Tomorrow's War, the new hard sci-fi tabletop wargame from Ambush Alley Games and Osprey Publishing, is something of a hybrid. It's not a skirmish game where individually armed soldiers move around the battlefield on their own initiative, nor is it a stand-based game like Alien Squad Leader, where the smallest unit is a base of 3-5 figures representing a single squad or fireteam.
Rather, Tomorrow's War uses individually based figures (of any scale, though the book uses plenty of 15mm and 28mm example photos) to simulate squad-based actions. Single figures don't fire at single targets; instead, squads add up their firepower based on the number of effective troopers plus any support weapons. They roll these attack dice against a similar handful of defense dice representing the opposing squad and any cover modifiers.
This basic engine forms the nucleus of a very innovative, playable sci-fi game. It's clearly designed to model gritty, near-future sci-fi, rather than the zany, far-future hijinx that other games cover all too well. The rules don't differentiate between basic trooper weapons — an assault rifle = laser rifle = heat ray. But that's OK ... Tomorrow's War rewards common sense tactics, which is refreshing to say the least.
Our club tried out Tomorrow's War last month after receiving a preview copy from Osprey. Having played 5150 from Two Hour Wargames, we were pleased to see that Tomorrow's War's reaction/overwatch system forms an integral part of the game. Each turn, the player who wins initiative can choose to place some or all of his fire teams (the smallest unit building block in the game) on overwatch, thus giving them the chance to interrupt enemy actions later in the turn. Then, non-overwatching units get to move and shoot like normal — but the enemy can attempt to react to these actions with reactions of his own. It's the rare turn where you'll be sitting on your hands, waiting for your opponent to finish moving his dudes.
Unlike 5150, these action/reaction cycles don't go on forever. There is a clear stopping point, which TW defines as a "round of fire." Our club liked this a lot, as we'd gotten caught up in several seemingly endless chain reactions during our last game of 5150.
Some games offer a super-granular approach to weaponry (think lots of +1 bonuses, different range bands, templates, etc) but TW deliberately ignores all this. Basic soldier weapons can see and shoot anywhere on the table within line of sight. Every piece of open ground is a potential kill zone.
Differentiation comes in the form of various troop stats, which are generally shared by everyone in a given unit. Troop Quality is the most common stat rolled, but there's also Morale (how inspired the troops are on this particular day), Tech Level (better tech = more firepower), Supply (well supplied troops can afford to waste ammo), Confidence (do you trust your logistics supply chain and senior leadership?) and Combat Stress.
Frankly, the number of individual stats here seem a bit overwhelming. Why differentiate between Morale and Confidence? Semantically they mean about the same thing, and I don't think the game would suffer much if they were just rolled into one stat. Thankfully, most firefights will involve just Troop Quality and Morale.
It's also clear that the authors LOVE their acronyms, especially as it pertains to weaponry. I can't tell you how many times I struggled with abbreviations such as RGL, NOE, SAGP and SLAM. Often these abbreviations showed up in sentences, only to be defined in a pullout box three pages later. Not good, especially when the reader (me) is flipping pages trying to find the definition so he can properly get his game up and running! The writing assumes a level of military tech-speak that I don't yet possess.
Another quibble is the wound system. When a unit takes casualties, the figures may be 1) dead 2) lightly wounded or 3) severely wounded. If it's the last two options, the figure stays on the board but reduces the combat effectiveness of the squad (as they administer first aid and move more slowly with the wounded trooper). The rules for this are fantastic, but the execution pretty much requires you to place a bunch of little counters, chits or markers next to lots of individual figures throughout the game.
In our game, 3 of 4 figures in a fireteam had taken wounds, which meant that there were 3 individual tokens attached to the team, for a total of 7 little doodads that needed to be moved whenever the squad moved. This resulted in a very cluttered tabletop, which we didn't like because we enjoy taking lots of photos of our game (requiring the regular removal of tape measures, dice, counters, chits and tokens prior to the photos). We're already looking into some alternative and/or aesthetically pleasing ways to track wounds. Again, the rules for wounded figures are top notch, but the tabletop logistics are tough to deal with.
