From: hannon@umbc3.umbc.edu (Mr. Scott Hannon)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: FGA games (was Re: OLD SPI FAVORITES RE-RELEASED?)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 16:56:23 -0500
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
NNTP-Posting-Host: umbc4.umbc.edu

In article <1993Jan12.120320.1@ccs.csus.edu> wilsonjc@ccs.csus.edu
(Joe Wilson) writes:
>
>     Even though I've heard nothing but complaints about FGA's rules (most 
>comments included the word -unplayable-), I went ahead and picked up their
>Kasserine and Bastogne games.  I haven't played them yet, but they "look"
>pretty complete.  I did notice one glitch in the victory point calcs for 
>Kasserine, but I'll know more after playing.  Has anyone else out there
>given either of these games a try?  I'm hoping that by stealing the SPI
>design, they didn't mess things up too much.

I played FGAs _Bastogne_ game a few months ago. As you say, the rules are
complete and nearly errata free. However, they still managed to screw the
games up. How? Well, these two games use a differential CRT, rather than
an odds based CRT...just like the SPI games. But by doubling the unit
strengths [compared to SPI] for step reduction, this screwed up the CRT
results because they basically left it unchanged from the SPI games!

Consider: an SPI 5 vs 3 attack would be a 10 vs 6 attack with FGA [since
the FGA strengths are double the SPI values]. However, the SPI attack is
resolved on the +2 column [5-3=2], while the FGA attack is resolved on the
+4 column [10-6=4], but the CRTs are basically the same [the +2 column
on the FGA game looks more-or-less like the +2 column in the SPI game].

[Note: The FGA game uses a 10 sided die, the SPI game a 6 sided die]

The result of all this is that the side with local superiority can attack
and wipe out the enemy rather easily. In the case of Bastogne, this leads
to the Bastogne garrison being annihilated before the US reinforcements
arrive [turn 9?...I think the Germans killed the last US unit on the map
on turn 8!]. The 2nd scenario is just as skewwed [but for the US]. I
never did get to play a real campaign because the game never lasted past
the time-frame of scenario 1. 

I originally thought it was just me...that I was a miserable player.
Then someone mentioned the CRT problem compared to the SPI game. Given FGAs
past history, I now believe the problem is not me, but rather is a design
defect. I suppose the fix is obvious: redo the CRT by halving the FGA one.
The fixed CRT +2 column should have the results listed under FGAs +1
column, the fixed +4 column should have the results under FGAs +2 column,
etc. Requires some interpolation, etc, to fill in the other columns.

I've not tried fixing the CRT yet, as I got annoyed with FGA, and then
distracted with other games. I bought Kasserine recently, and intend to
make up a new CRT [eh, more in line with the SPI one, as described above]
before playing.

Based on what I've read [as well as played/seen], the FGA games might be
rated something like:
   Operation Crusader: hosed, but OK with new rule book/errata.
   Civil War Classics: heard almost nothing good...so-so/poor.
   Pacific War Classics: half OK/good [tarawa], half so-so/poor [siapan].
   Eagle and the Sun: a good game *kit*, but so-so/poor as a complete game.
   Brother Against Brother: another good game kit, but so-so game.
   Defiant Holland: so-so...it looks worse [history wise] than it is.
   Bastogne: so-so/poor...needs CRT fix to be OK.
   Kasserine: the same as Bastogne I think.

Scott.
-- 
Scott Hannon, Tue Jan 12 1993 (hannon@umbc4.umbc.edu)