Map and Counters

Or, It Never Rains, But That It Pours!

Those visitors who have been following my regular ramblings on "Map and Counters" already know that computer problems forced me to temporarily stop posting new material several weeks ago. Initially, although this unwelcome setback was a bit irritating, I really did not expect to be side-lined when it came to my blogging for more than a few days or so. This assumption, unfortunately, has turned out to be wildly optimistic; mainly because, shortly after my computer decided to gasp its last, my residential air conditioner also decided to go on strike: a problem, needless-to-say, which is no trivial matter when it comes to surviving in Arizona during the summer months! That being said, I have finally resolved my air conditioning woes (more or less) and am now ready to resume my quest for a new (and more reliable) computer; however, even while I have attempted to deal with my several unexpected travails, I have not been completely idle when it comes to developing future essays for my website. Thus, I suppose that, at least in this one sense, my temporary halt in publishing has not been a total waste.

Interestingly, one benefit of not being under the constant pressure to write new material for publication is that I have had the time to visit other sites (using my wife's computer) and to participate in a number of different gaming forums. This interaction with other gamers, in turn, has encouraged me to revisit a number of titles that, for one reason or another, I have largely neglected over the last two years. A perfect example of this is Avalon Hill's venerable old classic STALINGRAD: long dismissed by most gamers in favor of newer, more historically satisfying titles, this game has none-the-less retained a small, but dedicated following among both grognards and (based on the ongoing comments at Consimworld) even a few newer players. The fact that interest in this dated but very Chess-like game seems to extend beyond the ranks of a few "old-timers" like me, Randy Heller, Ed Menzel, Lou Coutney, and Joe Angiolillo, has encouraged me to review my own copy of the game with an eye towards starting a new set of STALINGRAD Notebook entries (like those that I have already posted on AFRIKA KORPS) for those relative newcomers to the hobby willing to give this challenging old classic a fresh look.

Along with STALINGRAD, my recent break from blogging has also given me the opportunity to revisit another long-time favorite of mine, WATERLOO. I actually began a series of essays on this game a long time ago, but somehow got side-tracked and discontinued the series after posting the opening installment on the game. At long last I am ready to return to this topic and, given the tournament rules changes that are now a part of competitive play at the WBC Convention Tournament, I am hopeful that a few readers, at least, will find an examination of the grand-tactical nuances of this old title useful, or at least modestly interesting.

In addition, other essays (in various stages of completion) are waiting in the wings, ready to be published as soon as I have my new computer up and running. For example, I continue to plug away at a fairly detailed (and, hopefully, somewhat intriguing) historical narrative on wargames and wargaming. Also in the works is a discussion of the profound impact of the PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN Game System on the work of a variety of different game designers in the decades that have followed Dunnigan's ground-breaking new treatment of "armored warfare" from 1976. And, of course, I still have a piece or two left to publish on WAR IN THE EAST: a subject that, whether because of frustration or nostalgia, I seem to be incapable of letting go of, once and for all.

Finally, I am also contemplating a number of new "Game Profiles" with special attention to those designers (like Kevin Zucker, Irad Hardy, Mark Hermann, and John Hill) that I have given rather less attention to, thus far at least, than they probably deserve. This all, not surprisingly, leads to the obvious qustion: Where do things stand now? The answer, such as it is, is that my wife (bless her heart) is presently working to transfer files from my old computer to its replacement; which means that, if everything goes off without a hitch, I should finally be back up and running within a day or two. On the other hand, given my luck thus far, this process of transition could well end up taking a lot longer than either she or I currently expect!

My Response to a Reader’s Thought-Provoking Rebutal of My Essay on HBO’S “The Pacific”

Soon after I published a rambling critique of the HBO miniseries “The Pacific,” I was pleased to receive the following very well-written and carefully-reasoned response to several of the issues that I had raised in my post: ‘And Now for Something Completely Different, Part 3’. The commentator presents a number of interesting arguments in rebuttal to several of the points that I had brought forward in my wide-ranging essay about Tom Hanks, ‘historical revisionism’, and the HBO series that Hanks and Spielberg produced. Originally, as I usually do, I had planned on dashing off a reply in the ‘comments section’ to my anonymous critic, but upon reflection, I have decided to expand my remarks and to post them as a regular blog entry. These remarks are presented in very much the same form as if they were in a direct email to this thoughtful commentator.

Here is the comment to which my response replies:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, PART 3...":

LeMay said it best: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal."

What was a clear violation of the Hague Conventions in early 1940 (a British Admiral refused to shell a German position in Norway due to the great potential of civilian casualties) became de-riguer in 1944-45.

(FWIW like you I see nothing wrong with this and a utilitarian analysis tells me the USAAF's area bombing, including the two nukes, were in all likelihood necessary if not sufficient to getting Japan to surrender to our terms cleanly, as opposed to the grinding mess we had to go through in Germany).

A lot of blood flowed under the bridge to get the national psyche there. The brutal bombing of The Blitz -- as Germany's ally and partner in crime, Japan received our enmity in transference.

The suicidal resistance we encountered every step of the way. The brutal mistreatment of our POWs and our Philippine friends we fully discovered in late 1944.

The payback we wanted to exact for Japan's brutal prosecution of their attacks on China.

A lot of our killing of Japanese civilians was done not regretfully but rather eagerly.

I think you have a comic-book view of the reality of WW2.

There was great racism directed against Japanese in the US prior to WW2. California and the US had passed an exclusion act against Japanese immigrants in the 1920s, something the 1941 diplomacy was looking at repealing as part of the reaching a modus vivendi.

The Japanese farmer's boy who did the bulk of the fighting and dying didn't know bushido from Bluto. His officers were inculcated in this tradition, they beat this into the NCOs, which in turn beat the idea of total obedience to the divine chain of command into their charges.

My grandfather was born in 1911 in rural Washington and he didn't rush out on Dec 8 to enlist. He finally did in 1943 as the Marines were getting pretty beat up.

FWIW, I think everyone was a victim in WW2. The Japanese pro-war militants, for being pigheaded fools trapped in their glory-seeking such that they failed to fully weigh the attendant risks of their actions, and everyone forced to fight and die for their country, and the millions of civilian dead from Burma to Peiping.

It was a crazy time, a time when revisionists thought they could bring back the 19th century norms of truculent politics into the mid-20th.

I don't think the current friction we have with the islamic world is anything close to this, any more than the Irish question was like WW2.

There may be a billion muslims, but this makes the situation more stable I think, over the long run.

Posted by Anonymous to Map and Counters at March 22, 2010 1:00 AM

Greetings Anonymous:

Thank your for your interesting, if challenging comments; it is always reassuring to a blogger like me to know that someone out there in the ‘internet ether’ — whether they agree or disagree with my occasionally eccentric musings — actually makes the effort both to read and then to respond to something that I have written. I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to share your views.

Based on your thoughtful and serious response to my post on the Spielberg-Hank’s production, “The Pacific,” I suspect that — at least, insofar as both the historical context and the major events of World War II are concerned — we probably agree about more than we disagree. In fact, it is possible that the majority of the questions that you raise are as much a product of my imperfect choice of language as of anything else. In any case, let me clarify a few points that, had this essay been more artfully written, might not have been quite so open to criticism.

Mixed in with your earlier remarks, you suggest that my sense of the national mood just after America’s entry into the war may be a little overblown. Perhaps, but I really don’t think so. I do acknowledge that once the initial wave of national shock and anger in the immediate aftermath of Pearl Harbor dissipated in the months following the bombing of the Pacific Fleet, the vast majority of Americans gradually settled into a grudging, rather than enthusiastic, acceptance of the many changes that the war imposed on everyday life. However, it is also incontrovertible that prior to the Japanese attack, the vast majority of the population was certainly not clamoring to fight on behalf of the captive peoples in Europe or the Far East. Even Edward R. Morrow’s reportage on the German’ Blitz’ of London, and the photo essays on the victorious march of the Wehrmacht through Europe or the Japanese depredations against the Chinese in popular publications of the day like ‘LOOK’ and ‘LIFE’ magazines had been unable to significantly gin-up American public opinion. In fact, according to Gallup, just prior to the Japanese attack, well over 60% of Americans were strongly opposed to going to war with anyone; more interesting still, even after Pearl Harbor, perhaps as much as 17% of the population still opposed going to war against Germany and Japan. Thus, Pearl Harbor, if it did nothing else, dramatically changed popular attitudes, even if it did not completely expunge natural concerns about what entry into the war would mean. And popular worries were certainly justified, even for those who fought the war on the ‘Home Front’.

