United Postal Service? - Malware Alert

I got a piece of e-mail today that screamed "fraud" to me, and I didn't see anything online mentioning it, so I thought I'd let people know.

The message is from the "United Postal Service," which of course doesn't exist (it's United Parcel Service or United States Postal Service). The e-mail is written in an amateurish style, and anyone with half a clue about viruses, trojan horses, or other malware would identify it within seconds. 

Here's the text:

Sorry, we were not able to deliver postal package you sent on November the 1st in time
because the recipient’s address is not correct.

Please print out the invoice copy attached and collect the package at our office.
If you do not receive package in ten days you will have to pay 36$ per day.

Your UPS

There is an attachment that appears to be a .zip file, but it opens up to a .exe file. Since I have a Mac, I can open most attachments without fear of infection from malware (there have been cases, but it's measured in years per occurrence on Macs because of our relatively low market share). I have no idea what the malware does, but I recommend you make your less tech-savvy coworkers aware of it if you work in a Windows environment, and of course do *not* open any attachment that you are not expecting and looks in the slightest way fishy. 

Of course, I did not send a package on Nov 1, of course UPS does not charge $36 per day if the package is not collected - they simply send it back to the sender. 

I was not able to find any online reference to this malware, which is why I'm letting people know as a public service that this is malware. It amazes me that people still buy into this stuff after all the various viruses that have come out in the last ten years, but they still do. 

Edit: this malware came out in July 0f 2008, and is documented here. My initial search came up empty, but a second search on text from the message took me right to it. My apologies for spreading fear and loathing. Being on a Mac and not being in an office environment insulates me a bit sometimes.

Conflict of Heroes - Big Wargame Award Winner of 2008?

I've gotten in four or five playings of Conflict of Heroes so far, all using the first scenario. Yes, the Germans have won in every case, and in some cases the outcome was dictated far in advance. However, after I taught the game to my light wargamer buddy Connor (our games have largely consisted of the lighter card-driven wargames like Hannibal as well as Combat Commander), I'm thinking that this game has the potential over time to outshine nearly every other game on that era (WW2), that level of complexity (low for rules, medium for operations), and scale (tactical). 

What makes me so high on this game? Let me count the ways:

1. Teachability. I can have someone who understands the basics of line of sight and hex-based movement up and running on this game within about 10 minutes. For someone familiar with Combat Commander, perhaps less.
2. Combat resolution. One of the downfalls of systems at this level is trying to show the wide range of possibilities without a billion markers or special rules. The chit pull system, like card-based systems, produces this range while keeping things extremely simple. As I've discussed with the designer, Uwe Eickart, the only thing making this less than perfect is that it's difficult to see exactly what each unit's condition is on the board without lifting a lot of combat units to see combat chits, something that could easily be remedied by using much smaller combat results chits that would fit in the middle of the unit easily. My other concern is that it becomes easier to kill units outright if there are lots of hits on units on the board, regardless of which side you are on, as it's a relatively small pool of results. 
3. Component quality. Unlike Tide of Iron, which came with slightly warped boards right out of the box and plastic units that wouldn't fit in the bases without considerable work, CoH's components are very nice. No clipping for the units or markers (except for a bit of trim work in one or two cases in my set), the boards lay extremely flat on the table with zero warpage, and the rules are well organized and marked. Usually, "programmed instruction" rules do a fantastic job of teaching the game and a very poor job for those needing to find a rule, but the system is added on to in such a way as to make the rules   organization good for both needs. There are some problems here - a too-big rulebook in terms of footprint, the combat chit issue mentioned above, and the combat units have their flank defense strength printed toward the front of the counter rather than the rear compared to the front DS. For a first pass at a game, however, they did a fantastic job. 
4. Story elements. While there are no condition cards as in the Lock'n'Load series (perhaps the best element of that game), there is still a wonderful sense of storytelling that CoH brings to the table. In our second turn of Thursday's game, I'd been very aggressive as the Sovs in bringing units forward to make it tougher for the Germans to advance. However, toward the end of the turn I was also down to one shot from a single used Sov unit with a +1/+2 DRM based on Command Action Points (CAPs). Connor had a single German rifle unit unused in the NW corner of the board, but he had enough Action Points to get it to the VP space in the middle of the board, although there was every chance that his unit would be wiped out. He decided to make a run for it (much as you would with a Hero unit in Combat Commander), and I waited until he was down to a single Action Point so that he couldn't then immediately rally the unit with his remaining CAPs. Of course, he pulled the Berzerk result, which lowered his range to 1 but improved nearly everything else. He ended up taking out the Rifle unit I had forward of the VP space, and once in the woods was nearly impossible for me to hit with a single unit (and you can't group in the first scenario). While I was able to take the VP space back later, the game was only really up for grabs for another turn or two, and by the fifth turn I couldn't get anything going enough to really challenge him. Keep in mind this is a small scenario with only five or six units per side once everyone has gotten on the board. 
5. Wider range of units, including vehicles. Enough said.
6. Multiplayer capability. While you might be able to retrofit rules for this into CC, the cards would make it tricky. CoH has specific rules and scenarios for larger actions with multiple players and/or teams. 
7. Solitaire capability. CC is nearly impossible to play solitaire, at least without serious consideration of how to handle things like Opportunity Fire Actions. CoH does have cards, but there are rules on how to manage them. Also, there are rules for hiding units that are added into the mix fairly early, and many scenarios start with hidden units, so you have to either ignore this rule or else use rules similar to the Spotting rules in Panzer Grenadier to simulate this to a reasonable extent, but CoH seems to have the advantage at this point by at least a small margin.
8. Geomorphic maps. CC has more maps, but they are all one size and can't be hooked together. CoH only comes with five maps, but like ASL they can be combined to form larger maps in a wide variety of ways. Of course, this is a big reason why CoH can include tanks, as they would completely dominate an area as presented in CC. CC, however, has done amazing work in providing additional maps, and I now count something like 30 maps available after the C3i #21 comes out this month with yet another double sided map included. Still, the edge goes (slightly) to CoH, in part because the maps will hold up for a longer time assuming no warpage.

