Map and Counters

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The Emperor Napoleon stared across the shallow valley of trampled-down rye grass that separated his exhausted French troops from the tattered British line that still occupied the low slope beyond the walled Belgian châteaux known locally as La Haye Sainte. Marshal Ney had finally taken the châteaux barely thirty minutes before, and now, after eight hours of fighting, the center of Wellington’s line finally lay exposed. A half hour earlier, the Emperor had refused Ney’s frantic plea to support his attack against the ragged and jumbled British, Dutch, and Belgian battalions with fresh reinforcements from the Imperial Guard; then the Anglo-Allied ranks were wavering, and the Guard might well have marched half way to Brussels without serious opposition. In the interim, Wellington had seen his danger and rushed what reinforcements he still had towards his center. And only now did Napoleon decide that his last remaining chance for victory was to send forward the best troops that he had, five battalions of the Old Guard. Blücher’s Prussians were pressing against the French right flank, but Wellington’s army seemed on the verge of breaking; one more massive French blow might yet win the victory that had eluded him all day. It was 7:30 PM on 18 June 1815, and the Emperor Napoleon had finally decided to gamble his throne and perhaps his life, on one more throw of the dice; he would order his last available reserves, the still-fresh “immortals” of the Imperial Guard to smash through Wellington’s line.
"Wellington at Waterloo" by Ernest Crofts. Directing deployment of reserves from his famous position under the tree.

GAME DESCRIPTION

GRENADIER is a tactical (company/squadron/battery) level simulation of warfare during the years when the smoothbore musket dominated the battlefield: an era that extended from the seventeenth century, through the eighteenth, and into the nineteenth century. As such, it is a wide-ranging examination of various European military engagements during the long period of transition from the first introduction of the socket bayonet, which allowed an infantryman armed with a musket to participate effectively in both fire and shock combat, to the years just before the Crimean War, and the dawn of modern industrialized warfare. GRENADIER is the second installment, historically-speaking, (although it was the first to be released in 1971) of SPI’s series of small unit (company/squadron/battery) level games dealing specifically with the development of firearms and their evolving tactical use on the battlefield. It was also the only installment in this three title series to be designed by James F. Dunnigan. Despite the game’s crude graphics, it is an interesting, and very challenging simulation that, in terms of basic game mechanics, has held up surprisingly well over the years.

Components and Game System

The accordion-fold game rules are reasonably well-organized and clearly-written, and rules corrections and errata are not extensive. Beside the Rules Booklet and Errata Sheet, the only other “player aide” included with the game is a back-printed sheet which includes a list of scenario descriptions, the Combat Results Table, and the Terrain Effects Chart. Noticeably missing from the game’s published components is a Turn Record/Reinforcement Track and a Move/Fire Phase Record Track, both of which — based on my own fairly extensive experience with the game — would be extremely useful during play.

The game design is detailed, but intuitively logical; hence, it is relatively easy to learn. The overall game platform is organized around a large collection of different scenarios, covering a variety of historical periods, combatants, and battles. Each scenario is played using game turns, and each game turn is further divided into interwoven player turns that give the game a simultaneous 'feel' without the time-consuming requirement of keeping written records. A typical GRENADIER game turn proceeds using the following sequence of player phases: First Player Offensive Fire Phase; Second Player Defensive Fire Phase; First Player Movement; First Player Shock Combat Phase; Second Player Offensive Fire Phase; First Player Defensive Fire; Second Player Move; Second Player Shock Combat Phase; end of Game Turn.


The 22” x 28” two-color GRENADIER game map is austere even by the hobby standards of 1971. There are no roads, tracks, rivers, lakes, marshes, plowed fields, or streams anywhere to be seen. Instead, the only hex types displayed on the playing surface are clear terrain, woods, slope, and village hexes. Clear hexes cost all types of units one movement point to enter; all other types cost infantry units two movement points, and cavalry-type units three movement points to enter. Artillery units must pay three movement points to enter villages, four to enter slope hexes, and woods hexes are completely prohibited. Woods hexes triple the defender against fire and shock attacks, and villages quadruple a unit’s defense strength. Each hex is 50 meters across, and each game turn represents ten minutes of real time. Because of the time scale of the game, there are no supply rules.

The Combat Results Table (CRT) is virtually “luck free” in the sense that the attacker can almost always determine the outcomes of key battles by precisely controlling the odds of those battles. Combat can occur in one of two ways: either through fire attacks, or through shock assault. Fire combats are always executed first and are resolved in the following rigid order based on type of fire: shot (artillery); canister (artillery); and musket (all others). Units of the same type firing from the SAME range at a single target may combine fire strengths; otherwise fire attacks must be resolved separately. The effectiveness of fire attacks is cleverly handled, not by adjustments in odds, but through 'range attenuation': the closer the target unit is to the attacker, the more damaging the fire attack. However, fire attacks may not be conducted against adjacent units. Shock combat — basically the cavalry charge or the bayonet assault — is the most decisive type of attack, but it is also the most dangerous for the attacker. Shock combat will typically leave both attacking and defending units disrupted and mutually pinned. If these units are attacked again — either by fire or shock — before they can be rallied, either a DD or a D Elim result will destroy them. Cavalry units, although they have the greatest movement range and best shock values on the battlefield, are always disrupted after a charge, whatever their effect on the target unit or units.

