"SHAKO II" Topic

For anyone that has actually played the new rules…

can you comment on them…..

Thank you……..

I think they are great.

Easy to play and gives you the right feel for the period.

Tony G.

I've played them a few times now at conventions and they were alot of fun. I havn't bought them because I don't have a single Nap figure. But I most likely would buy them if I was into that period.

Is it that much of an improvement over Shako I to justify the cost?

is there a list of the 1805 scenarios anywhere?

See previous thread "Is Shako 2 value for money?" There are over 50 posts in it.

Regards, Bill Gray
ageofeagles.com

The list of 1805 scenarios includes:

Wertingen, Gunzburg, Haslach-Jungingen, Elchingen, Albeck, Caldiero (south flank), Caldiero (north flank), Caldiero (3rd day's battle), Amstetten, Mariazell, Durrenstein, Schongrabern, Raussnitz, Austerlitz (south flank – Telnitz), Austerlitz (Pratzen Heights), Austerlitz (north flank), Grand Austerlitz, Stecken.

Its worth the money and its probably the most played game out of all of them. I see it everywhere, and Napoleonics should be played with Battalions and Regiments.

How can any game have a square block or a grouping of figures and say its a French Napoleonic Division, why can't it be a Waffen SS division, or a Greek Phalanx. Just by adding a factor to the block, Oh; it now has Skirmishers attached. This is a Joke.

Napoleonics must have Battalions and Regiment, and most of all they must be able to form Columns, Lines, and Squares.

The great thing I find with Shako II, i can play these big battles in half the time than those Brigade/Division games.

P.S. a pack of 50 15mm unpainted figures cost almost the same as Shako 2…..a movie cost more for 2 people than the rules, and you only get to see it once.

Napoleon

"Is it that much of an improvement over Shako I to justify the cost?"

In my opinion Yes. Absolutely.

Polishing of original mechanics
Clear 3D technical diagrams
Rules additions and improvements (Initiative, skirmishers,squares, Arty pullback etc.)
Town Melee clarifications
Special troop types added (Sappers/Staff Officers)
Interesting Special Rules additions.
Expanded pick-up games listing (many countries)
Quatre Bras OB and Scenario

All in all very solid.

Those with something else to sell have been knocking Shako II at every turn. (must be doing something right)
Look for it and judge for yourself. A must buy from my standpoint.

Considering how much wargamers spend on their hobby, I'd be embarrassed to complain about the cost.

TRU

OK, I've waited several hours before I respond, so here are two points and one serious question.

Point 1, you're wrong, company level is the ONLY way to play this era. If you can't maneuver and fight with sections and peletons in accordance with the Reglement of 1791, you are a disgrace to the hobby and Napoleonics in particular. And if that sounds like balderdash, it is, though no more so than "Napoleonics should be played with Battalions and Regiments." Each scale has its merit, and each scale can provide period feel. I play both battalion and brigade games, and right now I prefer Shako for the former. Its simple, fun, has good period feel and uses a similar mounting system. What else could one need.

Second, when ever someone tells me they can play a battalion level Dennewitz (that's like 160 K combatants) in half the time as AOE or Grande Armee, all I can say is show me. No opinions, I want recorded numbers and spreadsheets. I actually did this for some articles in Historical gamer and the like, and for market research I have stood, watched and timed some of Dave Waxtel's Shako II games at Fall In, Cold Wars and the like. The game works pretty damn smooth for a battalion level game, and quick when compared to Empire and similar. However, the times I recorded were not close to what we pull in AOE, and I can't believe its any different for Grande Army or V&B. If your bath-tubbing a scenario, the comparison is pretty much invalid.

And what really bugs me is that the fact a battalion level game might be slower should not convey that there is a design flaw at all. Its not, far from it, yet people defend such games on this aspect as if their parentage were insulted. Its a physical issue as in moving, fighting and adjudicating combat with a single unit (a brigade) vice eight different units (the eight battalions in the brigade). On the other hand, if you like more tactical flavor in your gaming, you won't necessarily find it slugging it out with brigades. That's one reason I play both levels.