These are very compelling reasons, at least for me, as to why this game holds so much promise. However, I still believe that Combat Commander has the edge for a few reasons:

1. Breadth of subject matter. Where CoH is limited (for now) to the Eastern Front over roughly a year period, CC covers the entire war in Europe, or can at any rate. CC also covers a wider range of nationalities, as you'd expect, even in the base set. With a Pacific box coming out in about a month, you'll be able to cover almost any WWII action at squad level.
2. Better model of leaderhip. The CAP system is brilliant, no mistake, and it abstracts the abilities of leadership pretty effectively for something so simple. However, it does not place specific leaders in specific places at specific times - in CC, if a leader is taken out at a critical moment, it can have a big effect on the opposing side's battle plan. In CoH, the leaders are (more or less) assumed to be everywhere, and are lost when the unit is lost (hence the loss of CAPs as you lose units). There is no question that the CC method is probably a better reflection of realities in combat, but there is a complexity cost associated with that model. 
3. Random scenarios. CC has a random scenario generation system. While CC has a lot more scenarios extant as I write, that can change dramatically over time and it is the fact that you have effectively an unlimited number of scenarios through random generation that is the differentiating factor here. 
4. Differentiation of weapons from teams. As with leaders, the weapons systems are broken out into separate counters. Thus, a team that loses use of a weapon through jamming or breakage can still be combat effective, but at a much lower level. 
5. Differentiation of unit skills. By boxing different unit factors (movement, range, firepower) in CC, you can demonstrate that some units were capable of using different tactics, such as smoke, assault fire, or close assault improvements. 
6. Battlefield chaos vs operational flexibility. In Combat Commander, you need a card to do anything, whether it's an action or an order, but you can keep doing it so long as you have the cards to do it. In CoH, you can do anything with anyone so long as units are either unused or you still have enough CAPs. This is a basic design tradeoff of simulation vs game. ASL chose to have extremely detailed weapon and organizational accuracy while keeping the commander firmly in charge. Both CoH and CC abstract out the detail to a large degree, but CC adds in the fact that about 90% of the men under your command can be trusted to act in their own best interest in any combat situation - in other words, stay where they are and not take chances. That's why not having a Move Order card in hand is acceptable if the simulation is the thing. CoH makes for an extremely engaging game on the other hand, that keeps things simple but pretends that your men will advance under fire whenever you'd like them to. 
7. Uncertainty in victory conditions. As in battle, one side may have a treasure trove of valuable ground, documents, materiel, etc that the other is unaware of. This is modeled in CC through secret objective chits, which can even change as the game progresses. While this might drive some players crazy (and is a direct corollary of item 6 above), I love it. Again, realism in certain elements while preserving playability, tension, and literary elements are things I value, so like item 6, this item is more a matter of taste than anything else. 