The 400 game counters, while certainly not eye-grabbing, are clearly printed and easy to read. The various Allied (British/Prussian/Spanish) units are printed black on a tan backing; French counters are light blue with black print. The counters for both armies typically represent various types of infantry companies, cavalry squadrons, artillery batteries, and leaders. Each infantry and cavalry counter will be designated as to its type, and to its Fire Attack Strength, Range, Fire Defense Strength, Shock Combat Strength, and Movement Allowance. Artillery units will show the gun type (8 pounder, 10 pounder, etc.), Fire Attack Strength-Shot, Range Allowance-Shot, Fire Attack Strength-Canister, Range Allowance-Canister, and Movement Allowance. In addition, artillery units must be “limbered” to move, and “unlimbered” to fire; to this end, each artillery unit includes, besides the gun, an artilleryman (to man the gun), and a caisson unit. All three artillery elements count as only one unit for stacking, and both sides may stack up to four units per hex. Finally, certain types of infantry units may be broken down to form “skirmisher” units which have a lower Shock Combat Strength, less Fire Attack Strength, and a shorter Range Allowance, but which defend against fire attacks with a defense strength of two. These units are primarily employed to screen a player’s main forces from enemy fire until they can advance to shock combat. One source of frustration with the game’s counter sheet, however, deserves comment. During the course of the game, units will constantly be disrupted as a result of combat. Despite this fact, there are no disruption counters included with the game to help players keep track of the exact phase in which these disruptions occur. This is not a fatal design defect, but it is, nonetheless, an aggravating and unnecessary lapse.

To determine who wins, players must refer to the specific victory requirements for each of the different scenarios. In most cases, winning the game will require one army to exit the map edge, while the opposing army attempts to check this maneuver. Happily, the clear-cut victory conditions and the limited number of game turns prescribed in each of the scenarios virtually guarantees an exciting and bloody tactical clash whichever scenario is selected for play.

SITTING DOWN TO PLAY

GRENADIER offers sixteen different scenarios or mini-games, each of which is a completely independent game. Most will require no more than two to three hours to play. Some of the scenarios cover actions that are famous, while others present engagements that are at the very least obscure, if not virtually unknown. Nonetheless, while it is understandably tempting to go straight to the later scenarios which simulate famous actions from the better known battles like Marengo, Austerlitz, and Waterloo, I strongly recommend that players begin with the earlier, less well-known scenarios: those with fewer units and no “skirmishers.” It is very important that players get a feel for the “combined arms” aspect of the GRENADIER game system, before they attempt the bigger, more complex actions. Considering everything, I am convinced that beginning with these earlier, simpler scenarios is probably the best way for players to quickly develop an understanding of the mechanics of the game system, and of the probable flow and tempo of play.

NOTES ON TACTICS

The GRENADIER game system is clean, generally logical, and comparatively easy to learn. So what follows are a few tips, based on many hours spent playing the various scenarios that make up this title, on using the nuances of this particular game system to help new players become more comfortable with a few of the tactical niceties of GRENADIER.

The Use of Terrain

Although terrain types in GRENADIER are limited and their varying effects are comparatively simple, terrain is not inconsequential when it comes to play. All units, except for skirmishers, defend in clear terrain with defensive value of 'one'. This means that the defensive multiplier effects of villages (quadrupled) and woods (tripled) are particularly important for sheltering important units — such as artillery and cavalry — from both enemy artillery fire and shock attacks. Typically, if an artillery battery (only one per hex, artillery units may not stack together) is positioned in a village, it will be stacked with an infantry unit with a strong Shock Combat Strength. This precaution will not make the artillery unit invulnerable to an enemy cavalry charge, but it will make the 'opportunity cost' in disrupted (and probably eliminated) attacking cavalry squadrons very high. On a slightly different note, to avoid having one's attacking units dangerously pinned, shock assaults against villages should only be conducted either when the village can be cleared in one attack, or alternatively, when the defending force has no reinforcements available in the immediate vicinity of the village. If neither of these conditions are present, then the attacker can quickly find himself entangled with a defensive “tar baby” in his unequal fight with the units in an enemy-occupied village. One need only think back to the day's events at Waterloo, and to the fightling at the Châteaux of La Haye Sainte and Hougoumont, to see the probable outcome of this type of situation. Woods hexes can be especially useful for staging infantry and cavalry in preparation for a final rush against an enemy position or line. And while village hexes are too valuable to waste on individual skirmisher units (which cannot stack except to reform or to rally), skirmishers will often present the leading edge of an advance through a forest because of their formidable Fire Defense Strength.

Villages, woods, and all combat units (even unmanned guns) block fire 'line of sight' for all units shooting from ground level. Units firing from slope hexes (usually artillery) DO NOT have their fire blocked by intervening combat units, but only by obstructing village and woods hexes. Interestingly, artillery units on ground level MAY NOT fire over obstructing combat units even at target units on slopes. This rule makes slope positions particularly powerful (and intimidating) sites for an army’s artillery. This rule also means that an advancing force, confronted by enemy artillery on a slope, must make skillful use of blocking terrain (occasionally villages, but usually woods hexes) to create 'curtains of maneuver' behind which the attacking forces can advance without being shot to pieces.

