I recently purchased Fields of Fire, a solo only winter GMT wargame release. I’ve played about 4 missions of the game, all in the WWII era, and I think I can safely say that it is a game of interest for some individuals here, with some major qualifications. I cannot stop playing it and have been playing it most nights for the past week or two.
It has the strongest narrative of any game I've ever played. We talk a lot about narrative on the F:AT, but this really is the ultimate form of narrative in a game, through a simulation. I can remember 3-4 amazing, movie quality (not in an action hero way) moments in my mind's eye from my last game as I sit here. It presents a viewpoint on combat that is far, far different than anything I've ever played. And not in a gamey way a la Combat Commander. It also has an insane amount of replayability. Having 3 eras, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, that all play differently in the box means there is a lot of gameplay to be had.
I am still not sure I can recommend it in good faith to most here, however. But if the description sounds interesting, and you do not mind doing some major rules wrestling to get there, you will find a very rewarding game. It seems I am always writing these wargame reviews for BGG and F:AT---fight through the rules and you will be rewarded. Nevertheless, I think good design ideas should be rewarded and are worth fighting for. Fields of Fire counts as one of those designs.
What is the Game About?
Fields of Fire is essentially a solo tactical game, designed by <PERSON>, who has experience commanding in the Marines. Units represent squads and individual assets (heavy machine gun, artillery observer, etc). The player sets up the terrain, then comes up with a plan and assigns assets for his given forces (an infantry company, usually). The player then attempts to accomplish whatever the goals are (attacking, defending or patrolling) against an uncertain enemy in a given time.
There is no traditional map. In fact, the map is generated at the beginning of the mission dynamically by drawing terrain cards and placing them on the table. Each war has a different terrain deck (Vietnam has lots of jungles and nasty terrain, while Normandy has a lot of bocage and farmhouses). The map can be drastically different from mission to mission, even when replaying the same mission. You might draw a mostly forest and bocage Normandy mission, or you might draw more urban farmhouses and villages.
The enemy forces are similarly dynamically created; there is no simple mission scenario setup or anything of that nature. 993
Enemies are simulated not by placing enemies on the board at the start, but through placing various strength potential contact markers. These resolve differently whether you attack or defend. Resolving a contact chit means the potential of enemies appearing in cards. The placement and units vary dramatically. You may resolve several markers without any enemy forces appearing but it is more likely forces will appear in front of you and begin firing on you, oftentimes unobserved. There is a rhyme and reason to encounters, however, as dangerous markers yield enemies far more often and tend to produce more dangerous unit types.
Combat results and the like are handled by a similar mechanism to the legendary game Up Front. No dice. There is a card deck that has various random indicators on it, a random number generator for truly random draws, and various icons on the cards that indicate things such as the results of hits, if shots hit. Etc, etc. All attempts to follow orders and act are handled with this deck. This means lots of reshuffling, which is a definite annoyance of the system. And unlike Up Front, which has a truly massive action deck that takes a while to cycle through, Fields of Fire has a much smaller deck that you burn through quickly and reshuffle.
A Simulation of Commanding, Not Controlling
I must say Fields of Fire is quite a unique experience. In particular, it has a singular viewpoint of combat that bears no resemblance to current tactical wargame systems (ASL, Company of Heroes, Combat Commander, etc). That viewpoint is command, not control. Everybody who plays wargames constantly talks about command, what it means and how it is one of the most important things in simulating war. But in practice, command generally just means units have to be X number of hexes from a commander or, more commonly, the leader adds combat power to the army since he is so smart.
The viewpoint here is different. It is simulating commanders as the actors. All other units, outside of commanders, behave with some manner of AI. The best example is friendly units. Basically, friendly AI is pretty rudimentary. It will fire at units it sees and even continue fire into the brush if the enemy leaves. 100