Understand that I haven't gotten to a lot of the meat within the CoH system yet. I may find that the ability to include AFVs may put me right over the edge (and the fact that the combat systems are effectively parallel - you use units with blue (armor piercing) firepower to attack units with blue (armored) defensive values, and vehicles have their own set of combat results chits). 

Of course, when you're as compulsive as I am, there's really no reason why you can't have both game systems. After all, I also own most of the AH/MMP ASL material, most of the Avalanche Games PG material, both the original AH and first Critical Hit versions of Tobruk (later Advanced Tobruk System), Combat Commander, Tide of Iron (gotta sell this someday), and of course, Conflict of Heroes. Among other things. They definitely scratch different itches, although I would start a non-wargamer with Conflict of Heroes before I moved them on to Combat Commander just because of the leader and weapons unit breakouts in the latter and the programmed instruction rules presentation of the former.

Otherwise, both games have (so far) good support from their parent companies, with GMT providing regular additional content (both strategy and scenarios) in their house publication C3i and through Battle Packs (although at a cost), while Academy Games has provided a couple of extra scenarios and an extra board (again, at a cost). Both have very enthusiastic and accessible design teams that are willing to listen to their customers, in not agree with them every time. In conversations with Uwe about some of the component issues, he was intrigued with the idea of switching the Defensive Values on units and putting a hex symbol around them to better convey the idea of which value was associated with which part of the unit in an intuitive manner. I think he also liked the idea of smaller rulebooks and smaller combat chits, and here's hoping that they get put in the next iteration of the system. I'd also like to see scenario cards rather than booklets, although I understand there is a cost issue, and both systems present their scenarios in booklet form at present (battle packs and C3i scenarios from GMT excepted). 

All of this comparison aside, there is no question in my mind that Combat Commander was the best wargame to come out of 2007 (released in 2006, but not widely available until Jan 2007), and Conflict of Heroes should be the big award winner in 2008's wargame awards. Both of these games have made tactical-level WW2 wargaming approachable to the masses, but CoH will get even eurogamers (fussy about small counters and paper maps to a degree I'd normally associate with the Inappropriately Entitled) excited. A fantastic start for a new game company, and I wish them all the best. 

Best. Semi-Cooperative. Game. EVAH.

Matt G hosted this Tuesday, and I brought both Dominion (raved over in my last entry) and the new Battlestar Galactica boardgame. Since we had six players, I managed to ram the idea of Bstar-G down everyone's throats, helped considerably by some excellent buzz on the 'Geek. Helping out with the first playthrough were Alex, KC, Rita, Mike, and of course Matt. 

Bstar-G is a relatively complex game, so I'm not going to go into too much detail on how it works other than to compare it to it's obvious predecessor, Shadows Over Camelot. SoC is a very fun game, but it is played in micro increments - you move during your turn, but that's your sole action if you do. Or you play a card. Bstar-G, on the other hand, lets you move *and* take an action, and you can even give actions to other players, so there's more to do on your turn. Since movement doesn't take long (other than figuring out what areas you should move to, as each gives you an extra choice of actions), the game moves along pretty well once people get the hang of the turn sequence. 

In SoC, you play a Bad Card every turn that makes the game harder for the players. You do the same in Bstar-G with Crisis cards, but the card does several things. First, it will either have a bunch of Cylons show up that you'll have to fight off (or jump away from), or it will provide you with a skill check to avoid some sort of danger. The whole skill check thing is not terribly involved in practice, but takes more time to explain than I wish to take in this entry, so I refer you to one of the many reviews/overviews of the game that are out there. Suffice it to say that it is structured so that the Cylons among you have the chance to do damage almost every turn without giving away their allegiance. 

In SoC, one player *may* be a traitor, it is not a given. If there is a traitor, they know who they are from the very start and it never changes. In Bstar-G, you will *always* have at least one traitor, and with more players you may have two. In SoC, you don't reveal yourself, and others must publicly accuse you at some risk. In Bstar-G, other players can *say* you're a Cylon, but until you yourself actually reveal you are a Cylon, you are free to run around Galactica right up until someone tosses you into the Brig, which requires a skill check and an action to get out of, essentially putting it to a vote. Since some players have the chance to look at other's loyalty cards during the course of the game, the opportunity for fun is very high. 

