SPI, RIFLE AND SABER (1973)
RIFLE AND SABER is a tactical simulation of ground combat in the period between 1850 and 1900. This title joins MUSKET & PIKE and GRENADIER in the SPI Tactical Series of games covering the evolution of warfare after the introduction of firearms onto the battlefield. RIFLE AND SABER was designed by John M. Young, and published in 1973 by Simulations Publications, Incorporated (SPI).
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The first leg of Methuen’s expedition proceeded along the single rail line that ran north from Cape Colony into Rhodesia. The Boers, however, were neither stupid nor irresolute and Methuen’s troops were soon forced to fight a pair of costly engagements, first at Belmont and then at Graspan. Both of these actions followed a similar pattern: the Boers positioned themselves in prepared positions on the local high ground, but once heavily engaged, were forced to retreat in the face of a lethal combination of British artillery fire and infantry bayonet assault. This pattern of British attack, and its regular outcome, was not lost on the Boer field commanders. For the next battle, Boer tactics would dramatically change. And unlike their defensive arrangements during their previous engagements, at the Modder River the Boer military leaders decided that they would avoid the exposed high ground that was clearly too vulnerable to the British artillerymen; instead, they would entrench their forces on the plains below. This battle would test both Boer discipline and tactical ingenuity, and the British Army’s professionalism. And, however it turned out, one thing was certain: it would not be a repeat of the fighting at Belmont and Graspan. DESCRIPTION RIFLE AND SABER is a two-player tactical (company-level) simulation of warfare in the “Age of the Rifle.” The different engagements presented in the game examine an interesting and varied cross-section of different wars and eras. The changes in warfare that occurred during this period were dramatic; the relatively short span of years covered by this game traces the evolution of the individual soldier’s standard firearm, and its tactical use, from the era of muzzle-loading muskets to the devastating first appearance of the machinegun. In examining these changes, combat from the War for Italian Independence, the American Civil War, and even the Boer War are all presented in scenario format.  The basic game mechanics of RIFLE AND SABER are comparatively simple and easy to learn. This means that, like the other titles in this series of SPI games, players should quickly be able to learn the basic rules and get into the actual play of the game in one sitting. Infantry and cavalry units each represent approximately 100 to 150 men; artillery counters are typically 4 to 6 guns. The game is played in turns on a hexagonal grid map. Each hex is 50 meters from side to side and each game turn represents five minutes of real time. The game turns in RIFLE AND SABER are divided into symmetrical player turns. Each player turn follows a set sequence: the Fire Combat Phase; the Movement Phase; and the Shock Combat Phase.
 Warfare, already terrible, was fated to become more terrible still. Tragically, rail roads and mass conscription combined with the rapid, widespread adoption — by the world’s modern European-type armies — of magazine-fed rifles, machineguns, and steel, breech loading field pieces to set Europe’s armies irrevocably upon the path towards the trenches, barbed-wire, and unrelenting mass carnage of the First World War. RIFLE AND SABER shows just how far along that path modern armies had already travelled by the end of the 19th century.RIFLE AND SABER offers seventeen different scenarios drawn both from familiar conflicts and also, in many cases, from virtually unknown battlefields:
For players who want either to increase the game’s realism or to adjust play balance between unequal opponents, RIFLE AND SABER offers, along with the standard rules, additional 'optional' rules that allow players to incorporate the effects of, among other things: Morale, Improved Positions, Trenches, and Road Movement. A PERSONAL OBSERVATION RIFLE AND SABER is one of a number of different games, designed by John M. Young, that spanned the period from the first wide-spread individual use of firearms through the wars of Napoleon, the Crimean War, and the American Civil War, all the way up to and including the Second World War and beyond. I confess that I am a big fan of Young’s many games. His designs are almost always innovative, interesting, playable, and fun. Despite his tragic and untimely death many years ago, John Young leaves behind him a library of some of the very best game designs that, in my opinion, SPI ever published.Design Characteristics:
Game Components:
Related Map and Counters Blog PostsSPI, GRENADIER (1971)SPI, MUSKET & PIKE: Tactical Warfare 1550-1680(1973) Recommended ReadingSee my blog post Book Review of this title which is strongly recommended for those readers interested in further historical background.THE WEST POINT ATLAS OF AMERICAN WARS (Complete 2-Volume Set)  ; edited by Brigadier General Vincent J. Esposito; Frederick A. Praeger, Inc. (1959); ASIN: B000MTBTEUAlso see my blog post Book Review of this definitive three volume work on the officers of the Army of Northern Virginia by Douglas S. Freeman. GDW, FIRE IN THE EAST: EUROPA I (1984)
FIRE IN THE EAST: EUROPA I is a historical simulation — based on the KURSK Game System — of the first critical months of Hitler's military campaign to subjugate Russia and, by so doing, to also permanently eradicate Soviet Communism from the map of Europe. The game begins at the start of the German invasion on 22 June, 1941, and continues through the end of March, 1942. FIRE IN THE EAST was designed by John M. Astell, Paul R. Banner, Frank Chadwick, and Marc Miller and published by Game Designers’ Workshop (GDW) in 1984. FIRE IN THE EAST is a redesigned and significantly upgraded version of GDW’s first commercially successful game, DRANG NACH OSTEN! (DNO), which, thanks to the design work of Frank Chadwick and Rich Banner, had originally appeared in 1973. Interestingly enough, John Astell continued to tinker with the basic design of FIRE IN THE EAST even after the demise of GDW in 1996. The result of his ongoing effort culminated with the publication of yet a third version of the GDW East Front game, now renamed: TOTAL WAR, by Historical Military Services (HMS), in 2008.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND At 0300 hours on 22 June, 1941, Adolph Hitler unleashed the greatest military invasion in history, Operation Barbarossa, against his former ally of convenience, the Soviet Union. The Red Army and Air Force, weakened by losses from the Russo-Finnish War and Stalin’s purges of senior military officers during the 1930’s, had been ordered by Moscow to concentrate their main combat strength in Poland and the Baltic States in anticipation of a possible German attack. These hapless Soviet units, poorly deployed and badly led, had no chance against the initial German onslaught. As a precursor of things to come, the Red Air Force was caught on the ground and smashed by the Luftwaffe before the war had even properly begun. The Germans seemed unstoppable. In the first months of the war, the Wehrmacht killed or captured millions of Russian troops as it raced forward in an unrelenting drive ever deeper into the Russian heartland. On December 5, advanced elements of Germany’s Army Group Center fought their way to within sight of the Kremlin Towers, a scant twenty-five miles away. But that would be the closest that Hitler’s armies would ever come to Moscow. On 5 December, the Red army — reinforced by tough, seasoned troops who had recently been transferred from Siberia — smashed into the exhausted, ill-equiped, and over-extended soldiers of the Werhmacht and threw them back all along the front. This ferocious Russian counteroffensive would continue until the early spring and would finally only sputter out at the end of March, 1942. The Germans had failed to defeat Soviet Russia in 1941; although the war would rage on for three more unbelievably brutal years, the Third Reich would never again come so close to victory over the Soviet Union as it did during the summer and fall of 1941. DESCRIPTIONFIRE IN THE EAST is an operational (division/brigade/regiment/battalion) simulation of the first nine and half months of the Russo-German War, 1941-45.  