Map and Counters

A Glorious Page in Our History: The Battle of Midway, 4-6 June 1942; by Robert J. Cressman; Pictorial Histories Publishing Co; 1^st edition (June 1990); ISBN-13: 978-0929521404

‘A Glorious Page in Our History’, by Robert Cressman, is a skillfully crafted and carefully researched analysis of the Battle of Midway. Yet, had it not been for the nagging of a friend, I would never even have cracked open this book’s cover. In retrospect, I suspect that Cressman’s ‘breathless’ and vaguely ‘triumphalist’ title may have initially turned me off his book, or it could have been something else; whatever the reason, I did not give Cressman’s historical narrative any real consideration until a friend, years after the book had first seen print, finally badgered me into actually looking at the text of ‘A Glorious Page’. And almost from the moment that I turned the first page, I was delighted that I had. Cressman’s work is modern military history writing at its best: even-handed, carefully reasoned, and meticulous in its research. And 'A Glorious Page' is made even better because it deals with an exciting and crucially important event.


Admiral Raymond Spraunce


The Battle of Midway has fascinated me for a very long time. For anyone with even a passing interest in the events of World War II, I don’t see how it could be otherwise. First, it was a naval action in which a few hundred intrepid airmen, in the face of desperate odds, still managed to achieve one of the most lop-sided and decisive victories of the whole Pacific War. Second, Midway was a battle of high drama; an engagement in which audacity, courage, sacrifice, and just plain good luck all came together at precisely the right time to produce an extraordinary engagement that, even today, still occupies a unique place in the US Naval history.

Of course, given the decisive impact of the Battle of Midway on the War in the Pacific, it is hardly surprising that a number of excellent books have been written over the years covering the key events and personalities of the battle. Thus, for the reader who is interested in exploring this subject, there is no shortage of well-written titles from which to choose. M. Fuchida and M. Okumiya’s ‘Midway, the Battle that Doomed Japan: the Japanese Navy’s Story’ (1955) presents a generally balanced analysis of the engagement as seen by the Japanese; W. Lord’s ‘Incredible Victory’ (1967) and A. Barker’s ‘Midway: the Turning Point’ (1971) do excellent jobs of covering the battle from the American perspective. Nonetheless, Cressman’s account is, in my opinion, the most accurate and meticulously detailed of any of the many fine books that I have read thus far on this topic.
.
.


Admiral Chiuchi Nagumo

‘A Glorious Page’ brings the Battle of Midway to life for the reader by following the operations of the various participating American and Japanese land-based and carrier air groups on an almost minute by minute basis. But the battle was neither fought nor won by the pilots and aircrews alone. Thus, the extraordianry stories and the often heroic labors of the ordinary seamen who manned the carriers' flight decks during the height of the battle are also carefully chronicled. And the crucial role of the senior military leadership is not neglected either; in fact, the author examines, in great detail, the decisions and actions of the American Admirals, Nimitz (back in Pearl Harbor), and Spraunce and Fletcher (both with the American fleet in the battle area), as well as those of the Japanese commander, Admiral Nagumo, as the battle unfolded. Moreover, in addition to providing a detailed and carefully-researched narrative of the actual events of the three-day naval engagement, the author also takes some time to debunk the several popular myths that have grown up in the aftermath of the battle.


The Battle of Midway, of course, was fought for a reason. Unfortunately, the Island's real significance is often obscured by the dramatic events associated with its name. This is not the case in 'A Glorious Page'. Instead, to help the reader understand why Admiral Yamamoto selected Midway as an operational objective for the Imperial Japanese Navy, and why the American Pacific Command felt compelled to defend a pair of tiny islands that together consisted only of a few square miles of sand in the Central Pacific, Cressman examines both the history of America’s connection to the atoll, and Midway’s strategic significance to the larger Pacific War.