The game lacks a point system, which is perfectly fine for my club but which may turn off other players. I enjoy the challenge that comes with creating a balanced scenario or adapting something I found elsewhere for Tomorrow's War. The web is full of inspirational material, plus most of the scenarios written for Force on Force, Ambush Alley's flagship title, can be easily ported over to Tomorrow's War.
Individual chapters deal with vehicles, air support, artillery, robots and cyber-warfare. Power armor is suitably epic in TW — gone are the days of vanilla space marines fighting and dying in droves. If you field a 3-man fireteam of power armored infantry in TW, you can expect them to dominate their section of the battlefield. Power armor feels like power armor should, and that is a wonderful thing.
The section on asymmetric warfare is particularly interesting, as it includes a set of balanced rules for playing games with very imbalanced forces. A squad of basic troopers might look powerful on paper, but the game ensures a fair fight if they try to tangle with a nest of colonial rebels on some far-flung backwater planet, for example. You've really got to read over this section yourself to truly grasp the potential for asymmetric scenarios in Tomorrow's War.
The best part of Tomorrow's War is that most of the game is highly intuitive. The players instantly grasped the spirit of what the writers were trying to convey: that is, the explosive action that comes with a desperate, futuristic firefight. You want to move your guys? OK, well that chaingun team is going to fire off a belt of ammo if you do. Maybe you want to put that squad on overwatch to keep an eye out for insurgents? Well, the rebels might appear suddenly on your flank without warning.
What didn't I go over? Production values are top notch, but you've probably read that in other reviews. The official fluff is well and good, but our club probably won't be using it. There are rules for aliens, but the authors suggest that they not be all that different from human troopers, which is fine by me.
To sum up, Tomorrow's War is a great exciting product that has injected a big dose of hard sci-fi excitement into our local club. We're eagerly anticipating the commercial release so we can try our hand at crafting some scenarios.
— PatrickWR, Chicago Skirmish Wargames club member
5 comments:
For those who like to criticise Phil Barker and WRG for their writing style, I would like to suggest they look at Force on Force. Page 20, under:
"End Phase: Move and/or Fire Remaining Non-Initiative Units." Paragraph 2.
"Only Overwatch units may react to a non-initiative unit that moves in the 'end-phase,' although units being charged by a non-initiative unit initiating Close Combat may still perform defensive fire under the rules for Close Combat."
Well, that is clear as mud then...
Very thoughtful and interesting review/report. I think you hit on all the pros and cons.
My only concern with the intro scenario was how very much it resembled Force on Force. Although I agree with the designers that troop quality is more important than which slug-thrower you are using, I think there would would be a difference between M-4s, laser weapons, and particle guns. So I'm looking forward to playing again, using more of the Sci-Fi rules.
SteamBoat: The game authors actually address this specific issue, about the differences between basic trooper weapons among various factions. Their conclusion is that these weapons are good at causing infantry casualties and bad at wrecking armor. A guy who gets shot with a slugthrower versus a laser rifle...well...at the end of the day he still got shot, right? He's either dead, alive, or wounded according to the Tomorrow's War rulebook. The logic is pretty compelling, I must say.
There is a way to represent differences between M-4s, laser weapons and particle guns. It is called Tech Level (TL). In your games you could designate that an M-4 is TL1. When shot against a TL2 armor the defender would receive an extra die. A TL3 Particle gun would receive 2 extra dice against a TL1 armored unit. It is all in the rules.
jmcmurray: Oh yeah, I'm aware of the Tech Level rule. I wasn't complaining about the vanilla treatment of infantry small arms. Quite the contrary! I like that they don't focus on the individual fiddly aspects of assault rifles versus pulse rifles versus laser rifles. But yes, you are correct that TL can help model disparities between these guns.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.