Finally my question. If Shako II uses the same number of figures regardless of strength, is there any disadvantage to an army that has a smaller number of really big battalions historically(Austrians at Hanau, 1100 men per) vice an army that has a lot of really small battalions (French at the same battle) as regards covering the front and so on? If not, why not?

Regards, Bill Gray
ageofeagles.com

Bill
shako II and I for that matter, do cover big and small battalions. Battalions over 1000 get more stands and a higher break point, small battalions get a lower break point.

Oh, OK. This may be picky, but assume the battalion (Austrian) has 900 men historically and the French battalion has 250, and I run into this a lot because I love the 1814 campaign. Same number of stands and is there any perceived disadvantage to the Austrians for not covering the the same amount of front?

I've not played the game in a while, but because it popped up on the other thread, thought I would ask (I'll also break out my copy of Shako I and reread tonight). I'm not sure how I got the impression that all battalions had the same number of stands regardless.

Regards, Bill Gray
ageofeagles.com

On cost:

For myself at least my concern about cost isn't "is it a good value?" so much as, "will it be wasted?" I know I am going to paint the figures I buy eventually, but we all have rule sets sitting on the shelf that we paid $X essentially for the benefit of reading 1-3 times and never playing. A lot of factors play into that but because of basing and buy-in from local gaming groups, etc … either we play the rules we buy because they are popular in our geographic location or because they grabbed as so strongly we made them popular among our friends and opponents. I think, therefore, that most of the cost concerns come down to a question of that: Is it popular, will it be so great that *I* choose to make it popular?

My question:
Command and Control – someone want to tell me about it? I have not played Shako or Shako II, I prefer battalions as the unit of maneuver but corps as the unit of command, i.e. each player has a corps but the formations moving about are battalions. I'm a big fan of command and control focus and therefore a big fan of Legacy of Glory. Can someone speak to / outline how it works in Shako II?

Thanks.

Cheers,

The Bandit

FAO Bill Gray

How often in posts do I throw in the line, "You pays your money and you takes your choice"

You've got your view. Conliffe, Waxtel, Leach have goth theirs. Fine.

I've played both your system and Shako. both work, but for an enjoyable game (with the stress on GAME) I'd go for Shako any time.

You may well know your stuff. But you don't half come across as a pompous twit.

FAO Jeremy Sutcliffe,

Given that I agree with you whole heartedly, I'm not sure why you're so bent. I'd think that anyone who proclaims that if you aren't playing companies (or battalions or brigades), then you're not playing Napoloenics (or ACW or Seven Years War) pretty well beats me in the pompous department. Damn, I'm pretty much an amateur. And I'll stick to my guns on how long it takes to play the game. I've asked for the data to prove the allegation of many people, and have yet to see anything in return.

But what you conveniently missed was that it shouldn't matter. It doesn't to me. I like playing small battles at the battalion level, and after years of never finishing a game of Empire/FVTW/Revolution and Empire, etc, Shako was a breath of fresh air. It still remains my choice so far, and I haven't seen any challengers.

Bill (pompous twit) Gray
ageofeagles.com

Bandit
I'm not the best at explaining things but here is a quick/ruff run down on command and control for SHako II. Basically each divisional commander (DC) has a command radius all divisional units (cav/inf) must remain with in this command radius. There are 2 or 3 orders you can give these commanders defend/attack/ timed orders. Defend orders are just that don't move defend. To attack you draw a line from a division to the place you want it to attack/move to (on your deployment map at the start of the game). Your DC now rides that line of attack on the table and all his troops (cav/inf) must move with him and remain within his command radius. The only way to change your initial orders is by sending ADC from your C-in-C. This has some risk attached as the ADC can sometimes be delayed or killed. Some nations have more ADC than others thus they can change more orders per turn or send more ADC to the same DC in the hope that 1 will get through on time.
The command system makes you plan your battle a lot more, winging it is a lot harder.

roundie

can we call you Pompy?

BTW, right on Bill.

every rule set has its fans

and every gamer has their mental model of what went on in a battle and why their favorite rule set "captures" that essence better than another.

vive la difference!

P.S. a pack of 50 15mm unpainted figures cost almost the same as Shako 2…..a movie cost more for 2 people than the rules, and you only get to see it once.

