Loyal visitors to "Map and Counters" will, I have no doubt, already be aware of the fact that it has been over a month since my last blog post. In my own defense, I have endeavored to keep up with reader comments, but these occassional entries have been the extent of my recent contributions to my blog. This has been an ongoing bother to me, particularly since one of the things that I most pride myself on (it certainly isn't my skill as a wordsmith) is my ability to crank out fresh and original material on a fairly regular basis. In any case, I thought that it might just be time for me to offer a brief, but patently self-serving explanation for this unusually long period of inactivity.
What is odd, especially given the events of this past summer, is that I have really had no significant disruptions to my schedule during the last month or so: which is to say, I have had no new health or computer issues to interfere with my blogging. In point of fact, my (admittedly lame) excuse for being so slow in publishing new posts is a simple one: in spite of my having been writing pretty steadily throughout the period in question, I have somehow managed to run afoul of a couple of my own self-imposed guidelines when it comes to posting new articles on my blog. What I mean by this is that, although I have more-or-less completed a book review on Thomas Packenham's excellent and highly readable "The Boer War", and have another piece on John Keegan's workmanlike but surprisingly affecting "The First World War" nearing the finish line, I have no plans to post either review in the near term because, as a long-standing personal rule, I never publish book reviews back-to-back. Thus, I actually do have new material to post, but it probably won't be going up for awhile. The real culprit in all this, and the main reason for my long delay, is that I have allowed myself to become completely blocked by the follow-up installment in my new set of classics-based essays, "The 'STALINGRAD' Notebook". What had appeared — at least when I started this second entry in the series — to be a relatively uncomplicated gaming retrospective on a long-time favorite of mine has grown "tribble-like" in scope and length until I have finally been forced to split it into several separate essays. That being said, I am happy to report that, barring the unforeseen, I should finally be able to wind things up with this minor opus in the next day or two.
And now for something completely different ...
One of the odd little ironies that I have encountered in my ongoing role as a blogger on wargames and wargaming is that I rarely seem anymore to have the opportunity to actually play wargames. Most of my long-time hobby friends and regular PBeM opponents seem, like me, to be bogged down most of the time with the mundane but unceasing demands of everyday life. Moreover, since I detest air travel, I seldom make the cross-country trek back to the WBC or PrezCon conventions, much as I like both events; Origins, I should note, was scratched from my personal convention list a long, long time ago. That, of course, still leaves the Consimworld Expo/Monster Con convention in Tempe; and, as I have already promised John Kranz, I expect to attend every day of the 2012 convention — although I am still undecided as to whether I will attempt to "live-blog" next year's event.
 So why, it is reasonable to ask, do I bother to bring up the topic of my personal gaming or lack thereof, at all? The short answer is that, for the first time in years, I will be playing a set of PBeM STALINGRAD matches with a new opponent who is also one of my regular readers. And while it is still early days in our first game, my adversary has informed me that he hopes to post screen shots, at some point in the future, from our matches (we are playing using the Zun Tzu game platform) on the Consimworld STALINGRAD forum. Based on my previous experiences with these sorts of projects, I am only too well aware that a lot can happen to scuttle plans like these. However, if these graphics-based "After Action Reports" actually end up being posted, I will provide a link from "Map and Counters" to the hosting site along with a brief bit of commentary on each of the displayed moves. So stay tuned; I hope to have more on this project as time goes on.
Read On
No Man's Land: 1918, The Last Year of the Great War (World War I) ; by John Toland; Bison Books (September 1, 2002); ISBN 10: 0803294514
 |
| Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Sophie in the open car. |
At precisely 11:00 am, on November 11 th, 1918, the guns of World War I finally fell silent in Europe. It was the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month of the fourth year of a war that — inconceivable though it was when viewed in retrospect — had actually begun because of the assassination of only two people: the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and his wife, Sophie, at the hands of a Serbian fanatic. Thus, Ferdinand and Sophie became the first casualties in the European conflagration to come, a conflict that would, in due course, come to be known as "The Great War". However, they would not be the last: in fact, before the conflict that their pointless murders had ignited finally ran its long bloody course, the deaths of Franz Ferdinand and his wife would be followed by those of another ten million people; and a whole generation of European youth (two out of every nine Frenchmen, for example, who went to the front never came back) would ultimately be consumed — either physically or psychologically — by the industrialized slaughter of a new type of warfare in which hostile armies turned to trenches, machineguns, barbed wire, breech-loading artillery, and poison gas to work their terrible business on the battlefield. Tragically, the armistice that began on November 11 th between the Central Powers and the Western Allies did not bring about a halt to the fighting everywhere; in fact, the killing would continue in Russia between the Bolsheviks and their political rivals, and in parts of the crumbling Ottoman Empire well after the guns fell silent on the Western Front. But, on the bloody battlefields of France and Flanders, the killing had finally ended. However, along with the killing, the power of many of Europe's oldest royal dynasties, the long-established borders of nations, and even the shared (if imperfectly realized) European political ideals that had underpinned a century of relatively peaceful (acknowledging, of course, the comparatively short duration Austro-Prussian War of 1866 and Franco-Prussian War of 1870) continental order also came to an end.
 |
| Hindenburg, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and Eric Ludendorff |
In " No Man's Land: 1918, The Last Year of the Great War", Pulitzer Prize winning author, John Toland, revisits the major events, diplomatic, economic, political, and military that combined, in the course of 1918, both to shape the ultimate outcome of the First World War, and to plant the seeds for the next more cataclysmic European war that would erupt a mere generation later. The scope of Toland's carefully-researched work is surprisingly wide; and although the focus of author's narrative, as might be expected, is on the Western Front, important events in Russia, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, Italy, and even the Middle East are all considered as part of his ambitious study.
 |
| German troops during Operation Michael, March 1918 |
In structure, Toland's book follows a relatively simple and orderly chronological outline. Hence, the author begins his narrative by introducing both the dominant political actors and the senior military commanders on both sides before launching into a detailed description of the last great German offensive in the west, Operation Michael, in the spring of 1918. Interestingly, it is while describing this massive German attack and its Janus-like effects on both the mood of the Allied leadership and on the morale of the German high command, that Toland is able to examine the complex relationships that connected the various heads of state to their generals, and how those various (often stormy) relationships actually affected the day-to-day events on the battlefield. To this end, the author catalogs, among other things, the almost mystical power of Ludendorf over the German Kaiser; the deep enmity (bordering on mutual loathing) between the British Prime Minister, David Lloyd George and his top commander in France, Field Marshal Douglas Haig; the petty jealousies and mistrust that colored relations between the French leader, Clemenceau, and most of his senior military commanders; and finally, the intransigence of the American general, "Black Jack" Pershing who, in his adamant refusal to parse out newly-arriving American troops to front line duty under French and British commanders, drove his fellow Allied generals into fits of frustrated anger. This portion of the book, in some ways, presents a startling portrait of powerful men faced with enormous challenges, who, at the same time that they grappled with truly life-or-death issues, nonetheless allowed themselves to be influenced by the petty resentments and infantile grudges of the "schoolyard".