To begin with, things changed almost immediately, and not always for the better. Well-paying jobs, of course, became plentiful for the first time in over a decade. However, while the typical civilian worker may have been happy to have steady employment at a defense plant, he or she was also probably unhappy about the very real inconveniences imposed by rationing, chronic shortages in hitherto common goods, blackout regulations, and conscription. And certainly after the first wave of enlistments following America’s entry into the war, millions of young men — rather than rushing to sign up — were content to wait until they were called up in the draft. Nonetheless, I would argue that the war still affected the national psyche like no conflict since the Civil War. Was there a massive effort by both the government and the national media to propagate and promote patriotic themes? Of course, there was. And did war-weariness gradually begin to seep into the national consciousness as first the months, and then the years passed, and more and more ‘Blue Star’ mothers became ‘Gold Star’ mothers? Most certainly; it could hardly have been otherwise. Yet, World War II still represented a monumental and even transformative national experience. People picked-up and moved, oftentimes across country, in order to find jobs in the rapidly expanding war industry and they never went back to their original homes once the war was over. In short, the entire country changed, and changed forever.

We appear to differ as to degree, but not in terms of actual substance, on another issue. You point out, quite correctly, that the ordinary Japanese soldier would have had little real understanding of the traditional teachings of Bushido. This is a valid point. Japanese martial conduct was inculcated through rigorous training and constant indoctrination and was not a product of informed study on the part of the lower ranks. So, I grant you that the actual text of Miyamoto Musashi’s Seventeenth Century martial masterpiece, ‘The Book of the Five Rings’ would have been, I am sure, quite unfamiliar except by reputation to most of the men who fought for the Emperor during World War II; yet I would nonetheless argue that these precepts and the ancient warrior traditions of Bushido still shaped the conduct of Japan’s military in important and unfortunate ways. It was not, after all, Japanese officers and NCO’s, but ordinary soldiers, who went through military hospitals in Singapore — following the British surrender of the island fortress — bayoneting the wounded soldiers and medical staff that they found there. Moreover, this was not a regrettable, undisciplined aberration, but a continuation of the same types of military conduct that had been seen time and time again in Japan’s war with China. The ordinary Japanese soldier might not have known the subtleties of the creed that animated his leaders, but he certainly understood what was expected of him.

It was, by the way, interesting to see that you opened your commentary with a quote from the architect of the World War II American bombing campaign against Japan, USAAF General Curtis LeMay. His “war crimes” comment, discomforting though it may be, is simply a confirmation of the inarguable truth that the histories of all wars are largely written by the winners. Moreover, he was in a position to know about that of which he spoke: there is little doubt that LeMay’s strategy of area bombing Japanese cities was a calculated attempt to destroy the will of the Japanese people to continue the war. That it was seen as ruthless and controversial even by some within the US Government is inarguable. On the other hand, given the fact that — by the time of the battle for Okinawa — the Imperial high command had already begun extensive preparations for a last-ditch defense of the Japanese Home Islands against an Allied invasion that envisaged sacrificing their own civilian population in what was certain to be an act of national suicide, it is hard to see that LeMay really had many acceptable alternatives. It is, by the way, ironic that the cigar-chomping LeMay is today associated with the devastating and much-criticized air campaign against Japan, and almost no one remembers that the blunt-talking general was also the organizer and moving force behind the Berlin Airlift.

On one issue we do seem to differ. When it comes to the destructiveness and sheer ferocity of the war in the Pacific versus that in Europe, unlike you, I can really see no appreciable difference. The British may have been, as you point out, a little squeamish about the conduct of the war in its early stages, but once the survival of England was at stake, virtually all such considerations went ‘over the side’. The Vichy French Fleet, for example, was attacked by the British Mediterranean Fleet on 3 July 1940 while anchored at Mers el Kébir in Algeria; this patently illegal bombardment of a neutral country’s naval forces resulted in the sinking of three French battleships and the deaths of over 1,000 French seamen. Given the threat of a German controlled French fleet, the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, showed no hesitation at all in ordering this attack against sailors who only a few months before had been England’s allies. Moreover, the air war between England and Germany showed little inclination by either side to avoid or even to minimize civilian casualties. Sadly, very soon after the fall of France, both British and German air force planners switched their emphasis from military to civilian targets; thus, the change in the Allied attitude towards civilian casualties actually occurred long before the more intensive air campaigns against Germany in 1943-45. In fact, the British Air Marshal, “Bomber” Harris, wasted little time — once he had the government’s approval — in changing over to night area attacks against German cities so as to conserve the British bomber force and its desperately-needed flight crews. For better or for worse, in the eyes of the British high command, the indiscriminate bombing of population centers was virtually the only strategic tool that the English had with which to strike back at the Third Reich. If there was significantly more soul-searching among the leaders of the air campaign against Germany than among those who led the air war against Japan, I have not been able to find it. As a final thought on the air war, given the Allied emphasis on a “Germany First” strategy for World War II: I have every confidence that had Hitler’s Ardennes Offensive been wildly successful, then Berlin rather than Hiroshima would have been the primary target for the first American atomic bomb.

In another part of your commentary, you suggest that I at least partially ignore the wide-spread anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States both before and during World War II. Although that was not my intent, I can understand how my poor choice of language could lead a reader to that conclusion. Nonetheless, as I conceded in my original essay: there was certainly a racial dimension to the bitter fighting that raged across the Pacific. My only point was that, if anything, it was culturally even more ingrained in the ordinary Japanese soldier than in the young marine who faced him. Nonetheless, the fact remains that those Japanese dwelling in the United States, like any number of other ‘suspect’ ethnic groups, suffered as a result of prejudice before the war, and from a very real and wide-spread racial animus after Pearl Harbor. Moreover, the internment of thousands of Japanese-Americans was a regrettable and unjust overreaction to events in the Pacific. However, this treatment was not unique to the Japanese: the US Government had previously demonstrated no qualms, whatsoever, about abusing the Constitutional rights of German-Americans or of any others, for that matter, that the Wilson Administration had deemed as either unreliable or insufficiently patriotic during World War I. Clearly, it was a different time; the America of the early and mid-Twentieth century was simply not the same place than it is today.

At one point, you allude to my “comic-book” attitude towards the events of World War II. From this comment I can only infer that you view my arguments a being too critical of the Japanese, too biased in favor of the American marines, and not particularly nuanced when it comes to a world cataclysm that, when it was finally over, had consumed some sixty to seventy million lives. It is, of course, possible that I am predisposed because of my personal history and background to see the wartime conduct of the ordinary American serviceman in a more favorable light than someone else looking at the same events or the same set of facts. Fair enough; honesty compels me to at least grant that possibility. On the other hand, everything that I have seen and read, as well as my own experiences as a soldier in Vietnam tell me that, in the wars of the “American Century,” there have usually been profound differences between the way in which we have treated our enemies and the way that they have treated us. And that those differences have almost always redounded to America’s credit. So, in keeping with the “comic-book” metaphor, I offer a link to two photographs each used for a different cover of “LIFE’ magazine as visual illustrations as to why my faith in the basic decency of the ordinary American serviceman or woman remains unshakeable. Both photographs were taken by W. Eugene Smith in the Pacific during World War II: one was taken in Saipan in 1943; the other during the battle for the Marianas, in 1944. (Life magazine cover photos show a US Marine rescuing a Japanese baby, Saipan June 1943 and navy corpsman treating wounded Japanese soldier, Marianas, 1944.)
Both show, I hope, that despite the harrowing carnage of these different battlefields, the essential spark of humanity and compassion still managed to survive in the hearts of these ordinary American servicemen. In over forty years of reviewing various photo archives, I have yet to locate any comparable photographs of similar acts of compassion by German soldiers toward their Russian enemies, or of Japanese soldiers toward any non-Japanese babies or enemy wounded.

As you observe, war is a tragic, terrible business; but it is also a business that we, as human beings, seem either unable or unwilling to abandon. The war in the Pacific was, for the most part, fought over patches of ground that the majority of soldiers on both sides had never heard of and about which they didn’t care; they simply went where they were told and did, in so far as each was capable, what they were there for. It is easy, looking back on long-past, distant battlefields to confuse the sordid ugliness of the means by which wars are fought with their outcomes. By this logic, everyone from the luckless civilians suddenly buried under the rubble of their collapsed house, to the SS officer who presided over the massacre of American POW’s at Malmédy, to the Japanese guards who bayoneted American and Philippino prisoners during the Bataan “Death March,” were all victims. This, I think, is a gross mistake; the outcome of the Second World War mattered profoundly for both sides; and because the Allies finally won, everyone, despite the extraordinary expenditures of blood and treasure, lives in a different and, I would argue, a better world because of it.

