PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN: Battle of Smolensk, July 1941 is an operational level (regiment/division) simulation — based loosely on the KURSK Game System — of the German operation to encircle and destroy the Russian forces around Smolensk, in the summer of 1941. This game was originally offered as the insert game in S&T #57 (Jul-Aug, 1976). Later it was reissued, first in the familiar SPI plastic flat-pack version featured here, and then — with modest changes to the counter mix and game map — by the Avalon Hill Game Company (TAHGC), in 1984. Interestingly, still another version of this title is currently under development at L2 Design Group and may soon make an appearance on the gaming scene. PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN was designed by James F. Dunnigan, and published in 1976 by Simulations Publications, Incorporated (SPI).


General Guderian

On 3 July 1941, the German soldiers of Army Group Center resumed their eastern drive towards the Soviet capital, Moscow. The Wehrmacht’s advance had been stalled for almost a week while the panzer and motorized units of the 2nd and 3rd Panzer Groups waited for Army Group Center’s infantry to catch up with the fast-moving panzers. That wait was now at an end. The German strategy was for a repeat of the earlier encirclement battles that had already been extraordinarily successful near the Russo-German frontier. Thus, the planned operation was both simple and direct: it envisioned a massive pincer action with Hoth’s Panzer Group breaking through in the north, and Guderian’s panzers forcing a crossing of the Dnepr in the south. Once both panzer groups had gained freedom of maneuver, they would immediately push deep into the Russian rear and then turn towards each other to link up east of Smolensk. While all this was happening, the hard-marching German infantry divisions would be steadily fighting their way east to liquidate the Soviet units trapped in the steadily tightening pocket around Smolensk.

During the relatively quiet days before the battle, however, the Red Army had not been idle. In the short period between the end of June and the first days of July, the Russian High Command (STAVKA) had managed to deploy powerful elements from four Soviet Fronts (army groups) directly in the path of the German offensive. When the battle opened, four Russian armies — the 13th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd — were already dug into defensive positions in the path of the German advance, and two more Soviet armies — the 16th and the 19th — were rapidly forming to help meet the German attack. Although the early stages of the fighting would be around Orsha, Mogilev, and Vitebsk, the central focus of this campaign, both sides knew, would be the ancient, but strategically important Russian city of Smolensk.

Marshall Zhukov

The ultimate outcome of the Battle of Smolensk was a victory, of sorts, for both sides. Smolensk fell to the Germans on the 16th, but the panzers of Hoth and Guderian did not completely close the pocket until 26 July. Certainly, the Germans could claim to have won the battle in that Army Group Center satisfied its main operational objectives. However, for the first time in the war, sizeable numbers of Russians succeeded in fighting their way out of a major German encirclement. More importantly, those Soviet troops that escaped the pocket fell back to join in the defense of Moscow; and when the bitter winter battle for the Russian capital finally came, their presence at the front would help to deny Hitler any final chance for victory in 1941.

General Konev Talking with Officers

In retrospect, the Battle of Smolensk was clearly a critical turning-point in the first year of the War in the East. The defense of this important rail and road junction revealed a tenacious and determined Russian Army that, for the first time since the war began, was able to significantly delay the offensive operations of Army Group Center. Admittedly, the price that the Russians paid for this delay was high. The Soviets lost virtually all of the armor committed to the battle: probably at least 700 tanks; they also suffered somewhere between 45,000 and 85,000 men killed and wounded, and another 300,000 soldiers captured during the weeks of fighting. Nonetheless, the Red Army, to its credit, was still able to extricate over 200,000 troops from the pocket while successfully delaying the German drive towards Moscow for three crucial weeks. German losses, although significantly lower, are unknown.


PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN: Battle for Smolensk, July 1941 is a two-player simulation of Army Group Center’s operations — conducted in July of 1941 and spearheaded by both Guderian’s Second Panzer Gruppe and Hoth’s Third Panzer Gruppe — aimed at forcing the Dvina and Dnepr Rivers and seizing Smolensk in preparation for a future assault on Moscow. The various game counters represent the historical combat units that actually took part — or that could have played a role — in the actual battle. The game is played in game turns, each of which is divided into a Russian and a German player turn. A complete game turn is equal to one week of real time. The game is twelve turns long and spans the period from 3 to 26 July, 1941, during which the major events of the battle transpired. The game turn sequence for PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN is asymmetrical, and proceeds as follows (the Soviet player moves first): movement phase, combat phase, disruption removal phase, Soviet air interdiction phase; the German player turn then proceeds with an initial movement phase, combat phase, mechanized movement phase, disruption removal phase, and air interdiction phase. At the conclusion of both player turns, the turn record marker is advanced one space, and the next game turn begins.

The actual mechanics of play for PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN are comparatively simple, but quite interesting, nonetheless. One of this title’s most notable innovations is that all Soviet combat units begin play with their combat strengths unknown, and with their ‘untried’ side face-up on the game map; thus, the actual combat strengths of Russian units are only revealed as a result of combat. Oddly enough, Jim Dunnigan also used 'untried' counters in INVASION AMERICA (another 1976 SPI title), but the effect of 'unknown strength' counters on the two games turned out to be both more plausible (from a simulation standpoint) and much more critical to play in PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN than in his dystopian 'future war' invasion of America game. Other game rules are more conventional. Stacking, for both players, is limited to three combat units per hex; the Russian player, however, may stack up to four units in a single hex, as long as at least one of the units in the stack is a Leader unit. Interestingly, stacking limits apply only at the end of a movement phase, but throughout all of the combat phase; moreover, there is no penalty to stack or unstack with other friendly units during movement. Combat between adjacent enemy units is always voluntary. Defending stacks must be attacked as a unitary whole; in contrast, different units in an attacking stack may choose to attack the same or a different adjacent hex, or even to make no attack at all. Zones of control (ZOCs) are both rigid and sticky. This means that all units must halt immediately upon moving adjacent to an enemy unit and may not exit an enemy ZOC in a subsequent game phase, except as a result of combat. In addition, ZOCs block both supply paths and retreat routes; however, the presence of a friendly unit in the affected hex negates the ZOC in both cases.

The terrain and movement rules for PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN, except for one significant innovation, are familiar and quite conventional. Terrain types are relatively few, and their effects on movement and combat are intuitively logical and hence, are easy to keep track of. For example, units defending in forest or major city hexes, or attacked exclusively through river hex-sides are doubled; units defending in clear terrain, in minor cities, or in swamp hexes, on the other hand, are unchanged. Terrain effects on movement are equally simple. All units, whatever their type, expend one movement point to enter a clear terrain hex and two points to enter a swamp hex. Mechanized units — unlike Leader, infantry, and cavalry units — expend two movement points to enter forest hexes, but both Russian Leaders and all mechanized units double their movement allowance when travelling along roads. Rivers, not surprisingly, pose an obstacle to both armies: German units pay two additional movement points to cross a river hex-side; while Russian units pay only one. In addition, a limited number of Soviet combat units (only) may travel by rail during each game turn. The one truly ground-breaking element in this title’s movement rules is the incorporation of a far more flexible type of ‘overrun combat’ into the movement phases of each game turn. Unlike earlier titles which also used ‘overrun combat’ as an integral part of their game systems, but required overwhelming odds for success; in PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN, ‘overruns’ do not require particularly large strength differentials to be effective. Even comparatively low-odds ‘overrun’ attacks are, with the right die-rolls, capable of clearing a path through an enemy line for the ‘overrunning’ and/or other phasing units to exploit. Moreover, the ‘overrunning’ unit or stack could, so long as it had sufficient movement factors, conduct more than one ‘overrun’ attack in any given movement phase. What this translates to, in PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN, is a game situation in which German mechanized units can potentially attack during the initial movement phase, again during the combat phase, and yet again during the mechanized movement phase.