 |
| Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig |
The first few chapters of "No Man's Land", clearly illustrate both Toland's strengths and his weaknesses as a historical writer besides describing the near success of the Michael Offensive. By way of example, when it comes to the personalities of the major historical players, and the dynamic diplomatic, military and political interactions that produced the key strategic choices of these same leaders, he describes events both clearly and with a refreshing lack of personal bias. When it comes to his battlefield descriptions, however, the author seems to be on much shakier ground. Some writers can, in the space of a few carefully-crafted sentences, distill order from confusion and convey a real sense of the ebb and flow of a particular battle. Regrettably, John Toland, whatever his other talents, is not one of those peculiarly-gifted writers. In fact, in spite of my several attempts to follow his account of military developments during Operation Michael with a set of my own detailed maps of the battle areas, I found it virtually impossible to assemble his descriptive passages into any kind of comprehensible narrative of the actual battlefield events being related. [This, by the way, points to a particularly frustrating characteristic of the "No Man's Land" presentation: maps of any kind are scarce and, in the few instances when they are included, add nothing to complement the narrative flow of the book.]
 |
| Lloyd George, Clemenceau and Wilson arrive at Versailles |
As Toland's careful chronicle of the war moves from spring to summer, and then to fall, and the Allies shift from the defensive to the offensive, two particular heads of state, dramatically different both in their personal attributes and in their guiding philosophies, gradually emerge from between the pages of "No Man's Land" as crucial to the shape and timing of the armistice that will finally bring the Great War to an end in November, 1918: the exofficio dictator of wartime Germany, Erich Ludendorf; and the American president, Woodrow Wilson. One, through his intransigence and overarching arrogance, would end up guaranteeing a ruinous end to Germany's four-year struggle against the Allies, and an unstable (even toxic) future for the political life of the post-war Germany to follow; the other, blinded by his own idealism and an overweaning (almost messianic) self-confidence, would, in spite of his noble intentions, ultimately serve mainly to put a legitimate face on the disastrous peace terms that the victorious Western Allies chose to impose on their prostrate enemies in the bitter aftermath of World War I.
 |
General John Joseph "Black Jack" Pershing
arrives in Boulogne, June 1917 |
"No Man's Land", although it is a clearly written and carefully-researched book, is certainly not my favorite work on the First World War; nontheless, it is still a consequential and enlightening study of the final months of "The Great War" and as such, it is a worthwhile (if somewhat lengthy) read for both serious and casual students of history alike. Moreover, the book is nicely illustrated with period photographs, some of which are relatively unknown; unfortunately, as remarked upon earlier, it is extremely disappointing when it comes to usable maps. As a writer, Toland is at his best when he is describing, with surprising clarity, the complex interplay of communiques and dispatches that flew between the key decision-makers on both sides of the trenches during the many moments of crisis that punctuated these final decisive months of 1918. He is considerably less skillful when he attempts to describe the moment-by-moment chaos of the battlefield.
 |
| US Troops manning a 37mm cannon at Belleau Wood |
John Toland, Pulitzer Prize or no, occupies a curious place among that relatively large body of authors who write or have written (Toland passed away in 2004) books dealing with "popular" history. If, for instance, military history "buffs" are asked to name their five favorite writers, his name will rarely if ever come up; yet, once his name is actually mentioned, it is almost always recognized immediately. One reason for this quasi-obscurity may well be because Toland's treatment of some of his historical subjects has been eccentric enough to gain relatively widespread notice, if somewhat less than widespread approval. For example, his biography of Adolf Hitler, although meticulously researched and generally well-written, nonetheless has to stand out as one of the few genuinely nonjudgmental, if not outright sympathetic studies ever written by anyone, anywhere, about the German dictator and architect of the Holocaust. Thus, my guardedly positive verdict on "No Man's Land" should probably come as no surprise to those readers who have come this far. Given both the book's strong and weak points, I feel I am obliged to rate "No Man's Land" at three-and-a half stars: it is most assuredly an excellent study of the cascading rush of events which pushed the belligerents, sometimes against their wills, to finally accept the war's end, despite a battlefield outcome that was curiously unsatisfying to both sides; unfortunately, the power of the book's narrative, as already noted, weakens appreciably every time the story shifts from the diplomatic, political, and economic fronts to the bloody and often inconclusive fighting that raged back and forth between the opposing trench lines that scarred the entire length of the Western Front. This is certainly not a critical flaw, but it is not a trivial one, either.
 |
| Meuse Argonne Offensive |
Finally, as a sort of postscript, I should note that because of Toland's decision to limit his inquiry to the final year of the Great War, comparisons between "No Man's Land" and Barbara Tuchman's wonderfully-crafted study of the tragic mistakes and miscalculations that propelled otherwise reasonable men into starting World War I, "The Guns of August", are inevitable. And while each author writes with his or her own distinctive voice, the two books, nonetheless, complement each other nicely. Tuchman's book, at least in my view, is the more emotionally engaging and gracefully written of the two, but both are still important studies of their respective historical periods; and as such, they each have a great deal to offer to any reader who is genuinely curious about the events that lead up to and then ended the First World War and with it, Europe's relatively brief "Age of Innocence".
Recommended Reading
Besides allowing me time to surf my favorite wargaming sites (as well as almost getting heat stroke), my recent break from blogging also permitted me, at long last, to catch up on some of the reading that I had, for one reason or another, been postponing for far too long. Since my main interests, at least when it comes to military history, have always been in those topics relating to World War II, the American Civil War, and the Napoleonic Wars, I decided, this time around, to concentrate on subjects about which I was considerably less well-informed. World War I, dreary as the topic might be to most contemporary students of military affairs, seemed like a good place to start.
Read On
One of the few good things to result from my recent computer woes was that my unplanned-for break from blogging allowed me to spend some time (thanks to my wife's computer) visiting a number of my favorite wargaming sites. Of special interest to me during these visits were the board game forums at Consimworld that deal with "classic" titles: particularly very old games like STALINGRAD and AFRIKA KORPS. And yes, although it may come as a surprise to many of my readers, both the STALINGRAD and AFRIKA KORPS forums continue to be surprisingly active, with a fairly steady stream of new contributions coming in regularly from both experienced and not-so-experienced voices, alike. Which, in a roundabout way, brings me to the reason for this post. One of the discussions that particularly caught my attention was one that was initiated by a series of questions from several different neophyte STALINGRAD players seeking the forum community's general views as to the most effective German and Russian strategies for winning the game. This piece, along with others that that I hope to post under the 'STALINGRAD NOTEBOOK' rubric in the future, is an expansion on some of the comments that I first offered on Consimworld's STALINGRAD forum in answer to these questions. Moreover, given that the early game turns of STALINGRAD are largely shaped by the defensive choices of the Soviet player, I have decided that a short discussion on how expert views on the problems and goals of the Russian defense have evolved over time might be the perfect place to begin my series of essays on this venerable old Avalon Hill "classic"; I hope that you, my readers, agree.
