A Look at "Fields of Fire" - We'll Meet Again, Don't Know Where, Don't Know When...

 Solitaire Survey I, no.5: "Fields of Fire"

A Look at GMT's "Fields of Fire" 1st Edition

 

I am going to have to circle back to this game.

I am going to have to look around for some reformatted rules with the errata included or something and play more.

The are several things here worthy of a more thorough, careful, investigation and examination. And I just want to play it more. The “survey of solitaire games” isn’t meant for in-depth analysis. It’s more about impressions, accessibility, ease, clarity, etc.

Unpunched, but soon-to-be punched, FoF 1st Ed.

 

I’ve also assiduously avoided forums and general discussion about “Fields of Fire” for fear of contamination. I wanted go into this as free from any bias as possible. Thankfully, I know next to nothing about FoF’s genesis or design history.

To be honest, I hadn’t heard if it before the 2^nd edition was released. I assume that’s when I picked up this unpunched 1^st edition, around 2014, I’m guessing. It’s been sitting here collecting dust for years. I think I opened it once, looked it over, and said, “I’ll get to this later.” Well, later is now now.

Anyway, so there is an improved 2^nd edition out there, but I haven’t seen it. I imagine some portion of any criticism I offer here was probably at least somewhat addressed in the revised version, but I really couldn’t know for sure.

Cards in plastic. Do I have to sleeve these now?

 For purposes of the solo game survey, I played this as written in the 1^st edition. No errata.

And let’s call the game “FoF” from now on in this post. “FoF” means “Fields of Fire.”

First things first, with this game you get a quality GMT box and components. Counters and cards are easy to use. Good stuff. No complaints. Well designed. Aesthetically pleasing and utilitarian. However, to talk about 1^st edition FoF we have to consider the game itself apart from the literature i.e. the first edition rulebook.

The first edition rulebook is just bad. I think there are missing rules. Not incorrect rules, at least not many, just missing. Things left unsaid. Or key pieces of information whose manner of presentation is both so disparate and so well camouflaged that I can’t seem to consistently pull them together in a timely way when I need to.

The rulebook is not ordered well. Seems like it should be, the language seems clear enough, there aren’t typos to speak of, but there seems to be an assumption that the player knows certain things about the game that aren’t ever presented in the rulebook. There is this lurking hint of an expected a priori knowledge throughout. Sometimes reads like some of the rules sections were pieced together from a Q and A session that you weren’t privy to. 

 

I don't like punching counters.

There are  also instances of vague language or undefined terminology used in a regulation or rules statement. There are a bunch of little gaps in procedural and sometimes conceptual explanations. Makes certain play sequences a little difficult to parse.

Here’s a solid example; the actual use of the Action deck isn’t described well. I’ve never played a game that uses cards the way FoF does. I could have used a little more elaboration on this core fundamental and somewhat, to me, novel idea of an Action deck.

Moreover, the explanation of components is confusing and incomplete too, or presented strangely somehow. The labels on cards in diagrams intended to explain the cards’ various symbols and numbers are poorly referenced in and related to the accompanying text. Some symbols left unexplained.

And vital information and rules introduced in a chaotic and scattered way. The AT combat modifier on VOF chits, for example, Page 30, Anti-Tank combat modifier on VOF counters explanation in a little brown box – this rule and closely related information is presented in 3 other areas in the text, these VOF modifiers chits are used constantly during the game, but the explanation of the smaller of the two numbers on these vitally important game pieces is buried in the text in a little colored offset box. These colored boxes are used for everything from design notes and historical footnotes . . . to presenting vital core rules! What are the criteria for shoving info into those brown boxes? No rhyme or reason to it. And just generally, related rules spread out in different sections across the whole document, poorly cross-referenced or not cross-referenced at all. And there’s also several instances where vital info is sprinkled in alongside more general introductory descriptive text. Mixing actual rules with procedural descriptions without any sort of contextual signifier, or just placed or presented in an illogical or otherwise counterintuitive order, some odd choices, etc., very piecemeal, again, often  feels very patched together as if the text was taken or lifted from another older longer document.