In Bstar-G, you get a second (or third, depending upon your character) Loyalty card about halfway into the game. If either card declares you to be a Cylon, you're a Cylon. There is also a Sympathizer card that must be revealed immediately that hobbles your character for a time, and may even land you in the Cylon action areas if things have been going too well for the Humans. If you end up with both Cylon cards, there is an action that will allow you to give one of your unrevealed Loyalty cards to another player after you yourself have been revealed. if the other Cylon hasn't been revealed yet, this is another way to sew discord and tension into the game, as it can either turn someone to a Cylon (if it is indeed that card) or at the very least make people look at that person funny and maybe even convince someone to send them to the brig. HiLARious. It's also a good way to make sure that there will be two Cylon players in the game in the rare event that a single player gets both cards. Brilliant design.

Crisis cards also provide an AI for the Cylons in combat, as well as an essential part of the game timer. For those who get to choose two cards from the Crisis deck, you often have the chance to help or hinder depending upon which side you're pitching for. 

Our game took about 3.5 hours, including a limited amount of 'splainin' and quite a bit of looking up rules. The game has a certain amount of reference material on the back page, but it still needs the basic Cylon rules spelled out in addition to other rules so that players may have something to reference that won't give away what happens if they suddenly realize they are Cylons. SoC puts the Traitor rules on the other side of your character card, making it kind of obvious if you suddenly start "wondering" how the traitor works. Just looking! Honest!

In the first half of our game, it was pretty clear pretty early that we were all not Cylons, unless Alex (as Admiral Saul Tigh) was screwing us over on his selection of destination cards, or President Rita Roslin was choosing the more dangerous of the two Crisis cards. It took us three jumps to get five movement points (you need four to get to the mid-game deal of cards), and it was at this time that I became a Cylon. I was loving this game already, because I was playing Baltar and as such got to look at someone else's entire set of Loyalty cards as an action, which I did even though I was stuck in the Brig thanks to a Crisis not being as averted. I looked at Alex's, and even though at that point I knew he was not a Cylon I decided to instead play it straight as I knew the very next turn I'd reveal myself and his allegiance would be in question. 

By this time, we had nearly the entire crew in the brig for various reasons, and it was at this time that I declared myself, heading off to the Cylon resurrection ship and getting a Super Crisis card (woot!). We had barely held off a single Centurion boarder early in the game (when, strangely, I would have lost because I was not yet a Cylon), which are surprisingly difficult to kill. My Super Crisis card put *two* of these bad boys on board, and then when KC revealed himself shortly thereafter, his Super Crisis damaged the Armory which made it impossible to kill the Centurions until it had been repaired, and that was going to require Matt (the Chief) who was fighting to get out of the Brig as well. Things didn't look good for the good guys at all.

However, you don't draw a Crisis card if you are a Cylon or in the Brig, so those cards were coming out less often, so less chance of moving the Centurions along in a timely fashion (and less chance of a jump, which was all the humans needed to win by this point). I did go to Caprica and use that action to draw two Crises and pick the one I wanted to play, and neither moved the Centurions but did advance the jump sequence. The humans didn't have population problems, but they were down to just one food (if you run out of any of the four resources, the Cylons immediately win), and so it looked to be coming down to a couple more turns, first Alex as Saul, then KC. Alex went to the FTL area, jumped, and saved the game for the humans. One more player turn and the Cylons would almost certainly have won by eliminating the last food. 

Compared to the one really great game of SoC I've had (a few months ago at Matt's), I feel that this game was actually better and holds the promise of being consistently more entertaining than SoC for all the reasons I give above, but also because there was considerably interaction, laughter, throwing of meaningless accusations (when Rita put Alex in the brig because he'd just put *her* in the brig, my comment as a revealed Cylon was "Well done, Madame Cylon. Well done!") and other hilarity. Other impressive moments included Mike slapping down an entire wave of Cylon raiders with a single card, killing that lone Centurion boarder one space away from Humans Lose, KC revealing himself after he'd gone out to face pretty much every Cylon unit in the game on the board, and many more. 