A Brief Look Back at the Evolution of Russian Defensive Play in 'STALINGRAD'
Avalon Hill published STALINGRAD almost five decades ago, in 1963; however, unlike most of their other games from the same period — such as D-DAY and AFRIKA KORPS — Charles Roberts' treatment of the Russo-German War (Tom Shaw and Lindsley Schutz, although generally given design credit, actually developed the game) received a surprising amount — given that this was still the very early days of wargaming — of uncharitable criticism from history-minded gamers right from the beginning. And while no one that I know has any idea whether these complaints ever had any effect on anyone in Baltimore, it is instructive to note that Avalon Hill did not get around to offering even a few minor tweaks to the STALINGRAD game rules until 1974. This means, in short, that the STALINGRAD we play today is virtually unchanged from the version that first appeared over forty-eight years ago: a testament, I suspect, more to Tom Shaw's stubbornness than to the "ageless" quality of the game's design.
Today, the game still has a small but dedicated following, even its most fervent fans will admit that STALINGRAD has more than its share of quirks. Nonetheless, since I have already dealt with many of the main characteristics of the Shaw-Schutz design in previous posts (see links below), I will not launch into a full-blown description of the game and its various foibles here; suffice it to say that STALINGRAD — viewed purely as a historical simulation — suffered from three serious defects: first, the Orders of Battle were either grossly inaccurate (in the case of the Axis), or pure fantasy (in the case of the Russians); second, the game's combat system (because of the absence of "overruns") made break throughs virtually impossible; and third, the weather rules, unbelievable though it may sound, penalized the Russians (particularly during the critical first winter) far more than the Axis. Needless-to-say, given its numerous conceptual flaws, STALINGRAD was — even in the eyes of most of its fans — a complete failure as a vehicle for modeling the first two years of the Russo-German War. The game did, however, have two things going for it: for starters, STALINGRAD was the only commercial board game on the Eastern Front available in the years immediately following its release; and (perhaps even more importantly) it was, judged purely as game, an exceedingly interesting puzzle, particularly when viewed from the perspective of the Axis player. This last is important because it largely explains the game's ongoing appeal (even today) to a small, but loyal group of STALINGRAD aficionados, this in spite of the veritable tsunami of better-crafted, more historically-plausible East Front games that have been published since STALINGRAD first saw print, oh so many years ago. And there is something else: this first commercial game on the conflict in Russia during World War II, like the other early Avalon Hill titles, also trails in its wake a huge body of written lore; and I have a sneaking suspicion that this wealth of game literature has probably been a factor in convincing at least a few young gamers to fly against popular prejudice and to give this venerable, if somewhat antiquated, old "classic" a try. It may be a lousy historical simulation, but — in my view, at least — it is still a fascinating game. That being said, and having catalogued STALINGRAD'S most obvious faults, I will finally let go (for the time being, at least) of any further general discussion of the game and turn my attention, instead, to a brief consideration of the conduct of the Russian defense in STALINGRAD, and of its gradual evolution over time.
The Shaw-Schutz "Bash Finland" Paradigm
When it comes to most games nowadays, players who are new to a game typically develop their initial ideas about defensive arrangements using a mix of guesswork and intuition, and then refine them over time through trial and error. Such, however, was not precisely the case with Shaw's and Schutz' final treatment of the Russian Front. Instead, STALINGRAD differed from most other early Avalon Hill titles — D-DAY probably being the most notable exception — in that the game's developers included a suggested opening set-up for the defending (Russian) player. This Russian set-up, although riddled with weaknesses, was a welcome starting point for most freshly-minted Red Army commanders, myself included, because it allowed neophyte players to move quickly from the rules into the actual play of the game. In short, for most new players, it helped shorten the game's "learning curve" substantially. As might be expected, of course, most players — once they had gained some familiarity with the flow and tempo of the game — quickly abandoned the "suggested" Avalon Hill defense in favor of their own preferred starting set-ups. In my own case, by the time I had completed my second face-to-face match as the Russians, I had already begun to think about ways to improve the standard AH defense; and, in this, I was certainly not alone. In fact, as time went on, there soon seemed to be as many different Soviet starting set-ups as there were individual players.
Not surprisingly, some of the Russian openings that emerged during this period turned out to be a bit eccentric: Tom Oleson (for reasons I am still not clear on to this day) liked to set up one of his two 7-10-4s between the Finns and Leningrad prior to play; even more unorthodox was the Russian strategy of one of the Roberts boys (I can't remember which one) who dispensed with the idea of the strategic defensive completely and opted instead to immediately hurl the Red Army straight into the teeth of the Wehrmacht in a do-or-die effort to capture Warsaw during the first few turns of the game. The Oleson defense inevitably elicited a surprised — alright, stupefied — look from his German adversaries; the "On to Warsaw" strategy, on the other hand, tended to provoke a look of horrified disbelief on the part of Roberts' opponents, particularly if the first few rounds of Russian attacks went well. Other players, as might be expected, took slightly different approaches to defending the sacred (cardboard) soil of Holy Russia: some Soviet commanders attempted to bait their German opponent into committing too much Axis armor in Rumania (see Gary Gygax' "Southern Gambit" for an example of this approach); other wily Russians laid enticing traps near Brest-Litovsk in the hopes of setting-up surrounded counterattacks against an overly aggressive foe (e.g., George Phillies and the "MIT Group"). However, in spite of their oftentimes notable differences, what virtually all of these different Russian defenses had in common was a strategic distribution of forces that hearkened back to the old AH "suggested" Russian set-up. That is: a relatively brittle "crust" defense on the main front which, in turn, made it possible for the Red Army to mass a powerful attacking force (usually eight to ten rifle and tank corps) adjacent to the Finnish border. The appeal of this aggressive/passive Russian strategy was obvious: by attacking and eliminating the isolated Axis units in the northern enclave during the first few game turns, the Soviets could permanently eliminate the backdoor threat to Leningrad and still wind things up in Finland in time to shift their recently-victorious units west before the Germans succeeded in gaining a lot of ground against the main army. The logic of the "Finland First" Russian approach (at least during the sixties and early seventies) seemed inescapable: it wasn't particularly elegant, but it worked; and for most players, that was enough.