Napoleon

your getting ripped off if you are paying $42 USD for a pack of 50 figs 15mm or paying that to see a movie with a friend.

hey I got some 15mm napoleonics, wanna buy them for a discount of $35? Got all kinds……

I like Pompy :).

Regards, Bill Gray
ageofeagles.com

I am amused and sense some insecurity at the sheer effort in finding fault with Shako. No amount of discussion is going to sway Shako fans, most of who have better things to do than criticize other rule systems. We know what we like.

The comments herein are intended to persuade players who've less exposure to Shako to stay away from it. As rmcaras states – everyone has their own vision of which rules work and why they are satisfactory. Gamers for other systems can beg and plead, but players who haven't chosen one or more Napoloenic rule systems will have to try some.

I respect Jeremy's comments because he constructively indicated what he likes and dislikes. Some of other comments are feeble attempts to influence the masses. I will continue to host Shako games at conventions knowing full well that the system is great and players who try it have a great time. I suggest advocates of other systems suck it up and do the same. Nobody is winning any votes on the forum.

Cheers.

FAO Machine – I agree totally.

FAO all Shako fans – get a grip guys. My initial comments took issue (and apologies, because now that I reread it, they were a bit terse) with the attitude of the author, not the game. Its like you folks are concerned the game can't pass the muster of any criticism, and my comments weren't even about the game. Given my experience with the 1st edition, and given the other battalion level alternatives, I have high hopes the rules will do well.

TRANSLATION – I liked the first game, and I'm sure I'll like this one. I do plan to buy one.

The question on frontage was legit, because Jeremy brought it up in the other thread. The same issue occurs in La Grande Armee and seems to work OK, so I was just curious as regards how it worked in Shako. It was not a challenge to anyone's manhood.

I will say the pricing is a long range concern and I will be following the success of the game closely. The reasons are the very same ones raised by Jeremy, but more importantly, are very similar to comments raised when Napoleon's Battles II came out. That game, from what I understand, tanked, so I am curious if this might be a trend to watch for the future as regards all games regardless.

And now for a public service announcement, Old Glory 25s just announced they will be extending the 40% discount to the Shako II volumes for all Old Glory Army members. Its a $ 50 a year membership, but given you would save, what, $ 33 + off the bat, it might be worth it.

Cheers, His Pompousness

First of all if Bill says he likes Pompey, he needs to know that in an English context it means he supports Portsmouth football team.

My critique of Shako 2 in the other thread was related to disappointing final production values/price. From the outset I commended the Shako system, which actually ids the only one of Conliffe's that's got under my skin. By now the value for money thing has run its course and is water under the bridge.

Reflecting on the answer that Bill now accepts was "terse" there are issues of detail in it that make me think that as Bill is, I believe, of a military background, there may well be things that fascinate him in terms of level of detail that I can brush over.

I love the Fire and Fury system, of which Age of Eagles is a cousin/derivative, but it comes into its own on a large table. It also need some time working out unit sizes/stats before a game I managed its Quatre Bras scenario on my 6x4 but ecven that felt crowded. But that's a criticism of how I use my dining room table rather than Bill's rules.

But with Shako, bless its cotton socks, working from the pickup lists, I can be set up for a game within an hour (including assembling my 6x4 to go on the dining room table).

Well said.

Bill Gray
Colonel, US Army (Retired :)

How does Shako 1 or 2 compare with Principles of War. That's what we used to play at my old club, but since moving I've not had a Nappy game, so I'm curious about introducing a new ruleset and period to the club we all won't know.

NPoW is more abstract, in representing neither individual battalions nor skirmish screens. That's the reason I prefer Shako by far(even if, like Jeremy, I had reservations about the price of its 2nd edition). On the other hand, I expect NPoW is better suited to re-staging large battles…

If your troops are based for the notional 3 base POW units you are more or less OK for Shako as it too functions on a 3 base notional unit (actually just 2 for cavalry). You'd have to accomodate a small number of three skirmisher figures on a 90mm base.

There's no need for a roster sheet although you need a discrete on-table marker for casualties building up to the fatal morale rating equivalent.

Ok, so I've questioned the cost of Shako 2, but once bought, it is not a set you would only use once.