The game begins with the German invasion of Russia on June 22, 1941 and concludes at the end of March, 1942. It is this critical period, covering the time from the initial German invasion through to the end of the first Soviet winter counteroffensive, that the survival of Soviet Union was most in jeopardy. FIRE IN THE EAST, besides being a complete game, is also the first installment in GDW’s EUROPA Project: a comprehensive simulation of all of all of World War II combat in Europe, the Balkans, the Soviet Union, North Africa, and the Middle East.  FIRE IN THE EAST is played using the standard Europa (two weeks per turn) game format. One player commands the Soviet forces; the other player controls the German Army as well as military units from several of Germany’s Axis allies. The game is nineteen turns long. Like the other Europa Series games, FIRE IN THE EAST uses the familiar KURSK Game System for its basic design architecture and then adds a number of additional game subroutines. Each game turn is divided into two more-or-less symmetrical player turns. A typical player turn will progress in the following action sequence: Initial Phase; (Ground and Naval) Movement Phase; Air Phase; Combat Phase; and the Exploitation (combat/motorized) Movement Phase. FIRE IN THE EAST: EUROPA I, as anyone who is familiar with the Europa Game System knows, is not a simple game. However, the turn phases are logically sequenced and, with just a little practice, players will usually find that they can learn the basic mechanics of the land game quickly. The Armored Effects, Support, Stacking, Naval, and Air rules, on the other hand, will usually take a little more effort to master. Special game rules also cover subjects as diverse as: airborne and amphibious operations; regauging rail lines; arctic operations; moving the Soviet Capital; Russian factories; partisans; specialized roles for combat and construction engineers; and weather, to name just a few. Unit stacking is restricted by the stacking values of individual units, and by nationality. Zones of control are weak: enemy units may move directly from one opposing unit’s ZOC to another, so long as the phasing unit has sufficient movement points to pay the additional movement penalties for doing so. Combat between adjacent enemy units is voluntary, and the basic combat system relies on a traditional “odds-differential” Combat Results Table to generate random outcomes. Also, a nice (and convenient) addition to FIRE IN THE EAST is the inclusion of the Russian Cities Display, as well as Corps and Army Holding Boxes for the two belligerents. These different displays allow the players to deal easily with what would otherwise be extremely congested map hexes in certain sectors of the front. FIRE IN THE EAST and its GDW 'cousins' is more than just a simulation of ground combat. Players exploring the EUROPA game system for the first time will quickly discover that the Air and Naval subroutines are almost independent games in their own right. This is one reason why FIRE IN THE EAST is a particularly good candidate for team play. Another is the sheer size of the playing area and the large numbers of units controlled by both sides. And as should be abundantly clear from the preceding description, FIRE IN THE EAST is clearly a title intended for experienced players; it is probably not a good choice either for most novice players or for casual gamers.  FIRE IN THE EAST offers only the Historical (June 22, 1941 Invasion) Scenario; however, both belligerents are allowed a degree of free deployment within the confines of the two opening set-ups, so the strategies of both sides can vary significantly from game to game. In addition, besides the standard rules of play, the game’s designers also offer a series of advanced and optional rules for those players who are interested either in a little more complexity, or in adding a little more variation to the play of the game. A PERSONAL OBSERVATIONUnder most circumstances, FIRE IN THE EAST would be a perfect fit for my personal taste in large conflict simulations. In fact, it possesses pretty much exactly the qualities that I usually look for in a monster game. It has, among other things: wide scope of action; marked variation in unit capabilities; complex subroutines to deal with different types of combat (air-ground-naval); lots of different types of terrain; and most important of all: different, but equally challenging problems for both sides to address and solve as the game develops. Thus, when I received my copy in the mail many years ago, I was so certain that I would really like the game that I went ahead and punched and trimmed all 2,880 counters, and then methodically prepared the rules and charts for play. And yet, after setting up the Soviet frontier armies and then tinkering with the Russian defense for a few hours one summer evening, I put FIRE IN THE EAST away and never seriously looked at the game again. Which brings me to the obvious question: what happened; why didn’t I revisit this title, ever?The answer to this question, oddly enough, has everything to do with me and my regular opponents at the time, and almost nothing to do with FIRE IN THE EAST! In reality, the major factor that prevented my becoming more interested in this title was my already long-established commitment to its aging predecessor, DNO/UNT. FIRE IN THE EAST was just too different from DNO/UNT. I and my friends had already invested almost a decade in fixing the maps and rules to the older game, and we really liked the end result of all of our hard work. Our much-refined version of DNO/UNT may not have been exactly what Frank Chadwick and Rick Banner had in mind when they came up with their original game design, but it worked for us. And even more damaging to the prospects of the new game: none of the “pet” game tactics that we had developed for both the Axis and the Soviets worked within the restrictions of the redesigned game system! Subtle changes in the rules for Soviet armor, in stacking, in air missions, and in the restrictions on Soviet fortifications, all conspired to ruin some of our favorite strategies. The fact that the new design was historically much more accurate; that the maps were a vast improvement over those of its predecessor; and that the “armored effects” and “air” rules finally made a lot more sense, didn’t matter. We had a game that we liked, and, more importantly, that we all knew how to play pretty well, and we weren’t about to give it up for the new version, no matter how much of an improvement it was. Such, I suppose are the peculiarities of human nature. And, just in case anyone is curious: yes, I still have my much-altered copy of DNO/UNT, and yes, I still play it. Despite my own stubborn preference for DNO/UNT, however, I am still going to strongly recommend FIRE IN THE EAST for other experienced players with an interest in World War II, and particularly for those with a special fascination with the fighting on the Eastern Front. My reason is simple: the many different games that make up the EUROPA World War II game system are each in their own way, unique. Whether looking at an early design like NARVIK (1974) or a later installment like THE FALL OF FRANCE (1981), GDW invariably brings something fresh and interesting to the design process when it examines each new historical situation. This factor, just as much as sheer size, makes the EUROPA game series one of the great simulation design projects of all time. In the case of FIRE IN THE EAST, this simulation presents a fascinating and detailed look at the first months of the greatest military clash in history: the death match between Hitler’s Third Reich and Stalin’s U.S.S.R. The drama of the opening stages of this titanic struggle alone makes the game interesting. In addition, despite its undeniable complexity, FIRE IN THE EAST offers — to those experienced gamers who are really interested in East Front operational combat during World War II — a richly textured (air-ground-naval) and very challenging game system for simulating the first months of the total war that raged on the Russian Front. Design Characteristics:
Game Components:
Recommended ReadingSee my blog post Book Reviews of these titles; both of which are strongly recommended for those readers interested in further historical background.THE WEST POINT ATLAS OF AMERICAN WARS (Complete 2-Volume Set) REMEMBERING SEPTEMBER 11, 2001Eight Years Later, the Nation’s Collective Outrage at the Islamic Terrorist Attacks against our Fellow Citizens Continues to FadeI remember where I was and what I was doing on September 11, 2001. At the time, I and my wife owned a riding academy and stable, and I was in my office going over rider evaluations and planning horse assignments for the coming day. It was early in the morning in Scottsdale, Arizona. Then one of my clients called. She told me to turn on the radio: an unidentified plane had just struck the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York City and the first confused reports indicated that casualties were expected to be high. As follow-up reports and news updates continued to be broadcast during the morning, a clearer picture of this calamity gradually began to emerge. At 9:03am EST, a local film crew recorded the final trajectory of a second passenger jet as it struck the south tower of the World Trade Center. Soon reports were broadcast that a third commercial airliner had smashed into the Pentagon; and finally, that a fourth hijacked passenger jet, United Airlines Flight 93, had disappeared from radar: shortly thereafter, it was confirmed that it had crashed in an empty field in Pennsylvania. The F.A.A acted quickly by ordering all airborne flight crews to secure their cockpits, and then for all commercial flights over the continental U.S. to land immediately. All other scheduled flights, of any kind, were indefinitely grounded. America’s skies were no longer safe. Then, unbelievably, both of the Towers of the World Trade Center came down, one right after the other; when they did, thousands of innocent civilians, and hundreds emergency responders who had selflessly charged into the two burning buildings to render aid to those inside who were trapped and injured, all died in an instant. It didn’t seem possible.  It was at this point, I think, that I and my fellow countrymen at last really grasped the fact that we had been attacked. However, of all of the many individual tragedies that transpired that day — for me — one still stands out. It is the heart-breaking image of a man and woman, faced with two equally horrible choices, bravely holding hands and jumping together to their deaths from the north tower of the World Trade Center. If I live to be a hundred, I will never forget that terrible but inspiring picture, nor will I ever forgive those who caused it. Thus, it is easy for me to remember my reaction at the time: this was nothing less than an act of war; moreover, absolutely everyone associated with this savage act of terrorism should be made to pay, and to pay in such a dramatic and terrible way that they would never again dare to attempt any attacks against the American homeland. In the immediate aftermath of the atrocities of 9/11, I think the vast majority of Americans probably agreed with me. But that was then, and this is now. Somehow, over the last eight years, the national consensus that emerged in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks has, bit by bit, been worn away. Part of the fault for this national amnesia must rest with a lack of constancy on the part of many Americans who, too easily calmed by a cowardly, revisionist media and by the constant pleas for restraint from the countless pro-Islam apologists in our various national elites, seem all too willing to put aside both their recollections of the harrowing images of 9/11 and their hatred for the implacable enemies who callously murdered almost three thousand of our countrymen. I do not understand this willingness to forgive and forget; I never will. None-the-less, it is happening, and only a few of our nation’s prominent figures seem to mind or even notice. This is a national tragedy, and worse, it is a national disgrace.In a country where once “Remember the Alamo” and “Never Forget Pearl Harbor!” were rallying cries that energized a people and spurred them to resolute action, we now have a president who — instead of commemorating the suffering and sacrifice of all those who died as a result of the worst terrorist attack in American history — wants to make September 11th a recurring “National Day of Service” to celebrate community activism throughout the country. It may come as a surprise to those who dwell in Washington, D.C., but I have news for our president and for a sizeable chunk of the congress: for those men and women who wear the country’s uniform and who are actually taking the fight to the murderous Islamic fascists who threaten America and her citizens all over the world, everyday is already a “Day of Service.” On today of all days, it is particularly important for each of us, as Americans, to remember that we really are in an all or nothing “shooting” war and have been for decades. And until the modern-day fanatical proponents of a brutal, seventh-century religious-political death culture are defeated or killed, our fellow citizens and our very way of life will never be safe. I sympathize with those people who would just like to move on. But there is a time to forget and forgive, and that time is not now; it may not even come for another generation. None-the-less, if we as a people can regain our righteous anger and renew our determination to prevail against the murderous barbarians who would destroy us, then Islamic fascism, like many of the other totalitarian ideologies of the previous century will also fail. The challenge of this century rests with us and no one else; let us hope than we still have both the national will and the courage to meet it. GMT, BORODINO (2004)
BORODINO: Battle of the Moskova, 1812 is a historical simulation, at the grand tactical level, of the climactic battle that ultimately determined the fate of Napoleon’s 1812 campaign against the Russian Empire. The game was designed by Richard Berg, and published in 2004 by GMT Games, LLC (GMT). GMT’s BORODINO is based on the TRIUMPH AND GLORY Game System, and several important general T&G rules modifications appear in the BORODINO exclusive game rules.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDThe Battle of the Moskova, like virtually all of Napoleon’s set-piece battles, began with a massive cannonade. At 6:00 am on 7 September 1812, French artillery opened fire on the troops of Marshal Prince Kutuzov’s Russian army who were deployed in strong prepared positions astride the main road to Moscow about a mile from the small Russian hamlet of Borodino. Kutuzov’s force, numbering approximately 120,800 men with 640 guns, occupied a powerful defensive line, improved by extensive fieldworks, that ran east to west along the Kalotchka River and extended on his left through the village of Semenovskaya to the forest in the southwest. Napoleon’s force numbering some 135,000 men and 587 guns followed up the artillery bombardment with a major assault against the Russian left.The battle raged all day, with fieldworks changing hands over and over again, as first one army and then the other attacked and counterattacked over the same bloody ground. By the end of the day, Kutuzov’s army was forced to retire, but it did so without interference from the exhausted French. Russian losses from the battle totaled about 15,000 killed, including Prince Bagration, and another 25,000 wounded. The French Army suffered about 30,000 casualties, including twelve generals killed in action. Napoleon’s forces had carried the field at Borodino and thus, could claim a tactical success. Kutuzov’s men, on the other hand, had managed to fight the French to a standstill for most of the day and had then withdrawn in good order. Thus, in the end, it was Kutuzov and not Napoleon who scored the far more important strategic victory. And although he could not have known it at the time, the bloody, but indecisive French victory on the banks of the Moskova actually spelled the end of the French Emperor’s hopes for a successful conclusion to his campaign against Russia. DESCRIPTION GMT’s BORODINO is a grand tactical (brigade/regiment) level simulation — based on the TRIUMPH AND GLORY Game System — of the largest battle of Napoleon’s 1812 Campaign in Imperial Russia. This massive clash was Napoleon’s last chance to destroy the main Russian army barring his path to Moscow. As the battle began, the fate of the entire French campaign hung in the balance: a French military defeat deep within Russia would be a catastrophe; a decisive French victory at Borodino, on the other hand, could yet retrieve Napoleon’s faltering campaign against the Empire of Tsar Alexander I.  GMT’s BORODINO is played in game turns, and each game turn is further divided into five interwoven player phases. These rigidly-sequenced game phases proceed as follows: the Orders Phase; the Initiative Determination Phase; the Activation Phase; the Reserve Phase; the Group Morale Phase; and finally, the Overall Commander Movement Phase. After both players have finished moving their Overall Commander, the game turn marker is advanced one space, and the turn sequence repeats itself until the scenario ends.  