"Something Wicked (or at least Unexpected) this Way Comes"
 |
| Briefing Soviet soldiers. |
Of course, just because something is popular doesn't mean that it is universally accepted. Such was the case with the Russian "Bash the Finns" opening: it may have been widely-accepted, but there were, starting in the 1970s, a few devious STALINGRAD players who, dissatisfied with the status quo, were already beginning to reexamine the central tenets underlying the "standard" Russian defense with an eye towards overhauling it completely. The product of their efforts, when it ultimately appeared, represented a radically different approach to the defense of the Motherland. Many of these new defensive arrangements differed from each other in some of their particulars, but their similarities far outweighed their differences; and by the mid-seventies, the diabolical fruits of this band of paradigm-shifting "deconstructionists" had begun to show up in PBM and tournament play. The "Hyper-Modern" Russian defense (in all its many permutations) had been born.
For many players, the first encounter with this new Russian strategy was a bit of a shock; but whether in a PBM match, or face-to-face in a casual game or in a wargame tournament, based on my personal experience, it tended to be memorable. In my case, I first encountered a version of the then brand-new Hyper-Modern defense sometime in the 1970s while competing in a small weekend "classics" tournament; and ironically enough, I ran into it almost as soon as I signed in with the tournament organizers and drew my opening round opponent. My first match, as might be expected given the gist of this story, was in STALINGRAD. Because both I and my opponent wanted to play the Russians (what are the chances?), sides were rolled for: I got the Axis. Since my adversary needed a few minutes to set up his units, I got up from the table and drifted over to visit with some of the other tournament attendees. When I returned to the table a few minutes later, I received a nasty surprise which, while not quite as gut-wrenching as my first encounter with the Roberts "Red Army Captures Warsaw" strategy, was pretty unnerving, nonetheless. In essence, what I saw when I resumed my seat was that my opponent, instead of massing an overwhelming force against the Finns, had stripped the Finnish Front of all but four corps; every other unit in the Red Army was manning the Polish and Romanian borders. Although I wasn't completely clear what the long-term effects of my adversary's set-up would be; I was certain of one thing: the effects wouldn't be trivial. This statement, I suspect will make a lot of sense to any grognards reading this piece; for inexperienced players, however, probably not so much. So to actually illustrate why all this is important, I think it would probably be helpful to digress briefly and shift our focus(momentarily)to a consideration of the strategic situation confronting the German player just prior to the start of the game.
 |
| German cavalry, World War II. |
For those readers who are either unfamiliar with STALINGRAD or are a little rusty when it comes to the rules, the Russians begin the game with thirty-four units totalling 220 defense factors; the Germans, for their part, start with fifty-nine units totalling 247 attack factors. On the May 1942 game turn, the Axis player receives six additional units (worth 18 attack factors) for a grand total of 265 factors. These totals, however, are somewhat misleading, particularly during the first few game turns, when the front is both narrowly constricted and segmented. The segmented aspect of the front comes from the fact that, prior to the start of play, the Axis player must allocate forces to three separate and initially completely independent battlefield sectors: Finland, which starts with 14 factors, but which will usually be reinforced to a maximum of 22 factors; Rumania, which will usually require an Axis investment of at least 68 attack factors; and the main(Polish) front, which, after the afore-mentioned force allocations to Finland and Rumania, will have only 157 attack factors (give-or-take) remaining with which to assault the main Russian line during those game turns when the Red Army is at its strongest. Different STALINGRAD players may quibble about the above values, but, on the whole, I think that they are generally representative of expert play. Thus, if only because of simple arithmetic, the effect on the Russian defense of an additional four to six corps immediately becomes obvious: German attack strength (taking into account the units that will likely be immobilized along the Hungarian border on the first game turn) will total approximately 217 factors; facing this Axis hoard, however, will be a formidable force of 195 Russian defense factors. Even worse, on turn one, almost all of the Soviet units will, because of terrain, be doubled on defense. Whatever the long-term advantages might be to the Axis of maintaining a presence in Finland, the fact remains that a twenty-two factor edge in combat power is considerably smaller than the 40-60+ factor advantage that the Germans typically enjoy when facing the "Bash Finland" Russian set-up. Needless-to-say, these values are not, from the standpoint of the German player, particularly encouraging. Unfortunately, the numbers are not the only reason for the German player to be concerned. Certainly, the narrowing of the Axis combat power advantage on the main front is bad enough, but it is not the only (or even the primary) obstacle placed in the path of Axis offensive operations by the Hyper-Modern defense: in reality, the challenge posed by this alternative to the old "Finland First" opening is not how many extra units the Russians have on the Polish and Romanian borders, but where precisely those units are deployed that really makes this opening a serious test of the German commander's skill. In fact, it is the "don't give an inch" aggressiveness that characterizes the Hyper-Modern defense, probably more than any other feature, that really sets it apart from virtually every other Russian opening set-up that I have ever encountered. Thus, it should probably come as no surprise to my readers that as soon as I sat down and began to study my long-ago STALINGRAD tournament foe's unorthodox defensive arrangements, I was immediately struck by the sheer "in-your-face" psychological pressure created by the Russian dispositions. Certainly, I was dismayed by what I saw confronting my "at start" forces; secretly, however, I was also very impressed by the message that the opening sought to convey.
The "Nuts and Bolts" of the Hyper-Modern Defense
 |
| Russian mixed column. |
It's been a long time, but I think that I was half converted to the new Russian set-up before either I or my opponent had moved a single piece. Looking back, what was both most interesting and most troubling to me — and I suspect would be for most other German players in my position — was that my Russian opponent had pushed his front line forward to occupy terrain that, under ordinary circumstances, I would have expected to be uncontested. The audacious Russian occupation of three hexes, in particular, struck me as being the most problematic to my first turn operations: U18, CC14, and LL14. Each hex presented its own unique set of challenges. U18, for example, could be attacked at reasonably good odds, but really required a soak-off if the attack was to gain any ground. CC14 was not nearly so cut and dried: it could be attacked at low-odds, or it could be — assuming I was prepared to risk both heavy soak-off losses and an immediate and powerful counterattack — attacked at higher odds with a guarantee that at least one German panzer unit would be adjacent to Brest-Litovsk at the end of the German player turn (but which would almost certainly be gone by the end of the Russian player turn). This was actually a real quandary because, when it came to CC14, the one option that I felt was not feasible was for me to ignore the Russian outpost altogether: as long as the Red Army occupied CC14, any Russians defending behind the northern end of the San River would be doubled on defense. Then there was the Russian stack on LL14. At the best of times, the Romanian front is typically a problem for the Axis player. The Hyper-Modern defense just makes the German problems more difficult. The Russian garrison in LL14 can be attacked from one hex at low-odds, or from two hexes at higher odds; the problem with the second attack is the very large soak-off investment that is required. The Axis could well win the battle, but because of crippling losses, leave the Soviet position in the far south virtually undamaged and, even worse, all but immune to follow-up attacks until forces from the Polish and Romanian fronts linked up. As I looked for weaknesses in the Soviet position, I quickly noticed another feature of my opponent's set-up that I had initially missed: besides the absence of "low-hanging fruit" (I estimated that I really had a good chance of destroying only one 2-3-6 and, depending on my stomach for soak-off losses, one or two 4-6-4s), there were virtually no attractive low-odds attacks available against traditional first turn targets like S18 or Brest-Litovsk. The longer I looked at the map, the more I liked(perhaps, envied is a better word) my adversary's defensive arrangements. In all my years playing STALINGRAD, I had never before run into anything quite like the set-up in front of me; two things, however, were already clear to me: I loved the new approach to the Russian defense; and I couldn't wait to spring it on one of my regular opponents as soon as I got home!