How about Pompey Massismus?

OK.

Finally got round to using them today.

I think we picked up on most of the differences, not that there were that many. The main drag was stopping to look to see if there was a difference, and trying to read the page numbers on those little shields didn't help.

Otherwise a good game.

What are the basing conventions in Shako?

Shako is pretty flexible about basing, so long as both sides are based the same; the book gives about 4 different suggestions.
Figures based for Naps Battles or Empire will work fine.
3 or 4 stands to a unit, generally.

Would Shake 2 work for Heroics & Ros 5mm? How would the basing look?

Sorry Shako 2

Go to link and pose your question. Someone on the forum will likely play in that scale. I know the rules are quite flexible and will support many scales. I don't know what the conversion rate, if any, would be. You could likely follow the basing scheme (one of them) used for 15mm. The game scales are modifiable for various figure sizes, base sizes and table sizes.

Tank625

I reckon it would work OK. The fact that there's no figure removal helps. If I did it, I'd play it to the 15mm scale which is 2/3 25mm scale. I suppose it would convert easily to 1/3 scale if you wanted something massive)

I've based 7 10mm figures to 30mm x 15mm bases giving me a 3 base notional unit (as you need for Shako [1 or 2]) of 21 figures. Gives a nice feel of mass.

Would be an even better illusion with two ranks of 6mm per base (although I suspect Baccus 6mm bases would have to be on40mm x 15mm. Doesn't matter if both sides on the table are compatible.

Thank you for the info.

Do you have to buy Shako I as well as Shako II in order to get the complete set of rules?

Or, is Shako II a complete set of rules by itself, as an updated version of Shako I?

Bill

Shako II is an updated version and stands alone.

I just got back from Historicon, 2008. Dave Waxtel and the Maplewood NJ gamers hosted a number of excellent Shako II games, including 2 games of the battle of Talavera. The guys running the event put on a spectacular show that blew all the other Napoleonic rules and games away. The 28mm Napoleonics looked gorgeous. Shako II is fantastic and plays well with a couple guys per side or 8-10 playesr per side. It works for small, medium and large battles. Historicon was memorable because of Shako raising the bar on Napoleonic gaming, because of the realisim and the fun.

I read where the Carnage and Glory II Mockern wargame won best of show at Historicon.

So Shako II may have done well, but there should be a slight correction to the comment that it "blew all the other Napoleonic rules and games away."

Carnage and Glory won best of show – yes the figures looked great and so did the table set up. I won't deny that – what the judges failed to do is get the perspective of a number of players who walked away at the end of the game and informed me that the game sucked and sitting waiting for a referee to impart information was a complete waste of time. I sincerely do not wish to slam the effort of the game's hosts but the feedback from several, and I do mean several players was that they would never play the system ever again. One of my two best friends sat in on one of the Carnage games and regretted the experience. Best of Show should be based on a lot of factors – primarily the feedback from the players.

You can turn around and state that one or more Shako players did not enjoy their various experiences. True – no system will please everyone. I witnessed both and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that the Shako players were engaged, both in their unit movements, rolling dice, firing, melee etc. Many Carnage players were catching up on anything but Napoleonic gaming.

Respectfully, having sat in on one Carnage game myself (not Mockern), you couldn't pay me enough to try it again.

Out of interest does anybody know if Carnage & Glory II is still available commercially?

Yes C&G II is still available (there is an active Yahoo group). You can do a Web search to find the developer's site.

"Machine"--well, I wasn't there and only read the best of show wargame news blurb. I have not tried Shako/Shako II. We've used the C&G II system at a few Cons and it worked well. But, at least you have now explained your assertion about "blowing away" other Napoleonic wargames.

"The game sucked" is an overgeneralization that doesn't provide much explanation other than personal preference (i.e. it is mere opinion). The comment about disliking waiting for the referee to impart information tells me that those who disliked the C&G II system probably like to "roll dice" and "control" things (and what they really didn't like was not having rules to argue about and being stripped of the control wargamers typically have in non-computer moderated systems). That is okay with me, but if one doesn't like C&G II because of not getting to roll dice, predict results from charts, and not being able to argue with the computer about rules--then at least be up front about it.

