Can someone compare/contrast this game with the S&T on the same topic?
Thanks.
Thanks.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
rowcpa |
S&T 190 |
Lead | |
|
Can someone compare/contrast this game with the S&T on the same topic?
Thanks. |
|||
dingo182 |
Re: S&T 190 | ||
|
Here is a compare/contrast from a reader at Consimworld:
I've solitaired both, and I prefer Yalu, although I also enjoyed Gauntlet (S&T 190). Yalu puts the entire Chinese offensive on one map at divisional level, with 10 mile hexes.(However, I always felt a bit cramped at the southern end of the Yalu map; one or two more hexrows would have been nice down there). Gauntlet is at a smaller scale, and only covers the western sector of the attack.In Gauntlet, the units are at regimental level. In Yalu, the U.N. forces can break down to regimental level for the ROK, and all the way to battalion level for the Americans; otherwise all units are portrayed at divisonal level. Gauntlet features two-sided units, whereas the original Yalu counters were printed on one side only. Also, Yalu used 5/8 " counters; easy to handle and to read. IMO, Gauntlet is a bit more of a simulation, while Yalu is more of a game. That being said, Yalu has always seemed to have the right "feel" for its subject. A really nice feature in Yalu is the inclusion of "conscript" communist units to represent the unwilling civilians who were herded ahead of the red troops as cannon fodder. The assymetry of the two armies is one of Yalu's strongest features; this assymetry is less apparent in Gauntlet. This extends both to movement (the reds are leg-borne; the U.N. is more road-bound ) and to combat, where the U.N. can call on powerful support units, while the Chinese must rely on mass attacks. My final judgement: both are good games, but if I had to choose between them (fortunately I don't!) I would pick John Hill's Yalu. Here's the link:talk.consimworld.com/WebX...ee6fac1/69 I hope this helps, Ken at Compass |
|||
rsjrev |
re: Yalu | ||
|
I haven't played the S&T game, but I played John Hill's Yalu a lot when it was first released, both solitaire and with live opponents. My memories of the game are from the late 70's, but remain vivid. I recently bought a copy of the original, to replace the one lost years ago. I am very, very excited to learn that an updated version is coming out.
The "magic" of this game was that there were virtually two separate games going on, the UN player had a traditional WW2 paradigm, while the Chinese have a totally different approach, based on infiltration, etc. Whichever player can force the other to play "his war" will usually win. If the UN does not adapt to the Chinese tactics he will be totally demoralized and fail. If the Chinese player attempts to fight a "stand up war" he will be decimated. I have used Yalu as an example for the clash of conflicting paradigms in numerous lectures over the years. I have not seen any other game that could create an equal level of psychological stress on the players. For example, I once played Yalu with a friend who was experienced with several traditional WW2 games. He played the UN. Part way through the game he was so frustrated by the Chinese ability to negate his obvious advantages in firepower that he literally "bugged out", flipped over the board and stormed out of the room! (We later played a nice safe game of Midway to smooth the trauma over.) Like Hill's later Squad Leader, the game gave the "feel" of the situation. In the case of Yalu, that is stress of the strategic commander watching his presupposed "advantages" melt away. I've never played any other game that captured that "magic". |
|||
dingo182 |
Re: re: Yalu | ||
|
And the reasons you cite are the exact reasons we want to put this game back into print. And we're particularly pleased of course that John Hill is personally involved in the reprint and is working with Todd Davis the developer to ensure we do it correctly.
Ken at Compass |
|||
franklampard89.kingofpopdiscus... |
|||
|
|
|||