 |
| German planes bound to bomb Soviet cities, June, 1941. |
Since this is not an "After Action Report", I will not bore my readers with a detailed account of my first outing against my opponent's Hyper-Modern strategy, except to note that, although I ultimately captured Leningrad and Moscow(with a lucky one-to-one and two-to-one, respectively), I never got anywhere near Stalingrad. As for the rest of the tournament, it is pretty much a blur. The one thing that I took away, and the one thing that really made the whole experience worthwhile for me was that I had been, for the first time, treated to a completely new way of playing the Russian defense. And although I had a long return drive when the tournament broke-up Sunday afternoon, I broke my STALINGRAD game out just as soon as I got home and had unpacked. That first night, tired as I was, I began to experiment with my own version of the Hyper-Modern defense. This process of experimentation, once begun, would continue, off and on, for several years; but by 1978 I finally settled on the Russian defense that suited me best. I have used the same set-up, virtually without alteration, ever since; and, although I cannot claim that it is the very best of the many versions of the Hyper-Modern defense, it has always worked for me.
A Few Final Thoughts
Having read this far, I am sure that there are any number of grognards who are saying to themselves (quite rightly, I might add): "Hey, wait a minute, I and my friends were using Russian set-ups very similar, in many of their basic elements, to the Hyper-Modern approach long before the mid-seventies!" And they would be right, up to a point. However, what really sets the Hyper-Modern defense apart from all other types of Soviet openings is that it combines the maximum possible concentration of Soviet rifle strength along the Polish and Romanian borders along with an ultra-aggressive forward placement of the Russian starting line. It is this "in your face" deployment that I believe, more than any other single factor, ultimately separates the Hyper-Modern Russian player from all of his many competitors.
Although this point should be obvious, it is nonetheless probably worthwhile pointing out that the Hyper-Modern defense, whatever its strengths is not going to appeal to every STALINGRAD player. Every gamer is an individual, and because a player's choice of a defensive set-up is influenced, not only by his skill level and experience, but also by his preferred style of play, the Hyper-Modern defense is just not going to appeal to everybody. Moreover, while the Hyper-Modern has become steadily more popular with experienced players over the years, there are more than a few STALINGRAD experts (Tom Baruth and the Bakulski brothers come immediately to mind) who have tended to stick with the traditional "Bash Finland First" strategy when playing the Russians, in spite of the increasing popularity of the newer, more aggressive style of opening. In the end, of course, it all comes down to personal taste; however, speaking for myself, I have used the newer, more aggressive defense for over thirty years now and, in all that time, I have never seen any reason to discard it in favor of another approach. Anything is possible, but somehow, based on the hundreds of STALINGRAD games that I have played during those many years, I don't really think that I ever will.
Related Posts
Read On
Or Why Does Bad Luck Always Seem to Come in Threes?Based on my recent posts, I suspect that some of my regular readers are beginning to wonder why, if my computer problems have at last been resolved, I have been so slow to resume my usual pace of blogging. The answer to this question, I'm afraid, is that (proving, I suppose, that there really is no fool like an old fool) I suffered a major bout of heat exhaustion several weeks ago, and I am only now beginning to regain both my mental and physical stamina. Looking back, I am still amazed that, having spent decades working under the blazing Arizona sun, I could have allowed myself to succumb to such an easily preventable malady.
 My health problems actually started when, having time on my hands during the period when my computer was down, I decided to embark on several outdoor projects that I had hitherto been postponing. The fact that it was high summer did not, wrongly it turned out, concern me because I had spent much of my adult life working outdoors in the Arizona heat. It turns out, however, that I am no longer the same man who a half decade ago tramped around the center of a sand arena for hours at a time (in tall black field boots and cavalry twill breeches, no less) six or seven days a week with only a baseball cap for protection from the sun. In those days my student riders might wilt after a half hour or so of instruction and their horses might begin to blow, but I considered myself virtually impervious to the heat. No longer; and, although I really should have known better, the fatigue and other problems that began to manifest themselves after a day or two working outdoors, I wrongly chalked up to old age; so naturally, I soldiered on. Fortunately, my long-suffering wife — who was unaware of my stupidity because she works during the day — became alarmed at the mysterious deterioration in my physical condition and finally sat me down (I was getting increasingly wobbly, as the days passed) and checked my blood pressure and heart rate. To make a long story short, her intervention undoubtedly saved me from a trip to the emergency room; it also, for better or worse, marked the permanent end of my outdoor summer projects.
 So where does this leave "Map and Counters"? The good news, such as it is, is that the lethargy and lack of concentration that followed on the heels of my brush with heat stroke have both slowly begun to fade with time. I am still not operating at 100%, but I can, at last, sit at the computer and actually compose for more than fifteen minutes at a stretch. That being said, I am hopeful that it won't be too much longer before I can resume my old pace when it comes to blogging. There are, as I have already noted previously, still a lot of old and new wargaming topics that I am eager to cover; now that I am at last feeling better, I hope to finally begin publishing some of this fresh material in the near future.
Read On
Thoughts About "DonCons" Past, Present, and FutureThis past Sunday, August 7 th, was the final day of the 2011 WBC Convention; and, I confess that a wave of nostalgia washed over me as I watched the minutes slowly tick by on Sunday morning. Assuming this year's convention followed the same course as those of the recent past, I knew that things would probably limp along to a close for the last die-hard attendees by about noon. In my mind's eye I could see the main gaming areas, no longer teaming with attendees, but with a few isolated pockets of players here and there still surrounded by the signs, "kiosks", and other paraphernalia left over from the convention. By mid-morning, of course, the hotel staff would begin the process of tearing down and stacking the banquet tables and chairs that had, only hours before, been the focus of days of intense gaming activity. A few players, I was sure, would hang on to the absolute bitter end: I well know the urgency felt by many of those last few convention holdouts as they desperately tried to get in just one more game before packing up and beginning their individual journeys home. I know all this, in spite of the fact that I was unable to attend this year's gathering in Lancaster, because my own convention-going experiences have all followed pretty much the same general pattern over the years: exultation and excitement upon first arriving at the convention site; but then followed by a gradual and inexorable (day-by-day) slide into an unshakable funk by the morning of the last day. The experiences of other wargamers may vary (particularly for those who attend more than one or two conventions a year), but that is the way it has always been for me; and I really don't expect it to change.