But now let’s completely forget the dumb rulebook and focus on the game.

I ended up enjoying this a lot more than I thought I would, or maybe should, have. There’s something slightly indulgent about FoF.

It’s the kind of game you find yourself thinking about even when you’re not playing it.

I say “Fields of Fire” is a beast apart. For most of us, this is not a game you sit down with one Sunday afternoon and play.  It’s one of those you have to take some time with, get to know it pretty well. A game where not only is the campaign king, but it’s part of actually playing the game. You don’t just play one game of FoF and quit.

PC markers at the ready. The A's are almost certainly bad guys trying to kill you.

 

But it’s not really a product for the casual gamer, is it? Once I got it set up, and got to what I felt was actually playing, those first turns were still slow with lots of rules lookups as new situations arose.

There is a ton of variety in terms of factors applied to specific actions or firefights. There are many small but still meaningful and interesting modifiers that stack as you figure out the effects of different commands and troop actions. A dynamic situation. It can get a little complex in some ways, admittedly, but it’s good stuff.

What I’m finding with the solitaire designs is that they’re often so heavily abstracted and mechanical that you have to just set them up and start going through the motions to understand how they work. In the case of FoF, the complexity itself is part of the process of convincing you that there is an opposing force, an otherness in opposition “out there.” And it succeeds. Yet it’s very difficult to achieve this effect. To inspire this feeling in the player requires a fastidious balance and corralling of the randomness into novel but also sensible, useful, information. This game has a great bot, in my opinion.

 

I don't even know if I'm paying this right, but this turned into a real slugfest up here around the objectives. That PDF in the upper right shldn't be there, it's just there to remind me that an unspotted German FO is calling in strikes on that card.

Playing an infantry company captain . . .

This is not to every gamer’s taste, of course, no game is, but there are signs here of a conscientious deliberate appeal to the infantry tactics officer mind, a certain realism, emphasis on command and control as it should be, concreteness in specific ways. The platoons break all the way down to teams. But you’re counting rounds of ammo and patching together communications networks on the fly. You have like one .50 caliber and you need to use it wisely. The enemy can be ruthless.

It's game of command and control. Cease fire orders are absolutely necessary. There’s crossfire and smoke signals, and you can phone in artillery strikes. The Initiative phase, the so very American Initiative Phase, where a couple brave units can take big heroic actions completely disregarding the chain of command. No orders, just action. There’s a serious attempt here to give play the rhythm of company actions with various impulse and initiative phases, a clever use of time.  Psychic energy is almost quantified as a currency. Commands and orders can be saved representing time and energy used efficiently. 

 

Another nasty end stage fight. There's a pinned marker for the German fire team buried under the heavy weapons VoF.

FoF just does some things so well.

It may be more accurate to regard it as more of a game system than just a game. It can produce literally many thousands of unique scenarios to play. Tens of thousands. More maybe.

And I feel “Fields of Fire” was carefully crafted, it has coherence, and an internal logic. That’s something I look for. A sort of holism emerges in quality games. FoF has a bit of that, at least.

It’s a specific vision doing a specific thing. Distinct. Maybe distinguished.

Still, there are significant issues with the 1^st edition, so the second edition was necessary. There’s a cool game in here that was completely hobbled by a bad rulebook. 

 My end to the first mission of the Normandy Campaign. It's probably the simplest setup you can have. I called it victory and ended the game at this point. Rows 1 and 2 were clear of German units and I have units in the Objective cards without any German units present on those cards. Funny, the rules never really say how to end the scenarios. They give you victory conditions and campaign company maintenance rules but not really a guide to wrapping up on map activity . . .

Ultimately, though, for most people, there’s probably a touch too many little details to track here. The game demands an upfront investment of sorts. A steeper price than average for admission.  But I enjoy it. Willing to pay. The carefully selected menu of kinetic factors to emphasize and which to handle more abstractly is a flavorful mix. The game has a very distinct feel and charm. No included detail was arbitrary or without meaning and impact on the larger tactical situation. There’s some elegance in this somewhat tricked-out chromy mass.