Combat in PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN, as previously noted, can take one of two forms: ‘overrun’ or regular combat. These two types of combat differ in only one important respect: units defending against an ‘overrun’ are immediately ‘disrupted’ if they receive any type of adverse combat outcome other than an engaged result. ‘Disrupted’ units defend normally, but lose their ZOC and their ability to move or attack until their ‘disruption’ status is removed; in addition, ‘disrupted’ Soviet Leaders also lose their capacity to coordinate supply. Attacking units are never ‘disrupted’. Both types of combat utilize the same combat results table (CRT), and, as is typical of the KURSK family of SPI games, the CRT is relatively bloodless. Battle odds of 6 to 1 or higher are required before a defender eliminated (DE) result even appears on the CRT, and most combat results will take the form of attacker retreat (AR), defender retreat (DR), split results (requiring both sides to take a loss), and engaged results. All terrain, supply, and other effects on combat are cumulative. One intriguing feature of the game system is that German panzer and motorized divisions — if all component regiments are stacked in the same hex — are doubled in combat strength. Another innovative wrinkle in the combat rules is that losses, at the discretion of the owning player, may be taken either as ‘retreat hexes’ or as ‘step-losses’. This is actually a mixed blessing for the defender, however, because in the case of retreats, the attacker always chooses the retreat route for all defeated defending units. ‘Step-losses’ for the two armies are very different: each Russian combat unit or leader, when eliminated, counts as only a single step; German combat units, on the other hand, can all afford to lose multiple steps before being completely eliminated.

The supply rules impose very different requirements on the two sides. German units are in supply if they are able to trace a supply path of twenty or fewer movement points (not hexes) either from the west edge of the map or from an unblocked road that connects to the western map edge. Soviet combat units must trace their supply path to an undisrupted Leader/Headquarters unit that is then able to trace an unblocked line of communication, of any length, to the east edge of the map. Russian Leader units may coordinate supply for any number of friendly units, but all supplied units must be within range (determined by each leader’s rating) of the coordinating leader. All units of both sides are considered to be in supply on the game turn that they first enter the map. Supply effects are identical for both sides: unsupplied units are halved (fractions rounded down) for both movement and combat; ZOCs, however, are unaffected.

The winner of PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN is determined by victory points, and players may — depending on their accumulated victory points at game end — achieve one of three victory levels: marginal, strategic, or decisive. The German player gains victory points by capturing key Russian cities; he may also receive bonus points if the Soviet player chooses to bring in optional reinforcements at any point in the game. The Russian player, for his part, receives victory points (at the end of the game) for completely eliminating German mechanized and infantry divisions, and (instantly) for recapturing previously lost Soviet cities.

PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN offers only the Historical Game; there are no alternative scenarios. Also, there is only one optional rule: the ‘Evacuation of Soviet Leaders’ rule, which permits the Russian player, twice per game, to pick up a single surrounded Leader from the map and to then return the evacuated general to the game as a normal reinforcement during the next game turn.


General Rokossovsky with Commanders

The first time I sat down, back in 1976, to play my brand-new magazine copy of PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN, I didn’t really know what to expect, but I assumed that the game would play pretty much like other, earlier KURSK type East Front titles. I couldn’t have been more wrong. In that first introductory match, I took the Russians and, in keeping with my usual aggressive style of play, attempted a forward defense of the central road and the southern Dnepr. By the fifth game turn, my main line of resistance had been broken and enveloped, and the fascist gangsters were pretty much roaming at will in the Soviet rear. Things just went downhill from there, and by game turn eight or nine, I was forced to acknowledge the obvious and resign. Clearly, I had seriously underestimated the underlying subtlety of what had seemed a familiar game system, and this lack of understanding had produced my unexpected and surprisingly lop-sided defeat. Where, I asked myself, had I gone wrong?

In reviewing this first match, I quickly concluded that I had not appreciated either the devastating effect of the ‘untried’ Soviet units rule, or the lethal potential of German ‘overruns’ to disrupt even a carefully-crafted Russian defense. Obviously, there was a lot more to this seemingly conventional East Front game than first met the eye. This was, I decided, definitely a case of live and learn. In the end, this first humbling experience, while momentarily damaging to my self-esteem, also went a long way towards convincing me that this was one of the best operational-level World War II game systems ever created. Thirty-four years have passed since PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN first made its appearance, and I still haven’t found a compelling argument for changing my mind.