Richard Berg’s BORODINO focuses extensively on army leadership, and command and control. These factors are represented in the game through the use of formation “Orders” and through group “Activation.” For units to operate at maximum effectiveness, they must either receive orders directly from their Overall Commander, or they must successfully pass a die-roll test to be placed under orders. These orders are assigned to “Orders Commands” which must, in turn, be composed of all or part of the same “Activation Group” (typically a corps). Specific Orders Commands are placed under orders by their owning players at the beginning of each game turn, before the players know the sequence in which their Activation Groups will be randomly drawn from the Activation “pool.” It is important to note that each unit within the same Orders Command must be within two hexes of another unit in the same Command; this means that, as a result of combat or maneuver, it is quite possible for a single Activation Group to be composed of multiple Orders groups. After the Orders Phase, both players roll a die to determine which of them holds the Initiative for that game turn. The player with the Initiative is allowed to activate a single Activation Group before the rest of his Activation markers are inverted and placed in the Activation pool. Then, each player brings an Activation Group into play by randomly drawing that group’s chit from the pool of “Activation Markers.” If the die rolls tie, then neither player receives the Initiative. The Activation Phase is the game segment during which most of the important player actions take place. During this critical game phase, player actions are conducted in the following sequence: artillery units that do not move or change facing may fire; all eligible units, except for the Overall Commanders, may move; eligible infantry and cavalry units that, just prior to combat, pass their “commitment” die roll may conduct shock attacks, and eligible cavalry units may charge enemy units; finally, any disordered units that performed no other action during this phase, may attempt to rally. The last three phases of the game turn — the Reserve Phase, Morale Phase, and Overall Commander Movement Phase — are all pretty much self-explanatory. The game mechanics of GMT’s BORODINO, although fairly complex, are generally logical and, once learned, easy to execute. Nonetheless, the various game functions do require some study on the part of new players in order to master them. Stacking rules are detailed, but not overly complicated. In most cases, stacking is limited to two units of the same type per hex. That is: two infantry or two cavalry units may stack together in the same hex, but not one of each type. Three non-artillery units from the same Activation Group may stack together, again so long as all three units are of the same type. Stacking rules apply at the end of movement and during shock and fire combat. In GMT’s BORODINO, all combat units have zones of control that extend into the six surrounding hexes, unless blocked by impassable terrain. Moreover, given the game scale, it is not surprising that all combat units also have a facing, and these two factors, ZOCs and unit facings, interact in interesting ways. ZOCs are rigid but not “sticky.” Units must stop upon entering an enemy unit’s ZOC; in the next movement phase, however, the same unit may move directly into another enemy unit’s ZOC so long as the second ZOC is not a frontal ZOC. GMT’s BORODINO uses a ten-sided die and the familiar system of cumulative die roll modifiers (DRMs) to resolve the outcomes of Artillery Fire and Shock Combat. The two Combat Resolution Tables are (more-or-less) bloodless and stipulate combat outcomes in terms of retreats, disordered results, and unit cohesion checks. Morale, not surprisingly, plays an important role, both in terms of unit capabilities and in terms of accumulating victory points. Additional game rules cover Infantry Squares, Secondary Shock Combat, Advance after Shock Combat, Retreat before Shock Combat, and Cavalry Pursuit. The BORODINO scenario includes “special” rules for the Burning of Russian Towns or Bridges, the Moscow Militia, Movement Restrictions on the mobility of Napoleon and Kutusov, the French Imperial Guard, the French Cavalry Reserve, and the Initial French Artillery Bombardment. To add a little additional variation to the game, Marshal Davout’s Plan for a flanking maneuver against the Russian far left is included as an “optional” rule. The points required for a player to win vary depending on the game being played. Victory points are awarded for the capture or control of specific geographical objectives and by inducing the morale “Collapse” of enemy Activation Groups. The game’s winner is determined by comparing the victory points of the two armies at the end of the last turn. GMT’s BORODINO offers two scenarios: The Battle for the SCHEVARDINO REDOUBT September 5, 1812, and the Grand Battle Game: The Battle of BORODINO September 7, 1812. The introductory SCHEVARDINO REDOUBT scenario is an excellent way for players to familiarize themselves with the game system; it is shorter, simpler, and does not use either the “Command” or the “Activation” rules that are integral elements in the Grand Battle Game. A PERSONAL OBSERVATIONThe Battle of Borodino, like the Battle of Waterloo, is historically fascinating at least as much for what didn’t happen during the course of the action, as for what did. For this reason, the numerous what if’s? of the battle continue to intrigue and puzzle historians and gamers to this day. What if Kutusov had attacked Napoleon’s still-concentrating army on September 6th? Alternatiely, what if Napoleon had taken Davout’s advice and had allowed his most brilliant corps commander to attempt a flanking maneuver against the Russian left, instead of crashing his army head-on into Kutusov’s strongest defenses? Finally, what if the French Emperor had released the Imperial Guard from the reserve and thrown it against the Russian center-left during the early stages of the critical struggle for the Great Redoubt?It is probably because of the built-in drama of the historical situation that a number of very good treatments of this bloody clash have emerged over the years. There have been simple games like John Young’s early “beer and pretzels” S&T Magazine insert game, BORODINO (1972); there have been massive — thousands of counters on a map the size of a pool table — richly-detailed simulations like GDW’s, LA BATAILLE DE LA MOSCOWA (1975); and there have been any number of designs that fall somewhere in between these two extremes. Richard Berg’s vision of the battle, BORODINO: Battle of the Moskova, 1812, belongs to this middle category. It has an interesting amount of historical detail, but not so much that it overwhelms the players. I do have to register one small nit: GMT’s version doesn’t really permit players to experiment with every last one of the many what ifs that are associated with this battle — there is no possibility, for example, for a Russian spoiling attack on September 6 — but the designer does make provision for Davout’s audacious flanking maneuver; and, of course, the French player also can opt to throw the Imperial Guard into the fray, if he really wants to see what might have happened had Napoleon heeded Marshal Ney's request for fresh troops to support his struggle to capture the Great Redoubt. Finally, BORODINO: Battle of the Moskova, 1812 has excellent graphics and great eye appeal. The four-color map is attractive and unambiguous. The rules and player aids are, in the main, clear and easy to use. Best of all, the back-printed unit counters are — as has become more and more common among the most recent batch of Napoleonic titles — quite colorful and attractive. In short, GMT’s BORODINO is visually appealing, challenging, and — once the game system is mastered — fast-moving and playable. For these reasons, I think that it is excellent choice for most experienced players and a particularly good pick for those with an interest in games of the Napoleonic Wars. Design Characteristics:
Game Components:
Recommended ReadingSee my blog post Book Review of this title which I strongly recommend for those readers interested in further historical background. Recommended ArtworkThis map of the battle makes a fine wall decoration for the game room with a Napoleonic theme.
TAHGC, DUNE (1979)
FRANK HERBERT’S DUNE is a game of combat and political treachery based on the characters and events brought to life in Herbert’s phenomenally popular DUNE Series of science fiction novels. DUNE was designed by Future Pastimes, developed by Mick Uhl and Richard Hamblen, and published in 1979 by the Avalon Hill Game Company (TAHGC).