When I was growing up, virtually every male member of my family, except for two uncles who had been classified as ‘4 F’, had served in either the Pacific or in Europe. In those days, being a veteran was not an oddity; it was the rule. And, to a person: my father, my many uncles, and all of their friends still believed and were not hesitant in proclaiming — without a hint of self-consciousness — that theirs’ had been a righteous cause, and that they had played a small part in overthrowing the greatest existential menace of their age.

.
Let us all take a moment to remember those who wear our country’s uniform and who often must go to distant places and tend to the hard and dangerous business of providing for our defense. God Bless my youngest nephew and all who serve with him, whoever and wherever they are!

Tobruch to El Alamein, Part 1: The Matruh 'Line'

In my previous essay on AFRIKA KORPS, I focused on the “first” battle of Tobruch, and the competing goals of the two opposing armies as they maneuvered and fought during the late spring and early summer of 1941. These initial Axis attacks are virtually preordained because of our determined, but imaginary Rommel’s absolute need to push the Commonwealth off of the escarpments that both parallel the Coast Road (Via Balbia) and closely ring the fortified port city of Tobruch. Thus, the overriding purpose of these initial Axis attacks is simple: to bring the British fortress under siege and, by so doing, to release the bulk of the Deutsches Afrika Korps for further offensive operations. Rommel’s strategic options after completing this first operation, however, are limited. Once Tobruch has been successfully invested by Axis forces, the Desert Fox really has only two choices as to his next course of action: reduce Tobruch, or drive east towards Alexandria.

Rommel’s Dilemma: Tobruch First?

If Rommel chooses the first option, then the Afrika Korps can — assuming adequate supplies in the battle area — immediately begin the “second” battle of Tobruch, with a series of attacks intended to reduce the British garrison and capture the fortress. This option, although risky, has several appealing arguments in its favor. First, it guarantees that the assault on the fortress begins when Axis forces are at their strongest, and the Commonwealth army is at its weakest. Moreover, the hypothetical General Wavell will actually have only three major units upon which to anchor his defense of the fortress: the two 4-4-7s and the single 3-3-7. Obviously, if the Axis attacks are successful, and they do not severely cripple the Deutsches Afrika Korps with losses, then Commonwealth prospects for victory decline significantly. For Rommel, the first attack is usually the “big” attack; if it succeeds in eliminating one of the British armored brigades without an exchange, the British commander has a real problem. If he reinforces Tobruch with the 3-3-7 mechanized unit, then the Desert Fox will simply attack it at 5 to 1, and take his chances with either a 1 to 5 or a 1 to 6 soak-off. This means that, after the first Axis attack, the Tobruch garrison will typically be composed of two 2-2-6s and a 4-4-7. Unfortunately, the methods for profitably attacking this weakened garrison are too numerous to catalog. Second, if the one surviving 4-4-7 is also eliminated without an exchange, not only will the fortress fall, but the Commonwealth player will have great difficulty in achieving combat odds against the powerful Axis armored units for the rest of the game. Finally, the several important advantages that the Axis possession of Tobruch would confer on Rommel, in terms of increased replacements, and in the accelerated arrival of supply convoys and reinforcements are too obvious to require elaboration.

The British commander is, of course, probably not going to sit passively by waiting for the Desert Fox to methodically grind down the Tobruch garrison. The problem is that the Commonwealth field army is not really capable of direct offensive action against the Afrika Korps, even after the arrival of July and August reinforcements, so long as Rommel makes sure that his interior flank is covered. In this situation, the best option available to Wavell is probably to attempt to slip the 2SA/7 Recce around the Axis southern flank as soon as possible, but this cannot occur before August I, at the earliest. In addition, moving the small British field force forward to put pressure on the Afrika Korps also means moving it within range of an attack by the same Afrika Korps. One nasty Axis tactic is to switch attacks back and forth between the Tobruch garrison and the British relief army as supplies reach the battle area.

The single crucial aspect of the “Tobruch first” strategy that discourages most Axis players from pursuing it, is the substantial risk attached to the attacks against the two 4-4-7s. Although individually, each of these combats has only a one-third chance of a doubled exchange, when considered as a pair of attacks, the chances of at least one exchange result occurring increase to more than fifty per cent. For this reason, most experienced Axis commanders will not attempt to reduce the fortress during the first summer, unless the British commander has already lost one of his armored brigades prior to Tobruch being brought under siege.

Rommel’s Dilemma: Egypt First?

As tantalizing as the prospect of the early fall of Tobruch is to the typical Axis commander, he will usually postpone initiating the “second” battle of Tobruch until he has, at least, attempted an offensive drive into Egypt and against the Allied Home Base in Alexandria. The arguments for this line of action are at least as compelling as those supporting the “Tobruch first” strategy. First, once the British block has been cleared from the Salum Pass, the front will open up, forcing the Commonwealth commander to sacrifice either combat units or terrain as he maps out his defense of Egypt. Initially, the east-west escarpment line will provide the British player with a small amount of defensive relief, but the greater range of the German panzer divisions means that the British forces will be hard-pressed to maintain strength at the front while still adequately covering their steadily-lengthening flanks. Second, if the Italian supply convoys can get past the Royal Navy during this critical period, and if the Axis offensive develops according to Rommel’s plan, then the Commonwealth troops will probably experience heavy attrition. Moreover, in the process they will be pushed back into the El Alamein Line by November of 1941. At this point in the campaign, Rommel will have four and a half months (nine game turns) remaining to either capture the Allied Home Base, or to double back for an assault against Tobruch. If the Desert Fox fails to do one or the other, however, then the Allied “three to one” advantage in replacements — beginning in March ’42 — will quickly swamp Axis prospects for victory in North Africa. Thus, the “Egypt first” Axis strategy offers one signal advantage that the “Tobruch first” strategy does not: that of flexibility. If the offensive peters out in Egypt, Rommel can always race back to attack Tobruch with the Afrika Korps. If, on the other hand, the Axis commander has burned his army out in reducing the fortress, then it may be a long time, if ever, before the Deutsches Afrika Korps resumes its march towards the Suez.

The Wild Card: German Supply

From July I ’41 through November II ’41, the fate of Rommel’s offensive into Egypt will depend almost entirely on the results of the Axis convoy die rolls. If four to six convoys manage to reach North Africa — the most probable set of outcomes — then the Deutsches Afrika Korps may have a real opportunity to inflict some serious damage on Wavell’s out-numbered forces. The date on which these convoys arrive, however, is also very important during this stage of the game. Any convoys arriving after the September II game turn will not reach the El Alamein battle area before November II ’41. So, if the Royal Navy is particularly adept at finding and sinking the July and August convoys, then Rommel is simply going to have to settle in for a long war. Whatever else happens, the Desert Fox can at least take comfort in the knowledge that the supply table will, beginning on the December I game turn, have only a one-sixth chance of a “sunk’ result for the remainder of the game.

The Battle for Egypt Begins

The balance of this essay will focus on the Axis drive into Egypt, and the several tactical and strategic challenges it poses for both the Axis and the Commonwealth players along the way. It will present a set of illustrative, but quite plausible, moves on the part of a hypothetical Axis commander and his make-believe Commonwealth adversary. It is assumed that the reader already has a thorough knowledge of the game rules and of the general flow and tempo of a typical AFRIKA KORPS match between two experienced and knowledgeable opponents.

Allied Goals

The imaginary General Wavell, having preserved — for the time being, at least — Commonwealth possession of Tobruch, must now set his mind to the much more complicated, but no less important problem of defending British Egypt. To accomplish this task, Wavell can draw upon the survivors from his starting forces (now thirteen factors) plus ten factors of June reinforcements already on the map; in addition, eight additional combat units (nine factors) will enter play on July I, and a final contingent of four 1-1-6s will be in a position to land on Aug I. All of these soon to arrive Commonwealth reinforcements would seem to suggest that the British commander could look forward to a point of rough equilibrium between the Afrika Korps and Allied forces by August of 1941. This, however, is an illusion. Wavell simply has too many critical demands on his meager army to attempt to attain even temporary battlefield parity with Rommel before November of 1941. To see why this is so, it is only necessary to consider the British general’s several, sometimes conflicting goals.