The reasons for my continued affection for this title, and its ingenious design architecture, are several. To start with: the basic game dynamic is great. The PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN game system contains a number of design features that make for an exciting, free-wheeling, sometimes frustrating, but always challenging gaming experience. The absence of a Soviet mechanized movement phase, Soviet ‘untried’ units, the effects of disruption, restrictions on Russian air interdiction, and constrictive supply rules, all impose significant limits on the Russian player’s range of strategic options. Nonetheless, the Soviet side is still both interesting and enjoyable to play. The German Army, of course, seems to have everything going for it: mobility, an extra mechanized movement phase, a significant ‘step-reduction’ advantage, air supremacy, a ‘divisional integrity’ combat bonus (for mechanized units), a powerful ‘overrun’ capability, and comparatively liberal supply rules. However, the German player, despite his many advantages, also has his own problems. The game clock ticks very fast, so a would-be Guderian or Hoth must accomplish a great deal in a very short period of time: one wasted turn, and victory can easily slip beyond his reach.

PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN besides being a great game, however, is also interesting because of where it stands in the evolution of armored warfare game systems. Of course, the highly-innovative features that James F. Dunnigan combined to make the PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN game system unique didn’t suddenly just appear out of nowhere. In actuality, a clear evolutionary path can be traced beginning with SPI’s introduction of the original KURSK (1971), continuing with THE MOSCOW CAMPAIGN (1972), then EL ALAMEIN and THE ARDENNES OFFENSIVE (1973), through WAR IN THE EAST, 1st ed. (1974), and finally to PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN (1976). Moreover, like other successful SPI game platforms, this basic game system went on to inspire a diverse collection of other titles including, but not limited to: KHARKOV; COBRA; DRIVE ON STALINGRAD; the quadri-game, FOUR BATTLES OF ARMY GROUP SOUTH; ‘WACHT AM RHEIN’; and even FULDA GAP. This means, for the efficiency-minded players among us, mastery of this one game system opens up a whole library of other game titles for interested players to try.

PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN is, admittedly, probably not a good choice either for the absolute novice (simply too much detail), or for the ‘chess player’ type gamer who both prefers to avoid the ‘fog of war’ and who hates nasty surprises. However, for anyone else who, for one reason or another, has never tried this game — whether they are a casual or an experienced player — I recommend it highly. It may be old, but it has aged extremely well.

Design Characteristics:

  • Time Scale: 2 days per game turn
  • Map Scale: 10.5 kilometers per hex
  • Unit Size: regiment/division
  • Unit Types: leaders (Soviet only), tank/panzer, mechanized infantry/panzer grenadier, infantry, cavalry, air (interdiction) points, and information counters
  • Number of Players: two
  • Complexity: average
  • Solitaire Suitability: below average
  • Average Playing Time: 2-3 hours

Game Components:

  • One 22” x 32” hexagonal grid Map Sheet (with Turn Record/Reinforcement Track and Terrain Key incorporated)
  • 200 ½” back-printed cardboard Counters
  • One 8½” x 11” PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN Rules Booklet (with Set up Instructions, Combat Results table, and Terrain Effects Chart incorporated)
  • One small six-sided Die
  • One 3¾” x 8½” SPI Customer Complaint Card
  • One SPI 12” x 15” x 1” flat 24 compartment plastic Game Box (with clear compartment tray covers) and Title Sheet

Related Blog Posts

SPI, KURSK (1971)
SPI, WAR IN THE EAST, 1st ED. (1974)
SPI, COBRA (1977)

Recommended Reading

See my blog post Book Review of this title which is strongly recommended for those readers interested in further historical background.

THE WEST POINT ATLAS OF AMERICAN WARS (Complete 2-Volume Set); edited by Brigadier General Vincent J. Esposito; Frederick A. Praeger, Inc. (1959); ASIN: B000MTBTEU

Also recommended is Davud Glantz' new treatment of the battle.


  • Really a good review for really a great system ! I spent quite a lot of time on PGG and the other games of the series: Army Group South, Karkhov and Drive on Stalingrad. I have just finished a game on the later last week.