From what I can glean the large battle was completed in less than ten hours (and I did see some pictures of the set up--quite nice). Obviously some of the participants are posting on other sites that they thought it was a great experience. And that is why there is more than one flavor of ice cream!

I acknowledge your comments. Yes, I do like to roll dice and "control my units".

Let me describe a personal experience with C&G which has nothing to do with rolling dice. I come on the table with a French cavalry division – fresh. The Anglo-allied army starts just outside charge range of the French strung out on the march. I sit for a half hour, while waiting for the "referee" disemminate information to each player, who like me, sits and does nothing. This isn't control – it was literally sitting and doing nothing. At this point, my turn comes up and I charge a limbered allied battery (3 sections) which is some 18 inches from the closest battalion – with no cavalry support either. At point blank range the allied battery unlimbers one section of guns (2 guns) and it fires – blowing away my divisional commander and doing devastating casualties to my lead brigade. On the following turn I commit my second brigade, which has never been engaged in melee and from my perspective is fresh (so I was told). I then sat for another half an hour and socialized with other French and allied gamers while the referee typed information into the computer. Okay – nothing wrong with socializing with people, but I don't need to do that at a war game convention. I showed up at Historicon to play. At this point, an hour has gone by and I've moved one brigade once, which was destroyed by a single section of unsupported artillery which managed to unlimber at point blank range. I have moved my other brigade twice and am now about to hear the next combat sequence. Lo and behold, the other two unsupported sections of artillery unlimber and inflict some sort of catastrophic casualties on my second brigade. Without a divisional commander and my command wiped out, I sat for an hour and watched the rest of the game unfold. I.e. I sat for a couple hours waiting for my reserve to come on, which frankly is poor design for a convention when people come to play, not sit. Then in two consecutive turns after arriving on the table, I move and get blown away by unsupported limbered artillery.

I'm sorry, but THIS SORT OF SET OF RULES DOES NOT BLOW ME AWAY. This post can be deleted by the TMP manager.

Good convention game design needs several factors:

1. players are involved in the game
2. rules need to simulate the period
3. players should be active as much as possible

My personal experience with C&G (not II) met none of those objectives. I didn't need to roll dice to figure out that 99.99999% of the time, an unsupported limbered artillery battery that is a good half mile or more away from any friendly unit should not be unlimbering and taking on an entire fresh cavalry division. I sat for 3.5 hours and managed two moves after figures arrived on the table. I then watched the most unrealistic simulation of what limbered artillerymen would do when caught in the open and 1/2 mile or more away from support units, while being charged by an ENTIRE division of cavalry.

How do I know it was more than half a mile? Easy – tally the battalions or cavalry regiments in line – the length of the units and average the frontage that represents for real ground. The experience wasn't about losing or winning – I have had my share of both. It was about engaging the players in an active way, keeping their attention, simulating Napoleonic warfare. C&G I failed to do any of this.

Against my advice, my friend (Bill) sat in on a C&G game at Historicon this year, and came away saying the exact same thing – sat around, wasn't engaged = BORING.

Is Shako or Shako II perfect = NO. Did I see a lot of arguments or predicatable results = NO. Were the players engaged = YES. I am sure a couple players were unhappy with either the element of luck or the end results of commanding troops which did not perform adequately. I am also sure that while the game was in progress, the same players were able to move their units many times, hoping for better results or mistakes by their opponents.

I respect that you are an advocate of C&G. I am posting here to discuss how much fun Shako II was for me while attending Historicon. It was not my intent to flame C&G so while you respectfully indicate it won an award – sure, whatever. Shako II was impressive and for me, blew all the competition away. I saw 18 and 17 players respectfully, play two games of Talavera, many of the players not having ever played Shako or Shako II before. By the 3rd turn of the game a lot of these players had grasped all the core mechanics of the game and were playing the game with comfort. 12 turns were played in the first game in 4.5 hours with 18 players. The whole battle was fought to a rather bloody draw although I suspect if the scenario had allowed a prolongued number of turns that one side might have achieved a better result. The second game was a smashing victory for the French – a combination of luck, skilled play, an agreed on battle plan. Allied players walked away from the table exclaiming that they loved the rules – a few indicating they had tried Shako I and didn't have a good impression of it, now changed their minds.