First, and always most uppermost in the mind of the British commander, is the defense of the Allied Home Base in Alexandria. Following this, his second major priority is the continued Commonwealth possession of Tobruch; the early fall of the fortress, unless accompanied by truly appalling Axis losses, usually represents a lethal blow to British prospects in North Africa. Third, Wavell must attempt to control as much of the map as he can prudently manage; however, he can accomplish this only by maintaining his front line as far west as possible. While risky, this British strategy offers important benefits: the wider the front, the more difficult it will be for Rommel both to concentrate his combat power and to seal off the western desert from Allied raids. Moreover, the escarpment line that parallels the Via Balbia between the Salum Pass and Mersa Matruh, is an excellent “curtain of maneuver” for the British forces. If the Desert Fox masses along the Coast Road, then there will be few long-range German combat units left to straddle the escarpment and threaten Commonwealth forces probing around the southern end of the Axis line. The constant danger to the British, of course, is the longer reach of the German panzer divisions; one British mistake, and the Commonwealth forces could find themselves enveloped and out of supply. Thus, extreme caution must be exercised by the Allied player, particularly as the front moves east towards the end of the coast escarpment line. Fourth, Wavell should always attempt to maximize Rommel’s expenditure of supplies while minimizing British losses. The Deutsches Afrika Korps will typically be in a position, given average supply rolls, to make four or five attacks between June II and the British phase of the November I game turn. Supply convoys arriving after September II will probably not be able to reach the front line before November II. This represents a lot of potential damage. For this reason, it will be the British commander’s goal to try to keep Allied losses down to about two factors per Axis supply. The final objective of our hypothetical General Wavell is — as was the case during the First Battle of Tobruch — to conserve as many of his major (2-2-6s and larger) units as he can in the face of a determined Axis attacker. To add still further to the British commander’s problems is the fact that he must both maintain an adequate force in Tobruch at all times, and sufficient ready reserves to immediately reinforce the garrison, if the Axis suddenly switch their attention to an assault on the fortress.

Axis Goals

Rommel’s objectives are, as might be expected, the exact opposite of Wavell’s. The “make-believe” Desert Fox wants to drive east into Egypt as quickly and economically as possible. If possible, Rommel would like to push past the east-west escarpment line, before substantial additional Commonwealth reinforcements arrive and, by so doing, to seal in all of the British field forces east of the narrow El Alamein gap. Once on this shorter line, Rommel’s goal will be to methodically destroy exposed Commonwealth units while preserving his own. With Bologna already gone, and only eight units able to maneuver, the Afrika Korps can afford very few, if any, additional combat losses. Still, the Desert Fox hopes to eliminate three or four factors per game turn during the last few attacks right before November and, with a little luck, to be able to seize and occupy the Ruweisat Ridge before the arrival of the substantial Allied winter reinforcements. Thus, Rommel will plan his campaign against Egypt and the Allied Home Base so as to minimize supply expenditures and Axis casualties; while, at the same time, he attempts to inflict the greatest possible damage on the Allied defenders both in terms of combat losses and in terms of their defensive position.

Setting the Scene: Commonwealth and Axis positions at the End of the June I 1941 Game Turn

The following photo (photo #3) shows a section of the AFRIKA KORPS game map along with the Axis and Allied unit positions at the end of the Commonwealth phase of the June I game turn. The Germans have assaulted the Tobruch perimeter at H25 and have eliminated 9A/20 at 6 to 1; Bologna, however, was lost in the accompanying 1 to 5 soak-off. Because a supply convoy arrived at the Axis Home Base on June I, Rommel still has two supply units on the map (one in the immediate battle area); even though he used supply #2 to sustain his attacks this turn. Wavell’s response to the Axis assault is again dictated by circumstances: he orders all but one of the surviving British defenders either into Tobruch or through the port and out to sea. The first battle of Tobruch is essentially over; now Rommel turns his gaze eastward: the battle for Egypt is about to begin. The final positions, after combat, of all Axis units are as follows: Rommel – G14; 21/5, 21/104 & Ariete – I25; 21/3 – L46; Trenta - J26; Brescia – J28; Pavia – I28; Savena – W3; 15/8 & 15/115 – H24; 15/33 – K35; Supply #1 – O39; Supply #3 – K11. Surviving British units, including June reinforcements, occupy the following hexes: 4I/7 – H26; 4I/11, 2/3, 7/4 & Supply #2 – G25; Pol/Carp – M49; 7A/1 – J37; 7A/2 – J36; 22 Gds & 7/3I Mot – At Sea; Supply #1 – I48; 7/7 S.G. – Q55; 7/7 – J46; 7/4SA Mot – O52; 4I/23 – J47; Supply #3 – P55; Supply #4 – J62.
.

.
Click on the image to display the full size version.

June II ’41, Rommel Drives East

Rommel receives his first piece of disappointing news: he learns that the Royal Navy has intercepted and sunk the June II Axis supply convoy. This is particularly unfortunate timing, as it is critically important to Rommel’s operational plans that the summer convoys arrive so that the Afrika Korps can launch a sustained offensive against the British before their powerful November reinforcements arrive in the El Alamein battle area. In spite of the supply sinking, however, the Desert Fox wastes no time in clearing away the two blocking Commonwealth brigades at Tobruch and the Salum Pass. In the Axis commander’s view, the sooner these units are removed, the sooner his army can begin to drive east. And if he delays, he suspects that the British commander will simply shift the unit in the Salum Pass east a few hexes so that it would require not one, but two Axis supplies to clear both H26 and the Pass. If, as the Desert Fox expects, General Wavell leaves an infantry brigade to delay Axis movement through the Salum Pass, then the Afrika Korps will bypass and surround the Allied block while Rommel waits for additional supplies to land and come forward.

The British Riposte

General Wavell is also a little disappointed, given the Axis supply sinking, that Rommel still continued with the attack against the two British blocking units. The Commonwealth commander had already issued orders for 7A/2 to withdraw a few hexes to the east if the Axis did not attack at the end of June. As things now stand, another small infantry brigade must be sacrificed to keep Rommel’s one supply unit from moving far enough to the east to create problems for the British around Mersa Matruh. Rommel could, of course attack the two brigades covering the ends of the Via Balbia, but that would mean that the Afrika Korps — assuming it received supply on July I — would not be able to attack Wavell’s Egyptian army until the August I game turn at the earliest. Besides, our imaginary Wavell has begun to make plans of his own.

The ground between Sidi Barrani and Mersa Matruh offers interesting possibilities for an opportunistic defense. It is precisely the type of terrain that General Wavell is looking for. Because the coastal plain narrows just to the west of Mersa Matruh and the escarpments curve in to form a nice defensive shoulder, the Commonwealth commander has decided to make Rommel fight for this last precious section of the escarpment line. The front is narrow and the ridges divide the battlefield along the east-west line of the escarpments. So, regardless of Rommel’s plans, Wavell has concluded that, with the additional British reinforcements landing on July I, this stretch of coast is a perfect place for a battle. Moreover, with at least three of Rommel’s mobile units tied up isolating the Allied unit near the Salum Pass, it may be possible for the Commonwealth to create a situation in which the British reconnaissance battalion can slip around the Axis right flank.

Commonwealth and Axis June II Final Positions

The following photo (photo #4) shows a section of the AFRIKA KORPS game map along with the Axis and Allied unit positions at the end of the Commonwealth phase of the June II game turn. The Germans have destroyed the British blocking units at H26 and J36 with AVs, but have used Supply #1 to sustain the two attacks. In addition, the Axis supply convoy for June II was sunk, so Rommel currently has only one supply unit on the map. The British have responded by continuing to block the Salum Pass at J37, and by occupying terrain as far west as possible on the Coast Road and escarpment while still deploying just out of range of Rommel’s one remaining supply unit. The Desert Fox has completed arrangements for the Axis siege of Tobruch and has also succeeded in prying open the Salum Pass; despite these attacks, however, it appears that General Wavell intends to form a line somewhere near Mersa Matruh . The final positions, after combat, of all Axis units are as follows: Rommel – N13; 21/5 – L40; 21/104 & 15/115 – H27; 21/3 – M43; Ariete & Pavia – L37; Trenta – H25; Brescia – I26; Savena – W3; 15/8 – J35; 15/33 – L39; Supply #3 – J27R. Surviving British units occupy the following hexes: 4I/11, 2/3, 7/4 & Supply #2 – G25; Pol/Carp – J45; 7A/1 – J37; 22 Gds – K50; 4I/23 & Supply #1 – K51; 7/3I Mot – N51; 7/7 S.G. – Q55; 7/7 – M49; 7/4SA Mot – O52; Supply #3 – P55; Supply #4 – J62.
.

.
Click on the image to display the full size version.