The Use of Artillery

If infantry is the “Queen” of battle, then artillery is the “King”. For this reason, players will probably face no more crucial set of choices before they start a match, than where they are going to position their artillery, and whether it should start the scenario limbered (ready to move) or unlimbered (ready to fire). Putting aside the weight differences between the different cannons present in the game, a player will really command only two types of artillery units: those that can limber—move—unlimber and fire in the same turn (essentially, the galloper guns); and those that cannot. The less mobile guns will usually be sited in villages or on slopes (when possible), while the more nimble artillery pieces will typically advance aggressively when attacking, often accompanied by cavalry. When these 'gallopers' are on the defensive, they will usually serve as the core of a 'ready reserve', deployed so as to be able to dash forward to meet an unexpected enemy threat.

Artillery really has only two enemies on the GRENADIER battlefield: cavalry and other artillery. The cavalry issue, in so far as it is possible, has already been addressed. Artillery counter-battery fire is another thing all together. At the beginning of a scenario, the quantities and types of artillery units possessed by an opponent may well determine how aggressive a player can afford to be with his own guns. Occupying a village hex is fine defensively, but if the enemy can draw his guns up wheel to wheel and blast the village into rubble on the first game turn, then a more circumspect deployment may be in order. And in some scenarios, there simply isn’t anywhere to position artillery where, if it can fire, it won’t be vulnerable to enemy attack. In these situations, the best that can be hoped for may well be for a player to position his less mobile cannons safely behind his own front line, particularly where he expects a major enemy assault, and then hope to greet any enemy breakthrough with a large dose of canister. The real key to success with artillery, however, is to get it into the fight, and to do so as quickly as possible. One approach that I have always found useful is to use the different types of artillery in a 'leapfrog' sequence of coordinated advances. That is: position the long range guns where they can fire on the enemy artillery but, because of range allowance differences, cannot be fired upon; then dash forward with the medium range artillery and galloper guns in an effort to swamp the enemy artillery units with shorter range fire. If the guns that are being rushed, fire, then they will probably be disrupted or eliminated by the attackers’ counter-battery fire; if they retreat, then the long range guns can relimber and prepare to advance. The idea behind this tactical approach is to risk some initial losses among the attacking guns, in order to achieve long-term artillery superiority.

Finally, an unlimbered and crewed artillery unit can fire either shot or canister. Unfortunately, players often become mesmerized by the large Canister Attack Strengths when they are compared to the smaller Shot Attack Strengths. Nonetheless, despite its lower combat power, an attack using shot may still be the better choice because the shot will attack every unit in an enemy stack, while canister only affects the topmost unit.

The Use of Cavalry

The best use of cavalry in GRENADIER is probably not to use the cavalry at all, at least not until the final few turns of a scenario. This, unfortunately, is easier said than done. The primary appeal of the cavalry lies with its movement range and its power on the attack: fresh cavalry can always charge twelve hexes across the map, and they all have powerful Shock Combat Strengths. The problem is, once they have charged they will end the Shock Combat Phase disrupted and a very inviting target for any undisrupted enemy units in the immediate vicinity. Since the local enemy forces will now have two Fire Phases and one Shock Combat Phase of their own, before the spent cavalry can withdraw, it is very unlikely that any of the charging horsemen will ever make it back to the safety of their own lines. In short, the brittleness of the cavalry arm, once committed, means that to use one's cavalry is usually to lose one's cavalry.

Sadly, what this implies for all you closet Murats out there, who are just itching for a major mounted action, is that the cavalry is usually much more useful as a "threat in being" than as an actual attacking force. The cavalry’s best use in the game, as it was historically, will typically be to cover the army’s flanks, observe and shadow enemy cavalry, and whenever possible (and tactically prudent), threaten enemy artillery units. Charges are best reserved for finishing off enemy infantry that is already disrupted and reeling from fire and shock attacks, or when the opportunity presents itself, for smashing into enemy cavalry that has strayed too far from friendly supporting units.

The Use of Infantry

Infantry, of course, is the backbone of the game’s tactical system. At close range, good quality infantry (line, improved, or grenadiers) can deliver lethal fire, and their Shock Combat Power can come close to that of cavalry on the attack and is superior on the defense. The trick, for the players in GRENADIER, is getting undisrupted infantry close enough to the enemy line to deliver either fire or shock attacks. This is the central challenge of the game system, and it is a real beauty. Of course, in those scenarios in which they are permitted, both armies can send out swarms of skirmishers to screen their respective main bodies. This is the course recommended in the game’s “Player’s Notes,” and, in the case of a frontal attack, it is undoubtedly the best option. This approach, unfortunately, is not without its flaws. The problem with skirmishers, it turns out, is that they are slow, weak in both Fire and Shock Combat, and, if that weren’t bad enough, even their fire Range Allowance is pathetically low. Certainly, skirmishers have their place in the game, but their numbers are not unlimited, and both sides inevitably give up some combat power when they convert infantry to skirmishers.