I've played both systems and stand by my opinion. You haven't, by your admission, played Shako II. While you have your favorite rules, I recommend you sit in and play a Dave Waxtel run Shako II game at another convention and then come back with an opinion on it. I will respect your opinion, whatever you feel.

Respectfully,

Machine

Machine:

Interesting about the "waiting" and "boring" comments because in our use of C&G II, we keep things moving and the action proceeds at a good pace (and we always complete the wargame). There was a discussion about various computer moderated systems a month or so ago and I noted the many things that we do to expedite the computer-moderated wargame. Having everything organized ahead of time and an experienced referee (experienced with C&G II) are two "must haves" for a successful C&G II wargame. I think most complaints about the system derive from inexperienced referees running the game.

There is a Shako II wargame at a regional Con in a month or so. I will try to participate in it. Given your enthusiasm for the rules I'll check them out and then can share my thoughts.

I will note that often it is not the rules per se that make for a bad experience, but the experience (and interpretational skills) of the referee (and every now and then a rules lawyer).

Lest:

Stick to your guns. I was at both games for quite some times, snapping a bazillion pictures for the HMGS Website, and saw something quite different. While there was a fussygrump or two at both tables, the overwhelming majority of players at BOTH games were having the times of their lives. One needs to remember that what makes you cringe as regards one set of rules is the very same thing that makes another stand by them against all comers.

Machine is neither objective nor disinterested in his evaluation. The C&G game beat SII for the top prize for the very same reason it beat my game. C& G Mockern was the better event. People were having fun just like they were at the SII game (and I talked to quite a few at both), and the visual presentation was better by far. From someone who has never, EVER been able to cozy up to a computer moderated system, the judges made and excellent choice, so deal with it.

Now from this non-disinterested party (I have a game, also published by Waxtel, that semi competes with SII), I did purchase the game and was able to talk to a few folks on the SII team. Here is what I gleaned.

- Quantum is having (quote) "tough time pushing the game." Evidently Dave printed 5000 copies offset which should have lowered per unit cost. However, he used a professional layout artist and this may be what pushed the price up.

- Graphics presentation. Drop dead gorgeous, second to nobody, this game rocks. Hell, I'd rather snuggle up to SII on a cold night than Catherine Zeta-Jones. Its that damn good.

- It LOOKS very complex, but I think this may be perception, not reality, due the bazillion charts and 140 pages. There is only one page of quick reference charts – always a good thing – and the game I saw flowed quite smoothly and very quickly.

- Yes many of the illustrations and pictures did come out smudged and way too dark. Surprisingly, this really didn't bug me. Also, I talked to one individual who had access to the final pdf file and he swears that it did not look this way, meaning something happened between file and printer. I believe him. I had a similar though opposite issue with my recent scenario book. In this case the images came out way too light. The printer indicated that in order to get a high resolution look, this was normal and advised me to go back and adjust all images 10 – 15% darker. Given the amount of illustrations and time constraints this may not have been possible with SII.

- Fluff and glitz. This is a semi-negative, and a gut feel based on absolutely nothing concrete. My impression is that the book is about 30 – 40 pages too long due to the font, formatting and layout. Also it is a bit diagram heavy with the 3D format exacerbating the problem. The biggest offender is all of the period chrome such as the sidebars, the two Detaille figures adorning the top of every page and the multiple leaves filled by a period painting with a short quote by Nappy, Blucher or Dave Waxtel. It looks great, but my impression is that gamers by nature are more of a "form follows function" crowd, particularly in this economy, so this may be the thing that is causing many to balk.

Overall? I got 20% off at Chesapeake Bay Miniatures ($ 33.60) and I think it well worth that price. If it kept the simplicity of the first edition, you'll likely see me doing battalion level battles very soon. At $ 42.50, I dunno. I got burned when I forked over $ 50 for Revolution and Empire, so I'm gun shy. It would be a tough sell.