July I, Rommel’s Offensive Stalls: Shadowboxing with Wavell

The news from the Axis Home Base is disappointing again: another Italian convoy has been lost to the Royal Navy. Given his current logistical difficulties, the Desert Fox can do little but maneuver, and plan for happier times. Rommel returns to the Axis Home Base so as to be able to speed supplies east, and also to release Savena for combat duty at the front. On the main front, the encirclement and isolation of 7A/1 is the one small bit of mischief the Afrika Korps can accomplish while it waits for additional supplies to reach North Africa. Of course, given Axis logistical problems, it is difficult to be sure of real British intentions. Wavell may intend to contest the Coast Road around Mersa Matruh, or he may be bluffing; just biding his time and waiting for additional Axis supplies to come forward before falling back to either the El Daba or the El Alamein line.

The British Dig in

While the Desert Fox ponders the future of his stalled offensive, General Wavell has focused his attention equally on both the calendar and the map. Rommel’s supply situation, while not yet desperate, is beginning to hold out promise for the British commander. With the way things now stand, if the Afrika Korps receives every supply convoy possible between July II and November I, the Desert Fox will only be able to launch a maximum of five additional supplied attacks before the Commonwealth reinforcements arrive in November. Moreover, because Rommel’s advancing force has only eight units, the loss of even one Italian division or German reconnaissance battalion would create problems for Rommel around El Alamein. Given these two facts, Wavell decides to form a line running along the eastern escarpment and onto the narrow coastal plain west of Mersa Matruh. General Wavell will not allow the Desert Fox to open the door to El Alamein without a fight.

The British commander’s plan is a simple one. While he does not have the combat power to directly attack the Afrika Korps if it remains concentrated near the coast, Wavell can make it difficult for Rommel, in his turn, to attack without risking Axis soak-off losses. In addition, if Rommel commits his panzers on the northern side of the escarpment, then the Afrika Korps might well have a difficult time blocking deep Allied raids into the southern desert. The key to this defensive arrangement is a combination of sacrificial screening units and British force concentrations that, because of the limitations of German stacking, are difficult for Rommel to attack efficiently. While “stronger” in this situation would certainly be better, because his powerful armored brigades are tied down defending Tobruch, Wavell must make do with his smaller units. The key to his defensive strategy is for any undoubled defending British stacks to all total five defense factors, and to be vulnerable to Axis attack from only one hex. This arrangement means that the entire stack cannot be attacked by the Axis player at greater than 3 to 1 odds. Given that Rommel will probably be disinclined to exchange a 7-7-10 for a few 2-2-6s and a lone 1-1-6, assaults against such a stack will undoubtedly be split into two combats. The most likely Axis attacks will probably take the following form: 7 to 1 against a single 2-2-6, and either a 1 to 2 or a 1 to 1 against the remaining three Allied factors. While the guaranteed destruction of the 2-2-6 is unfortunate, the one-third chance of the A elim , and the one-sixth chance of an exchange combine to impose a fairly hefty opportunity cost on the Axis player who chooses to make the attack. Certainly, Wavell would admit that Rommel’s attacking units might be lucky; but they also might not be, and every attack would be exactly the same “coin toss” for both commanders.

The other, more subtle, benefit for the British in choosing to defend west of Mersa Matruh, is that any Axis attack against the units on the coastal plain will inevitably require both German panzer regiments, as well as three other combat units to be committed north of the escarpment line. Assuming that at least five Axis units are required for the northern battles, Rommel is going to have very little remaining rifle strength with which to cover his southern flank.

Commonwealth and Axis July I Final Positions

The following photo (photo #5) shows a section of the AFRIKA KORPS game map along with the Axis and Allied unit positions at the end of the Commonwealth phase of the July I game turn. Axis supply luck continues to be poor, so Rommel accomplishes what he can. The Allied blocking unit near the Salum Pass is encircled and isolated. The Desert Fox also orders uncommitted elements of the Afrika Korps to advance east and deploy astride the escarpment. In addition, Rommel has returned to the Axis Home Base so that incoming supplies can be sped east, and so that Division Savena can be released for front line duty. British reinforcements stream west from Alexandria to the front. Wavell has now made his intentions clear: the British Army has dug in around Mersa Matruh and gives no sign of abandoning this position without a fight. The final positions of all Axis units are as follows: Rommel – W3; 21/5 – I43; 21/104 & Ariete – M42; 21/3 – L44; Trenta – H24; Brescia – H26; Pavia – L39; Savena – N5R; 15/8 & Supply #3 – M41; 15/115 – K36; 15/33 – I39. Commonwealth units, including the July reinforcements, occupy the following hexes: 4I/11, 2/3, 7/4 & Supply #2 – G25; Pol/Carp – J46; 7A/1 (1st Isol) – J37; 22 Gds, 50/69 & 9A/18 – J47; Supply #1 – J49; 7/3I Mot & 7/7 – K47; 7/7 S.G. – Q54; 7/4SA Mot & 4I/23 – M49; 50/150 & 50/151 – N51; 50/6SA Mot – Res; 2SA/6 & 2SA/4 – O52; 2SA/7 Recce – T55; Supply #3 – T56; Supply #4 – J62.
.

.
Click on the image to display the full size version.

July II, Rommel Receives Good News At Last

After waiting a full month, our patient, but imaginary Desert Fox is finally rewarded with good news: an Italian convoy has arrived at the Axis Home Base and has already begun off-loading supplies for his front line troops. At last the Deutsches Afrika Korps can begin to move again. Fortunately, the isolated Commonwealth brigade near the Salum Pass will be gone before the new Axis supplies reach the front. In anticipation of the coming operations, the Desert Fox orders his Italian divisions to the Coast Road, and then sets about making preparations for a renewed drive on Alexandria. The main enemy strength appears to be heavily committed to the coastal plain; therefore, Rommel decides to shift his panzer divisions inland towards the south in an effort to unhinge the British left flank. Although the Axis commander does not actually want to attack without a store of additional supplies in the battle area, he hopes that just the threat of his advancing panzers will induce Wavell to abandon the Mersa Matruh position and retreat back towards El Alamein where both armies will have shorter, more defensible fronts. Rommel also makes certain that the Allied reconnaissance battalion has no way of slipping past his front and into the Axis rear. Given his current supply situation, the last thing the Desert Fox wants to have to do is waste a supply on a single raiding British battalion.

No Retreat! Wavell’s Troops to Fight for the “Matruh Line”

Rising dust clouds in the west alert the British to the fact that German and Italian columns are on the move. Very quickly Wavell surmises that Rommel is moving against the weak British left flank. Despite recommendations from a number of his staff to begin a gradual and orderly withdrawal to the east, the British commander instead orders the left flank to be reinforced by what few mechanized units can be scraped up. He explains to his staff: “We can’t be strong everywhere and neither can Rommel; if he is moving against our left, then he has undoubtedly stripped strength away from the Coast Road sector. If he can do it, so can we.”

The British commander adjusts to Rommel’s move by reinforcing the area near the southeastern shoulder of the escarpment line. Wavell rightly guesses that, if Rommel does attack in this sector, he will be unable to adequately cover his flanks and still attain good odds against the most likely target units. Even the two Allied sacrifice units are carefully positioned so that they cannot be attacked using the same Axis supply. The British commander is also convinced that the Desert Fox is not going to want an Allied recce unit roaming about in the Axis rear, particularly with the front line now so close to the El Alamein bottleneck. For this reason, Wavell is sure that Rommel will maintain his southern line all the way to the Qattara Depression.

Even Tobruch is momentarily safe from a serious attack because of the Axis armor’s movement into the desert. For this reason, the British commander can even afford to temporarily deplete his ready reserve in order to put all of his larger brigades into the fight for the Coast Road.

Now that his dispositions are made, General Wavell can only wait. If the Afrika Korps receives another supply convoy, then the British commander knows that an Axis attack will be inevitable. Time is short, and Rommel is certainly not going to give the Royal Navy a “free” sunk after the Italian convoys that have already been lost. The only real question remaining is not whether Rommel will strike, but where: Which part of the British line will the Afrika Korps finally attack?