Admiral Frank F. Fletcher

At two hundred and twenty-six pages, ‘A Glorious Page’ is not a particularly long book; in fact, it is easily readable in one or two days. Moreover, the author writes in a clear, smooth-flowing, and very graceful voice. And Cressman uses that voice to do a wonderful job of weaving the personal stories of the individual combatants together with the important strategic events that were unfolding largely outside of these individuals’ narrow views of the battle. However, while the meticulous detail with which the author builds his narrative will be a real pleasure for someone interested in military history, it may well be a little off-putting to the reader who either has little interest in the Battle of Midway or in military history, more generally. ‘A Glorious Page’ is a great piece of historical writing, but it is probably just not a good choice for the casual reader looking for a book to take to the bathroom or the beach. It should also be noted that Cressman's work is further strengthened by valuable contributions from a number of other Midway experts, including: Steve Ewing, Barrett Tillman, Mark Horan, Clark Reynolds, and Stan Cohen. In addition, the author, as might be expected, includes six maps of the battle area, as well as an abundance of photos of many of the men, aircraft, and vessels that figure so prominently in his narrative.

Finally, I cannot state categorically that Robert J. Cressman’s ‘A Glorious Page in Our History: The Battle of Midway, 4-6 June 1942’ is the best single volume currently available on the Battle of Midway; I haven’t, after all, read every book ever published on the subject. I can confidently say, however, that for anyone who wants to seriously delve into the factual details of the battle, Cressman’s work is definitely where they should start. This book may not be the perfect choice for the casual reader, but for the military history buff, I give it my strongest recommendation; when it comes to the Battle of Midway, ‘A Glorious Page’ is, so far as I am concerned, a must read.

THE FAST CARRIERS: Air-Sea Operations, 1941-77 is an integrated strategic/operational/tactical level simulation of historical and hypothetical naval air combat from 1941 to 1977. The game was designed by James F. Dunnigan and published by Simulations Publications, Incorporated (SPI) in 1975.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Damaged battleships in Pearl Harbor: The USS Arizona, USS Tennessee and USS West Virginia

At 07:40 on 7 December 1941, a mixed-force of Japanese carrier aircraft composed of 45 fighters, 54 dive bombers, 40 torpedo bombers, and 50 horizontal bombers appeared in the sky over the island of Oahu in the Hawaiian Islands. This was the first wave of a devastating aerial attack on the American naval and air forces in and around Pearl Harbor. Fifty minutes later, a second wave of Japanese carrier-based aircraft struck the island again in a follow-up raid. As a result of these two short, but devastating Japanese air attacks, eighteen U.S. ships — including seven battleships — were either sunk or so badly damaged that they would be out of action for months. In addition, of the nearly 400 military aircraft on the island, 188 were destroyed, and 159 were damaged. Total American casualties were 3,581, of which 2,403 were killed.

On 6 December 1941, the United States was still a more-or-less neutral, if uneasy, nation. Americans, as a people, were concerned about events on the Continent, but still mainly wanted to stay out of the life-or-death struggle in Europe and North Africa against fascism; a conflict that had already been raging for over two years. One day later, the American people were suddenly, and without warning, catapulted into the struggle they had hoped to escape. On 7 December 1941, the conflict in Europe finally reached around the globe and struck Americans in Hawaii; in the months to come, it would rapidly spread in all directions until it had engulfed the whole of the Pacific.

DESCRIPTION

THE FAST CARRIERS is a historical and semi-historical simulation of the complex air-sea operations carried out by carrier task forces from the beginning of America’s entry into World War II through and until the late 70’s. This is a two player game, with each player commanding either carrier-based or land-based air units. The goal for both players is clear: locate and destroy the enemy force before he can do the same to you. As is typical with naval games, many of the actions performed by both players during a game turn will be executed secretly and simultaneously.