However, the game is not for everyone. While I'm very certain I could teach this game to a group of gamers who hadn't played and play to completion within three hours now that I've been through the drill, it was pretty clear that Mike was not enjoying the game much (he played a pilot, and we seemed to jump most of the time before he got to do much). He made several comments that it was a "long game" as the night wore on, which I strongly suspect meant "too long". The fact that he was fifth in player order and the initial turns took a while to get to him didn't help, nor did his inability to get out into a Viper and do some damage - we kept jumping before they did any damage at all, and it wasn't until the very last jump that *any* of the civvie ships were eliminated, much less a Raptor or Viper. If you play with six, you may want to make sure that people are fairly tolerant of downtime, even though it's less of a problem with Bstar G than with SoC. I think he was also a bit disappointed that he didn't get to be a Cylon, even though as Sharon Valerii he got to draw *two* Loyalty cards at the midgame break. 

Everyone else had fun, however, although it did run much later than we normally go (we were packing up at 10:40pm, and we rarely go past 10:15pm at the latest). Like I say, I think I could have gotten the game finished by close to 10pm had I been a bit more familiar with the game and not had to look up a lot of rules and been a bit more efficient in my 'splainin'. As such, this is probably not a Tuesday night pick, although if I have my way it will see play at our retreats (and probably even a night game at WBC-West). Fantasy Flight has managed to take the semi-cooperative game genre and make it work on a consistent basis, while at the same time achieving the not-inconsequential goal of evoking the feel of what has arguably been the best television series of the last four or five years (and one that is coming to a close in March with the final 11 hours beginning broadcast in mid-January 2009). 

To get this *and* Dominion within the last month is an embarrassment of riches, and one unlikely to be repeated. Given that Conflict of Heroes, perhaps the best entry-level wargame every produced, came out in the same time frame, is nothing short of a miracle, at least for patrons of St. Sid Sackson. 

My *only* concern is that our very first game of Bang! was a hoot too, which very quickly turned to tedium in the follow-on sessions. I find this unlikely, as Bstar-G has so many subsystems but keeps them within an elegant design that keeps player interest alive between their turns. In the video-game world, tying a game to a television or film franchise is almost guaranteed to produce a terrible game. I'm very happy to see that in the boardgame world, this doesn't have to be the case. If you almost liked SoC but found the micro-actions and limited Traitor options to be less than you'd hoped for, Bstar-G may be da bomb. And if you are lucky enough to be the Admiral of the fleet - Da Nuke.

Dominion

The other game Matt and I played on Monday was Dominion, the new euro deck-building game that has been such a hit. Mike had taught me this game at Chris' Tuesday session the week before, and Matt was interested to learn it, so off we went. 

I admit that hearing that Dominion was a deck-building game gave me some pause. I've dabbled in CCGs in the past, and swiftly been overwhelmed by too many card choices in deck-building. In contrast, the collectible tile game Vortex was a huge hit with me because the choices were much more limited and there were never waves of expansion cards to make things more complicated. I also admit that I had purchased Dominion before learning the game simply because as a host I feel I should have the really good games on hand when people come over to play, and this game has had great buzz. 

For those living under a rock who haven't yet played, the game is fairly simple. You have a series of cards in essentially three types: VP cards, Money cards, and Kingdom cards. You always use the first two, but the last set is made up of 10 of 25 different types of cards that all do different things. The ten Kingdom "suits" you use is what will give this game tremendous replayability and freshness over a long period of time, as the various combinations will lead to different play styles and strategies. 

Every card has a cost to buy during the game, even the money cards. The Kingdom cards are, for the most part, useful only for the actions they allow you to do, although how you combine these in your personal deck will dictate how the game plays out for you. For the most part, the game is multiplayer solitaire with a number of interactions via "Attack" actions dictated by how many of these cards players pick up over the course of the game. Play is very quick, and the biggest disadvantage is that you spend a lot of time shuffling cards. I'm tempted to sleeve my copy, although as Mike pointed out you would spend about as much on sleeving (and make it much harder to handle the cards) as it would cost to buy a replacement game, so for now I'll hold off. 

Game play is very simple, enough so that I'd actually consider teaching my wife to play in social situations. Those of you who know my wife know that she refuses to play any non-party game that a) she can't blame her loss on bad luck, b) must contain no more than three rules, and c) must be explainable within about 30 seconds. Dominion actually meets these requirements, although learning how to play *well* does require a little more awareness. For Mel, though, it's the entry costs that are important, not the time spent learning effective play during the game. 