The Commonwealth and Axis July II Final Positions

The following photo (photo #6) shows a section of the AFRIKA KORPS game map along with the Axis and Allied unit positions at the end of the Commonwealth phase of the July II game turn. Rommel finally receives a supply convoy and wastes no time in speeding the new supplies toward the front. The Australian 7A/1 is eliminated due to isolation at the end of the Commonwealth portion of the turn. With additional supplies coming forward, the Desert Fox can again turn his attention to renewing his offensive against Alexandria. In an effort to conserve supplies, Rommel decides to try to maneuver Wavell out of his Matruh position; by threatening heavy pressure against the British left flank, Rommel hopes that the British commander can be induced to withdraw back towards El Alamein without a fight. He soon has his answer; Wavell strengthens the southern part of his line, but makes only a few limited, local withdrawals to the east. It is now clear to Rommel that if the Axis commander wants the British Army to retreat, then he will have to actually attack and drive it back. Wavell, it would appear is no mood to be bluffed. The final positions of the Axis units are as follows: Rommel – W3; 21/5 – L46; 21/104 – R51; 21/3 – U54; Ariete – I44; Trenta – H24; Brescia – H26; Pavia – I39; Savena – D7; 15/8 – O49; 15/115 – K36; 15/33 – L39; Supply #1 – J12R; Supply #3 – M44. Commonwealth units occupy the following hexes: 4I/11, 2/3, 4/7 & Supply #2 – G25; Pol/Carp – J46; 22 Gds & 2SA/4 – P56; Supply #1 – J49; 7/3I Mot & 50/6SA Mot – J47; 7/7 S.G. & 7/7 – O54; 7/4SA Mot & 4I/23 – N50; 50/69 & 9A/18 – K48; 50/150 & 50/15 – O52; 2SA/6 – R58; 2SA/7 Recce – R59; Supply #3 – Q59; Supply #4 –J62.
.

.
Click on the image to display the full size version.

Tobruch to El Alamein, Part 2: On to the Ruweisat (Future Post)

Coming in Part 2 will be the conclusion to the “Battle for Egypt” and an analysis of Rommel’s first big push towards Alexandria and the Suez.

I am a big fan of the early SPI tactical games, particularly the three titles that comprise the “gunpowder” series: MUSKET & PIKE; GRENADIER; and RIFLE AND SABER. In addition, while it really wasn’t a “period” simulation like the others, I tend to also include SOLDIERS in this list. Unfortunately, attractive art work was not this series' strong suit. In fact, all four of these early SPI titles had very bland two-color maps. On the plus side, these games’ counters, rules, and other components were generally a lot better. The one notable exception being the first game in this series to actually see print, GRENADIER. The failure of the designer, Jim Dunnigan, to include “disruption” markers in this first effort, as well as SPI’s uninspired choice of colors for the game counters — this was the Napoleonic period, after all — sets this title apart as being the most primitive, awkward to play, and visually disappointing of the lot. Happily, the subsequent games published in this series included lots of additional information markers, and the unit counters got more colorful. That being said, all four of these games, including drab old GRENADIER, are interesting, challenging, and enjoyable to play.

One glaring shortcoming, however, of all of these SPI “gunpowder” tactical games was the failure of SPI to include any type of “play aide” that would specifically help players keep track of their various actions in the course of a game turn. This was no small issue. Each game turn, in every one of the titles in this tactical series, had multiple and asymmetrical player phases. Because the actions of each game turn were very interactive and almost simultaneous, it was very easy for players to lose track of which phase they were actually executing in the turn sequence.

After putting up with this irritating little problem for a few gaming sessions, I finally resorted to hand-drawing a makeshift “phase track” for each of the titles in this series; I and my opponents liked them so much that I persuaded my wife (she’s the expert) to republish all of the different game tracks with nicer computer graphics and jazzier colors. I have posted a copy of the improved, computer version of the GRENADIER “Turn Phase Track,” for any visitors who might find this play aide useful.
.

Double click for larger image.

Click here for .PDF version.

Related Map and Counters Blog Posts

SPI, GRENADIER (1971)
GAME ANALYSIS: GRENADIER: Tactical Warfare 1680-1850

Herding Cats: Keeping a Home-Based “Monster” Game Going After the First Few Game Turns

In a previous post, I discussed a few important issues to consider when organizing the start of a home-based “monster” game. Take it from me; every one of these start-up experiences will be a little different. However, once you actually get your very own “monster” under way, there are still a few key issues to pay attention to: that is, if you want to have any chance of keeping the darn thing going past the first few turns. In this final post in the series, I will attempt to tie up a few of the loose ends that can sink your newly-started “monster” game before it really gets a chance to develop its own momentum.

First, although it seems like it should be simple, scheduling the times for making game moves can actually be much harder than it looks. The reason for this resides squarely with human nature. When a game first begins, player excitement is at its peak; no one even thinks to voice any concerns about committing their next consecutive one hundred and four Saturdays and Sundays to the “monster” game session in Merle’s basement. Unfortunately, this level of enthusiasm is unsustainable and will drop very quickly. Usually, by the third or fourth weekend at the latest, the complaints and excuses will begin to trickle in. “I’ve really got to work this weekend. Little Johnny has a recital, or a Little League game, or has to have a heart transplant. I’d like to come over to play, but my wife has taken to humming the theme from “Sweeney Todd” and she says that if I disappear one more weekend — she won’t be able to vouch for my safety when I finally do come home!”

These reactions are perfectly reasonable and should be planned for. After all, just because you are antisocial and self-absorbed enough to give up all of your weekends for the next two years, doesn’t mean that your wife and children are necessarily 100% on board with your gaming obsession. The answer to this problem, like most others in life, is for everyone to be flexible and creative. Vary the times for game sessions; give people time off from time to time; and generally try to keep the players interested and engaged without alienating their family and friends in the process. The one indispensible player is the person who is hosting the game. Of all of the “monster” game participants, the host is the one individual who must be kept on board if the game is to continue. This is also why the one hosting the game should be the most committed player at the table.

Second, the next most important player after the host is not the game’s actual owner or the original “monster” organizer; in fact this person does not even have a seat in the game, but they can certainly kill it if they decide to. I am, of course, speaking about the host’s “significant other.” A little courtesy and the odd “hostess gift” will go a long way towards keeping this critical bystander from spiking the game. However quiet and accommodating she may appear, don’t ever forget that the host’s “better half” is at least as important as he is to the future survival of the game.

Third, it is usually a good idea to be fairly flexible about move adjustments. If a team’s move has not been declared as being completed, then the moving players should be allowed to make legal changes in unit positions and combats until they are actually satisfied with their final deployments. I and a friend were once involved in a game of WAR IN THE EAST with a pair of opponents who insisted on the “contact rule.” That is: once a player removed his hand from a piece, the move could not be adjusted. Suffice to say that I and my friend were far more precise with our Russian unit positions than our opponents were with the Germans and the game ended after the first summer with a decisive Russian victory: the Germans failed to capture either Leningrad or Kharkov.

Fourth, rules problems are inevitable and should be planned for well in advance. Flexibility is again the key in these situations. No matter how many rules clarifications you have received from the game’s publisher, and no matter how carefully everyone has worked through the rule book and errata, if the game continues long enough, there are going to be genuine, difficult to resolve, disputes. In certain cases, these types of problems can probably be resolved with a simple die roll. However, in other instances, the opposing interpretations are so at odds that before any final resolution is even attempted, arrangements must be made to allow one or the other side to adjust that part of their move — and only that part of their move — that is directly affected so as to take into account the game rule’s newly-settled interpretation. This means, bluntly, that if there is a dispute about the effect of fortifications on armor around Leningrad, there should be no changes to unit positions or combats ANYWHERE ELSE on the map. The Black Sea, I hate to break it to you, is nowhere near Leningrad. Finally, if your side looks like it is winning, be generous! There is nothing that will sour your opposition faster than seeing their army getting clobbered and simultaneously being badgered by “rules lawyers.”

Fifth, if the game goes on long enough, another unexpected and obnoxious nuisance is certain to show itself: dust. From the first minute that the new “monster” game is laid out and play begins, dust starts to accumulate on the plastic map covers and counters. And while the gradual accumulation does not seem to be that much of an inconvenience at first, with time, it will become a very irritating problem. The longer the game sits, the dustier it gets. If you don’t want the game room to look more and more like the dining hall in “Great Expectations,” then there will finally come a point when something has to be done.

The bad news about dust is that there is no obvious or easy solution to the problem. Covering the game table with some type of suspended “drop cloth,” while a possibility, usually turns out to be a lot trickier than it first appears. Moreover, it just postpones the problem of dust accumulation, it doesn’t solve it. The second option is to simply put up with the dust as long as possible, and then to methodically record the position of EVERY counter on the playing surface before removing them so that the map covers and counters can be cleaned. You heard me correctly: along with the map covers, the little cardboard counters have to be wiped, one-by-one, with tissues. Personally I’m not certain, but I believe that this little job is typically found somewhere between the “second” and “third rings” of Hell. The best and most convenient solution that I and my friends finally stumbled onto was to attack the problem at its source. We introduced a large, two-stage “hepa” air filter into the room, and then kept the door closed. Even this won’t solve the problem indefinitely, but it does significantly retard the buildup of dust; because of the air scrubbing, a major clean-up often is not required for a year or more. It should be noted that, although these filters are noisy, players usually become accustomed to them surprisingly quickly.