Regards, His Pompousness
ageofeagles.com

Bill:

Thanks for the info! We're sticking with C&G II for sure, but I noticed that there will be a Shako II game at a regional Con I often attend. I'm not putting on a wargame this time (so I can focus on having some fun myself for a change)! I'll give Shako II a try if it fits into my schedule. At least then I can say I tried it.

I've run three large C&G II wargames (ACW, 2 – Napoleonic) at Cons and all three finished in nine hours or less (with a couple of breaks included). I do have a copy of AOE by the way (and have tried the ACW version).

Our group likes removing as much artificial control as possible from commanders and having more fog and friction and C&G II adapts well to campaign-based battles.

Thanks for sharing the details from the event. Several of the involved people in the C&GII Mockern have said some nice things about the game on another site.

HMGSONE and Lest We Forget,

Thanks for your comments. I agree with Lest We Forget that a great host/game master makes a world of difference. The whole purpose of my post-Historicon post was to acknowledge the skills and efforts of Dave Waxtel and his NY/NJ compatriots. They really impressed me, not having had the opportunity to play in one of their games before. I will concede that a prepared game and skilled game master will make a world of difference. My reason for playing an earlier version of C&G was to see if the rules captured the Fog of War. The rules did that, but the computer simulation lost my vote because of either the game master's typed data or the software's inability to look at the entire picture and evalute sufficient variables to determine the probability of unsupported limbered artillery doing what it did. This is beef number one. The second issue is 9+ hour games. I'm sorry – you might preach till you're blue in the face, that this is an attraction to many. OK – but that subset of the gaming community doesn't include me. I go to Cons to try different systems because I am impartial and unbiased, looking for different methods of simulating war fare through games. On this point HMGSONE has not categorized my position correctly. He's missed the point.

Let us assume for the minute that I had a lousy game master for my C&G experience – would this account for

- the length of each turn in terms of gaming time?
- the likelihood of limbered artillery making a stand
- the inactive non-participatory state of the players involved
- scenario design which did not hold interest

MAYBE, but since I experienced all 4 of these points, I can honestly state my opinion on this forum that C&G doesn't compare. I don't want to spend my entire gaming Con, let alone what can be measured as the majority of a day with one rule system. Shako II's scenarios, and there were 5 hosted by Dave Waxtel that I know of, all completed in 2-4.5 hours; each game playing 10-12 turns. Mockern, despite raving reviews, still took 9 hours, which does not appeal to me. Married, with kids and other commitments, I want to be able to set up a battle, play it in a single session and play it to conclusion. Shako does this, even for battles as large as Talavera with approximately 2,500 figures (my guess based on approximately 70 units per side with each infantry unit varying between 16-18 figures. In addition, there was artillery, skirmishers, commanders etc. to bring the cavarly units up to the same average, 4.5 hours for the first and less time for the second game to fight the entire battle to conclusion impresses me, with 17-18 players.

HMGSONE says Mockern was well received – okay. Age of Eagles works too – it comes down to want people want to play and see. I respect Lest We Forget for giving Shako II a try. If you have a great game master, you'll likely love the system. If you don't get a game master who is prepared, and your experience is unsatisfactory, then you'll better understand what I and my friend have gone through with C&G.

Either way, i wish you the best.

Machine

HMGSONE has acknowledged that over all b

"Yes C&G II is still available (there is an active Yahoo group). You can do a Web search to find the developer's site."

I'm coming up either blank or with a couple of 'dead' sites. Could anybody help an old man out with a link, per chance?

Writing as the person who pushed Bill Grey into defining himself as "His Pompousness", I must congratulate him on his self deprecation.

And to continue by commenting on his remarks about Shako 2. I've had my say about the poor impact of the b/w photos. It wasn't intended. And Bill makes a valid point about the period chrome etc. It happened. It's water under the bridge.

I agree with Bill 100% on the quality of the isometric situation diagrams although not in preference to Catherine Zeta Jones.

Certainly S2 looks complex, especially compared with it's slimmer daddy but taken in conjunction with the diagrams it does fall into place easily. But this is one of those sets of rules where you only to play two or three times and you are rarely having to look at the reference chart, never name the main body. (well not quite, but you know what I mean)

At the end of the day, what really works in this hobby is word of mouth (or message board post) and most words about the playing experience of the Shako mechanisms is very positive.