What makes THE FAST CARRIERS particularly interesting from the player’s perspective (as well as challenging), is the melding of strategic, operational, and tactical mission planning and execution in a single all-encompassing game design. This melding of different time scales, however, also significantly slows the action for both players; this ‘slowness’ is, undoubtedly, the biggest shortcoming of the game system. In any case, as the game’s introduction explains: “During each game turn a player may move Task Force markers on the Strategic Map, shift air units on his Task Force Operations Displays, and move air units on the Tactical Display to attack naval units. Ships can bombard shore targets, air units can attack air units, ships can attack air units, and air units can bomb or torpedo ships. Each type of combat is handled separately and in sequence.” Thus, players transition in terms of map scale and time increments as they move from the Strategic Stage (four hours) to the Operational Stage (one hour) to the Tactical Stage (forty seconds).

Given the multi-stage design architecture of THE FAST CARRIERS, it is hardly surprising that the game’s turn structure turns out to be a little unorthodox. Each of the different scenarios is composed of an open-ended number of from one to seven ‘days’. Each ‘day’ is then further divided into five daylight turns, and one night turn. The opposing sides maneuver on one of five different strategic maps, each of which represents a specific geographical sea area. Strategic naval movement is handled using Task Force (TF) markers; and although both players’ markers are always visible on the strategic map, the combination of ‘dummy’ TF markers, restrictive search procedures, and simultaneous movement plotting pretty much eliminates the specter of unrealistic ‘perfect intelligence’ from the game. Each ship counter represents a single vessel, and each two-sided (to represent damaged and undamaged status) air counter represents six aircraft.


"Battle of the Coral Sea" painting by Robert Taylor depicts sinking of the carrier Shoho at 10:40am on 5 4 42 by a squadron from the Lexington.

The game mechanics of THE FAST CARRIERS are probably a little too involved to describe in any great detail, but a brief description of the different phases of each stage may still be helpful in conveying the flow of an individual game turn. The starting point for each game turn is the Strategic Stage which is composed of three steps: the surface combat phase; the strategic movement phase; and the strategic search phase. At the conclusion of each Strategic phase, players transition to the portion of the game directly oriented around carrier operations. This (carrier) Operations Stage is, in turn, made up of four steps: the aircraft launch phase; the change of status phase (aircraft move from hanger to flight deck, fuel and arm, etc.); the recovery (landing) phase; and the aircraft movement phase (aircraft move or set-up for air strikes, etc.)

If and only if, an airborne strike force arrives over its target do operations shift to the game’s Tactical Stage. At this point, assuming that an airstrike is not going in against a land base, the attacking player must determine whether his striking force has found its target. And this is where playing THE FAST CARRIERS is anything but fast. Finding or not finding the enemy fleet depends on two factors: the number of ‘waves’ (determined at the time of take off) conducting the airstrike; and the range flown by the attacking aircraft. A quick word of explanation: ‘waves’ can be comprised of from one to three aircraft counters, but must always be composed of the same type of aircraft. Assuming that part or all of the strike force actually locates its target, then the attacking aircraft and their escorts enter from one of six sides of the Tactical Display and proceed to run the familiar gauntlet (one wave at a time) of enemy CAP, followed by naval anti-aircraft fire. Once these steps are completed, the attacking waves of aircraft can finally conduct their runs against individual enemy ships. Dive bombers, not surprisingly, must approach their targets at higher altitude and then dive to attack from the stern; horizontal bombers perform their attacks after completing a straight, high altitude bomb run; torpedo planes, on the other hand, can attack from any angle, but must fly three hexes in a straight line before attacking the enemy vessel from an adjacent hex.

Combat results are computed using a ‘differential’ CRT, and, since attacks are resolved wave by wave (up to a maximum of six waves) and negative differentials have ‘no effect’, the combat system occasionally leads to some very odd situations. Ships are damaged as a result of hits (four hits being necessary to sink a vessel); aircraft counters are inverted to their ‘damaged’ side to show hits, and damaged air groups are eliminated if hit again. One perverse aspect of this combat system, particularly for a player like me who cut his ‘carrier game’ teeth on Avalon Hill’s original MIDWAY, is that it requires multiple attacks to sink ANYTHING — even a carrier with readied planes on its deck.