INTRODUCTIONScience fiction/fantasy games are a bit of a departure for me: I don’t like them; I virtually never buy them; and only under extreme duress do I ever play them. For this reason, I do not usually offer game profiles or game analysis on either sci-fi or fantasy games. I am, however, making an exception to this personal rule for Avalon Hill’s DUNE. The sad story of my one and only experience with this title, I recount below. Suffice it to say that this piece of unmitigated pig offal is not a game that I could ever recommend. In short, and I am trying to be generous, in my appraisal: I really hated it. And, in the spirit of the good old USSR, if something is as bad as this game, then someone must be responsible; but who? The actual game designer, being no dummy, chose anonymity rather than become a hunted man. Thus, we are left to blame the game’s Avalon Hill game developers. Thin gruel, I know, but at least those names are known, aren’t they, Mick and Richard? But, hold on: to be fair to Mick Uhl and Richard Hamblen (may their crops wither and die, and their flocks become barren), this was one of their earlier developmental efforts, so perhaps they should be shown some mercy. After all, if Jim Dunnigan can atone for, and rise above, the debacle of 1914, then those of us tarnished by this foul sci-fi creation should extend the same chance for redemption to Mick and Richard. Restraint will be difficult, I know; none-the-less, compassion should be shown, even if it is far more than these game developers deserve!DESCRIPTION DUNE is a science fiction game of conflict and diplomacy intended for from two to six players. Each player assumes control of one of the major factions struggling to dominate the planet Arrakis — known by its inhabitants as Dune — and by so doing control the precious Spice that is the ultimate source of power within the Galactic Empire. The factions competing in this life or death struggle for control of Dune are: the Bene Gesserit; the Guild; the Fremen; the Emperor; the House Atreides; and the House Harkonnen. Each of these factions has both advantages and weaknesses, but none can emerge the game’s winner without skill, luck and a sizeable supply of guile. DUNE is played on a game board representing the planet Dune. The game is played in turns, and each game turn follows the same rigid order of phases and is sequenced, as follows: the Storm Round; the Spice Blow; the Bidding Round; the Revival and Movement Round; the Battle Round; and the Collection Round. The competing players have a maximum of 15 game turns in which to use a combination of leaders, tokens, treachery cards, and spice in their fight for control of the limited number of strongholds on the game map. In the case of the multi-player game, a player wins when he controls three strongholds; in the two-player game, a player must control four simultaneously to win. In addition to the basic game, DUNE also offers an advanced version, as well as a number of optional rules that can be implemented, once players are familiar with the basic game system. Needless to say, DUNE’s solitaire suitability is very low. A PERSONAL OBSERVATION Let me begin by admitting that I was never a big fan of Frank Herbert’s DUNE Series of science fiction novels, and that I found the first installment, DUNE, quite enough to eliminate any appetite I might have had for any future stories from the planet Arrakis. My wife, on the other hand was a big fan of the entire series. When the Avalon Hill game came out, she noticed an ad in one of my Generals and immediately began hinting for me to buy the game, DUNE. After much foot-dragging — science fiction games, as I indicated previously, are not my thing — and no small amount of carping on my part, I finally ordered the game by mail. My capacity for self-delusion, it turns out, can be really quite amazing; by the time that the game actually arrived in the post, I had more-or-less persuaded myself that it probably wouldn’t be all that bad: perhaps, a sort of DIPLOMACY meets STARSHIP TROOPERS kind of game. Well, the long and the short of it is that it wasn’t. The map board was even uglier than I expected, and the rest of the game’s graphics were strictly from the “Land of Third World Comic Books.” There was, however, one bright spot. The game rules, although badly-organized and almost incomprehensible, were at least blessedly short. Despite my own misgivings, my better half would not be denied. In no time at all, my wife had succeeded in rounding up — mainly by promising a board game that the wives and their husbands could share — a couple of pleasant, but gullible volunteers. With the “additional players” obstacle out of the way, she decided, one Sunday afternoon, that it was time to give the game a try. Thus it was that, on a balmy evening in September, the four of us tentatively sat down around our dining room table and set about to try to learn the game rules. While the husbands assembled the game’s two “Battle Wheels” — a joint project that easily used up almost a whole minute — the wives read the rules. Then the husbands read the rules. Then, one by one, four college graduates (two with advanced degrees) reread the rules, again. Things, it was obvious, were not starting out well. However, in spite of the clear warning signs, we all decided to plow resolutely ahead. It was a mistake. I knew that the game was really in trouble when the eyes of the other couple that my bride had tricked into joining us in this rapture began to glaze over from an overload of confusion and boredom. Finally, as we struggled to complete what seemed like game turn forty, but was, I think, probably only game turn six, my wife finally cracked. “This is the stupidest game I’ve ever seen,” she exclaimed. The whole table went completely silent. Then, as if with a single voice, everyone else around the game board burst out: “I surrender!” And just like that, the torture session was over. “Let’s just go ahead and play EMPEROR OF CHINA,” she continued, “I’ll get the cheese and wine.” Thus ended my one and only attempt at DUNE. Of course, it is always possible that buried somewhere beneath the embarrassingly bad artwork and the incoherent rules, there might be a real game still hiding, but if there is, you’re going to have to go in there and find it without me. Game Components:
THE 'AFRIKA KORPS' NOTEBOOK: TOBRUCHPerception, Reality, and Luck: the Low-Odds Ploy against TobruchIntroductionOne of the oldest and most persistent bits of gaming “folk wisdom” that has attached itself to AFRIKA KORPS, both as a game and as a historical simulation, is that the final outcome of the entire thirty-eight turn campaign can be, and usually is, decided by a single roll of the die. I am referring, of course, to the built-in possibility of a low-odds (either 1 to 1 or 1 to 2) Axis assault against Tobruch at any point after the first few months of the game. In the eyes of many of AFRIKA KORPS’ most vocal critics, this possibility is sufficient — in and of itself — to eliminate the game from consideration as a real test of skill and to label it, instead, as an ancient hobby relic that is little more than a desert variant of Yahtzee. This is also the main reason, these critics explain, why they personally no longer play AFRIKA KORPS; they don’t want to waste their time on a game the outcome of which can be reduced to a single lucky die-roll. This position, I think at least, represents a very curious point of view. For my own part, if I really believed that any game was completely luck dependent, I’d enter that game’s tournament in a heartbeat, and then simply try to die-roll my way to a tournament plaque! But I digress.Perception versus Reality Obviously, this prejudice against AFRIKA KORPS is fairly wide-spread among gamers or I wouldn’t be discussing it here; moreover, there is, to be fair, a kernel of truth contained in this criticism of one of Avalon Hill’s oldest games. AFRIKA KORPS contests — particularly, face-to-face tournament matches — are frequently decided by a big Axis 1 to 1 attack on Tobruch. So, if this is the case, this particular criticism of the game must be valid, right? Wrong. In reality, these low-odds AFRIKA KORPS tournament finales derive more from the peculiar nature and special pressures of convention play than they do from any feature intrinsic to the game; for this reason, these attacks will tend to show up far more frequently in tournament competition than in either regular face-to-face or PBeM play. And even in tournament situations, the likelihood of a game-ending 1 to 1 against Tobruch has more to do with the personalities and goals of both the Axis and the Commonwealth players, than it does with the game itself. In fact, in the vast majority of these cases, I would argue that both players — not just the Axis commander — have to be complicit in this low-odds Axis gamble for the attack to actually go forward. For this reason and others, after forty-plus years of pushing “baby blue” and “frou-frou pink” counters back and forth across the AFRIKA KORPS game map in both competitive and casual venues, I find myself disagreeing with almost all of the core assumptions that underpin this criticism of the game.First, a little gaming history: AFRIKA KORPS is not the only one of Avalon Hill’s older games that has been dogged by this kind of off-hand, popular criticism. In fact, I wish that, over the years, I had put aside a dollar for every occasion on which I heard some other player declare that the Germans absolutely could not win in STALINGRAD, or the French in WATERLOO, or that the Americans had no chance in MIDWAY, etc. Ironically enough, during my early years in the hobby I tended to believe most of this silly claptrap. Why not? I had only been involved in the hobby for a few years, and I didn’t know any better. That all changed, however, when