 Before there can be a last day for a convention, of course, there must also be a first. And the first day of a well-run wargame convention is one of those few happy experiences that, at least for me, never diminishes in its excitement no matter how many times it is repeated. In that sense, I suppose, the first emotional response that I get upon arriving at a convention site is more than a bit like the anticipation that Christmas morning holds for children; the difference is that, as the years have passed, holidays mean less and less to me, but the thrill of walking into the hosting site's lobby and seeing the other gamers (friends and strangers, alike) queueing up to register just never loses its appeal. I personally hate crowds; but this is perhaps the only crowd that I actually enjoy mixing with. In any case, after check-in is completed, there follows the rapid trek to one's hotel room; the hurried unpacking of clothes and games; and then, most satisfying of all, the short but intense internal debate as to which games to bring along, and which to leave behind, before dashing off to the gaming areas. Even for an old grognard like me, it just doesn't get any better than that!
 |
| My old friend, Greg Smith plays Afrika Korps. |
Nowadays, most tournament-style conventions, besides being longer (which is good), tend to schedule many of their most important events on the last few days (usually Friday and Saturday) of their tournament calendars; from an organizational standpoint, this makes perfect sense. Nonetheless, it is invariably the first few days of a convention, and not the climactic last few, that I tend to enjoy the most. During those hectic first hours, there are lots of things to do and yet no real pressure to actually get anything specific done. Thus, there is ample time to try new games, to renew old wargaming bonds, to play that neglected onetime favorite that has been gathering dust for years; and, at the end of each busy and (hopefully) enjoyable day, to celebrate one's wins and losses with a convivial drink or two in the hotel bar with both old and new wargaming friends. As one old wargaming friend (and a fellow Vietnam vet) once observed: "Wargame conventions are a lot like R&R trips, but without any of the latter's language issues or manic debauchery."
 |
| Vince Meconi and Andy Choptiany play War at Sea. |
From mid-week on, things begin to pick up their pace. For old line tournament "sharks" like me, this is the period during which we tend to "pull out the stops" in an effort to gain a quarter-finals slot in one or more of our tournaments of choice. This is also usually the last chance for a player to change course and enter a new event if things haven't panned out in one or more of our various specialties. For my own part, I usually try to gain one of the play-off slots in WATERLOO and AFRIKA KORPS; however, if time permits, I also usually try to compete (at least for the first couple of rounds) in the WAR AT SEA tournament. And, of course, there are always those conventions in which things simply don't work out as planned. Speaking for myself, in more than a few instances, I can remember sitting down to games as diverse as ATTACK SUB, BREAKOUT: NORMANDY, CIRCUS MAXIMUS, and VICTORY IN THE PACIFIC after being knocked-out of my first-choice tournaments during the early qualifying rounds. I guess, when it comes to my own tournament gaming, I tend to do what the lyrics from the old Pop standard suggest: "If you can't be with the one you love; love the one you're with."
 |
Don Greenwood, the
WBC Convention Organizer. |
When the last day of a really enjoyable convention finally arrives, it is always (for me, at least) a real "downer". Some of this, I suspect, derives from the tedious necessity of packing up, checking out of one's hotel room, and of confirming final travel arrangements for the impending trip home. Part of the cause of this last-minute case of melancholy, however, comes from the realization that the convention's remaining life can now be counted in minutes and hours, and no longer in days. To return to my earlier "Christmas" analogy: The last few hours of a convention remind me of that time on Christmas Day, after all the presents have been exchanged and opened, when it is finally time to clear away the wrapping paper and other jumble from under the tree -- a task that inevitably reminds everyone present that another Christmas morning has come and then too speedily gone. On the bright side, for me at least, is the knowledge that this momentary bout of depression always passes quickly; and by the time I board the train for Philadelphia (many attendees, myself included, fly into Philadelphia and then take the train to Lancaster) I inevitably find my mood lifting as I begin to plan for my return the following year. And happily, for those gamers who were able to attend this year's convention, and even for those, like me, who were not, there's always the promise of next year.
Read On
A Guest Post by Bob Goddard
Back in January of this year, I announced that, among other changes to the future content of “Map and Counters”, I planned to begin adding an occasional “guest post” to accompany my own regular stream of game-related ramblings. Unfortunately, prospective contributors have been slow to come forward with their projects; something, by the way, that I understand completely: writing, after all, is hard work. This, I suppose, also explains why most of the early independent wargaming magazines had so much trouble coming up with new content, issue after issue. In any case, after a few months, I put this idea aside in the hope that it could be revisited later.
Enter Bob Goddard. Several days ago, Bob contacted me to see if I would be interested in publishing a “reminiscence” piece that he was writing about his very first wargame, AFRIKA KORPS. After a couple of email exchanges and a review of his finished essay, I happily took him up on his offer. Bob’s post is a brief and nostalgic tribute to a venerable old game that, in its day, was instrumental in first drawing many of us into the hobby of conflict simulations. There is, for those of us who have been in the hobby as long or longer than Bob, very little that is either new or unusual about his recollections. But that, I think, is actually the writer’s point: his memories are all familiar or at least evocative of similar episodes experienced by most of us in the course of our many years playing wargames. Also, Bob’s description of his interchange with a fellow gamer located halfway around the world is, I think, a perfect reminder of the special connection that exists, even to this day, among the hobby’s grognards wherever they are found. – JCB III
![[box_cover.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKQYMsXNEnqI4Do4Al2vpNZhni98VMEJFA01MN9JT7N6vAE2-UVFPAcgbV1FISsjUFra6Ck6Qaou44xSzJ_UBdtoigU0KIx8DvlNsGMbPVF1o-JZg0vJFIhwZ-SXYBsuJX3Rv0dKHoaJ4O/s320/box_cover.jpg) My first wargame was AFRIKA KORPS. I bought it at a local department store for $5 on Sunday, February 7, 1971. I skipped school the next day to learn how to play it. I still have the game – or what is left of it. The surviving pieces have endured hundreds of hours of playing time, at least ten changes of address and long, lonely stretches at the bottom of game stacks, squashed and neglected, but never forgotten.
There have been periods of revival and rebirth. In the eighties, I played several AK PBM games, as evidenced by the penned-in grid mark on the map board and notations on the Time Record Chart. In the nineties, a friend created the entire order of battle for the war in North Africa 1940-43, complete with homemade AK style counters. We only used these pieces a couple of times, but I still have them. Along the way, I got a new set of counters, new rules and just recently, a new map board.