And that’s finally it. If you follow these last few simple guidelines, I promise that your prospects for keeping a “monster” game running will probably improve dramatically. Of course, how long the game actually continues depends both on the different personalities of the players, and on their determination to see the project through. Speaking from my own experience, keeping a game going is as much a matter of sheer will as anything else; on more than one occasion, a game that started out with six or even seven players, gradually lost participants until it ended up with only one diehard left on each side of the map. Interestingly, when everything is said and done, that’s really all that it takes.

A Short list of some of the best articles on STALINGRAD to appear, over the years, in Avalon Hill's The General

While compiling material for a previous post on AFRIKA KORPS, I found myself continually getting sidetracked into reading unrelated past articles in The General on STALINGRAD as well as other intriguing pieces on some of the other Avalon Hill classics. I had forgotten how interesting some of these old essays could be. Finally, I put some of these magazines aside on the off-chance that I might want to look at them again later.

After thinking it over, however, I decided to look at them again, sooner rather than later. This change of heart is the direct result of some of the comments from a few of the visitors to my blog. And since some of you actually seemed to enjoy "The General looks at AFRIKA KORPS", I have decided to go ahead and list some of the other nearly-forgotten articles that appeared, so many years ago, between the covers of The General. So here is the latest installment in what I hope will become an ongoing series on the best of the best pieces from decades worth of old issues of The General. This short collection, in my opinion, includes some of the most interesting and entertaining articles on STALINGRAD analysis, game variants, and Series Replaysever to see print. And speaking of Series Replays: all but one of these replays has been included, not because of the stellar performance of the players, but because of the ruthless candor, clarity and usefulness of the neutral commentary. Who, after all, can really resist slowing down to look as they drive by a train wreck?

To those of you who still have a collection of older copies of The General gathering dust somewhere in their closet, or who have a friend who has a lifetimes stash of old gaming magazines stacked up in his game room, this list is for you. Even if you read these articles a long time ago, I strongly recommend that you go back and give them another look. You might even find it hard to close the covers of some of these old magazines once you start turning through their pages!

For no particular reason, I have arranged this list in chronological order, from the oldest to the most recent.

• A Series Replay: STALINGRAD, featuring Dan Evans (German) and Tom Oleson (Russian) with neutral (if brutally honest) analysis by George Phillies (yes, the same George Phillies, and M.I.T. alumnus, who ran as the Libertarian candidate for POTUS in 2008) in The General, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Nov-Dec 1973) shows, in the case of the two hapless players, why it is virtually always a bad idea to let George Phillies look over your shoulder while you play STALINGRAD
• Mark Irwin's comprehensive article, "Defense in STALINGRAD", which appears in The General, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Jul-Aug 1974) presents a very detailed and useful analysis of the Russian defense in STALINGRAD for any players who are new to the game
• Gary Gygax' intriguing, if unorthodox, "The Southern Gambit", in The General, Vol. 11, No. 4 (Nov-Dec 1974) offers an interesting alternative opening for the hyper-aggressive (and daring) Russian player in STALINGRAD
• A Series Replay: STALINGRAD, featuring Randy Reed (German) and Don Greenwood (Russian) with neutral commentary provided by George Phillies (who else?) and Mark Swanson, in The General, Vol. 11, No. 5 (Jan-Feb 1975) which, besides being an example of some very eccentric STALINGRAD play, also reinforces the earlier observation about George Phillies and player's shoulders
• Dr. Joseph Connolly's innovative variant, "Starting STALINGRAD in 1942", in The General, Vol.12, no. 4 (Nov-Dec 1975) provides all of the additional rules, deployment instructions, replacement levels, and order of battle information necessary to begin the play of Germany's '42 summer offensive, Case Blau, using the standard STALINGRAD map and counters
• George Phillies' "STALINGRAD Scenario Strategy", The General, Vol. 12, No. 6 (Mar-Apr. 1976) offers a thoughtful critique, analysis, and even some tips for players getting ready to play Dr. Connolly's variant from "Starting STALINGRAD in 1942"
• A two-part Series Replay: STALINGRAD, which is, by far, the highest caliber, most interesting, and most closely-fought of the replays included in this list, pitting Joe Angiolillo (German) against Tom Baruth (Russian) with neutral commentary by Paul Bakulski, in The General, Vol. 14, Nos. 3 & 4 (Sept-Oct, Nov-Dec 1977)
• Louis Coatney's "STALINGRAD Revisited and Revised", The General, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Jul-Aug 1978) offers an extensive state of the art facelift to the standard STALINGRAD rules from a frustrated, but long-time aficionado of the original game
• Joseph A. Angiolillo's "The Russian View: An Exhaustive Analysis of the Defense in STALINGRAD", published in The General, Vol. 17, No. 6 (Mar-Apr 1981) in which the author catalogs the best Russian starting set-ups from a veritable who's who of recognized STALINGRAD experts, as well as presenting some ideas about Russian play during 1941
• James Corling's "The Big Three", the General, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Nov-Dec 1985) which considers the three most common and persistent German errors in STALINGRAD play
Besides these articles, there are many more that didn't make this list, not because they weren't worth reading, but mainly because I wanted to provide a representative cross-section of different types of essays, and really didn't want to publish too many pages of article citations in the same post. Interestingly, one of the regular visitors to my blog, Russ Gifford, recently commented that, in his opinion, the issues of The General that began appearing with Volume 11 represented a genuine and noticeable improvement in the overall quality of the magazine. This was not something that had ever occurred to me, but after reexamining my own copies of the six issues that comprised Volume 11, I think he's absolutely right: 1974 indeed represented a real leap forward in quality for the game-related articles in The General. Thankfully, the days of "Sage Sarge" and of "Perfect Plans" really had, by the mid-seventies, pretty much come to an end. And by the way, for those of you who don't have any old copies of The General magazine lying around, there are always copies surfacing on eBay so,given a little time, you should still be able to track most, if not all, of these gems down.

In the Vol. 17, No. 6 (March-April 1981) edition of The General, Joseph A. Angiolillo presents a detailed analysis of what he argues are the “best of the best” Russian STALINGRAD openings to have appeared in tournament and PBM play over the years. For anyone like me who is still interested in this venerable old classic, his survey of the favorite defenses of many past STALINGRAD masters is a fascinating study. Moreover, I suspect that his article probably provoked more than a few readers to think to themselves: “This essay would have been even better if it had just included one more Russian set-up: mine!” And here is where having one’s own blog is an advantage; unlike all those other disappointed General subscribers, I finally have the opportunity to rectify Mr. Angiolillo’s unfortunate oversight.

Which brings me, directly, to the purpose of this short essay: having spent most of the previous post talking about ways to improve the German player’s prospects in STALINGRAD, I could not resist including one of my own favorite Russian set-ups, just for a little balance. I cannot confidently claim that this is the best possible opening for the Russians. However, I can say that, using this set-up or some variation of it, I have NEVER lost with the Russians, even when playing matches using play-balance options intended to substantially improve the German player’s chances.
.
.
.

'STALINGRAD' Russian Opening Set-up

2nd Rifle (4-6-4)	U18
3rd Rifle (7-10-4)	AA15
4th Rifle (5-7-4)	S18
5th Rifle (5-7-4)	S18
8th Rifle (5-7-4)	V18
9th Rifle (5-7-4)	Z16
10th Rifle (5-7-4)	BB15
11th Rifle (4-6-4)	BB15
12th Rifle (5-7-4)	EE12
13th Rifle (5-7-4)	EE12
14th Rifle (5-7-4)	GG11
16th Rifle (4-6-4)	CC14
17th Rifle (4-6-4)	CC14
22nd Rifle (4-6-4)	KK14
24th Rifle (4-6-4)	KK14
27th Rifle (4-6-4)	LL14
28th Rifle (7-10-4)	FF11
29th Rifle (5-7-4)	KK14
35th Rifle (5-7-4)	NN14
36th Rifle (5-7-4)	NN14
37th Rifle (5-7-4)	NN15
42nd Rifle (4-6-4)	LL14
64th Rifle (5-7-4)	J31
65th Rifle (4-6-4)	G34
2nd Cav (2-6-6)	Z16
4th Cav (6-9-6)	AA15
6th Cav (5-7-6)	S18
1st Tank (4-6-6)	A38
2nd Tank (2-3-6)	X15
3rd Tank (4-6-6)	D37
4th Tank (4-6-6)	V18
6th Tank (4-6-6)	JJ12
7th Tank (2-3-6)	BB15
15th Tank (2-3-6)	NN15

The Soviet defense presented here is constructed so as to contest every sacred foot of Holy Russia. Only one 2-3-6 Tank corps is offered as a sacrifice on the first game turn; every other Axis attack will require one or more soak-offs. In addition, this opening attempts to limit the number of attractive low-odds gambles available to the Germans during their opening round of combat. Thus, it is not a passive “delay and defend” type of set-up. The Germans and their allies, attacking into the teeth of this defense, will be obliged to fight for every inch of ground that they gain, particularly in the first few critical game turns. Moreover, the Red Army has relegated Finland to the status of a strategic sideshow. Thus, this opening leaves only the bare minimum in the far north to contain the Finns and their German allies; instead, every unit that can be spared is set up on the Polish and Rumanian borders. These extra three to five rifle corps are deployed on the main front both to cause additional Axis soak-off losses, and to help power Soviet counterattacks when such opportunities inevitably present themselves.

