Pages

Sunday, June 5, 2022

Short reviews: Undaunted Normandy

I had the chance to play through the first two scenarios of Undaunted Normandy with an opponent last night and (as promised) thought I would share some observations. See here for initial thoughts. Note that we have not used all troop options yet - only scouts, riflemen, machine gunners. There are still mortars and snipers to come.

1) Deck building. When opportunites arise you can add cards to the deck. It seems like quite a good way of stacking future options in your favour. In your turn you draw a random limited number of cards out of the deck you've built and play with what you draw. Once you know what's in your drawn hand you (obviously!) can plan and play accordingly. 

2) Card activation. Both games were won against the board position by runs of cards which gave the opposition no ability to interfere with the winning outcome. With no real time 'opportunity fire' deterrent, it gives certainty to actions which perhaps real life wouldn't.

3) Card removal. An interesting way to simulate casualties by removing activation cards.

4) Bidding for initiative. As per 1, 2 and 3, you can calculate odds, decide whether it's an action or holding turn, and bid based on that.

5) Line of sight. There is always line of sight, no matter the terrain. Rolling a ten is always a hit on the enemy, no matter how skewed the shooting odds. Intervening terrain matters only for range, and cover is only for the terrain the target is in: i.e., it is not cumulative.

6) Victory points. VPs are gained by controlling certain areas on the board. Scenarios and sides have differing objectives, but winning on VPs only takes into account the territorial objectives, not casualties sustained in achieving them.

So far it is proving to be an interesting light war-game. We are both keen to play more, but the game has its problems as does every other tactical game of its type. So far the fact that both games were won against the run of play by good immediate card hands which the opposition was powerless to interfere with once initiative was determined is a potential negative (but may turn out to be a strength). 

It certainly has something. Again, I came away with an urge to pick up the expansions but am still resisting until I see whether I really like it or not. At this stage I would rate it a 7 out of 10. More to follow once we get further through the scenarios.


6 comments:

  1. I've also been interested in this game but I'm not too keen on deck building and the line of sight is an issue for me, but I'm still considering it as a good option for a quick solo gaming. I'm very intested in knowing more about this game from you. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Blacksmith. I would say that with the three games I've played I've already got my money's worth. Will certainly do another post once we've worked through a few more of the scenarios :)

      Delete
  2. Good thoughts on the game. I've also found that victory can come about due to a series of cards allowing a player to seize objectives unopposed which feels a bit 'gamey'. On the whole I've enjoyed it though as a light undemanding game (which increasingly suits me these days)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Alastair - I think your point about it being a light, undemanding game is the essence of its appeal to those of us who don't have the time (and/or wallets!) to go for some of the other options out there. Had another session today, and I'm sold.

      Delete
  3. Looks interesting, and if you came away with an urge to play again, that's a good thing!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is indeed Peter - and rarer than one might think!

      Delete