now rated down to the weakest level on the front of the tank (18 in this instance), meaning a second shot on the same area had more of a chance of destroying the tank but allowed the game to reflect that the armour was doing what it does in the real world. In the same vein, Soviet vehicles fitted with Explosive Reactive Armour resulted in a temporarily higher defense value, but if hit and the armour saves the tank, the original armour value comes into play as that panel has now been used.

After the armour came the bailing out rules. A previous comment on the Durham post tried to clarify that the rules don't necessarily mean bailing out, just a possibly short term effect that can be recovered from. Me, I take the direct English here and the rules say bailing out and re-mounting. I changed this by asking if the crew wanted to bail and if they did, and the enemy were in MG or small arms range, they would have to deal with incoming fire. Any hits rendered the crew out of action.

The assault rules were also looked at. No more bouncing back. If you failed to pass over an obstacle, you got stuck, effectively giving yourself a mobility kill. Speaking of obstacles, if fording, Soviet crews had to roll a D6 and if they got a 1, their engine stalled. Rolling another D6 and another 1 led to the engine compartment flooding. This was, apparently, quite common and river obstacles were only traversed during exercises by vehicles equipped with radios in case such events happened. Probably not the same possibility as the two D6 roll gives but it adds a bit of flavour.

Ranges were next examined after the Durham game and the following were put in place for the most recent one:

Allies

L30 120 mm = 60 inches – 3000m

7.62mm MG = 16 inches – 800m

30mm Rarden = 30 inches – 1500m

SA80 = 8 inches – 400m

MBT LAW = 1 to 20 inches – 50 to 1000m

Hellfire = 10 to 160 inches (500m to 8000m)

Javelin = up to 50 inches – 2500m

30mm Avenger – 24 inches = 1200m

Maverick = off the table

H’aarqui

T72 125mm = 50 inches – 2500m

12.7mm = 20 inches – 1000m

AK47 = 7 inches – 350m

73mm cannon = 10 inches – 500m

30mm cannon = 30 inches (armour) 80 inches (ground 1500m and 4000m

AT3 Sagger = 10 to 60 inches – 500m to 3000m

AT5 Spanderl = 2 to 80 inches – 100 to 4000m

SA-9 = up to 84 inches – 4200m

Whilst not 100% accurate, they are close enough and now fit in relation to each other. Additional calculations were used for the effect of 30mm Avenger fire, based on the A-10 travelling at 400 knots, covering 175m/s (so 3 inches). A one second burst when used for strafing would cover 3 inches, a two second burst covering 6 inches and so on. This led to ammunition rules so the A-10 was limited to 5 one second bursts. In the same vein, armoured vehicles firing MG's had a maximum of three consecutive turns before rolling for heat-related jams (1-3 jammed, 4-6 ok).

Aircraft were also changed and can loiter for as long as five turns before fuel becomes an issue and removes them from the table. Naturally, if you have weapons that can shoot at them, if the aircraft is on the table, they are a target.

Finally, artillery. Well, mortars so far. Instead of an over-priced piece of plastic, I used the ground scale. One mortar with observed fire could accurately hit a 50 x 50m square (1 inch by 1 inch). Hit rules remain the same and I'll look at battery fire later on. This makes mortar fire more of the pin-point weapon it should be and forces the player to think about target selection.

It may seem that this puts a heavy responsibility on the game umpire to keep track of things and yes, you'd be right. Our group uses the umpire system as it fits in well with our outlook of the hobby and , for one, quite enjoy umpiring now and again as it's something different.

As I have said above, any comments, queries and suggestions are most welcome and I'll try and reply to each in turn.

Sarge! This f***ing f***er's f***ing f***ed!

So rang out the cry from "Wor Lass", the lead Challenger 2 of the Prince Regent's Own Heavy Hussars as its crew took stock after an IED forced them off the main causeway to the Harraqui provincial capital of Q'uon-Shett. The British advance had been halted and recovery crews had taken heavy fire from Harraqui militia forces positioned in the nearby marshes. It was now a race against time. Could the British re-group and rescue the beleaguered tank and its crew, or would they be taken by the fanatical defenders?

So lonely, oh so lonely...