For my own part, I prefer to approach the use of infantry in GRENADIER from the “combined arms” perspective. Frontal attacks are almost always a loser in this game system. To attack successfully, infantry must be allowed to close with the enemy without sustaining unreasonable losses. Usually, this means advancing against one or the other flank, while using long-range artillery to fix the enemy's center. Skirmishers are typically deployed one to three ranks deep depending on the fire attack threat posed by the defender. Cavalry follows along behind the advancing infantry companies, ready to charge any enemy guns that are brought forward by the defender. If the attacker can move his cannons up onto slope hexes, so much the better. But it is more likely that the defender will control slope firing positions. If the defender has positioned his artillery on slope hexes, avoid them like the plague, even if this means lengthening the entire attacking force’s line of march. This type of situation will typically occur when the defender controls the ridgeline near the hamlets of Sohr and Mack; when this is the case, the attacking force can counter by using the copse of trees between Frimont and Longmont as a barrier to enemy fire while positioning a gun, with leader and infantry support, in Frimont to prevent the defending player from being too careless with his own forces.

At some point, the infantry battle is almost always going to come down to Shock Combat. When it comes to organizing my own assaults, I usually stack attacking French units (usually two line and two grenadier companies, if available) so that the first attack can achieve a 4 to 1 against the topmost unit in the enemy stack, and then a 2 to 1 against the remaining units in the defending stack, assuming that there is more than one unit remaining. If the enemy stack is too powerful (four undisrupted improved infantry companies, for example), then a second 4 to 1 is conducted, followed by a 1 to 1 against the remaining two units. These assaulting stacks will always have an infantry leader (bottom of the stack). The topmost unit in the attacking stack is typically a line or conscript infantry company and is disrupted first; the third (line infantry) and fourth (grenadier infantry) units in the stack are then disrupted to meet the requirements of the other two attacks. The second unit in the stack, a grenadier company, is left undisrupted to defend against a (hopefully) weak enemy Shock counterattack. The topmost unit will probably be dispatched by enemy fire. The key to ultimate success in these Shock Combats is the proximity of reserves. This is why it is crucial for the attacker to position his advancing artillery so that he can use both shot and canister fire to quarantine the battle area around the main infantry attack. I cannot promise that using the infantry companies to power indirect flank attacks will always work, but I can say that it will typically work a lot better than a straight-up-the-middle frontal attack.

The Use of Leaders

GRENADIER is the only one of the SPI “gunpowder” tactical series to actually continue the PRESTAGS tradition of using leader units. By the time that MUSKET & PIKE was published in 1973, leaders and command and control had all disappeared down the “playability” design hole, never to be seen again. I seem to remember that, at the time, SPI’s — or maybe it was John Michael Young’s — explanation for ditching the leader counters in the newer games was that the designer needed those counters for other game functions. This, I think, was a mistake. Leaders add some elements to this earlier title that are just not present in the later games: a realistic set of limitations on an individual unit’s initiative and combat effectiveness.

In GRENADIER, the organization of the combat forces is restricted, as it was historically, by the physical limits of individual leaders. A single commander can only shout so loud or be in one place at a time. At the tactical level of this game, players are assigning battalion, regimental, and brigade commanders to their forces so that their units can move and engage in combat. Artillery leaders command and rally artillery; cavalry leaders command and rally cavalry and horse artillery (4 pounders); infantry leaders command and rally infantry; and the GHQ leader commands and rallies everybody. If a leader is himself disrupted, then he must, in turn, be rallied by a higher ranking officer; this senior commander, however, need not be from the same combat arm. Thus, an artillery leader could rally a lower ranked infantry or cavalry officer. The use of the lower-level commanders usually becomes critical when the opposing armies engage in shock combat. Adjacent enemy units pin each other, thus a unit may not move away from an enemy unit (think weak ZOC) without becoming disrupted. Cavalry is the one exception; assuming it survives long enough and is in command, then it may withdraw from a hex adjacent to an enemy unit without suffering anything but a movement cost penalty. In any case, once shock combat begins and attackers and defenders have become and are continuing to become disrupted, neither side is going anywhere until one or the other group of adjacent units is eliminated. This means that, as noted earlier, to continue the shock assault long enough to really break an enemy line, the attacker must throw some of his leaders forward directly into the assault. A leader stacked with the assaulting force, so long as the leader is not disrupted too, may rally the infantry units stacked with it, and thus continue the mêlée until the enemy units are (hopefully) finally eliminated.

CONCLUSION

"Battle of Blenheim" painting in Hochstadt Palace depicting the victory of the Duke of Marlborough and Prince Eugene of Savoy, August 13, 1704
GRENADIER, despite its age and disappointingly bland graphics, offers an interesting, innovative, and very challenging simulation of warfare during the age of the musket and highly-mobile artillery. I have already cataloged the several frustrating problems with this game: the lack of disruption counters, and the inexplicable absence of a Turn Record or Player Phase Track¹. In the end, these issues are irksome, but little more.

Needless-to-say, no game is perfect, but in so far as a tactical simulation is able to, this title helps bring to life the built-in drama of some of the historically critical turning points during this period of evolving battlefield tactics. From Marlborough at Blenheim, to Napoleon in Egypt, Italy, Moravia, Prussia, and finally face-to-face with Wellington in Belgium, this title gives players a tactical look at some of the great battles of history. Moreover, the game’s large number of scenarios means that a player can experiment for many hours with this title and never exhaust the possibilities offered by the game. And even for players that ordinarily do not play tactical-level games, GRENADIER could make them change their minds. Whatever else can be said about Dunnigan’s design, it certainly has enough competitive excitement to make it enjoyable to the tactical specialist and to the regular gamer who is just looking for a fun, exciting, and interesting challenge.
_____
¹ My own GRENADIER Player Fire and Move Turn Phase Record Game Track is available for download here as an Adobe Acrobat .PDF document.