a retired Army officer in Florida beat my P.A.A. defenders like a “rented mule” in a PBM game of WATERLOO, thirty-five years ago. I was utterly crushed after my defeat, but in retrospect, that drubbing was the best thing that could have happened to me at the timebecause, from that moment on, I stopped treating other players’ pronouncements as facts, but started seeing them for what they really were: nothing more than personal opinions. And in gaming, like in every other area of life, some opinions have value, and some don’t. The most significant outcome of this early gaming epiphany was that I no longer took anything about wargames — even familiar wargames — for granted. More importantly, I ceased to venture a critical judgment on a title until I had first gained a clear understanding of the game system and then had logged many hours with that title, both in solitaire and in face-to-face play. To this day, I still tend to follow the same formula; which, in a roundabout way, brings this discussion back to AFRIKA KORPS and the subject of low-odds Axis attacks on Tobruch. As I stated previously, I am deeply suspicious of the specific bit of AFRIKA KORPS “folk wisdom” that argues that the Axis option for a “winner take all” low-odds attack on Tobruch is a built-in and inescapable flaw in the game system. In short: I simply don’t buy it. But that being said, it is only fair for me to state the reasons supporting my skeptical viewpoint. And those reasons are several and varied. To begin with, there is the issue of player motivation to consider. That is: why is it that people play wargames, in the first place? I cannot speak for everyone in the hobby, but for me and for most of the players with whom I have had a long association, the primary factor that motivates all of us is an interest in military history coupled with a keen love of competition. The game board and counters convey a sense of dynamism and spatial reality that history books and campaign maps simply cannot match. Just as importantly, we all enjoy the challenges posed by the strategic or tactical problems, however abstracted, contained in the typical conflict simulation. Also and not surprisingly, when we play these games, we all prefer to win. I could be wrong, but I assume that a sizeable percentage of other wargamers share these same characteristics. The inference that I draw from this is that most reasonable players, when they sit down to play a game, do not do so with the perverse intention of losing. If this is indeed the case, and I believe that it is, then an obvious question can be posed to those critics who raise the specter of the big Axis 1 to 1 in the early turns of AFRIKA KORPS. That question is: Why would any rational and competitive player, with the match just beginning, adopt a strategy that would immediately lose the game 50% of the time — a doubled exchange being almost as devastating as an A Elim for the Axis — for a 33% chance of damaging, but not destroying the British army in North Africa? A player would have a much better chance of success at a Roulette table. In fact, if a casino offered this range of odds, it would have to kidnap people at gunpoint in order to get customers through its doors. Thus, the short answer to this question is that a rational player would not. The flow of AFRIKA KORPS play is such, however, that the players will quickly transition from the opening moves to the middle-game. Assuming that the typical Axis player is unlikely to risk throwing the game by trying an unnecessary 1 to 1 against Tobruch — at least in the early game turns — the next obvious question is: when then would such an attempt, based on an Axis player’s realistic appraisal of the game situation, become most likely? The obvious answer, of course, is when that player, rightly or wrongly, becomes convinced that he is behind in the match and in danger of losing. Usually, this change in the Axis player’s perception of the game occurs in one of two situations: either when — due to the arrival of substantial Commonwealth reinforcements (November 1941, for example) — the British achieve a marked superiority over the Axis in combat power; or, alternatively, as soon as the DAK launches an initial set of attacks against the Tobruch fortress and incurs heavy losses due to one or more doubled exchanges. In both of these situations, the likelihood of an Axis low-odds attempt to capture Tobruch increases exponentially. And it is, by the way, usually one of these two sets of circumstances that bring about the majority of low-odds attacks against Tobruch during convention play. Since being forewarned is being forearmed, what course of action should the British commander choose once either of these situations arises? This is not a trivial question: what the Commonwealth player decides to do at this point in the contest will inevitably spell the difference between a short game versus a long game, and more importantly, between a glorious Allied victory or an ignominious defeat. Of course, the seductive, “short game” approach for the British commander is to stand fast in Tobruch, and to hope that his favorable three to two odds advantage actually pays off when his Axis opponent attacks. Tobruch, after all is a crucial position, both logistically and defensively; if you don’t believe it, the game’s Players’ Notes say so. It is also important psychologically to both players. This second, mental factor is often the Allied players’ biggest problem: they confuse the fortress’ psychological value with its strategic value; unfortunately, the two are not the same. Thus, the Commonwealth commanders’ decision to defend the fortress is fairly common, particularly for players embroiled in heavy tournament action. Often, Allied tournament players decide this way because of the perceived importance of Tobruch, because of the pressure of time limits on play and, even more importantly, because of the lure of other convention events. I know because I have succumbed to these various temptations myself. However, at the risk of speaking heresy, I am going to vehemently argue that the “stand fast” Allied option — at least for those British players who want to maximize their chances for victory — is virtually always the wrong choice. The logic underpinning my argument is simple: the only reason that a reasonable Axis player would be risking a low-odds attack on Tobruch in the first place is that he is behind in the game; therefore the most sensible long-term game strategy for his Allied opponent to pursue is to make sure that he stays behind! In a nutshell, this means that the Commonwealth player should use sea movement to evacuate his remaining heavy units from Tobruch, while leaving a single token 1-1-6 behind to force the DAK to attack the fortress and expend a precious supply. Stated another way: why give a demoralized and weakened adversary an opportunity to get back into the game if you don’t have to? Since most low-odds Axis attacks against Tobruch are preceded by obvious indicators, standing fast and accepting the battle makes the Allied player complicit in the attack, and, at least partially responsible for its outcome. ConclusionIn this essay, I have attempted to respond to a long-standing and wide-spread criticism of AFRIKA KORPS that it is, compared to other games, too luck dependent. This hobby “folk wisdom,” although partially based in fact, I have endeavored to show has arisen mainly from a fundamental misunderstanding of the flow and tempo of this venerable old Avalon Hill title, and from a misunderstanding of the peculiar game dynamics that naturally arise in the context of face-to-face tournament play. The possibility of the infamous Axis 1 to 1 attack on Tobruch is certainly built into the game system, but, as I believe I have demonstrated, it is not nearly as important to the play of the game as its critics avow. Put another way: I believe that almost all of the standard criticisms of the game are both inaccurate and unjust. In passing, I should note that in the course of the last four decades or so, I have examined and played literally dozens of different titles that, like AFRIKA KORPS, have all dealt with part or all of the World War II campaign for the Western Desert. A few of these games have been good; a much greater number of them have been either mediocre or downright bad. Thus, when I compare AFRIKA KORPS to these other titles, it still holds up surprisingly well, despite its many flaws. Charles Roberts’ game of the World War II struggle for Egypt may not be perfect, and it may not even be a particularly realistic historical simulation of the North African Campaign, 1941-42. As a chess-like simulation of military combat and maneuver, however, I consider AFRIKA KORPS to be, even after all these years, a game virtually without peer.SPI, TO THE GREEN FIELDS BEYOND (1978)