And then there is the game box. The box is now in pieces, and these have been glued to a sturdy mailing carton in order to protect the whole shebang much as you would to preserve an important historical document.
Each revival has been an experience thick with nostalgia. As I would open the box and examine the components, I would always rediscover some extra game related item I had forgotten about: an AFRIKA KORPS PBM pad, an old Avalon Hill General with an Afrika Korps Series Replay, the homemade map extension eastward to Cairo and westward to Tripoli and Tunis. It was always fun to just to look and reminisce.
 |
"Bob" and "Dad" permanently inscribed
on the Time Record Sheet. Looks like I took Rommel. |
The most recent rebirth occurred in early 2011. This latest episode was prompted by my plans to attend the WBC and enter the AFRIKA KORPS Tournament. Two things came to my attention when I lifted the remnants of the box lid. First, I noticed on the original Time Record Sheet there were two games with the notations “Bob” and “Dad” scrawled in my 13 year old printing (in ink!). My father was my first opponent for AFRIKA KORPS. He was a WWII Army Air Corps veteran and had served in the New Guinea, as well as the Philippines and Okinawa campaigns. He really did not have any interest in these games; he was just spending time with his youngest son. It is funny, because for years I remembered only playing one game of AK with my father.
The second thing I saw was a map board that was less than presentable. It was stained in a several areas and marred by the aforementioned grid markings. In addition, the eastern quarter had separated from the rest of the board. There was just not enough charm here to make up for its abysmal condition. I needed a new map board.
I posted on Consimworld.com that I was looking to purchase a new AFRIKA KORPS map board. While you can get a complete player’s copy of the game at Consim Marketplace or on eBay for $20-$25, I just wanted the board.
One person responded. Here is the email he sent me:
Hi Bob
My name is Gary Vesper. I am an 'old grognard' and I have been playing wargames since the early '70's also. Man, those were the days - no job, played games all weekend every weekend - good old days, huh?
AH always had a special place with me - the games weren't the best historically-wise but then who cared? We had lots of fun.
I have a spare Afrika Korps Board. It’s in great shape. My son (who I converted to wargames from Xbox) has a complete copy with the third edition rules, etc. and somehow I have this spare board. I might be able to find some counters/rules if you want them. Alas, the box has departed this world.
Anyway, it’s yours, just let me know where to send it.
Cheers mate
Gary Vesper
 |
| West to Tunis, the homemade mapboard extension. |
I offered to pay Gary for the board and the shipping (Gary lives in Australia), but he insisted that I accept it as a gift “from one grognard helping another.” I accepted Gary’s generous offer and promised to “pay it forward” to another gamer when the opportunity presented itself.
With Gary’s board, I now have a presentable copy of AK for WBC. I’ve since changed my mind about entering the tourney, but I still plan on bringing the game with me to this year’s WBC Convention and will play it in the open gaming area. I promised Gary I would send photos of his board in action at WBC.
AFRIKA KORPS was first published fifty years ago and people are still playing it. I see no reason why it won’t be around for another fifty years. To be sure, the elder generation of wargamers – the original grognards – are aging and our numbers will eventually dwindle. Nevertheless, a good game is a good game however old it is, and as long as there are players like Gary Vesper who are willing to share their passion for the classics, a gem like AFRIKA KORPS will always have a following.
Read On
Because of a flurry of computer and other problems, I am posting this convention reminder considerably later than is my usual custom. Nonetheless, although there are only a few days remaining before this year’s “DonCon” (which runs from 30 July to 7 August), I still wanted to post some sort of event announcement before I completely ran out of time.
JCBIII
This year’s WBC Tournament Convention kicks off on 30 July with a host of old and new Pre-Con offerings for those dedicated attendees who plan on arriving in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, a few days before the Convention’s formal start date of 1 August 2011. Among the popular titles that are now part of the regular early-bird events in this year’s Pre-Convention line-up are long-time favorites: AXIS & ALLIES, 1830, and THE AGE OF RENNAISSANCE. What these recent additions (they were first introduced last year) mean for this year’s Pre-Con players is that, because Bruno Sinigalio’s GrognardCon traditionally offers match-ups in ten different games, early arrivals will now be able to compete in eighteen different titles, days before the formal tournament schedule actually begins. [There are even rumors floating around that Bruno has lately been contemplating the possibility of adding Avalon Hill’s venerable classic, STALINGRAD, to his collection of Pre-Con offerings at some point in the near future]. All in all, if high-quality competitive play is one’s goal, both the Pre-Con and regular convention events should make for an action-packed nine days in Lancaster.
Regrettably, family and health issues will, like last year, keep me from travelling to this year’s Convention; none-the-less, I want to take this opportunity to wish everyone attending this annual summer gathering of wargamers from around the world an enjoyable and safe Convention. For those gamers who are making the trip to Lancaster for the first time, the WBC Convention — in my opinion, at least — is one of the best-run and most broadly-varied (over 100 different game events are offered each year) board game tournaments held anywhere. Moreover, after more than two decades of hands-on experience, it should probably come as no surprise that Don Greenwood’s dedicated BPA team does a great job, year after year, organizing and running this tournament convention. Because of this, I am confident that every one of the visitors attending the 2011 WBC Convention, whether for the first or for the twenty-first time, will enjoy a fabulous seven to nine days of gaming in Pennsylvania’s Amish Country. I only wish that I could be there with you; but since I cannot, good luck and good gaming to you all.
For information about this and other BPA (Boardgame Players Association) sponsored events, please visit the BPA website.
Read On
I'm Back At Last And Ready To Resume Blogging!For those regular visitors to "Map and Counters" who have been following my latest round of computer-related problems, I'm pleased to report that it looks like the transition from my old (and faltering) laptop to a (hopefully) more robust and durable desktop is now complete. Thanks to the tireless efforts of my wife (who had to do most of these transfers after finishing long days of her own at the office), my files have now all been successfully transferred and, barring something unforeseen, I expect to be able to resume publishing fresh material in the next day or two. Of course, after a month-long break from writing, it will be interesting to see just how quickly I can return to my previous and, time-wise at least, relatively demanding blogging routine. On the plus side, I already have a number of projects in the works so my return to the keyboard certainly won't be the challenge that it would be if I was starting out with absolutely nothing in the "idea hopper".
In a slightly different vein, it is no doubt obvious that the last few weeks have been a bit frustrating for me; therefore, I am especially grateful to those of my regular readers who have been willing to offer both thoughtful advice and more general encouragement: your help and comments have all been welcome and appreciated. In addition, I also want to extend my sincerest thanks to all of my blog's visitors (whatever their individual gaming interests) for their loyalty during this month-long publishing "dry spell". I am profoundly grateful for this support.
