Thanks, Gilbert. So many of Worthington's games are sold out and can only be picked up by third parties. Since the games available typically come at an above-list premium price, your reviews are saving me a lot of money as well as pointing me towards good buys.
Graf Zeppelin was launched in 1938, but was never operational. It wasn't scuttled until 1945, so it's not much of a stretch to have it operational in the game.
I ve heard very good things about Eastfront, which i already own, but not so much for the rest... i am confused if i should continue with the series... any light would be welcomed! Thank you!
Theres also a Holdfast Pacific War that is also Naval. BTW, you dont say why did you decide not to buy any more block games... I find them interesting. Thank you,
The block games are simple and fun but I don't find them very good as 'simulations'. The roll to get a '6' system is a bit dated now and the 4 sides of a counter for limited intelligence isn't all that novel anymore. At least for me. They are still widely popular.
@@XLEGION1 highly recommend Fields of Despair. The blocks can be from 0 to 20 to simulate the fog of war. It's WW1 on the Western front. At the very least look into it
The first thing that struck me with the map was that Germany is missing East Prussia, if we're going by 1939 borders (ignoring the Sudetenland, the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia and Austria that were all annexed by that point).
same thought (but you mean all Eastern Provinces of Prussia, not only East Prussia . that's a no-go. That just shows the lack of quality in Worthingon games recent times.
Question: How does one play board games by themselves? That's why I've never gotten into them and always fall back onto PC (computer) based historical games.
There is not one single answer. Some board games are better suited for solo play than others. Good game companies will have a rating about solo suitability on their games, but you need to have played some of their games in order to trust the scores. The more a board game is like a puzzle with open information for everyone, the better it is for solo play. A game with more hidden information or secret orders (like the X-wing miniature game that I have going on my table now) is not well-suited for solo play. You have to try to be scrupulously fair about what you would do, but there is always an element of surprise missing. And in case you are interested, the TIE Advanced (which should have been a Howl Runner TIE) made a bad turn because of my piloting (maneuver template) inexperience. It exacerbated the Rebel strategy to break up the expected TIE swarm with ion cannon hits. The B-wings are about to re-formate with a stress token on one, but this one looks to be swinging to the Rebel Alliance.
From my experience the block type games are not the best at solitaire play but certainly not impossible. Simple keep one side hidden, play honestly and the game will work.
Thanks for the answer, Gilbert. I think I'm going to try one of these Holdfast series. Is this Atlantic your favorite or would you recommend another one?
I didn't purchase any of the 'holdfast' series except this one. I saw the Pacific naval game played at WBC and it was much more involved than the Atlantic one. Both seems to be pseudo-un-authorized copies of the old Avalon Hill titles except converted to blocks. I liked the Atlantic one because it was simpler. The pacific one seemed a little too abstract and very long to play.
Hello Gilbert- excellent review as always. Interested in your point re errata- in my experience all boardgames, even from the 'big boys' like GMT, suffer from rules anomalies. Should I infer that Worthington are really poor in this respect, or is this game 'doable' without too many amendments? I'm considering a purchase, but your view on this potential problem has made me hesitate.
This game more or less is 'ready to go'. Just a couple of things are not explained well, but nothing an experienced gamer cannot handle. But, I still stand by my original statement. I have supported many of the Worthington games but no longer own them. The "Napoelonic Series", 'Prussia's Defiant Stand", 'Caesar in Gaul', 'and their WWI western front game all had problems and my job as a consumer was not to try and 'fix' these things. Worthington just needs to 'slow down' a bit and play test more. I think they accept titles from designers without trying the game out themselves. I blame the designers for this too. They shouldn't submit products that have not been thoroughly play tested. But, in their zeal to get published they get lazy. But this game is just fine as is. It is light and that is what it was meant to be. I will be playing it again.