‘TO THE GREEN FIELDS BEYOND’: The Battle of Cambrai, 1917 is an operational simulation of the Allied World War I offensive to break through the German trench lines at Cambrai using, for the first time, large numbers of tanks, as well as infantry and artillery. The game was designed by David C. Isby and published by Simulations Publications, Incorporated (SPI) in 1978.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDOn 20 November 1917, Field Marshal Douglas Haig ordered the Third Army, under the command of General Byng, to begin an attack on the Siegfried line southwest of the French town of Cambrai. It was the first major tank attack in history. Preceded by a violent but brief artillery barrage and spearheaded by more than 300 British tanks, Byng’s force achieved complete surprise. Over the next few days, Byng’s advancing troops tore a gap ten miles wide and six miles deep in German General von der Marwitz’s Second Army’s front.After the initial shock, however, the Germans gradually regained their equilibrium once badly-needed reinforcements began to reach the threatened front. On 30 November, Ludendorf ordered a counterattack against the British salient. Now, under almost constant artillery and gas barrages and pressed steadily by counterattacking German infantry, Haig finally ordered Byng to pull his forward units back to shorten their defensive line. This movement began on 4 December and was competed three days later. In the end, despite the promising initial British gains, very little ground actually changed hands. The British, however, lost 44,000 killed and wounded, and 6,000 captured; the Germans lost 50,000 total casualties and 11,000 prisoners. DESCRIPTION ‘TO THE GREEN FIELDS BEYOND’ is a regimental/brigade (the British tanks operate in companies) simulation of the Battle of Cambrai (20 November to 7 December, 1917). It covers the entire battle, from the early British victories against the deep German defenses, to the final German counterattack which successfully drove the British all the way back to their starting positions. This battle is interesting because it puts in stark contrast two very different offensive solutions to the problem posed by long-established and well-supported trench lines. Both armies had been feverishly working to develop their own means of breaking through the layered defensive positions that dominated the Western Front. In the case of the British, the solution was technological: the tank. In the case of the Germans, it was doctrinal: the Stosstruppen (infiltration) infantry. Both solutions would be tested in the Battle of Cambrai. Despite the presence of tanks, the game turn sequence in ‘TO THE GREEN FIELDS BEYOND’ illustrates that Cambrai was still very much a World War I battle with the infantry and artillery doing most of the “heavy lifting.” The turn sequence is asymmetrical and proceeds through the following stages (British player turn): reinforcement phase; tank repair phase; command control phase (campaign game only); initial air phase (optional); initial barrage phase; initial ground combat phase; initial movement phase; second air phase (optional); second barrage phase; second ground combat phase; second movement phase; and tank breakdown phase. The German turn is identical except that there are no “tank-related” phases, and no command control phase. The turn sequence also nicely illustrates that the major threat to the British tanks was not hostile fire, but everyday mechanical breakdowns. ‘TO THE GREEN FIELDS BEYOND’ offers three short scenarios, and a single long scenario that combines all three into a campaign game. The short scenarios are: The British Breakthrough (20-22 November, three game turns); Battle of Bourlon (23-27 November, five game turns); and the German Counter-Attack (30 November – 4 December, four and a half game turns long). The Campaign Game begins on game turn one (20 November) and continues through the conclusion of turn seventeen (6 December). In addition to the different historical scenarios, the game also proposes several “what if?” scenarios. These include: a Free Set-Up scenario (for both players); a British Launch All-Out Offensive scenario; and a French Participation scenario. The designer also incorporates air units into the game system for those players who are interested, but (wisely, I think) makes the air war sub-routine optional. A PERSONAL OBSERVATIONFor some reason, David C. Isby always seems to be at his best when it comes to designing games dealing with the 'Great War'. In fact, Isby's design for SPI's SOLDIERS (1972), even after all these years, still remains my all-time favorite World War I tactical game. And his earlier, Rand Game Associates title, CAMBRAI, 1917: The First Blitzkrieg (1974), was and is a great "beer and pretzels" treatment of the Battle of Cambrai; even better, perhaps, from a purely game players' perspective than the far more detailed, much prettier, but somewhat cumbersome title being discussed in this profile. Still, even if TO THE GREEN FIELDS BEYOND is not David Isby's best design, it is nonetheless a thoughtful and very interesting simulation of the Battle of Cambrai. It is also certainly worth a look from anyone with even a passing interest in the First World War. Moreover, as an early look at the development of armored vehicles and doctrine, the Battle of Cambrai is important because of the chain of future events that it was instrumental in starting. The nature of warfare changed in fundamental ways in 1917; unfortunately, it was mainly the wrong people who realized it.Seen within the broad sweep of military history, the Battle of Cambrai is important both for what happened, and for what did not. The irony of the battle’s outcome was that it was the Germans, and not the British who were jolted into an awareness of the potential of the tank. The Germans would study and debate the proper application of armored combat power; ultimately, they would mesh it with the proven Stosstruppen doctrine of breaking through and then bypassing the defenders’ strong points, leaving isolated enemy positions to be liquidated by follow-up troops. The British, with a few notable exceptions, would persist in viewing the tank as an infantry support weapon. It would be the Germans, and not the English or French, who would see the enormous combat potential of tanks used en mass. The world, to its extreme detriment, would only have to wait a little over two decades to finally see where these innovative German armored theories would lead. Design Characteristics:
Game Components:
TAHGC, PANZER ARMEE AFRIKA (1981)
PANZER ARMEE AFRIKA is a historical simulation of the decisive period during the early years of World War II when the Axis and British fought over control of North Africa. This title was designed by James F. Dunnigan and originally published in S&T #40 (Sept-Oct 1973) by Simulations Publications Incorporated (SPI). The boxed version featured in this profile was republished by The Avalon Hill Game Company (TAHGC) in 1981.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDOn 26 May, 1942, Erwin Rommel, with 332 German and 228 Italian tanks, attacked the British forces in the “Gazala Line.” This Allied defensive zone stretched approximately forty miles inland from Gazala on the Mediterranean Coast to Bir Hachim in the Libyan Desert. The Gazala-Bir Hachim Line, besides being long, was also a ten mile deep integrated system of minefields and defensive “boxes” (strong points). Each fortified British box was occupied by a brigade with its own artillery and other heavy weapons, and with sufficient supplies to hold out for ten days if isolated.The operation did not begin particularly well for the Afrika Korps. After nearly running out of fuel on the second day of the offensive, Rommel’s armored forces found themselves very precariously placed. Fortunately, Axis troops finally managed to defeat the British infantry in the center, and the commander of the Afrika Korps was able to restore a supply line through Trigh Capuzzo to his exposed tanks. Slowly, the tide of battle began to turn in Rommel’s favor. After holding out against repeated Axis assaults for ten days, the Free French Brigade was finally driven out of Bir Hachim. British armor renewed their counterattack on June 12 and 13 in a last desperate effort to halt the Axis advance, but after two days of fighting, the surviving 70 British tanks — now outnumbered by German and Italian tanks more than two-to-one — were compelled to retreat. Rommel had won the Battle of Gazala, and on the 18th of June the British Eighth Army was forced to begin a complete withdrawal back towards the Egyptian border. After more than a year of campaigning, the greatest prize of all, Tobruk, fell to the Axis just two days later, on 20 June, 1942. DESCRIPTION PANZER ARMEE AFRIKA is a battalion/regiment/brigade level simulation of the most critical twenty months, from April 1941 through November 1942, of the North African campaign. For both the Axis and the British Commonwealth, the stakes were high. Egypt, and with it the Suez Canal, was the ultimate prize: British control of the canal maintained an essential supply line to Britain’s East Asian possessions; a German victory in Egypt could well lead to Axis control of the entire Mediterranean Basin, and open up a new German front against the oil-rich Russian Caucasus. The Western Desert was perfect for the tank, and the German general who commanded the Panzer Armee Afrika, Erwin Rommel, proved time and time again, that he was a master of the armored battlefield. Mobility, sweeping maneuver, concentration, and surprise were all the hall marks of his style of desert warfare. It is these features of combat in the Western Desert that PANZER ARMEE AFRIKA attempts to simulate.  Each game turn in PANZER ARMEE AFRIKA is equal to one month of real time and consists of two symmetrical player turns. The game turn sequence proceeds as follows (the Allied player always moves first): Supply Determination Phase; Movement Phase; Combat Phase; and Replacements and Reinforcement Phase. The Axis player repeats the same sequence of phases and the game turn marker is advanced on the turn record track. Several unique design features set PANZER ARMEE AFRIKA apart from other games on the same topic. First, there is the movement range of the different counters: this varies from 40 to 60 movement points, depending on the nationality of the unit. Second, severe (and random) movement restrictions are placed on the British combat units by the game’s command and control rules. This often leads to important Commonwealth units being frozen in place, just when they are needed most. The third feature that sets this game apart is the role of supply units and their transport. Supply is immobile; it must be transported by truck units or, in the case of the Allies, also by rail. Supply units need not be consumed to supply either defensive or offensive combat, but if an attacking player does elect to expend a supply (maximum attack supply), then any units within range of the expended supply are DOUBLED on attack. The fourth interesting wrinkle in this game system is the ability of units that survive an enemy attack to counterattack at a multiple (depending on their nationality) of their basic strength. This last feature, when combined with the effects of maximum attack supply, tends to make set-piece battles bloody, harrowing affairs for both sides. The turn sequence and mechanics of PANZER ARMEE AFRIKA are simple enough that they can be easily learned; but mastering the game, given its unorthodox design elements, is another thing altogether. Over the years, I’ve played quite a few different games dealing with the North African campaign, but none, in my opinion, does a better job of modeling the extreme swings and strategic ebb and flow of the war in the Western Desert than PANZER ARMEE AFRIKA.  