Each player begins the game with seven copper cards (each worth 1 point of money) and three 1VP cards. While it is the VP cards that win the game, they are useless for the most part during play - note the word "most", as there are ways to use these cards to help advance your position. This forms the basis of your personal deck, from which each player draws five cards to start. Each turn you do three things: First you may play one action from one of your Kingdom cards (you start with none), then you may buy one card with the money in your hand which goes into your discard pile, then you discard the rest of your hand and draw back up to five cards. The next player then takes their turn, and so on. Once either the 6VP cards are exhausted (there are eight in the pile in 2 player games, twelve if three or four), or three of any other pile (ten cards in each Kingdom pile) are exhausted, the game ends. 

It is the interaction between the kingdom cards where things get interesting. These cards have a wide variety of actions, often increasing the number of actions, buys, money, and draws you get during a turn. For example, if you play a Market card as your action, you would first get to draw an extra card (+1 Card), then play an additional action if you wished (+1 Action). Then you would get to buy an additional card (+1 Buy), which is always possible because the Copper money cards have a cost of 0, but since the Market also gives you and extra +1 coin, you'd at least have one buck to spend. Some action cards have varying combinations of these basic extensions, but others allow you to do specific things. For example, the Remodel card allows you to trash (or discard out of the game) a card in exchange for a different card costing 2 more bucks. Since the 6 VP cards have a cost of 8 and Gold has a cost of 6, you can trade the Gold cards for 6VP through this action, but only if you have the Gold card in your hand. The Militia, on the other hand, gives you a bonus to the money for the turn and forces other players to discard down to three cards unless they can show they have a Moat card to counter it. 

It is these combinations that players need to look for. In general, it is important to focus on getting effective Action card combinations early, plus perhaps some coin, then later focus on the VP cards as they are mostly useless (although cards like Cellar allow you to draw extra cards if you discard, and give an extra action as well). Since you often want specific combinations of cards in hand, as mentioned above, it's often useful to keep your deck relatively small, although a deck full of nothing but VP cards will tend to stall near the endgame. If you play with the Garden cards, though, you get VP for having cards in your deck! The nature of the game changes as you change the mix of Kingdom cards, and it is this element that brings the best elements of CCGs to a game that doesn't require a second job and weekends spent searching for specific killer cards to enjoy. The author has promised expansions, which will only improve the game over time, a la the original Cosmic Encounter (right up until the Moons. Please, no moons for Dominion). 

This was Matt's first exposure to the game, so we played the First Deck set recommended by the rules, which ended with me having the 1 VP card that made the 2 point difference. For our second game, we played the Big Money deck, which added mostly new cards and some really intriguing combinations (Throne Room allows you to play a second action card and then implement it *twice*, making the Market particularly powerful). I managed to take the fifth 6VP card one play before Matt would have, which would have resulted in a tie otherwise. When the games are that close, they're definitely more fun. 

I admit that I was terribly impressed after my first game with Mike and Ben last week (Mike cleaned up, having more points than Ben and I combined), but seeing how different the game became with different Kingdom cards simply blew me away. If this game doesn't win the Spiel da Jahre award (and a billion others) I'll be astonished. For those of you having trouble justifying paying $50 retail for a big square box full of cards, no board, and no bits, get over yourself. This game is, to my mind, the killer app of Euros at a time when I buy perhaps one or two euro titles a month - my last purchase other than the Race for the Galaxy expansion was Agricola. When deck-building *is* the game, we all come out winners. 

Hold The Line

Matt R came over for our monthly Third Monday session. He was running a little late, and had had a pretty rough day, so we jumped right into gaming. 

First up was a session of Hold The Line, the Worthington Games title that uses the Clash For A Continent system, itself a descendent of Richard Borg's Command and Colors system. Unlike C&C, HtL does not use cards nor even a division of the map into the flanks and center. Instead, a special die is used that produces rolls of 1, 2, or 3 (in equal measure) and this number is added to a scenario-specific number of Action Points (AP) that each player may use during their turn. In some cases, as in the Hobkirk's Hill scenario that we played, one side may even that that number altered - the Americans treated a "3" result as a "0", so were essentially hobbled an action per turn in addition to their one-smaller base value of 2 (the Brits got at least 3 AP per turn, so that was a two AP advantage on average for the Brits). 