Such was the scenario last Saturday when a trio of TWATS converged on the Commercial pub for a game. I was running it (using Team Yankee again, with not only the revisions added for the Durham show but also revised ranges and artillery rules), Andy played the hapless British and Shaun took on the Harraqui's. Now, being the umpire (and a twat), I chose to make things difficult for both players. Andy had the disabled Charlie 2 and a single Snatch Landrover, the rest of the British forces re-organising for a recovery attempt, whilst Shaun had two groups of militia, a group of tooled up Technicals and a quartet of T-55's. The issue he had was that the Technicals and T-55's needed to be told of the British plight and a pair of motorcycle dispatchers were required. Oh, and there were some victory rules - Andy had to get the tank crew (and the tank if possible as they only have 226 left) out of trouble. Shaun had to capture the tank crew alive for propaganda purposes, so he couldn't shoot "Wor Lass", however tempted he might have been. With the scenario set, off we went.

Shaun started off with dispatching the motorcyclists to get help. Andy brought up his Landrover and laid suppressing fire on the western militia group to the rear of "Wor Lass". The crew of "Wor Lass" were no less busy laying down accurate fire from both co-ax and cupola MG's on the eastern group, causing the first militia casualties. A roll for the appearance of the A-10 failed.

In no way endorsed by the Consett Ale Company

Turn two saw a kill for the Landrover crew with their .50-cal and another dead militiaman on the  east. The motorcyclists continued their weekend ride towards Q'uon-Shett. Still no A-10.

Still lonely, oh so f***ing lonely...

Turn three, and still no air support. Another casualty either side of the causeway on the militia and things were looking a tad brighter for the British - until your humble Umpire made them roll for their MG's jamming. After sustained fire, it might be expected that some of the guns would be running hot. A simple 1-3 fail/4-6 pass saw Andy roll well and the MG fire continued. Also at this point, the first of the British support appeared, (the British having superior comms) - three Scimitars of the North West Durham Yeomanry (The Commercials) alongside a pair of REME support vehicles.

The AA, REME style (other roadside assistance organisations are available...)

At the start of the fourth turn, the A-10 finally showed up, which was fortunate, as the first rider had reached the Harraqui support forces and the Technicals rolled out. Andy ordered the Scimitar Troop to race up the road; he needed more firepower alongside "Wor Lass" since he now couldn't trust his MG's. He could, however, trust his 120mm L30A1 main gun, so lobbed a HESH round towards the eastern militia group. This killed two, forcing a morale check, which they passed, but were left suppressed. 30mm RARDEN fire from The Commercials killed another militiaman to the west and the A-10, feeling left out, spotted the T-55's and decided a Maverick was called for. Cue one dead T-55.

As close as you'll get to a money shot (special effects courtesy of Flash Gordon).

They look pretty. But pretty is as pretty does...

As the fifth turn started, things quietened down a bit, with another HESH round dispatching two more militia and the A-10's second (and final) Maverick destroying another T-55. You may wonder why only two missiles? That's all the model had, so that's all they could fire. There were still two cluster bombs, two dumb 500lb-ers and two Paveway laser guided bombs plus the internal cannon though, so the A-10 was still in the fight. Renewed MG fire caused no further casualties.

This is not going to end well...

As is always the case in our games, the Umpire can do pretty much what they want as long as it suits the style and period of the game, and as turn six began, the message had gotten through to the regular Harraqui army so they started piling onto the table, looking for a piece of the glory. Three AT-5 equipped BRDM's with an SA-9 SAM launcher in support were the beginning, though the British had also managed to get three Warriors with elements of 69 Commando on the road too. The A-10 was being helpful, dropping a 500-pounder and a cluster bomb on the approaching Technicals, two of which were hit and destroyed. Then things got messy.

Andy had placed The Commercials in front of "Wor Lass", screening her from traffic coming down the causeway. Shaun thought that was a bit cheeky and rolled his two surviving T-55's right up to them. All but one of the remaining Technicals were also jammed in there. Like I said, messy.

Our Eye in the Sky reports heavy traffic on Highway 8

So this is what they call CQB...

The Commercials fired first, the first Scimitar getting two hits on the right-hand T-55 and causing a mobility kill. Second Scimitar was aiming for a Technical and at close range, the 30mm rounds had no issues at all. The third Scimitar engaged the last T-55 and although scoring two good hits on the turret, didn't penetrate the armour. Then came the T-55 reply. Or not, as the case may be. Poor dice rolling saw one Scimitar obliterated but the other shot was a miss. Overall, not as bad as it could have been for The Commercials.

