[Board/Tactical Game]: Memoir '44, reviewed by Tom Vasel (5/5)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10480.phtml

Tom Vasel's Summary:

Currently, the best short \"light\" war game out there. It's a blast to play, and the \"Overlord\" scenarios can't be beat!

Go to the full review for more information.

Post originally by Mike Hill at 2004-07-21 07:30:12
Converted from Phorums BB System

Sorry Tom. Nice review but as good as Memoir '44 is to look at - it's only a 'dumbed-down' version of Battle Cry with 'special rules for young generals'.

The game is almost completely devoid of atmoshphere.

There's no indication of scale which leaves the player feeling detached from the game.

The game components are mighty fine and don't need to be broken out of a spru frame and stuck together as they do in Battle Cry but the level of detail is woeful compared to BC. In fact, Airfix figures are far more detailed and would at least have fit on the board (try moving a hex-full of tanks wedged between a unit of infantry and a bridge).

The combat odds presented by the dice result in so many casualties that the playing time is almost entirely eclipsed by the set-up time.

M'44 is a nice game to have on the shelf but it won't see the light of day anywhere near as often as Battle Cry and it could have been so much more.

Post originally by Shannon Appelcline at 2004-07-21 12:06:08
Converted from Phorums BB System

I have to say, you're the only person I've heard say that M'44 is better than BC, rather than vice-versa.

Personally, I think M'44 is full of atmosphere and for me the rules seem more elegant and more polished (especially as to how Recon cards are dealt with and the better use of scenario objectives) rather than dumbed down.

I picked up a copy of BC shortly after I started playing M'44, on the strength of the latter, but as of now it's still sitting around unplayed (despite the hours spent punching the pieces). I expect BC *will* get played, but probably only after we've gone through all 16 of the base M'44 scenarios.

Shannon

Post originally by Chris at 2004-07-21 13:35:11
Converted from Phorums BB System

Wow. I mean, I think there are plenty of fair criticisms of both Battle Cry and Memoir '44, but I think the position that M'44 is a "dumbed down" Battle Cry with less flavor seems to me basically indefensible.

After all, M'44 has slightly *more* rules than Battle Cry, including a couple fixes for rules that just didn't quite work. The unit types are more varied. There are more and more interesting types of terrain. More ways to win. More varied scenarios (albeit an odd emphasis on French actions at the expense of the British and, especially, the Canadians). The card deck is more flavorful and better-balanced. The games are equally abstract, scale-wise (I agree that due to the oddities of the scale, very few scenarios have much resemblance to their historical counterparts ... but that could be equally well said of Battle Cry).

I mean, I can see arguing for the "elegance and simplicity" of Battle Cry over M'44 (not an argument I'd make, but it's at least plausible). But to argue that M'44 is dumbed down or less flavorful Battle Cry seems to me to be rather odd.

Post originally by Mike Hill at 2004-07-22 05:07:24
Converted from Phorums BB System

Now you've both got me thinking... I guess I just didn't enjoy the 8 games of Memoir '44 as much as I've enjoyed Battle Cry.

I find the duration of the game little payoff for the setup time. The casualties come so thick and fast that it certainly gives the impression that luck plays a greater role in M44 than it does in BC.