Well, to tell you the truth I find the Worthington Games not developed enough. They need to ' outside play test ' there game more. There's always an un-finished feel to them. Although this game is so much like Avalon Hill's War at Sea which has had decades of playing, they dodged a bullet there.
They aren't historical in the conventional sense--usually alternate history. The counters aren't ugly--far from it--but they suffer from high complexity--I mean more complex than OCS.
Ha! good one. Actually, I have designed a game. "Mr. Madison's War" published by GMT in 2012 was my magnum opus to the 200th anniversary of the conflict. As a resident of Ontario it was kind of my 'bi-centennial project'. I have done other games but have not attempted to have them published.
This looks like a great wargame intro for newbs. I can certainly see how the attractive packaging could entice a purchase. Blocks are definitely a better intro to wargaming than counters, IMO, simply because they are more tactile and three-dimensional. I still remember the time I opened my first wargame box (The Russian Campaign), some 40 years ago, and my initial, albeit short-lived disappointment with the cardboard counters, which I considered a ripoff, at least until I read the rulebook, which I then realized was really the thing you paid for with such games. Nice review.
game is a lot of fun for sure. but that rulebook is one of the worst I've ever seen. they managed to overcomplicate what is ultimately a simple system.
You keep coming up with these wonderful games, I really like this one.
Thanks, Gilbert. So many of Worthington's games are sold out and can only be picked up by third parties. Since the games available typically come at an above-list premium price, your reviews are saving me a lot of money as well as pointing me towards good buys.
Graf Zeppelin was launched in 1938, but was never operational. It wasn't scuttled until 1945, so it's not much of a stretch to have it operational in the game.
Those are some sweet blocks. It looks like they've had the corners clipped!
I ve heard very good things about Eastfront, which i already own, but not so much for the rest... i am confused if i should continue with the series... any light would be welcomed! Thank you!
I don't own any of the titles in this series but for this one. I only purchase it because it was a naval game.
Theres also a Holdfast Pacific War that is also Naval. BTW, you dont say why did you decide not to buy any more block games... I find them interesting. Thank you,
The block games are simple and fun but I don't find them very good as 'simulations'. The roll to get a '6' system is a bit dated now and the 4 sides of a counter for limited intelligence isn't all that novel anymore. At least for me. They are still widely popular.
@@XLEGION1 highly recommend Fields of Despair. The blocks can be from 0 to 20 to simulate the fog of war. It's WW1 on the Western front. At the very least look into it
The first thing that struck me with the map was that Germany is missing East Prussia, if we're going by 1939 borders (ignoring the Sudetenland, the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia and Austria that were all annexed by that point).
and Ireland is still British! :)
same thought (but you mean all Eastern Provinces of Prussia, not only East Prussia . that's a no-go. That just shows the lack of quality in Worthingon games recent times.
Also missing Silesia. This is West/East Germany post-WW2. LOL
I played Napoleon it was with blocks. It was kind of fun.
I have war at sea but an idea could be to retro fit the new combat rules in this game save using all bloody hit counters!!
Question:
How does one play board games by themselves? That's why I've never gotten into them and always fall back onto PC (computer) based historical games.
There is not one single answer. Some board games are better suited for solo play than others. Good game companies will have a rating about solo suitability on their games, but you need to have played some of their games in order to trust the scores. The more a board game is like a puzzle with open information for everyone, the better it is for solo play. A game with more hidden information or secret orders (like the X-wing miniature game that I have going on my table now) is not well-suited for solo play. You have to try to be scrupulously fair about what you would do, but there is always an element of surprise missing.
And in case you are interested, the TIE Advanced (which should have been a Howl Runner TIE) made a bad turn because of my piloting (maneuver template) inexperience. It exacerbated the Rebel strategy to break up the expected TIE swarm with ion cannon hits. The B-wings are about to re-formate with a stress token on one, but this one looks to be swinging to the Rebel Alliance.
How did Scappa Flow migrate to the Irish Sea?
