I wrote a preliminary review of The Regiment: Rolling Thunder from Art of War Games, where my basic sense is that the scenario book is a serious effort, but with too many questions left for the reader to fill in.
Simultaneously, I have been asking questions on the Art of War Games page on Facebook, and posting clarifications back on TMP when I was able to get them.
Unfortunately, after a while, the designer stopped answering my questions!
At that point, I figured I had all the information I was going to get, and posted my review of the scenario book to Wargame Vault.
And then, I thought, oh, give the designer another chance, so I asked him one more question (about how the "sensors" work that you're supposed to destroy in scenario one – sort of an important bit that got left out
).
To my surprise, tonight I see the designer has answered my last question
sort of:
Read my reply to your so called review before you ask me anymore questions Bill. If you are going to review something at least make sure you know what you are talking about. If you ask me questions then you should maybe read my responses until you understand and if you don't understand then ask until you do. 2 stars really?
You can see my Wargame Vault review – and his response – here: link
Sadly, he's also removed most of my questions – and his answers – from the Art of War Games page on Facebook. This is a shame, because the info would have been useful to anyone trying to play the scenario book.
Some quotes and comments from his reply to my review:
The regiment player must use regiment equipment
That's a surprise, I thought the vehicle designs were optional as long as you went with the indicated point totals. That means no engineering vehicles to take out the minefields, no counterbattery radar to take out the enemy artillery (2 batteries, total of 12 guns in the early scenarios!), no repair vehicle to keep from using up Logistics Points, no aircraft, no anti-aircraft
yow!
At no point have I ever said that ACAVs transport infantry.
From asking questions of you, it's clear to me that you have an idea of how you want The Regiment to be organized. It's just a shame you didn't include that information in the scenario book. As for ACAVs that don't transport infantry
sorry, I was thinking of vehicles such as the M1 Bradley.
Infantry in the Regiment use hoverbikes and count as dragoons (which are infantry forces that travel as cavalry but fight as infantry) under Dirtside II rules Cavalry rules can be found on pages 13 (under infantry forces), page 25 and 26 (under infantry movement and terrain effects) and page 53 under infantry points cost "cavalry cost an additional 50% of the basic element's points cost"
Yes, but those are infantry riding animals. I don't think you mean for hoverbike-mounted infantry to move at the rate of men riding camels?
Regiment infantry are organized into 6-man squads mounted on bikes supported by a crew served heavy weapon mounted on a jeep. I though that this is fairly simple and self explanatory
Except that it's not in the scenario book at all, I had to dig it out of you by asking questions
and then you give me an answer about putting a command element into a platoon of infantry, which makes me seriously wonder if you play Dirtside II. (The whole idea of Dirtside II is that communications have developed to the level where there's usually a single command element for the entire combat force!)
I would expect a reviewer of wargames scenarios to understand the difference between infantry, cavalry and dragoons.
And maybe I'm just wrong, but is it wrong to expect a scenario designer to provide rules when he introduces things which are not in the rules he's writing scenarios for?
Data cards are provided for the vehicles but it is up to you to find vehicles that fit your personnel visual aesthetics. Another simple google search of blower tank will take you to Hammer's Slammers sites complete with models (which are made by Old Crow models if you are interested though he is on hiatus and his store is currently non functional) I don't make models but if you had bothered to ask I could have pointed you in the right direction. Also someone who runs The Miniature Page should not have any trouble finding models for these vehicles since there are a plethora of manufactures out there to choose from.
Seems a little strange to come out with scenarios featuring models (Old Crow) which are currently unavailable
yes, some models are available from GZG
again, why not mention it in the scenario book? Why make things harder for the customer?
The reason to reduce the Regiments points is that in real life combat not all casualties are directly related to enemy fire and some vehicles must be combat losses due to maintenance or mechanical failure. During the Regiment's march into Republic territory the Regiment will lose vehicles and personnel to simple accidents or mechanical failures. Hence the slow reduction in points.
But the campaign system already does that, so reducing the points for each scenario just seems redundant, plus it fails to allow for a Regiment player who does unusually well (or bad).
The Campaign is designed to be played from scenario 1-12 without repeating any scenario but if you wanted to play scenarios more than once then who am I to say you can't
it is your game. Do what you want.
This is strange, because the campaign rules specifically invite players to replay any non-Unique scenario – and none of the scenarios are marked as Unique! Though when I asked you about this, you told me four of them were actually Unique. Now, you're claiming they all are???
Artillery spotters in scenario 1 are the Republic Sensors and count as a size 1 vehicle which is destroyed if it takes any damage.
Thank you for finally answering my question, but why is it like pulling teeth to get you to cough up info that should have been in the scenario book to begin with? You still didn't answer my questions about what they look like (if I play the scenario, I need a provide a model, right?), are they armed, and rather importantly, do they begin play hidden or in plain sight? And if they're vehicles
sheesh, I hope you don't mean the darn things are mobile!
Scenario maps are not included because a detailed description of the table and terrain are provided but I guess some people need pictures.
The "detailed description" for scenario one is "
our axis of advance will take us along the old coastal highway. The highway has been cut inside the DMZ but it will get us part of the way through." Doesn't tell me a lot. As a Regiment player with a GEV force, I want to know where the bad terrain is (i.e., woods!). And if there's a coastal highway
does that mean there's sea? Cool, GEVs love that! Do sensors go into the water? Do we have any channeling terrain, such as cliffs, gorges, mountains, or even hills? By the way, what kind of a planet is this, anyway?
This entire review makes me wonder if you actually played through the campaign with an opponent or simply read through it.
The campaign is impossible to play without further information from the designer.
Since you didn't know the rules for Dirtside and based on the numerous mistakes you made reading through the campaign scenarios (despite lengthy explanations from me and noted above) I give your review 1 out of 5 stars.
And you know what I think? I think you whip these scenario books out in a week or so – based on what you've said on your Facebook page – and that you don't playtest them (which is why there are so many holes), and you don't even seem that familiar with Dirtside II.
Based on this product, I doubt anyone can play through one of your scenario products without doing a lot of design work on their own to fill in the gaps.