Just re-discovered the Central Front Series after a 25-year hiatus and what an interesting system! Definately OLD SCHOOL SPI (and I love it!). I started off with Hof Gap and played it solitaire. The friction point mechanic can be a bit off-putting but once you get used to it, it makes sense and to a degree replicates the temp of modern combat operations- you can keep hammering but it's going to come at a price.
The Soviets are better equipped to burn out their divisions in exchange for blowing holes in the NATO front line but even they have to be careful. If NATO plays it right, they can make some devastating counter-attacks.The end result was that NATO managed to bring the Soviet offensive (more like the Czech offensive) to a halt and things turned into a modern version of the Western Front. According to the victory conditions, it was a NATO operational victory since the Soviets were unable to get anywhere close to exiting units off the map and they didn't rack up too many NATO casualties. But it was close...
Probably the NATO victory was more the result of my mis-reading or forgetting key rules but also it takes a bit of mental planning to optimize your attacks.Definately worth a deeper look- now to break out 5th Corps and give that a try. Then BAOR...
7 comments:
Hello Adam, I was born and grew up in Hof, and I knew about this game before, and it's interesting to read that some people actually play it until today. ---
I never had the chance to play it or read the rule, and I actually don't know too much about those kinds of wargames (well, I know "Axis&Allies", but who doesn't?), but as I found your blog now, I was wondering if you could probably help me with my questions, please?
Is the NATO player getting the opportunity to use "Atomic Demolition Munitions" (ADM) to contaminate Hof and the area around the city, so that the Soviet player has problems to rush through? ---
I learned in school that Hof would have been one of the areas that the NATO might have sacrificed in case of an Soviet attack, by using ADM. And I always wondered if this possible in the game too. ---
And in your personal rating, as a fan of Consims, would you consider "Hof Game" as one of the better games or somewhere down below? Is it in your Top10? ---
Thanks and take care. Pete
Pete-
Hof Gap was part of the Central Front series, which was a fairly innovative wargame system when it first came out. The problem with it though is that it suffered teething problems and the rules were constantly being modified as the individual games were released (Hof Gap was the second in the series). The idea was to eventually be able to link each game and create a larger game.
Ultimately, the rules were changed so much that the individual games were incompatible so the series was never finished. Plus, with the end of the Cold War, the market for this sort of thing diminished.
I wouldn't put it in my Top 10 but it's pretty thought-provoking and the game system goes a long way to providing an interesting simulation of operational modern warfare.
As for ADMs, the game doesn't provide for them although there are optional rules for tactical nuclear weapons. I usually never play with them since it alters the game mechanics plus I believe that the use of tac nukes would have ultimately led to a large exchange so why bother?
Anyway it's an interesting game but probably not likely to attract much interest these days.
Wow, thanks a lot for all the info.
I actually had "Hof Gap" once, but only for two days, as our class bought it as a goodbye-present for our history teacher, as he was the one who told us about all the controversy it stirred when it was published.
But it is good to know that it is not that spectacular, so I didn't miss anything.
You're right, the usage of ADMs would have been the beginning of the end. Not such an interesting option for a board game actually ;-)
However, thank you very much.
Greetings from Berlin
Pete
I have played Boar and 5th Corps several times and combined, never got to join up with Hof Gap as we never had enough players to do it all - 6 would have been needed.
Nato has a tough time but the Soviets become increasingly fragile as time goes on and unless you rotate your units (i.e. rest them) they die often and fast.
With two maps the options open up and you can stretch Nato and male it really very difficult to defend, but again counter attacks can be devastating.
I still have all 3 games plus the other two from 3W, pity they changed the rules and counters, still were quite good games.
I have played Boar and 5th Corps several times and combined, never got to join up with Hof Gap as we never had enough players to do it all - 6 would have been needed.
Nato has a tough time but the Soviets become increasingly fragile as time goes on and unless you rotate your units (i.e. rest them) they die often and fast.
With two maps the options open up and you can stretch Nato and male it really very difficult to defend, but again counter attacks can be devastating.
I still have all 3 games plus the other two from 3W, pity they changed the rules and counters, still were quite good games.
This could have been an interesting game series if they'd simply stuck with one set of rules and then better flesh out "campaign rules". As it turned out, joining the games together created more of a "Frankengame" than a unified whole. Too bad.
Nice to know that I'm not the only still playing these. :-)
Have some really fond memories of solo-playing Hof Gap's sister Donau Front multiple times during the summer of 1990. Like other posters, really wish SPI had managed to hook together the rules of the various games to make a proper campaign, but ultimately they came up with some fantastic mechanics that really rammed home how a 1980s Central Front campaign could have become a high-tech World War One all too quickly, and how much operational creativity was needed to circumvent this.
Post a Comment