The Aftermath (part one)

Shaun also used this opportunity to fire off his rocket pod equipped Technical. Using a bit of Umpire knowledge and know-how (i.e. making stuff up as I went along - albeit having read and seen how these things have worked in real life and knowing the established ground scale), I let him rip, the effect of which was a lovely piece of churned up causeway, a possibly very relieved Technical operator and not much else.

Turn seven saw more of the British response, with the 69 Commando-laden Warriors advancing further along the causeway and a gaggle of "Wor Lass's" mates (three more Challenger 2's) now on table. The A-10 was once more useful with a 30mm gun run against the two T-55's. This took a little bit of maths and realism. Working out the distance traveled in one second at 400 knots, then the burst length that an A-10 would normally have, then fitting that into the ground scale and finally offering Andy a selection of burst lengths (fire longer, less bursts, fire shorter, more bursts), Andy decided upon an aim point and a one second burst. The T-55's died quickly. The SA-9 was not happy about this and decided the A-10 should leave, but poor dice rolling saw a miss. Not that this was entirely a bad thing as Andy retired the air support out of missile range (effectively off-table).

The Aftermath (part two)

Turn eight and the final one as it transpired. The AT-5 BRDM's came into action and the rest of The Commercial troop died quickly, though not before replying with cannon fire that killed two of their attackers. "Wor Lass" stepped up and finished the last one off. And that was it.

At last...

Why? Well, the British now had enough on the table to support the recovery operation and the surviving Harraqui forces were in no fit state to oppose them. True, there were a nearly a dozen T-72's in a box that could have been put on the table. However, they didn't fit in the scenario (and the Harraqui forces were not in that much of a fighting mood) and it would have devolved into a dice rolling contest for the sake of it. What would be the point of that (apart from "the game, innit" mentality)? As such, a British victory, but a Pyrrhic one. Yes, they saved their tank crew, but lost the Scimitar troop in the process. Honour, however, was maintained.

So, the game organisation. I wanted this to be another example of asymmetric warfare, where both sides have to think carefully. As Andy pointed out at the end of the game, it was effectively over by turn three but neither side realised this. And that is kind of the point. He also commented that if he had made a mistake at any point, it would have been game over for him. That was what I was aiming for, not just a gung-ho "Bang! You're dead" style shoot-em up. No, a bit of finesse here and there does wonders.

As for the rules, the Durham amendments were in place and both artillery and ranges were tweaked, setting a hard 1 inch to 50m scale so that everything worked on that level. Weapons were changed to fit that too, so whilst it meant that missiles could rule the table, it added a dash of realism that TY normally lacks because they want pretty models on the table (so you need to buy them) and you won't get upset when said pretty models are blown away the second they pop their head up (nullifying the reason for buying them in the first place). Should there be more amendments? Yeah, a probability dice could smooth out the decision making process a bit more, and movement ranges need a bit of refining but then what started off as a bit of tinkering is starting to seem like more of a major revision. The point I am making here is that the core mechanics of TY are pretty basic (and have been seen many times in the past) yet they can be fit for purpose depending upon what you want to put on the table. If it's dice rolling a-go-go hour long games then, out of the box, TY will  suit you. If you want something more in line with the real world where you get to choose your tactics and actions (I really don't like how the game mechanics are set up to replicate tactics - surely that is the job of the player???), then it is a decent framework to hang your own amendments off. All it takes is a bit of thought. Speaking of which, the values for vehicles not currently listed in TY were made up by me, using existing values as a guide.

This is the third game I've ran using these rules within the last twelve months and I think they are developing quite well. Certainly there have been no complaints about the changes made and more than a few suggestions which have been, and will be, acted upon. They are turning into something quite respectable for modern wargaming. Then again, I would say that.

Warehouse 13

When it comes to television shows, my tastes tend to veer towards the sci-fi and fantasy genres with some action and drama to add a bit of variety (plus a hint of Lark Rise to Candleford, which I'll explain in a bit). As such, most of the shows I watch tend to be American in origin, they of course having a history of sci-fi shows that tend to outshine the UK's own stellar output. An admission here - I love a lot of the homegrown shows, and not just the usual suspects like Dr. Who and Blake's 7. There are fantastic shows such as The Box of Delights, Quatermass, Doomwatch and Star Cops. No, what I mean is that there tends to be a greater acceptance of sci-fant in the US, which combined with the greater number of television networks and distribution mediums, leads to a much greater number of shows. UK output, even when they do feature a sci-fant background, tend to be more reserved and I get the feeling that the genre as a whole is sniffed at by TV execs in general, so what is produced is either aimed at children or ends up going for the cerebral angle and winds up dour and somber. The aforementioned Box of Delights was a 1980's children's program that transcended its target audience. It also helps US shows that they tend to have a higher budget per episode.