  • Greetings Again Bir Hachim:

    Yes, I agree, even after all these years, I still consider this to be one of the best game platforms that SPI (Dunnigan) ever developed.

    The game, 'DRIVE ON STALINGRAD', of course, did not start out nearly as well as it ended up. It originally had a number of serious design problems; however, after a number of rules 'fixes' from both SPI and the regular fans of the game system, it was ultimately transformed into a really exciting simulation of the Axis '42 campaign in Russia. One rules feature of this title that I really like -- a minority opinion, I know -- was the 'Hitler Directive' rules case. Players tend to forget that both Churchill (throughout the war) and Stalin (during the disastrous early months, particularly) both meddled in the operational decision-making of their field commanders. Something that modern gamers, all too often, tend to forget.

    Thanks again for your kind words and
    Best Regards, Joe

    P.S. I agree whole-heartedly with your opinion of John Keegan's work. My only criticism of Keegan -- and of most of the British historians, for that matter -- is his rather, in my opinion, over-blown admiration for Wellington's abilities as a general. Certainly, the 'Iron Duke' was a superb battlefield commander, but as a strategist, Napoleon (even at the end) ran rings around him.

  • Joe,

    I full agree that Drive on STalingrad is quite a good simulation, not necessary a good game. Hitler's directives are quite real. When I played it, I was unable to conquer Stalingrad and I seized Maikop. But it wasn't possible to do better. I think the best way to win with the Germans is to concentrate south of the Don and not to conquer Voroneh thus enabling most of german divisions to make huge encirclements... Perhaps sometimes I'll try this plan !

    For Wellington, with time, I have learned to appreciate his "art de la guerre". He won the peninsular war and the belgian campaign. A great captain with many difficulties: weak allies, not so good officers, political burden on his shoulders,...

    Truly yours,

  • For decades, PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN remained at the top of my personal list of the best Eastern Front game SPI ever made. My first experience with it was pretty much like you described. It took many playings to solve the "Soviet puzzle" and I loved the debates over what was the best Soviet defensive strategy. What was so unusual about the game at first blush was that it posed an operational-level "meeting engagement" and that was so hard for many of us to grapple with at first.

    To me, the most compelling thing about the game was how well it simulated the different command philosophies for both sides. The German can afford to be flexible, fast, and loose--taking chances and being able to improvise in accordance with a general plan. The Soviet, however, must be always thinking three or more turns ahead given the relative slow movement capabilities of his units and the strictures imposed by the supply system and leadership. It takes great patience, farsightedness, tenaciousness in the face of huge casualties, and chess-like precision of play to be a good Soviet player in the game. And those types of players can more often than not frustrate the Germans. It's a terribly satisfying feeling to win the game as the Soviets.

    The game is also a "player" in that it had quite a long run as a tournament game at wargame conventions. Phil Rennert made quite a reputation with the game as a competitor (and he's not too bad at other games, either!). PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN was one of those rare and brilliant designs that succeeded on so many levels simultaneously. It was a novel situation for games at the time, it dealt with a lesser known but critical battle on the Eastern Front, it highlighted a little understood ability of the Soviets to decisively slow the German juggernaut in the summer of 1941, it puzzled wargamers for years, and was a great game for competitive players.

  • Greetings Eric:

    Welcome to my blog; I sincerely appreciate both your interest and your thoughtful comments.

    So far as the actual play of the game is concerned: like you, I found the problems posed by the game system particularly interesting when viewed from the Soviet standpoint. For this reason, whenever I was given the option (which was often), I chose to play the Russians. As you note, the Soviet situation is an extremely challenging one; but, when the Red Army does manage to pull out a victory, it is always -- speaking purely as a player -- enormously gratifying.

    Thanks again for your kind words and
    Best Regards, Joe

  • The World Boardgame Championships bid for sides.

    Phil was very good, esp. as the Axis, but then some figured out how to play the Russians and then Phil stopped playing.