Related Map and Counters Blog Posts

SPI, GRENADIER (1971)
TRICKS OF THE TRADE: TURN PHASE TRACK FOR SPI'S 'GRENADIER'

Tobruch to El Alamein, Part 2: On to the Ruweisat

In part one of my essay, Tobruch to El Alamein: The Matruh “Line,” I described the Axis advance into Egypt following the conclusion of the “first” Battle of Tobruch on the June I ’41 game turn. Unfortunately for the hypothetical Rommel in this piece, as soon as the Deutsches Afrika Korps began its move east into Egypt, the Axis “supply well” suddenly ran dry. Although these sudden Axis “supply droughts” are frustrating, they must be planned for because they are all too typical during this phase of the game. Rommel’s lack of combat supply, not surprisingly, brought the Axis offensive drive to a virtual halt, with the Afrika Korps and British forces temporarily stalemated near the Egyptian coastal town of Mersa Matruh. However, on the July II game turn, an Italian supply convoy finally slipped past the Royal Navy and landed fresh supplies in the Axis Home Base. At the end of the July II ’41 game turn, the two armies still face each other across the same front line that they have occupied for a month. That, however, is about to change.

Setting the Scene: Commonwealth and Axis positions at the End of the July II 1941 Game Turn

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 his ammunition and fuel, Rommel decides to try to maneuver Wavell out of his Matruh position; by increasing his 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 in 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 32 – 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 the image to display a full screen version.

August I, Rommel Attacks!

The arrival of the second back-to-back supply convoy, forces Rommel’s hand. Even though neither of his recently-landed supplies is within range of the southern section of his front line, the Desert Fox decides to attack rather than delay his offensive one more turn. Waiting is a luxury that Rommel feels he cannot afford. Not only would a postponement in the Axis attack give Wavell an opportunity to put his August reinforcements into the line, but it would also give the Commonwealth commander the equivalent of a “free sunk” against the August II Axis supply convoy. The central problem for the Desert Fox in attacking on August I is that Wavell’s defensive arrangements make it difficult to strike at the Commonwealth front without risk of loss. Moreover, if the Afrika Korps launches the obvious assault directly east along the Coast Road, Rommel’s entire right flank will be vulnerable to either an Allied attack or to a raid by the British Recce deep into the southern desert. Thus, because the closest Axis supply unit can only reach the “45 file” on the game map on August II, the entire southern half of Wavell’s position is immune to Axis attack for that one critical game turn.

Confronted by a host of unpleasant choices, Rommel attacks the southeastern end of Wavell’s line, destroying the 2SA/6 brigade and expending Supply #3. Using a precious supply to eliminate a single Commonwealth infantry brigade is usually a demoralizing waste, but Rommel consoles himself with the knowledge that giving the Allies a “free sunk” would be an even greater waste. And the attack does have some benefit from a positional standpoint — it continues to extend Wavell’s lengthening left flank. In the meantime, Rommel pushes his panzers as far to the southeast of the escarpments as he can, in order both to nudge the British Recce back towards El Alamein, and to gain some maneuvering room for his own units during the August II game turn. Whatever happens, Rommel now knows that he will be able to launch no more than four additional attacks against Wavell’s forces before the British November I reinforcements arrive. Unfortunately, he also knows that the British commander is aware of this fact as well.

The Thin Red Line

The assault on the southernmost end of his front line comes as a surprise to Wavell, who had expected Rommel to push due east along the Via Balbia. The loss of a single 1-1-6 brigade is always a welcome outcome from any Axis attack, but the continued stretching of the British left flank is starting to get worrisome. The English commander is becoming increasingly unsure about his position in the south. He wonders whether his troops will still be able to hold their current line, once Rommel again has supply to support attacks in this sector. For the time being, however, Wavell can strip away most of the forces on the Allied left to reinforce the only section of the British front that the Axis will be able to attack on August II: the line running from the central escarpment to the Mediterranean Sea west of Mersa Matruh. Wavell expects an attack only if another Axis convoy slips past the Royal Navy, otherwise he thinks that Rommel will maneuver while he waits for his supplies to reach the battle area.

Commonwealth and Axis positions at the End of the Aug I ’41 Game Turn

The following photo (photo #7) 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 August I game turn. Rommel’s panzers continue to press farther to the southeast, but the front line north of the east-west escarpment remains static. The Afrika Korps used Supply #3 to destroy 2SA/6; two Axis supplies, however, are still in play and on their way toward the battle area. Two more weeks have passed and the British commander stubbornly still refuses to retreat or to abandon his small toehold on the escarpment; instead, Wavell reinforces his right and waits. The final positions of the Axis units are as follows: Rommel – W3; 21/5 – Q54; 21/104 – P51; 21/3 O49; Ariete – I44; Trenta – H24; Brescia – H26; Pavia & 15/115 – L46; Savena – G20; 15/8 – R57; 15/33 – M47; Supply #1 – J27; Supply #2 – J12R. The surviving Commonwealth units occupy the following hexes: 4I/11, 2/3, 4/7 & Supply #2; Pol/Carp – J46; 22 Gds – J47; Supply #1 – J49; 7/3I Mot, 4I/23 & 9A/18 – K47; 7/7 S.G. & 7/4SA Mot – O52; 7/7 & 50/6SA Mot – M49; 50/69, 50/150 & 50/151 – N50; 2SA/7 Recce – Q58; 2SA/4 – P55; 5I/9, 5I/10 & 5I/29 – I47; 70/23 – Res; Supply #3 – Q59; Supply #4 – J62.
.