This brings me to Warehouse 13, a US (Canadian produced) SyFy show that lasted five seasons from 2009 to 2014. The premise is that artifacts with unique attributes are collected and stored in a secret warehouse so that they cannot pose a threat to humanity. The Warehouse is governed by a group known as the Regents, who monitor the Special Agent in Charge and their team of agents as they scour the globe (usually the USA, which is always Canada dressed up a bit - think of the Dr Who/Blake's 7 quarry setting - it's amazing what you can do with a bit of set dressing) for said artifacts. Naturally, there are those who which to use those objects for their own gain/world domination/insert reason of the week here and the show did a very good job over 64 episodes to portray that.

Despite the serious sounding description above, Warehouse 13 was a light hearted show and could be very whimsical at times and it managed the duality of action and whimsy very well. That is due to the generally good writing (though there were some stinkers during its run) and the excellent cast. Saul Rubinek, always a joy to watch, inhabits the role of Arthur (Arty) Nielson with a warmth that comes across naturally, His occasional grumpiness and ever present heartfelt humanity combine to give a well rounded core to the show. This wouldn't work, however, if the two agents he manages were poorly cast, but they got that right too. Joanne Kelly nails it as the studious and serious Myka Bering, whilst Eddie McClintock very neatly fuses the "Pete Latimer - geeky man-child" with "Pete Latimer - former alcoholic ex-Marine". Indeed, McClintock is the comic heart of the show and Kelly is the perfect foil for this. There is also the almost obligatory "will they/won't they" angle which is addressed in the final season. Both characters work to each other's strengths and form a prefect triad with Nielson.

That is not to say the additional cast are any less good.. CCH Pounder is perfectly sphinx-like in the role of Regent Mrs Frederick. Initially a cipher, her character development reveals greater and more intriguing depths as the show progresses. Allison Scagliotti, as (an almost stereotypical) rock chick hacker Claudia Donovan could be one note at times but, on the whole, added a younger vibe to the show and the near paternal banter between Donovan and Nielson is a high point of the show. The same can be said for Aaron Ashmore's Steve Jinks, a late-comer to season three. I can see why the character was introduced (and is indeed handled well throughout season three) but you do get the feeling that at times, they didn't know what to do with him. Once embedded in the cast though, Ashmore visibly has more fun in the role and the natural chemistry with Claudia is a hoot. Less well handled, however, is Genelle Williams, playing Lena, the owner of the B&B the agents live in. Although a cast regular, her appearances are not and it is not until season four that her role becomes more significant.

Of the recurring cast members, mention must be made of Jaime Murray's Helena G Wells (yes, that Wells!). Although quite a wooden actress (her delivery is at times note perfect with a role she had in Dexter), you do end up liking the character and she plays the part well.

Guest appearances are something else and they pick actors liberally from other genre shows (Alphas, The Bionic Woman, Star Trek, Torchwood and Buffy the Vampire Slayer to name a few). There are always going to be genre favourite actors and when they do turn up, it's a nice bit of geekery to see. What is evident, no matter who appears, is that they always seem to be enjoying themselves - Anthony Stewart Head as Paracelsus gives a hint of what an older Giles (BtVS) would have been like and he gives it his all in a panto worthy turn, adding a nasty edge to the role just for kicks.

Tonally, as mentioned above, the show was mostly light-hearted and whimsical, playing well with the concept. There is comedy, drama and action. The show was never afraid of presenting adult themes and killed off more than one or two of the main cast. The warehouse itself was destroyed at one point but an artifact saved the day, a running theme throughout the show that even they referenced from time to time. There were also crossover episodes with Eureka, another SyFy show of the time but they were limited to Claudia and Fargo (from that show), so effectively just extended cameos.

Were there issues with the show? Yeah, a couple. One was episode count. Respectively the seasons contained 12, 13, 13, 20 and 6 episodes. The elongated fourth season permitted two villain arcs but the truncated fifth was ordered just to give the show a send off after cancellation was announced at the end of season four. At least this was better than Eureka where cast and crew had to be hastily re-assembled in order to complete a final episode to be tacked onto what turned out to be the shows final season. The short fifth season does mean character and story arcs are a tad rushed but they still nailed the landing.