PANZER ARMEE AFRIKA offers several 'Optional' rules that reflect the strategic alternatives available to both sides during the course of the North African Campaign. The Axis, for instance, may opt to invade Malta: if successful, the Axis reinforcements and supply situation improves, but if it fails, then the Axis player will lose units that he otherwise would have had. The Allied player also has several reinforcement options available to him. These reinforcement alternatives, however, come at a cost: victory levels are directly affected by these options, so a player should consider carefully before deviating from the historical game. Several other optional rules are offered that can increase realism and/or improve play balance: reaction movement, during which the defending player may attempt to reinforce a hex under attack; and Italian infantry reliability, which (not surprisingly) diminishes as Italian losses mount. A PERSONAL OBSERVATIONPANZER ARMEE AFRIKA is an interesting, if somewhat unorthodox treatment of the North African Campaign. It is also a surprisingly enjoyable game to play. The large movement ranges of the various units — combined with the British command restrictions, combat routines, and supply rules — all combine to make for a unique gaming experience. I have to admit that the 'Chess player' in me chaffs at the capricious and totally random British movement rules, but I nonetheless find that the game’s innovative design consistently makes for a free-wheeling and sometimes surprisingly accurate simulation of the actual campaign. This game is probably not for everybody, but for those players with a special interest in the World War II Battle for North Africa, it probably is a MUST OWN.Design Characteristics:
Game Components:
Recommended ReadingSee my blog post Book Reviews of these titles; both of which are strongly recommended for those readers interested in further historical background. SPI, RUSSIAN CIVIL WAR (1976)
RUSSIAN CIVIL WAR: 1918-1922 is a historical simulation of the military and political struggle that convulsed Russia at the close of the First World War, and which ultimately led, with the final triumph of the Bolsheviks, to the establishment of the former Soviet State. RUSSIAN CIVIL WAR was designed by James F. Dunnigan as the first (and best) of the Power Politics Series of games, and published in 1976 by Simulations Publications, Incorporated (SPI).
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND In February of 1917, the Russian population had finally reached the limit of its endurance. After three years of bloody, indecisive warfare with the Central Powers on Russia’s western border, and the onset of a famine that threatened to spread throughout the country, the Russian people again — as they had done in 1905 — took to the streets of the Imperial Capital, St. Petersburg. On February 23, meetings among striking factory workers whose primary demand was for bread, boiled over into street demonstrations that initially numbered close to 100,000 men, women, and children. Confrontations with the police were numerous and often violent, but the striking workers and their families — despite police threats and violence — would not give up. By the following day, almost half of St. Petersburg’s residents had joined the strikers in the streets. On 25 February, the work stoppage spread throughout the rest of the city and became a general strike. In desperation, the Russian Government ordered Cossack cavalry units into the city to support the city police. The saber-wielding, mounted Cossacks had been instrumental in ruthlessly quelling a previous revolutionary uprising only twelve years before. Unlike their actions during the 1905 revolution, however, these much-feared cavalrymen now refused to take any violent action against the throngs of demonstrating strikers. Vast numbers of demonstrators now clogged the capital’s streets, and clashes between the out-numbered police and the strikers escalated in violence. The next day, most of the police refused to go back into the streets. With much of the city now in the hands of the demonstrators, the Czar ordered St. Petersburg’s military garrison to restore public order, whatever the cost in civilian casualties. At first, the soldiers maintained discipline and, when ordered to by their officers, marched against and even fired on the mass of workers thronging virtually every street in the city. But the retreating demonstrators would not disperse, and within a matter of hours, the soldiers began to waver in their willingness to do violence against their fellow countrymen. On 27 February, regiment after regiment from the St. Petersburg garrison disobeyed the government’s demands and went over to the strikers. With the defection of the city’s military garrison, the Czarist government collapsed. And what had begun, only a few days before, as a demand for bread, had now become a full-blown revolution.  The first tentative steps towards the revolutionary transformation of Russia had been both successful and comparatively bloodless (only about 1,500 from both sides died during these initial confrontations). In the heady days that followed, it appeared that a moderate revolutionary government might arise to replace the old Czarist regime. Unfortunately, a fugitive Russian exile named Vladimir Illych Lenin was soon, thanks to the assistance of Imperial Germany, travelling by sealed train east to his homeland. The returning exile was greeted by an enthusiastic crowd when he detrained in St. Petersburg on 16 April, 1917. Upon his return to his homeland, Lenin immediately threw himself into St. Petersburg’s fluid, revolutionary scene in order to take control of the unfolding political drama. And, because of the machinations of this brilliant and dedicated Marxist revolutionary, the struggle to control the political future of Russia would soon enter a new and much darker phase. Thanks mainly to Lenin and his Bolshevik adherents, generations of indescribable suffering and bloodshed still lay ahead for the Russian people before the effects of the Revolution of 1917 had finally run their course. DESCRIPTION RUSSIAN CIVIL WAR is an abstract historical simulation, covering the period from June 1918 to January 1920 (or beyond), during which different warring factions struggled for supremacy and the ultimate power to determine Russia’s political destiny. The basic game is intended for three to six players. The game design, through a random draw of combat forces and leaders, compels players to control elements from four different competing groups: the revolutionaries (Reds); the counter revolutionaries (Whites); the nationalists; and the foreign interventionists.  Each game begins with the random distribution of forces and leaders around the board until all but two politburo markers (which have been put aside) remain. These markers each go to the players who control Lenin and/or Trotsky. Once the distribution of counters is complete, the first player to move in the current game turn is selected (also by random drawing). Player order then proceeds clock-wise around the board until every player has acted. Player order is determined in this way at the beginning of each game turn until play ends. A typical player turn consists of the following phases: Random Events Phase; Movement Phase; Combat Phase; and the Randomizer Phase. At the end of each complete round of player turns, there is a Game-Turn Inter-phase during which the turn marker is advanced, replacements are taken, and the turn order is determined for the next game turn. Players compete for victory points which are totaled when either the Reds or Whites have triumphed. Only at that point is the winner decided: the player with the most “Red” victory points wins in the case of a Red victory; the player with the most “White” points, if the Whites are victorious. Although the basic game of RUSSIAN CIVIL WAR is designed as a multi-player game, the design also offers a solitaire variant; as well as instructions for postal play. A PERSONAL OBSERVATION The game design is so rich with innovative details and with opportunities for duplicity that it is hard to convey the somewhat paranoid, but exciting flow and tempo of the design; nonetheless, I think one of my friends, and a regular player, put it best: “How can you not like a game with assassins, purges, Imperial Gold, regicide, and the opportunity to stab your best friend in the back when he least expects it!” In the period right after college, this was a consistent favorite amongst my gaming friends, particularly when we were too tired for Diplomacy, but not fried enough for Emperor of China. Design Characteristics:
Game Components:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Popular Posts
About Me
My Nephew Joe and Three Marine Buddies
|