.
Click the image to display a full screen version.

August II, Rommel Maneuvers While He Stockpiles Supplies

After two Italian convoys in a row manage to sneak past the British blockade, the Royal Navy finally catches up with and sinks the third. This gap in the flow of supplies allows the Afrika Korps to reposition for a major assault on September I; it also allows time for Division Savena to move forward to link up with the field army east of Sidi Barrani. To contain the British left and Wavell’s single troublesome reconnaissance unit, the Desert Fox orders elements from one of his two panzer divisions to lay a cordon across the southern desert. To tend to the northern section of his front, Rommel redeploys units from the second panzer division back onto the escarpment from where they will be able to support the Italian divisions near the Coast Road. Time is running out, but Rommel still hopes to launch four more attacks before the next large influx of English reinforcements arrive in North Africa.

Back to El Daba: the British Finally Withdraw from Mersa Matruh

Although General Wavell is sorely tempted to continue in his current position, the increasing risk to his left flank has finally become too great to ignore. A British withdrawal at this point, he knows, will simplify Rommel’s situation greatly. The one advantage of an August retreat, however, is that it almost certainly will draw the Deutsches Afrika Korps east and still farther from Tobruch. And while the panzer divisions are only a fortnight’s march from the fortress, a major Axis commitment to attacks near El Daba would mean that the Italian divisions supporting Rommel’s advance could not reach Tobruch for three full game turns. It is not much compensation for abandoning the “Matruh Line,” thinks the British commander, but at least it is something.

The fallback position that the Commonwealth forces move to occupy is one that General Wavell had already picked some weeks earlier. The new Commonwealth defense line runs from the village of El Daba near the Mediterranean Coast inland through the Ruweisat Ridge and then arcs southwest to end at the Qattara Depression. The sector of greatest concern for the British general is the section of the new line north of his center. Wavell has pushed this part of his front as far west as he can in order to protect the flanks of the critically important Ruweisat Ridge. Rommel needs to be slowed in his eastern drive up the Coast Road. If the Axis can be stopped short of El Alamein, then Wavell believes that his forces should be able to hold both the Ruweisat and the Alam Halfa Ridges. The question now uppermost in the English general’s mind is: How many more attacks will Rommel be able to launch before the Commonwealth reinforcements arrive in November?

Commonwealth and Axis positions at the End of the Aug II ’41 Game Turn

The following photo (photo #8) 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 August II game turn. Rommel does not attack, but waits for his supplies to come forward. The failure of the August II convoy to safely reach port means that the Axis convoy die rolls are now even more critical than before. Rommel desperately needs the next few supplies, not only to attack, but also to threaten a powerful counterattack, once British reinforcements arrive in the battle area. Like Rommel, General Wavell also worries about the impending arrival of Axis supplies; unlike Rommel, he pins his hopes on the Royal Navy and their success in finding and sinking these next few critical Italian convoys. The final August II positions of the Axis units are as follows: Rommel – W3; 21/5 & 21/104 – L46; 21/3 – P51; Ariete – I44; Trenta – H24; Brescia – H26; Pavia – M47; Savena – J34; 15/8 – Q54; 15/115 – O49; 15/33 – S57; Supply #1 – L45; Supply #2 – J27. The final positions of all surviving Commonwealth units are as follows: 4I/11, 2/3, 7/4 & Supply #2 – G25; Pol/Carp – L56; 22 Gds, 5I/9 & 5I/10 – P61; Supply #1 – J56; 7/3I Mot, 7/7 S.G. & 9A/18 – L57; 7/7 – N59; 7/4SA Mot & 50/6SA Mot – J55; 4I/23 – J54; 50/69, 50/150 & 50/151 – K56; 2SA/7 Recce – Q61; 2SA/4 – Q60; 5I/29 & Supply #3 – O61; 70/23 – Res; Supply #4 – J62.
.

.
Click the image to display a full screen version.

September I, Rommel Assaults the “El Daba Line”

Good news from the Italian Navy allows Rommel to breathe a little easier: the latest supply convoy, despite an all-out effort by the Royal Navy to find and sink it, has just arrived in the Axis Home Base. Now the Desert Fox can turn his undivided attention to resuming offensive operations against the new British defense line. Since his army should be able to attack the English positions two or three more times before the November reinforcements land, the Desert Fox decides to pick off the “low-hanging fruit” and not risk any Axis exchange or soak-off losses in this round of combats. Rommel knows that, while it might not be a dramatic strategy, the methodical attrition of Commonwealth rifle strength will almost always pay big dividends later in the game. Therefore the Afrika Korps moves forward and attacks and eliminates Pol/Carp, 4I/23, and 2SA/4 at 7 to 1. Axis Supply #1 is expended to support the three combats; this leaves one supply in the battle area and one transiting to the front from the Axis Home Base. The Desert Fox, despite having supplies in the battle area, none the less carefully deploys his attacking units so as to avoid providing the British commander with any 3 to 1 counterattacks. Rommel remains optimistic. With luck, he still hopes to launch three more attacks before the British commander receives any fresh troops.