Also note that here’s a title that if you don’t want to use reference tables and look things up you should avoid.

It’s probably the sort of thing where either you really like it or you don’t.

As for me, this is a game I plan on revisiting soon. Would recommend to a more experienced solitaire wargamer. Probably would advise against the 1^st edition.

On SPI's 1973 "The Fall of Rome" - So Bad I Couldn't Look Away

 

SPI’s 1973 solitaire game “The Fall of Rome” – I'm not even sure what this is . . .

Only played once. This felt almost like a crafting project, like I built something from a kit. It was kind of fun, piecing it together and making it run. But the whole time I played, was never sure, was never 100% certain, I don’t even know now, that I was playing this game correctly. Actually, I’m not entirely sure if “The Fall of Rome” is even a game.

 

Undoubtedly, “The Fall of Rome” inspired people. It gave people ideas. It is an influential game which is the sole reason I played it. But looked at specifically, at the original game itself, “The Fall of Rome” might not be much of a game, if it even is a game. If it is a game, it would almost have to be classed in the “tower defense” category, I think. But if it isn’t a game, then what is it? Because it’s not really a puzzle either, like so many other solitaire games are, that is, a puzzle masquerading as a game. Puzzles are solvable. No, “The Fall of Rome” is more like a model or process. A function. I’m hesitant to call it a simulation, but it does look like an attempt at one. Key feature; when the player has a decision to make for his Loyal Roman Forces, he only ever has one or at most two optimized options available. There may be room for creative play, but it’s a very constrained space. Yet, I can see the logic and intent behind it and so then there’s the old trouble of game v. simulation design complex bobbing up.

So here it’s important to reiterate before I go further; I played a 15-turn scenario and in the end I’m not entirely sure I was even playing the game right. That said, the thing I made from these rules did amuse me, but saying that, in this instance, is still the farthest thing from saying that virtually every criticism I’ve seen about this game is not wholly justified.

And another aside, on the survey of solitaire games posts, these are notes. Not reviews. Most of these titles have been dissected to the fullest elsewhere long ago. But even if they hadn’t been, this is just a record of my personal notes on each game, lightly polished.

A failed invasion of Gaul around turn 6 or 7. This powerful army unsurprisingly rebelled.

 

Decision rereleased this game at some point (S&T magazine #181, I think, I read). I haven’t really seen it or played it, but I can’t but imagine that at the very least they corrected some of the more obvious problems with this game that were easily tackled, low-hanging fruit, i.e. problems stemming from, related to, a result of poor component design. Just introducing some more contrasting color would have made a world of difference. “The Fall of Rome” color scheme is low key and its use almost seems completely detached from anything to do with the game play. Aesthetic concerns over or completely divorced from function. But from what little I’ve read, the Decision version is completely incompatible with the SPI game. There are significant differences in both rules and components, so it is, in my view, really a different game. With that in mind, I’ll proceed as though the Decision version is a distinctly unrelated separate thing altogether.

To begin playing, for me, took a bit of work. One of my first discoveries was that you have to write down a bunch of stuff. Hearkens back to the earlier days of wargaming, and so best practice here is to write stuff down. Hard to see any other way of playing, yet the rules provide zero guidelines for, or even really acknowledge, this more or less necessary step in playing the game.

Other obstacles to play, immediately apparent as one approaches the game, simple things, game system aside, are obvious. First, it lacks a sensible method for keeping track of important info in an easily accessed way. No color coding. No tracking display. And nothing as far as organizing the necessary, frequently cited, yet highly specific, granular, information into tables for reference. The physical system, the game’s material components, don’t lend themselves well to accounting for the actions and information flow in the game at all. For instance, the color scheme itself, or lack of, is often a hindrance instead of an aid to play because you have to read counters to tell them apart. Brown print on beige! Any type of player aid – however minimal – would have been tremendously helpful. There’s just a lot of information to track. Look at unit and scenario specific conditional exceptions to general rules; no guidance offered on what or how to make note of that stuff. The relevant info for how each of the 9 types of non-Roman forces behaves is spread out over the whole rules document. And the situation can be very dynamic, turn to turn, depending.