I am, of course, sure that readers who take the time to examine this Russian opening will find aspects of it that they dislike or would handle differently. Nonetheless, despite its undoubted imperfections — in all the years that I have used it — this defense has never once let me down. Now, if only I could track down Joe Angiolillo …

Hitler and members of the Oberkommando des Heeres

STALINGRAD Play-Balance Option #1: The Historical (sort of) Option

The Germans begin the game with ten replacement points accumulated. They receive replacements at the normal rate of four factors per turn beginning in July ’41, except during April of both 1942 and 1943, at which time they receive ten replacement points instead of their usual four. The Russian replacement rate remains normal, and follows the standard 4-5-6 pattern of increased production. In addition, the game does not end at the conclusion of the May ’43 game turn, but continues through the Russian portion of August 1943.

Rationale: The absence of operational reserves for both the German and Red Armies is simply not supported by the historical record. Putting aside the issue of the Red Army — play-balance is the goal, after all — German reinforcements and replacements, in actual fact, increased fairly significantly in anticipation of both the ’42 and ’43 summer campaign seasons. If we assume that each replacement strength point is roughly equivalent to 12,000 men, then the proposed adjustments in German replacements seem to be fairly reasonable. Moreover, the arbitrary decision to end the game in May of 1943 looks a lot like a misguided attempt, on the part of the designers, to “fiddle” the Turn Record to make the game more competitive. Historically, there is absolutely no military justification for “pulling the plug” on the Wehrmacht in May of 1943. Operation Zitadelle (Kursk) did not even begin until July 4th, and had it been successful in pinching off the Kursk salient, the follow-up German combat operations required to liquidate the Russian pocket would have continued well into August. Furthermore, Shaw’s argument that the OKH was overly concerned about Allied plans against Italy just doesn’t stand up to careful scrutiny. The Salerno landings did not even occur until September, and even at that late date Hitler had still not chosen between the two competing strategies of Field Marshals Rommel and Kesselring as to how Italy should be defended.

Probable Effect on the Game: This option will tend to produce a much more traditional STALINGRAD game. Because of their increased replacements, the Germans will tend to be a little stronger in ’42 and ’43, but not markedly so. Its main appeal is that it will tend to discourage the Russian player from abandoning Moscow in the late stages of the game and falling back on that old Soviet stand-by: setting up a last-ditch, hedgehog defense around Stalingrad while a single lonely Russian sneaks ever deeper into the Caucasus.

STALINGRAD Play-Balance Option #2: The “Replacements” Option

This is the simplest option for all concerned. The Russian replacement rate remains unchanged. The German rate beginning in July ’41 is eight replacement factors per turn; it changes to six points per turn in January ’42 and remains at this level through the balance of the year. Beginning in January 1943, the German replacements are finally reduced to the regular four factors per turn through the end of the game in May 1943.

Rationale: Historically, this option really only makes sense in that it recognizes the steady consumption of the manpower resources of the Third Reich as the war continued and the military demands from other fronts increased. Basically, its primary appeal is that it is the easiest to implement; it also represents a nice reverse symmetry with the periodic increases in Soviet replacements.

Probable Effect: This option can create real problems for the Red Army once the Wehrmacht gets across the Dnieper. All of those additional German replacements can mean that the Russian player will have to face a Wehrmacht that is at virtual full-strength in 1942. It can be very nerve-racking, particularly if the Axis player is methodical in his advance, and is rolling moderately well.

STALINGRAD Play-Balance Option #3: The “Initiative” or “Vanity Roll” Option

This option can either have the most decisive effect on the game, particularly in the first turns, or it can be the most inconsequential. Replacements for both armies remain at the standard levels, and the game length continues to be twenty-four game turns. The change is that, during any of the clear turns of 1941, the German player may preselect three battles for special “vanity” die rolls. He may choose to use all of these rolls on the same turn for different battles, one at a time, or some mix thereof. The way it works is this: the German selects his battle, but before rolling he declares the “vanity” option and instead of rolling one die, he rolls two. He then implements the results from whichever one of the die rolls he prefers. In 1942, the German player may use the “vanity” option during clear turns only twice, and in 1943, only once.

Rationale: The best case that can be made for this rules change is that it recognizes the significant tactical and operational superiority of the Wehrmacht during the first few years of the War in the East. Moreover, this option also does a much better job of duplicating the German Army’s offensive momentum during the summer of 1941, than does the Standard Game. In purely player terms, it will usually mean that critical river defense lines are breached much earlier than in the regular game, and that the chances of the dreaded A elim in a 2 to 1 versus a doubled 7-10-4, decline from one chance in six, to one chance in thirty-six. Of course, if the German rolls badly, it pretty much doesn’t matter; but then, that is the case with the Standard Game, anyway.

Probable Effect: This is the option that is most unstable in game terms. If the German has even modest luck, the Wehrmacht should be able to push forward much more rapidly than in the Standard Game. That being the case, the Russian player will usually not be able to pursue a passive “delay and defend” strategy; instead, he is going to have to fight for his key river lines and cities, particularly in the early going and particularly in the north. If he does not, the Wehrmacht is probably going to show up on the outskirts of Leningrad in 1941, just about the time that the rivers and lakes freeze. When that happens, it is pretty much all down hill for the Russian from there on out.

These three play-balance options do not even begin to cover the many different recommendations that have found their way, over the years, into different war gaming magazines and newsletters. However, they do provide a couple of ways by which those players — who, like me, still have a soft spot for STALINGRAD — can breathe some new life into this classic old title. For that reason, I hope that at least some of you, after reading this post, will pull out your old STALINGRAD box, dust it off, and give one or more of these options a try.

The Cardboard Wars in Lancaster are Just around the Corner, Aug. 3rd – 9th, 2009

On August 1st, Bruno Sinigaglio’s Grognard Qualifying Tournament, along with a number of other Pre-Con events, kicks-off the early festivities at what is, without doubt, the premiere war gaming convention of the year: The World Boardgaming Championship (WBC). This tournament convention is hosted by the Boardgaming Players Association (Don Greenwood and gang), and has been meeting in Lancaster, Pennsylvania — in the heart of Amish country — for the last few years. The convention’s seven days of nonstop boardgaming (nine if you attend one of the Pre-Cons) offers attendees the opportunity to compete in well over 100 different titles; in fact, the players’ options are limited only by the various tournament start-times and the players’ own stamina.

After a twelve-year hiatus from gaming and tournaments, I was finally able to attend last year’s convention, and I am extremely happy that I did. Not only did I have an opportunity to renew old friendships and do A LOT of gaming, but I also had the chance to meet a number of younger players who are, happily, helping to revitalize our hobby. I tend to specialize in the old Avalon Hill “classics” but took advantage of the opportunity to try a few unfamiliar games — which was interesting for me, and fun for my opponents who, for the most part, beat me like a “rented mule” in these titles. I also got two of the worst shellackings, back-to-back, that I have ever received in a game that I thought I knew something about: WAR AT SEA. Conveniently, for old timers like me who no longer buy everything new that gets published, the convention offers a “library service” so that attendees can check out and play an unfamiliar title before actually having to plunk down their hard-earned money on the new game.

A direct descendant of the earlier AvalonCon Tournaments, the annual WBC convention is attended by some of the best and most affable players from all over the world. If you can possibly find a way to get to Lancaster during the first part of August, I strongly recommend that you do so; I absolutely guarantee that, if you enjoy gaming, you’ll have a great time.

To find out more about this year’s WBC Convention, visit the website.