    Don Johnson

  • hi , i sell a lots of thoses games in paris.
    panzergruppe guderian
    four great mediaval battles
    to the green fields beyond
    battle for stalingrad
    the tribes of crane
    source of the nile
    call of cthulhu
    dragon pass
    gamma worlds
    dungeon floor plans
    dawn of the dead
    swords and sorcery

    lots of magazines

    low price garranty .

    caontact me at olivier.freebox@free.fr

  • Greetings Anon:

    Good luck with your games. I have a lot of European visitors so it is possible that someone who is in the market will see your comments.

    Best Regards, Joe

  • PzG was the first game of my S&T sub back in high school. It was like Christmas the day it came. I read the rules immediately and even offered to pick up several of my brother's chores in order to get him to play (he was like that).

    Long story short, I got my behind handed to me as the Germans. No kiddin' there's a tight timetable. And German overruns need to be many and constant. And hopefully you don't run into the couple of Russian units that are tough at inopportune times. That alone can ruin your whole day.

    I came away thinking the Germans couldn't reasonably win this game and didn't play it again until years later in college when one of the guys at the game club said he would play the Germans for money. No money changed hands, but he showed me how it's done. Played well, the Germans are a juggernaut and the game is tightly balanced.

    PzG is one of the few 70s era games I'd still play without reservation.

  • Greetings Tom:

    Thanks for taking the time to share your memories of this "classic" old game.

    As you note in your comments, the Werhmacht can have a very tough time if the German commander is overly cautious or is unwilling to put some of his panzers out of supply by slicing deep behind Russian lines. Usually, when I play the Russians, I will get a pretty good idea of what kind of game I am going to have by whether the German player attempts to break through on my right flank on the first few game turns. An early breakthrough usually means trouble for the Red Army; on the other hand, if a few of his overruning mechanized stacks run into a "real" Soviet powerhouse division, then it is the German player who is going to have to do scrambling to catch up!

    And yes, like you, I still like the game well enough to play it even now.

    Best Regards, Joe

  • The concept of “untried units” for the Soviet player provided nasty surprises for both sides and gave this game great replay value. IIRC, this was a relatively new concept at the time and has since morphed in many directions with great success.

    It saw a good amount of playing time in my gaming group when it first came out. I agree that it still holds up as a decent game.

    -- Doug Edwards

  • Greetings Doug:

    Thanks for visiting; I appreciate your interest.

    Yes, Dunnigan used the "untried" unit concept in 'INVASION AMERICA' but, because of a few unrelated problems with the game (the air rules never really worked, for example), it really didn't catch on with gamers until 'PGG'.

    In retrospect, the truly interesting thing about the use of "untried" Russian units was that neither player knew the strength of an "untried" unit until it had been involved in combat. This was a fascinating, if nerve-racking new wrinkle for most of us and -- in my view, at least -- was a major contributor to the wide-spread (and continuing) popularity of the 'PGG' game system.

    Best Regards, Joe

  • I do not see Kursk system games evolving into PGG system games, rather I see PGG as a new system.

    In PGG after watching a few tournament games, I got the idea that each German mech unit is like a tiny fire and a goal is to combine them into a mass to form a shaped charge to blow thru the Soviet defenses, using overruns, then combat, then overruns. There is a temptation to spread out the German mech, which should almost always be resisted, as that dilutes the cumulative effect.

  • Greetings Don:

    Thanks for taking the time to comment.

    I suppose that, in a very real sense, it all comes down to how one defines "new".

    In my view, SPI seems to have followed a relatively clear and orderly developmental pathway: KURSK (mechanized movement); THE MOSCOW CAMPAIGN (added overruns and rail movement); EL ALAMEIN (switched from divisional to regimental scale & added "sticky" ZOCs); and WAR IN THE EAST (addrd rudimentary step-reduction & air interdiction). Clearly, Jimmy D. came up with a basket full of new design elements when he designed PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN: "untried" units, Soviet headquarters-based supply, more realistic step-reduction, and multiple low-odds overruns; nonetheless, ground-breaking as PGG was when it first appeared, I would still argue that the final architecture of the game was really the result of a number of innovations that had gradually accumulated over time. The new game was certainly greater than the sum of its parts, but many of those parts were evident in earlier SPI World War II games.