The “El Daba Line” Holds

Wavell silently receives the news from his front line commanders on the progress of Rommel’s offensive. An Axis attack was inevitable. He is not surprised that Rommel has attacked and destroyed the advanced British pickets; it is exactly what he would have done if he were Rommel. The loss of the three brigades is painful, but at least none of his more powerful units were attacked, and most importantly: his troops still hold the Ruweisat Ridge in some strength. The question that now casts its shadow over the battlefield, for both commanders, is the immediate availability of Axis supplies. Both generals know that Rommel is running out of time. If the Desert Fox continues to nibble on the forward British blocking units, then he may not be able to pry the Commonwealth defenders off of the Ruweisat Ridge before November. And by his reckoning, Wavell believes that Rommel will have to make at least two attacks directly on the central ridge in order to occupy it. Will Rommel receive the crucial supplies, the British commander wonders, and, if he does, will he risk the attacks? Wavell is certain of one thing: whatever it is that Rommel finally decides on, the British will not have to wait long to know of it.

In the meantime, Wavell has arrangements of his own to make. After tending to the adjustments in the “El Daba Line” made necessary by the Afrika Korps’ attacks, the Commonwealth commander issues one additional set of directives. Just in case some opportunity presents itself, General Wavell orders one of his heavy armored brigades in Tobruch to be embarked for sea transport. Rommel is sure to hear about this movement from his spies inside the fortress, and, Wavell hopes, he is just as likely to be concerned by the British plans.

Commonwealth and Axis Positions at the End of the September I Game Turn

The following photo (photo #9) 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 September I, 1941 game turn. The Deutsches Afrika Korps has received another precious supply, so Rommel orders a series of attacks against the new British defensive positions that shield the western approaches to Alexandria. Three Commonwealth 1-1-6 brigades are destroyed at no cost to the Desert Fox other than the expenditure of a supply unit. With two supplies still on the map, however, Rommel is optimistic about his prospects. British options are limited, so, besides retreating his flanking units a little more to the east, Wavell’s only other battlefield decision is to order the 7/4 Armored Brigade in Tobruch out to sea — on the off chance that some offensive use might be found for it. The final positions of all Axis units are as follows: Rommel – W3; 21/5 – L55; 21/104, 21/3 & Pavia – J53; Ariete – N57; Trenta – H24; Brescia – H26; Savena – I47; 15/8 – P59; 15/115 – P58; 15/33 – P57; Supply #2 – I44; Supply #3 – J12R. Commonwealth positions at the end of the September I game turn are as follows: 4I/11, 2/3 & Supply #2 – G25; 22 Gds, 5I/9 & 5I/10 – P61; Supply #1 – K58; 7/3I Mot, 7/4SA Mot & 50/151 – K57; 7/4 – At Sea; 7/7 S.G. & 7/7 – N59; 50/69, 50/150 & 9A/18 – J56; 2SA/7 Recce & Supply #3 – O61; 5I/29 – Q61; 70/23 – Res; Supply #4 – J62.
.

.
Click the image to display a full screen version.

September II, Rommel Ponders a Change in Plans

Rommel’s September II supply convoy is sunk by the Royal Navy. This means that the Afrika Korps can only attack the Allied position in front of El Alamein two more times before significant British reinforcements arrive in the battle area. Presented with this game situation, the Axis commander should probably think long and hard about whether to continue the Battle for Egypt and attempt to capture the Ruweisat Ridge by November, or to transition instead into another strategic line of play. Given the choices suddenly confronting our hypothetical Rommel, this is probably a good point at which to bring this phase of our study to a close. If this experimental game was to continue, Rommel would have to decide from among at least three different operational plans.

First, he could continue with the “Battle for Egypt” offensive strategy. His goal, in this case, would be to secure a “3 to 1 proof” Axis defensive line — hence the importance of capturing the Ruweisat Ridge — before the Commonwealth reinforcements flood into the game in November. Rommel’s plan, once the supply table improved in December, would then be to batter his way through the Allied army in front of Alexandria in order to capture the British Home Base before replacements could become a factor in the game in spring of 1942.

Second, Rommel could turn his back on Alexandria temporarily, and race back to Tobruch in an effort to seize the Allied port before his own November reinforcements arrived. This would give the Desert Fox at least two, and probably three attacks, assuming he received another supply, to capture the fortress before November. This is probably my least favorite approach, if for no other reason than that it almost always involves a desperation, early-game, “low-odds” attack on Tobruch. There may be a time to take that 1 to 1 on Tobruch, but it is rarely, if ever, in October of 1941.

The third option, and my personal favorite, is for Rommel to inflict as many casualties as possible on Wavell’s force and then to slowly withdraw to a central position between Sidi Barrani and Mersa Matruh. From this operational base, Rommel can strike at either Tobruch or at the Allied Home Base, at will. This strategy has the additional advantage of forcing the Commonwealth player to keep his forces divided, with his reserve units essentially being out of play. The Axis can do a lot of damage from this location, particularly once the November reinforcements reach the battle area.