There are no plastic units or blocks, but rather very heavy stock counters that have a printed "morale value" (or, as referred to copiously in the rules, "MP", which is unfortunate as in the vast majority of wargames that means movement points). Instead of removing a unit, you simply flip a unit to show the weaker side, replace an already flipped unit with a replacement units of lower value, or remove it altogether if the unit is at it's lowest morale. In addition, unlike in any of the C&C games, morale actually has a use besides in determining how brittle a unit has become - it's used to determine if units retreat when being close assaulted (an expensive but very effective form of combat). 

Perhaps the largest rule change is that of rally. A leader stacked with a unit can, for one AP and neither unit moving for the entire turn, restore a single MP to that unit. The effect of this rule is that you almost certainly want to pull back units for regrouping even when they've only lost one or two MP, and that units are only going to die if they are the subject of intense fire. 

The other thing that HtL adds to the table is a timer for one or both sides. In our scenario, the Brits had 20 turns to get 6 VP from taking my VP spaces or eliminating my units. If I was able to cause 6 VP in casualties before that happened, or if the Brits didn't have 6 VP by the end of turn 20, the Americans would win. 

We played using the advanced leader rule (they may be able to take more hits, and can give extra dice in close combat but are also much more likely to die). My Americans start on a line of hills with two leaders, an arty unit, four or so militia cowering behind the hill should they be needed, and a single dragoon who's only purpose so far as I can tell is to dart out and kill a weak unit at a critical time. In my case, I used the dragoon immediately and lost it for a single step loss in return.

Since this was our first game, Matt's Brits, starting out in a clump to one side of the American line, tried to flank the line, but he was leery of the American arty and didn't make an assault until the very end of the game which resulted in destroying his fifth unit but not taking any VP spaces. I, on the other hand, who had no reason to do anything but sit there and wait for the Brits to advance because of the time limit, thought I'd try out assault tactics but got roundly spanked for my efforts (and helped Matt get to 5 American losses by game end as a result). It became very clear that those two extra AP per turn for the Brits more than offset the burden of attack, as I could be expected to get 3 AP on average to his 5, or only 60% of his AP over the course of the game. 

The game is clearly in the C&C mold, with a very simple system, a fair amount of chaos (although I felt the AP system was better than the standard C&C card-based system as you weren't forced to let critical units sit - even during the ARW, units would protect themselves if fired on or assaulted), balanced by quick playing time, rewards for playing in a historically accurate manner (to a point), and a good number of scenarios. Matt assured me that Clash for a Continent had somewhat different rules, although the systems of war hadn't evolved much in the 12 years or so between the Seven Years War and the American Revolution. I haven't played that earlier title, so I can't say. 

As such, HtL is a bit of an odd duck for me. I feel like C&C: Ancients (by quite a margin my favorite of these titles up to this point) does a better job of simulating the warfare of the period (I would think that close assault should inflict casualties on both sides in HtL, especially because it's so bloody, but there is no Battle Back rule as in Ancients), but while I like what some of the action cards do in Ancients I do like that you have more flexibility in your operations. Communications in and of themselves hadn't changed much - you still sent runners with orders to a sub-commander - although command structures had improved a bit. Flintlocks and rifles and artillery are clearly more useful at range than the javelins and arrows of the earlier era. I'm not sure if I prefer the dice method of Ancients (you need certain symbols to show up on the various dice) as opposed to HtL (you just need to roll "in range"). 

Plus, of course, with Ancients you get to put all of those stickers on all of those blocks (I actually enjoy this, much as I enjoy clipping counters), but setup is a pain and with three expansions I now need six different Plano boxes to hold them all (Roman 1, Roman 2, Macedonia, Carthage, Persia, Barbarians). It would be much easier to stick expansions to HtL into the base box as the cardboard units just go in baggies. 

All in all I think I'll see where the series goes from here in terms of innovation. Fortunately, I have room for both series (although I suspect Battlelore is going to go on the block soon for a variety of reasons), so only time will tell. If you don't own a C&C game but were thinking of taking the plunge, I think that you are best served by choosing the milieu you find most appealing - if you like elephants charging across a field only to stomp your own units (and who doesn't), then Ancients may be for you. If you're a fan of the Age of Reason and the ARW, Hold the Line may be your ticket. Otherwise, I'd recommend playing both games before making a decision.