HConstantine Teleportation. Also look at the German frontiers - they are the current ones not the 1939 frontiers
Great review. I'm very interested in these series, but, are they suitable for solitairie gaming?
From my experience the block type games are not the best at solitaire play but certainly not impossible. Simple keep one side hidden, play honestly and the game will work.
Thanks for the answer, Gilbert. I think I'm going to try one of these Holdfast series. Is this Atlantic your favorite or would you recommend another one?
I didn't purchase any of the 'holdfast' series except this one. I saw the Pacific naval game played at WBC and it was much more involved than the Atlantic one. Both seems to be pseudo-un-authorized copies of the old Avalon Hill titles except converted to blocks. I liked the Atlantic one because it was simpler. The pacific one seemed a little too abstract and very long to play.
Will go for the Atlantic, then (taking into account that I'm a wargamer beginner). Thanks again, Gilbert.
Hello Gilbert- excellent review as always.
Interested in your point re errata- in my experience all boardgames, even from the 'big boys' like GMT, suffer from rules anomalies. Should I infer that Worthington are really poor in this respect, or is this game 'doable' without too many amendments?
I'm considering a purchase, but your view on this potential problem has made me hesitate.
This game more or less is 'ready to go'. Just a couple of things are not explained well, but nothing an experienced gamer cannot handle. But, I still stand by my original statement. I have supported many of the Worthington games but no longer own them. The "Napoelonic Series", 'Prussia's Defiant Stand", 'Caesar in Gaul', 'and their WWI western front game all had problems and my job as a consumer was not to try and 'fix' these things. Worthington just needs to 'slow down' a bit and play test more. I think they accept titles from designers without trying the game out themselves. I blame the designers for this too. They shouldn't submit products that have not been thoroughly play tested. But, in their zeal to get published they get lazy.
But this game is just fine as is. It is light and that is what it was meant to be. I will be playing it again.
Quite right gilbert!I've given up on Worthington games the only one I've kept is wilderness empires!great components but rules are a mess!
Well, to tell you the truth I find the Worthington Games not developed enough. They need to ' outside play test ' there game more. There's always an un-finished feel to them. Although this game is so much like Avalon Hill's War at Sea which has had decades of playing, they dodged a bullet there.
Hi, is this game too simpel? Greats from germany.
Groß Admiral I would not call too simple. It is easy to learn, easy to teach but you have multiple options during gameplay. This is a very fine game!
You would think for a game about World War 2, they could have gotten the map of Germany right. Instead they have a map of 1992 Germany. LOL.
Why does it show the 1989 borders of Germany? When did France annex the northern part of Spain including San Sebastian?
I am not the designer.
They aren't historical in the conventional sense--usually alternate history. The counters aren't ugly--far from it--but they suffer from high complexity--I mean more complex than OCS.
Ha! good one. Actually, I have designed a game. "Mr. Madison's War" published by GMT in 2012 was my magnum opus to the 200th anniversary of the conflict. As a resident of Ontario it was kind of my 'bi-centennial project'. I have done other games but have not attempted to have them published.
This looks like a great wargame intro for newbs. I can certainly see how the attractive packaging could entice a purchase.
Blocks are definitely a better intro to wargaming than counters, IMO, simply because they are more tactile and three-dimensional. I still remember the time I opened my first wargame box (The Russian Campaign), some 40 years ago, and my initial, albeit short-lived disappointment with the cardboard counters, which I considered a ripoff, at least until I read the rulebook, which I then realized was really the thing you paid for with such games.
Nice review.
I think people are taking my comments about the rules too seriously. This game works just fine. Some common sense will clear up any anomalies.
OK, I edited my OP.
game is a lot of fun for sure. but that rulebook is one of the worst I've ever seen. they managed to overcomplicate what is ultimately a simple system.
I agree here. This game improved some aspects of the original "War at Sea" but made some thing unnecessarily complicated and obscure.
brest is in the wrong place.
Brian Wolle So are the land frontiers...