Finally, as noted in a previous post, my long holiday away from the computer keyboard has allowed me to revisit a number of titles that, for one reason or another, I have tended to ignore of late. The Avalon Hill "classics", STALINGRAD and WATERLOO, for example, are personal favorites of mine that, because of their age and limited appeal, I have largely skipped over in my previous essays: this is an oversight (in deference to the grognards who visit my blog) that I plan on correcting in the coming months. I also expect to offer new "game profiles" on a few more titles from Rand Game Associates (RGA) and Operational Studies Group (OSG) to compliment my regular quota of SPI, Avalon Hill, and GDW games. Moreover, my extended time at the game table has also rekindled my interest in writing a new batch of "game analysis" essays; hence, I expect to tackle at least a couple of games in this way (Dunnigan's interesting, if under-appreciated NATO being one of them) before too much more time passes. In the end, I suppose that it could be said that my hiatus away from blogging has had at least one signal benefit: it has reminded me that there are a wide-ranging collection of gaming topics about which I still have the desire to write. And given the fact that I have already published over three hundred posts on "Map and Counters", that, in and of itself, is probably no small thing.
Read On
Or, It Never Rains, But That It Pours!Those visitors who have been following my regular ramblings on "Map and Counters" already know that computer problems forced me to temporarily stop posting new material several weeks ago. Initially, although this unwelcome setback was a bit irritating, I really did not expect to be side-lined when it came to my blogging for more than a few days or so. This assumption, unfortunately, has turned out to be wildly optimistic; mainly because, shortly after my computer decided to gasp its last, my residential air conditioner also decided to go on strike: a problem, needless-to-say, which is no trivial matter when it comes to surviving in Arizona during the summer months! That being said, I have finally resolved my air conditioning woes (more or less) and am now ready to resume my quest for a new (and more reliable) computer; however, even while I have attempted to deal with my several unexpected travails, I have not been completely idle when it comes to developing future essays for my website. Thus, I suppose that, at least in this one sense, my temporary halt in publishing has not been a total waste.
Interestingly, one benefit of not being under the constant pressure to write new material for publication is that I have had the time to visit other sites (using my wife's computer) and to participate in a number of different gaming forums. This interaction with other gamers, in turn, has encouraged me to revisit a number of titles that, for one reason or another, I have largely neglected over the last two years. A perfect example of this is Avalon Hill's venerable old classic STALINGRAD: long dismissed by most gamers in favor of newer, more historically satisfying titles, this game has none-the-less retained a small, but dedicated following among both grognards and (based on the ongoing comments at Consimworld) even a few newer players. The fact that interest in this dated but very Chess-like game seems to extend beyond the ranks of a few "old-timers" like me, Randy Heller, Ed Menzel, Lou Coutney, and Joe Angiolillo, has encouraged me to review my own copy of the game with an eye towards starting a new set of STALINGRAD Notebook entries (like those that I have already posted on AFRIKA KORPS) for those relative newcomers to the hobby willing to give this challenging old classic a fresh look.
Along with STALINGRAD, my recent break from blogging has also given me the opportunity to revisit another long-time favorite of mine, WATERLOO. I actually began a series of essays on this game a long time ago, but somehow got side-tracked and discontinued the series after posting the opening installment on the game. At long last I am ready to return to this topic and, given the tournament rules changes that are now a part of competitive play at the WBC Convention Tournament, I am hopeful that a few readers, at least, will find an examination of the grand-tactical nuances of this old title useful, or at least modestly interesting.
In addition, other essays (in various stages of completion) are waiting in the wings, ready to be published as soon as I have my new computer up and running. For example, I continue to plug away at a fairly detailed (and, hopefully, somewhat intriguing) historical narrative on wargames and wargaming. Also in the works is a discussion of the profound impact of the PANZERGRUPPE GUDERIAN Game System on the work of a variety of different game designers in the decades that have followed Dunnigan's ground-breaking new treatment of "armored warfare" from 1976. And, of course, I still have a piece or two left to publish on WAR IN THE EAST: a subject that, whether because of frustration or nostalgia, I seem to be incapable of letting go of, once and for all.
Finally, I am also contemplating a number of new "Game Profiles" with special attention to those designers (like Kevin Zucker, Irad Hardy, Mark Hermann, and John Hill) that I have given rather less attention to, thus far at least, than they probably deserve. This all, not surprisingly, leads to the obvious qustion: Where do things stand now? The answer, such as it is, is that my wife (bless her heart) is presently working to transfer files from my old computer to its replacement; which means that, if everything goes off without a hitch, I should finally be back up and running within a day or two. On the other hand, given my luck thus far, this process of transition could well end up taking a lot longer than either she or I currently expect!
Read On
Here We Go Again!Most of my regular visitors have no doubt been surprised that there have been no new posts on this site since 21 June; there're not alone, I am as disappointed and frustrated as they are. The explanation for this sudden pause, however, is probably not a surprise; to make a long story short, a few weeks ago I encountered a set of what I initially thought were minor computer problems. Because I already had several nearly-completed essays scheduled for the start of July, and because I am a firm believer in the old adage that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", I decided to take my laptop to a repair shop well in advance of the July 4th Holiday weekend with the idea of replacing my increasingly tired hard drive and, since my computer was already going to be on the work bench anyway, of adding a few other upgrades while I was at it. Unfortunately, once the technicians at the computer shop set to work, they discovered that, besides a hard drive that was on its last legs (which I already knew), my laptop also had an insideous and difficult to diagnose "mother board" problem (which I did not know). In short, my computer (with all of its hundreds of document files, etc., etc.) was on the verge of breathing its last! Because of the holiday and the repeated diagnostic tests that had to be run (my computer has recently decided to turn itself off for no apparent reason) all this took two weeks; thus, I only received this dire prognosis yesterday afternoon.
What all this really means, of course, is that, in order for me to resume blogging on a regular basis, I will have to invest in yet another computer; for what it's worth, I have now already burned through two "high end" laptops in six and a half years. In the meantime, I will be able to respond to comments and to generate a few short posts on my wife's machine, but I really have a difficult time writing on her computer because of the way that her keyboard and "mouse" are set up. That being said, it looks like my wife (she's the computer expert in the family) and I will be shopping for a new computer this weekend. Which should mean, with a bit of luck, that I should be able to resume writing by the first of next week (all those software and file transfers, after all). This time around, however, I think that I will turn my attention towards acquiring a bulkier (but more robust) desktop; given my past experiences, laptops just don't seem to be working out that well for me.
Needless-to-say, given my past luck in the "computer department", if any of you, my readers, have any thoughts on this issue, I invite you to comment or to make suggestions: hopefully, of course, before I actually take the plunge and buy another machine!
Read On
|
Posts