    Best Regards, Joe

  • Joe, a question came up on CSW on which views differ.

    If a unit starts its movement phase in a ZOC, can it overrun attack the unit exerting the ZOC? Note such units cannot move, but they can attack.

    To put it another way, is an overrun in PGG considered a form of movement as was the prevailing concept in earlier SPI games, or is it a form of combat despite its ocurring in the movement phase?

  • Just to illustrate the question: (References are to the original rules in S&T 57)

    [6.5] OVERRUN

    '...Overrun is considered to be a function of movement.'

    [6.56] When conducting an overrun attack, Players may ignore the ZOC of units which are exerting an influence on the hex from which the overrun attack is coming...

    [IR's note - if the paragraph terminated here it would be clear enough, but it doesn't -]

    ...That is, they may occupy the target hex if the overrun is successful regardless of enemy ZOCs."


    [8.13] Units may never voluntarily leave an enemy controlled hex. Friendly units may leave Enemy controlled hexes only as a result of combat. However, see Overrun Rules in Case 6.5"

    The somewhat eliptical proviso in 8.13 would seem to prohibit using an overrun when you start the phase in a ZOC, because it is movement not combat, per [6.5]; on the other hand this is counter-intuitive to the general rule which prohibits further 'usual' movement once a ZOC is entered - but not an overrun attack movement, and accordingly why can't you perform one when you start there?

    I.E. I agree with Don Johnson and Ted Kim, but understand other opinions differ.

  • In the S&T65 rules for Cobra this was cleaned up -

    '[8.13] ... Units may only leave an Enemy ZOC as a result of combat, overrun, or by disengagement.'

  • Greetings Ian R:

    Thanks, as always, for visiting.

    It looks like -- at least when it somes to the issue of ZOCs and "Overruns" in PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN -- you beat me to the punch with your own COBRA rules clarification.

    For my own part, I keep my old copies of PGG and COBRA in the same SPI plastic flat box (I must have bought almost a hundred of these handy game trays from SPI to store my old "S&T" magazine games way back when) along with copies of any "errata" or photocopies of interesting articles that pertain to either title; so when I saw your initial question, it was there that I went to check PGG rules and "errata". Obviously, you found the same (dispositive) rules clarification that I did.

    Interestingly, while it has been years since I have played either the original or the Avalon Hill version of PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN, I seem to remember that I and my early group of regular opponents allowed "Overrun escapes" from enemy zones of control, even before SPI actually got around to addressing this issue in its subsequent "errata".

    Sorry, by the way, to be a little late responding to your questions; but, because both Thursday and Saturday are "movie nights" here at Casa Beard, I did not see your comments until this morning.

    Best Regards, Joe

  • ""movie nights" here at Casa Beard"

    I can run with 'Ronin' or 'The Departed' :-)

  • Greetings Again Ian R:

    No, last night it was "The Book of Eli" (or, as I like to think of it, "The Road Warrior: Beyond Thunderdome" meets "Yojimbo"), followed by the first two episodes of the old PBS mystery series: "Lord Peter Whimsey and the Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club). "Ronin" was an interesting film, although to be honest, virtually all of the "freelance" players in the movie seemed a bit smarter and a lot more competent than the CIA field agents that I personally meet when I was serving in Vietnam.

    Best Regards, Joe

  • Ronin... it is never confirmed in the film, but I am sure the Jean Reno character was a DGSE officer who like Sam was planted to target Seamus.

  • Greetings Ian R:

    Your take on the Jean Reno character makes sense, although the Robert DeNiro character (Sam) always struck me as oddly out of place. I would have thought that the Maoist faction of the IRA would have been of more interest to MI6 than to the CIA; but then DeNiro would have had to fake an British accent.

    By the way, on the slim chance that someone else actually glances at these comments and wonders about the French DGSE: the letters stand for "Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure". It is the French intelligence agency tasked with "anti-terrorist" operations.

    Best Regards, Joe

  • "DeNiro would have had to fake an British accent."

    And learn to pronounce Hereford properly.

    And in case you are still wondering its red brick and wood with blue painted doors.

Post a Comment