The game should have provided a way to track province control and militia activation and allegiance that can be ascertained at a glance, some sort of display tracker or pieces to graphically represent this vital information. At least.

Was completely driven out of the peninsula at one point.

 

But it gets better. Despite the component deficiencies, I think the actual core complaint about the game is probably that you spend the bulk of your playing time moving Barbarians and rebelling forces against Rome. You have no say in this, make no decisions, but follow a narrowly defined procedure for assessing each force and taking the conditionally prescribed actions with the force. There are individual programmed case-based behavioral rules for all the different types of non-roman actors…various Barbarians, Barbarian Raiders, Independent States, Rebel Roman Legions, and Persians. Each turn is a long stepwise sequence. Player assesses each force’s position, strength, and other situational factors to determine its actions that turn following a strict procedural checks scheme. It works, can arguably be interesting, but takes time. It’s a task 90% of people will or would find irksome at some point, at some time, while playing the game. Honestly, though, I didn’t really mind it . . . as much as I thought I would.

Further complicating this dismal picture: the rules as written. Vague language even after all the errata, which is approximately 1/5 again as long as the original rules sheet. (And then the errata need errata.) An example, “Empire” is an important concept used in determining barbarian actions and moves, but I can’t find its game-specific definition in either the core rules text or errata. Maybe it’s there but I keep missing it. And “conquer.” I think it means taking control of a province from another force type, but I don’t see the term expressly defined for game purposes anywhere. Again, maybe I missed it, but it’s odd that I can’t easily find a clear definition of the term, even though it’s used to define crucial game processes and conditions.

It's obvious that this game is a somewhat functional, but still early prototype of a game completely rushed through premature production, and clearly not subjected to rigorous playtesting. It could have been stripped down and rebuilt a couple more times probably before being released into the wild. It’s a prototype draft that barely works as presented. 

The comeback and subsequent failed invasion of Dalmatia.

 

Still, in my case, truth be told, once I got it going, “The Fall of Rome” wasn’t quite as bad as I’d imagined it would be. I started wondering what would happen among the programmed non-Roman forces. They sort of bang into one another and have nasty scraps and since the Romans usually end up fighting the winner, it is of passing interest, at least. This very thing, deriving some amusement from watching this dice and table fest unfold, I believe, was what the designer was entirely banking on in this case. I found myself cheering on the Persians even though I knew their successes ultimately threaten Roman control of Asia; watching a twilight zone alternate history unfold as Scythians overwhelm Germans and spill over their ancient historical borders. Good stuff.

So “Fall of Rome” was surprisingly entertaining in places. Better than zoning out with devices or scrolling social media. The experience, sort of piecing it together with duct tape, priming the pump, getting it running and watching it play out, was a decent pastime, particularly for someone who enjoys the chaos of the 3^rd Century and the barracks shenanigans.

I was entertained enough to finish the game.

Even so, in the final analysis, there are too many poorly catalogued special cases, too many vague or confusing rules or terms, probably too many random variables, along with the poorly conceived graphic and material components, to ever really get a good rhythm going for more than a turn or two. If asked, I couldn’t recommend this unless you’re some sort of student studying old bad games or a masochist.

Personally, I don’t think it’s that egregiously ahistorical, either, per se, but it is to some degree or another. Some of the sequences of action that can play out would be hard to explain in real world terms.

I lost the game, btw. After 15 laborious turns, I lost the 260 AD scenario. Was really a Persian win, I think. In my game, the Scythians were an absolute terror. 

Losing at the end of turn 15. I ran out of Revolt markers. Had to use a blank for Gaul. Total chaos. Good times.