Aside from pacing issues, there was what can only be described as the bane of TV shows portraying the wider world - back-lot and set-dressing to hide the fact they were still in Canada. The most obvious of these were the 19th Century London set episodes following the backstory of HG Wells and Warehouse 12. It always seemed to be the same three buildings and a street corner. I am also sure that the "Moscow" streets were also "Paris" later in the same series, but hey-ho, it's all about illusion, though the portrayal of "Watford Racecourse" and the b-roll footage of "Paris" with a UK National Lottery ticket pod did raise chuckles.

Then there was the CGI. Now before anyone gets up to say that they only had a TV budget, I get it. You can only have so much money to show what you want on-screen but, like its stablemate Eureka, Warehouse 13 relied a lot on CGI: some of it decent, some of it terrible. Looking back, it adds a certain charm to the show even though the sheer naffness of it at times destroys all sense of disbelief. Then again, that's never harmed Dr Who throughout the decades.

The thing about Warehouse 13 is that was meant to be fun and funny, and it was both of those things. Whether you got the geeky references or the historical bon mots detailing the background of the artifacts, WH13 gave you 45 minutes of easy watching television and there are times when that is all you need. That sense of fun was no less apparent than in the establishing location shots. They must have had great fun deciding what each one would be. one favourite of mine is the establishing shot of Boston where the S in Boston kicks the T into the Charles River.

I was going to list a few of my favourite episodes but there are more than just a few and that could get a little tedious so I'll tell you about two episodes, both from the final season, that neatly sum up WH13.

"Savage Seduction", fourth of the season's six episodes, switches between two plots. Claudia and Steve investigate a campus where an artifact splits people into two so they can study and party at the same time (Steve, being gay, gets split into campy and straight versions of himself, the results of which are hilarious without falling into the stereotypical pit hole). Pete, helping his former girlfriend whose grandmother is trapped inside a Mexican tele-novella, is joined in there by Myka and Arty and the results are even funnier. It's in Spanish, so the cast's reaction to hearing themselves speaking Spanish is brilliant. Embracing the tele-novella format, the acting is so OTT that it reaches pantomime levels of absurdity, especially when the cast switch between their own persona and the tele-novella persona - the Mariachi band blaring away and the wind wafting across their faces at each transition never gets old. Indeed, the transitions get more exaggerated each time and I am sure Pete's mustache is insured by PETA. The OTT theme encompasses the whole episode, from the little Mariachi band during the opening credits to the revised theme during the closing credits. This episode shows the entire cast and crew aiming for the boundary and knocking it out of the park with ease.

"Endless" is the season (and show) finale, so what do they do? They do a clip show. For those of you who don't know, clip shows are used to fill an episode where the producers want to save money or there is a production strike or whatever. They re-use a ton of clips from previous episodes with the bare minimum of new scenes to tie it all together. They are cheap fillers. A classic example for those who have seen it is Star Trek: The Next Generation's season two episode "Shades of Gray". It is diabolical. They ran out of money for the season so produced the only clip episode in TNG's run and it did not go down well, to say the least. Anyhoo, back to WH13 and they finish the show on a clip episode, yet they play with that. Yes, it has the format of a clip show but they are all new clips, subverting the formula. They saved up for this one and boy, does it show! Starting off with a fantastic tap routine (42nd Street), they riff off Fantastic Voyage before ending with a sense of closure for the cast and a brief glimpse of the future. It is slightly forced (they could have used a feature length show for this to be honest) but they did a good job and I have seen far worse series endings. I felt quite sad the last time the credits rolled.

Alongside Eureka, Warehouse 13 is damn good light science fiction television. That it got 64 episodes is kind of a blessing and for me, it could have continued on for at least another couple of seasons. Having said that, going out when you at the top of your game is no bad thing.

Oh, and Lark Rise to Candleford? I watched the show a couple of years ago upon the recommendation of my better half and I quite enjoyed it. As a BBC period piece, it was a tad too twee for me but it was something relaxing to watch. For those of you who have seen it, may I pose a question? Wouldn't the set up lend itself to a period detective show in the style of Murder She Wrote with Postmistress Dorcus Lane as the sleuth? No? Just me then. Oh well, I'll save that for the fan fiction.