Alternatives to Surrender

The First World War is a game I have been waiting over a year to get (in English). It is designed by Ted Racier and published by Phalanx Games. It is a "euro-wargame" and covers the war in Europe in a simple but interesting way that can be played to completion in a few hours.

The game board divides the map of Europe into three Theaters of War - the Western Theater, Italian Theater, and Eastern Theater. Each theater is sub-divided into two or more numbered Fronts. Each front contains the location of one or more victory cities. Ordinary victory city locations are shown with a box, color-coded to show the original owning faction. Replacement centers are shown by a circle in place of a box. Each front also contains one or more faction bases (hexagon shaped) which act as a special sort of city. Bases and cities within each Front are connected by Attack Lines which indicate which cities may be attacked. Finally each Front lists which armies may be deployed or moved there. The addition of blank "dummy" armies adds a "fog of war" element to the game.

One potential problem I have with the game are the "sudden death" surrender rules. It is possible (and very likely in my experience) that the game will end suddenly when one side fails a surrender roll (often a 1/6 chance). At first, I thought this "sudden death" surrender rule was an interesting idea. But after playing a number of games and every one of them ending due to a failed surrender role (even when the side rolling was in a good strategic position, i.e., "winning", otherwise), I began to feel that the surrender role hurt the game more than it helped. I like this game a lot, but I'm not a fan of the Surrender rules as written. There has been some discussion about this topic on ConsimWorld and a number of alternative ideas have been proposed:

1. No Surrender in 1914 - this variant simply stipulates that there are no surrender rolls made in the first two turns of the game. Beginning in 1915, the normal surrender rules apply.
2. Use a 10-sided die for Surrender rolls - Simply substitute a 10-sided die for the game's 6-sided die when making a Surrender roll. This will decrease the chances that a Surrender roll will fail.
3. Opposing Surrender Points cancel out - In this variant, Opposing surrender points cancel each other out on a one-for-one basis. A Surrender roll only happens if one side has had a greater number of Surrender points imposed on itself than it has inflicted upon the opponent.
4. Treat Surrender Points as "special" Victory Points - In this variant, the Surrender roll is done away with completely. Instead each time a Surrender Point would be scored (by an successful attack on a "Base", the side that got the Surrender Point would instead lose a Victory Point. In the game, victory points are won or lost each time a city changes hands. Victory Points lost when a Base is attacked, on the other hand, could never be regained because no city changes hands. The best a defender could do would be to push the attacker away from the Base, so additional victory points could not be lost.
5. Treat Negative Victory Points as Surrender Points - Allow Victory Point totals to go negative and a faction's Surrender Point total is equal to that faction's number of negative victory points.

Obviously, some of these variant ideas are exclusive and some complimentary. #2 could be used anytime a Surrender roll was required. #5 could be used alone or in conjunction with #4. Alternatives #3 and #4 are mutually exclusive.

I have not had the opportunity to experiment with all of this alternatives yet, but I'm leaning toward using #4 in my next game. My only concern is that #4 does away with the Surrender roll entirely and I'm not sure that's a good thing. But I'd like to try it out and see how the game plays. Otherwise, I think option #3 looks interesting. Surrender is still possible under this alternative but less likely and the side with a Surrender Point can do something to mitigate the disadvantage, namely inflict a canceling Surrender Point on the opponent.

The First World War appeals to me on a number of levels. It covers a topic of history I have interest in and it scratches my wargame itch. At the same time the game isn't overly complicated and doesn't take a long time to play. It's a good example of a "euro-wargame."

Bits & Pieces . . .

New games this week: Sword of Rome and Dagger Thrusts.

Sword of Rome is a member of the "card driven" wargame (CDG) family and published by GMT. It's been on my "to get" list forever but now that "stock is low" and the game is likely to soon be out of print, it was time to pick it up. The game has pretty good buzz and it is a CDG (and I like CDGs...), so I'm hoping to get a chance to play it soon.

Dagger Thrusts is the latest S&T game (#233) and examines the potential Allied offensive plans in September of 1944. Montgomery's army could drive straight across the Rhine and into the Ruhr or try to outflank the German fortified defensive line and cross the Rhine at Arnhem. The other possibility was to let Patton attack towards Metz and swing North into the Ruhr valley. Historically, the decision was made to try the outflanking attack and take Arnhem with operation Market-Garden. In this game, players can see "what might have been" if one of the other attack options had been chosen.

I played a handful of games this week: Circus Flohcati, Poison and Bang! are lunchtime favorites at work. I also played Kimbo, Havoc: The Hundred Years War, San Juan, Arkham Horror, Trans America and Basari.