Whatever course of action the Axis player chooses; he should exercise both patience and careful judgment. In the heat of the moment players can forget just how long a game AFRIKA KORPS actually is. So a word is probably in order about playing the “long” game. Too many make-believe Rommels think that if they haven’t established a winning position by the winter of 1941, then they are destined to lose. This is utter nonsense. I cannot remember how many games I have won as the Axis despite being significantly outnumbered by the Allies in November 1941. The only really significant “drop dead” date — for me anyway — is the March ’42 start of replacements. If the Axis can’t get parity at this stage in the game, and quickly, then Rommel literally will be swamped by a tidal wave of “baby-blue” unit counters before he knows it.

Wavell and the “Battle for Egypt”

Of course an obvious question to pose about now is why invest such a long essay in what, in the eyes of many AFRIKA KORPS players, is a relatively unimportant eight or nine-turn phase of the game? The short answer is: mistakes made between the June II and November I, 1941 game turns will often determine the ultimate winner of the game; particularly if those mistakes are made by the British player. The reason for this, I believe, is the widespread failure of many Commonwealth commanders to use the expanse of terrain between the Salum Pass and the Ruweisat Ridge to best defensive effect. Many Commonwealth players, in fact, leave two units to block the Salum Pass bottleneck and then begin an immediate withdrawal all the way back to El Alamein. This is a strategy that will typically work only so long as the Axis player fails to receive supplies. If Rommel reaches the El Daba Line in late July or early August, then barring extremely poor Axis supply luck, the Ruweisat will probably be lost. And the Afrika Korps may even gain a toehold on the Alam Halfa Ridge, as well.

The only real solution to this problem is to slow the Axis juggernaut down until British reinforcements can arrive to help shore up the front. The most obvious place for the Allied player to make such a stand is west of Mersa Matruh. The British do not have to halt the Axis on this line indefinitely, even a couple of game turns are often sufficient, particularly if the Royal Navy is doing its part. I do not claim, by the way, that the approach presented in this essay is the best one possible for the Commonwealth player, only that it is a set of defensive arrangements that have often worked for me. Moreover, I am confident that, with a little study, most players will quickly find ways of significantly adjusting or embellishing the basic framework of this positional defense of the Coast Road to bring it more in line with their own particular styles of play.

There is another reason for both Rommel and Wavell to become intimately acquainted with the ground between Tobruch and El Alamein, besides the basic tactical requirements arising from the usual Axis invasion of Egypt. If Rommel gets very lucky and captures Tobruch in the early months of the war without heavy losses, then the Commonwealth player had better know how to contest every inch of ground east of Tobruch, or he will have literally no chance of salvaging a win.

A Few Final Thoughts

In the course of this series of essays, a number of assumptions have repeatedly been made as to the expected reactions both of our make-believe Rommel, and of the hypothetical General Wavell. The first is that, all things being equal, neither commander will be prepared to take imprudent risks during the early turns of the game. This logical convention does not rule out the use of risky attacks, it simply assumes that, for a player to actually conduct them, the benefits of such attacks must be commensurate with the risks. This logic, for example, explains the decision of the hypothetical Rommel to pursue an “Egypt first” rather than a “Tobruch first” strategy. Therefore, the assumption has been made throughout this essay that if a player really wants to place his faith in the die, he will go ahead and gamble no matter what course his opponent follows.

In addition, there is an expectation that both players will always at least try to operate with a clear idea of their respective goals during this critical phase of the game. That is: they will both know what it is that they want to accomplish as they position their game counters. The respective goals of both the Afrika Korps and the British Army during the battle for Egypt are generally more complicated and less obvious than during the earlier game turns. For this reason, both players will have to quickly recognize when a particular line of play is unsuccessful. This, by the way, is why the decision was made to terminate the scenario on the September II game turn: circumstances had changed sufficiently to call for an Axis change of strategy. However, even if the Axis player changes his strategy, some things will not change: Rommel, whatever his new strategic vision, will still have to carefully husband every one of his units while, at the same time, maximizing the Commonwealth casualties from each of his precious supplies. Wavell, on the other hand, will still have to strike the correct, if delicate balance between unit sacrifices and terrain given up. And neither player has much, if any, real room for error.

For those readers curious about the actual die rolls used in this essay. The afore-mentioned “risk-reward” reality was incorporated into the actual game situation portrayed in this analysis. Thus, in the interest of realism, all of the supply and combat outcomes were actually generated through conventional die rolling. That is: there was no anticipated or favored outcome, so the die was rolled and the results noted and incorporated into the analysis. Interestingly, the supply rolls were almost statistically perfect, with the Axis player receiving perhaps one more supply than expected.

AFRIKA KORPS, as has been noted before, is a very long game: thirty-eight game turns, in fact. Those game turns represent a lot of opportunities both for cleverness and for mistakes. These many game turns also, however, offer many opportunities for both players to learn and practice patience. Moreover, the different stages of the game, as did the actual campaign, tend to see the initiative and advantage swing from one player to the other, sometimes unexpectedly. This is what makes this old “classic” interesting; it is also what really tests the skill of its players. As the game progresses, things will not always be so obvious or clearly defined as they are during the first few game turns. In fact, the opening, middle, and end game of AFRIKA KORPS each has its own pace and rhythm. For that reason, being able to understand the flow and tempo of AFRIKA KORPS, and to act accordingly, is typically the main winning characteristic that separates the expert tournament competitor from the merely good player. Not surprisingly, it is the most difficult, and time-consuming aspect of the game to learn. But it is also why, after all these years; I have yet to grow tired of it.

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 …