I have a strong suspicion he is trying to reflect Biddle’s model (or something similar) in which combat factors (preponderance of force or technology) is a minor predictor in the face of correct doctrine. The game thus ignores combat factors as something that can be abstracted but makes explicit the need for support via combined arms, situational advantage, slow moving, careful attacks and the need for reserves.
When using preponderance he is focusing on tanks artillery and air force as the only factors that really matter (something some studies I’ve read also point out, with infantry preponderance being not that predictive).
So, there are a lot of models out there where infantry does not really need combat factors other than being there in big enough numbers and coordinated. Which might work or not in the context of the game, but it is something I already appreciate him trying. And damn I wished the game was smaller map-wise so I could justify trying it.
I do agree homogenization is a possible problem, but if so I think it would be not because of the lack of combat factors, but because in a game about doctrine there seems to be nothing that explicitly forbids one side to adopt optimal doctrines. It might be there through systemic interaction and starting limitations (lack of support for one side, etc…) but that I won’t know without playing and there’s little explicit on the rules about limiting the options of either side.
I had the game preordered because I was interested in a Korea game and this was about the only thing reasonably new on the subject. Then I got wind of the Victory Games Korea being redone and cancelled my order. VG Korea gets a lot of praise. Not sure about K:F&I.
Being that it’s a _nouvelle_Shenandoah product, I will be passing on it unless it gets glowing reviews and any errors are fully corrected. Their performance (lack of, actually) in addressing deficiencies in the Gettysburg, The Tide Turns has soured me.
Well, pretty much nothing happens after the front stabilizes in early '51. Once the UN retakes Seoul the second time, from the Chinese, the line remains pretty much where it is today along the DMZ until the armistice in the middle of '53. So the mobile phase of the war is really the North Korean drive down and the rout of the ROK and token US forces, the Pusan perimeter and breakout at Inchon, the drive to the Yalu and the subsequent retreat, and the stabilization and recovery after the big Chinese offensive. That gets us to about, what, ten, eleven months since the beginning? So yeah, a year seems good. Unless you like simulating Pork Chop Hill type nastiness.
Oh I understand historically thats what happened, I guess when I see games shorten a conflict to “the interesting bits” what they are actually saying is “our simulation will not throw up the historical result if left alone, so we are gonna cut the time off early”. If that makes sense?
Yes, but doesn’t it make as much or more sense to say that if they are confident in their game and it DOES produce a historical result, then it would end with two years of absolutely nothing happening = boring game so they would just stop the game “early?” I don’t see any reason to assume the part they are cutting off would be due to ahistoricity. Boredom is just as reasonable a factor.
Well yeah, but for me part of my enjoyment for consim’s is the “what if”? Who says it was pre determined the war would slow down to a stalemate? I mean isn’t there a chance that war could have gone very differently? Straightjacketing the game like this bothers me a tad. Not much, but a tad.
I recognize I have just moved the goal posts in my argument but my thoughts are evolving :)
Nah, I generally agree with you. Korea though…really, it’s one of those situations that IMO really has very limited what-if possibilities beyond full-on war with China (not likely something a boardgame is going to build in as just one option given how complex that would be) or UN withdrawal (which was considered but wouldn’t make much of a game!). Given the geography, the forces, the logistical infrastructure, and UN air and naval power, it is hard to figure out any sort of reasonable branching outside of, say, an early end to the war in 1950 with the NKs more successful quicker I guess.
Once the UN and Chinese forces settled in, neither side had the power to change the line much. Hell, the US barely had enough manpower at the time to do what it did, and the Chinese “volunteers” had dreadful logistical challenges.
But in general, I agree that I like games to give me the flexibility to try different things. This war just wasn’t a conflict with much leeway.
Completely agree, there weren’t really that many sane strategic options. At the operational and tactical level I do think it hasn’t been so deeply studied as other conflicts.
Tactically, yeah, a good game system might find some interesting stuff here, though a lot of the fighting became set-piece night attacks and attrition, so how you’d make that fun might be challenging. Operational level stuff is usually my favorite, and that might be the nice middle ground perhaps.
We may be approaching it differently because of our expectations of how we would play the game. As someone who does 99.8% of his wargaming as opposed, in-person play, I really appreciate a designer who decides to create what I hope would be a tense, back-and-forth game about the mobile part of the war that is appropriately paced, and that leaves out the long, slow tail of the war’s end, simply because I can imagine the last two years being a real drag on our enjoyment. Nothing kills opposed play like stalemate. I know you are more solo-sandboxy with your play so losing the ability to experiment with new 1953 strategies might be a significant downside.
Good point, good point. That is true, if my game becomes a one sided or very dull stalemate then I find it interesting. If I was opposed then one or both of us would likely not be having much fun.
I had read that “Nuts!” had planned to issue a 2nd edition of this game, but the relevant thread on BGG has gone quiet. I don’t own the original. This AAR certainly piques my interest.
I never played VG’s Korea, but I’m pretty sure it covers the first year only, too. Unless a design does a lot of abstract fast forwarding, the last years of the war are pretty pointless to sim in detail.
I have the new Korea: Fire and Ice, and I think I’m going to like it. Have only read the rules, but I hope to play some later this week. It uses a pretty simple ‘pay supply to do most things’ system, which seems to fit this campaign very well.
Edit: Oh, and it also has a cool chit draw system to resolve combats (different chits for hasty attacks, prepared attacks, etc), which reminded me a little of Butterfield’s “Enemy Action: Ardennes” combat chits, and I love the way artillery, armor, air etc support work in combat. There are no armor or artillery units per se, the attacker determines his available support for an attack as a function of his overall available support, and the support availability on his combat chit draw.
