I was reading some old articles by my favorite thinker when it comes to games: Bruce Geryk. He has written some of the most insightful essays when it comes to strategy games, and specifically whether what we call games are in fact games at all. His somewhat digressive style got me to thinking about board games, and Men of War, and Company of Heroes. I realized when I analyzed (using advanced math and a can of Monster) the game design of both games, it reminded me of my favorite board game: Memoir ’44.
Memoir ’44 is a two player battle game: every game you are fighting just one battle. Little miniatures represent squads and tank groups, but they are just there as hit points. Other versions of the game system (Command and Colors Ancients/Napoleonic) use blocks. The plastic models look cooler, and give off the feeling of Army Men.
No, not these Army Men
The game uses a card mechanic to “simulate” fog of war and miscommunication. The board is divided into three sections, and the players are on opposite sides, so right flank to me is left flank to you. This also creates the bizarre mechanic of having units retreat back to the player rather than away from an attack. Section cards highlight sections of the board, and in that section you can command however many units the card lets you: from one unit to all of them in that section. There are special tactics cards that allow you to order things more specifically (order four tanks anywhere, four infantry, all artillery, etc.).
Combat is resolved with special dice that have two infantry symbols, one tank, one grenade, one flag, and a star. You roll a certain number of dice based on distance (artillery and infantry roll less dice on a target the farther it is), the defenders terrain, and any bonuses from tactics cards. The defending unit is hit by dice that match their unit symbol or grenades: my tank attacks your infantry that are on top of a hill two spaces away, I roll three dice, minus 1 for hill defense; infantry and flag; your guys take one hit retreat one space towards you. Pretty simple stuff.
You can play with 8 people if you have seven friends and a couple hours
The game is heavily luck dependent, and winning is sometimes based on good rolls and cards. I don’t mind this aspect, because it is a game where another person and I are interacting through the cards, dice, and mini’s. The game’s randomness actually reminds me of my favorite game: Cribbage.
Cribbage is the card game where a board keeps track of points. The dealer deals out six cards. The dealer and the other player have to pick two cards to remove to make a “crib,” the dealer’s second hand that only counts for scoring. Then the two play the cards alternatively to try and create different combinations and poker hands (two of a kind, which the other player turns into three of a kind). The play is scored, and then they both score the different combo’s in their hands. I am leaving out a lot, but you just need to understand the basic idea for my thesis.
I think memoir is basically cribbage in WW2, sort of how I associated Company of Heroes with chess earlier. This is a stronger argument though. Memoir has randomness with its cards and die rolls, but all of it is player driven. You have to make the best out of a bad hand, and the same goes for cribbage. There are reactions and counters your opponent can make that will destroy your plan. A bad die roll can save or destroy a unit. Cribbage forces me to think on my feet, to not have a set strategy, but instead play it by ear. Memoir is a game you play by ear.