The other really cumbersome element in THE FAST CARRIERS is the seemingly interminable quasi-abstract Search subroutine. Searches are conducted on the players' Search Charts, and search aircraft, once launched, are committed to their search area for the entire day. And searches, as might be expected, can be conducted with varying numbers of aircraft, using different search patterns, and at different ranges. Not surprisingly, the more aircraft searching a sea area and the shorter the range, the better the prospects are of locating an enemy force. Unfortunately, even when the enemy task force is found, a randomly drawn chit will still determine how effective the search actually turns out to be. This process is both predictably time-consuming and, more often than not, incredibly frustrating for the player conducting the search.

Winning is determined by comparing victory points at the end of the scenario being played. Victory points, of course, are typically accumulated by inflicting damage on the enemy force.



USS Neosho refuels the USS Yorktown before the Battle of the Coral Sea, May, 1942

THE FAST CARRIERS offers five historical, and four semi-historical (hypothetical) scenarios that simulate air-sea operations from the start of World War II up to the 70’s. The scenarios follow the chronological order of the naval actions they recreate; they are: Pearl Harbor, 7 Dec.’41 (this is the only solitaire scenario offered); the Coral Sea, 8 May ’42; the Battle of Midway, 4 June ’42; the Eastern Solomons, 24 Aug. ’42; Santa Cruz, 26 Oct. ’42; Northern Solomons, 1943 (hypothetical); Action Off Korea (hypothetical); Action In the Tonkin Gulf (hypothetical); and Action In The Denmark Strait (hypothetical). In addition to the various scenarios, THE FAST CARRIERS also offers an optional Weather rule (which is actually a whole weather sub-routine), and a rule on Oilers, for those players who don’t think they already have enough to keep track of.

A PERSONAL OBSERVATION

THE FAST CARRIERS is a detailed and, in several respects, really quite an ingenious attempt by Jim Dunnigan to simulate carrier operations. As such, it does a pretty good job at the strategic and operational level. Where the ‘wheels come off’ the design is in the tactical portion of the game system. Conducting air strikes — in my opinion, the whole purpose of setting up and playing the game in the first place — are tedious to execute and, against undamaged ships, surprisingly ineffectual. The built-in limitations of the game’s tactical combat system inevitably lead to some odd and unrealistic outcomes. For example, the Arizona was sunk, and the flight deck of the Akagi was turned into an inferno by lucky hits from attacking dive bombers; neither event can really be duplicated in THE FAST CARRIERS. This means that — in this game, at least — carrier engagements tend to require multiple attacks in order to bring about any sort of decisive outcome. Ships are just very hard to knock out of action or sink.

Still, the game, despite its several flaws, is probably worth a look from players with an interest in air-sea combat operations. In that context, THE FAST CARRIERS is really at its best when simulating World War II carrier actions; the hypothetical ‘modern’ scenarios, on the other hand, have that distinctive SPI “let’s throw a few extra game situations in at the last minute” feel to them. Moreover, the ‘introductory’ Pearl Harbor solitaire scenario is actually unplayable without the inclusion of the game’s follow-up Errata.

THE FAST CARRIERS is certainly not for everyone, but it does introduce several novel concepts into the design mix of carrier-based combat operations; so for naval buffs, at least, it might not be a bad choice. Novices and casual players, on the other hand, should definitely give this title a pass. Finally, from a purely ‘game design history’ standpoint, this title is an interesting elaboration on previous Dunnigan air-sea simulations and, as such, probably represents a worthwhile addition to the collection of anyone who specializes in naval or early SPI games.

Design Characteristics:

• Time Scale: Strategic Stage (4 hours); Operational Stage (1 hour); Tactical Stage (40 seconds)


• Map Scale: Strategic Map (90 Nautical Miles per hex); Tactical Display (1000 yards per hex)


• Unit Size: individual ships, aircraft compliments of six aircraft


• Unit Types: individual ships, carrier based-air, land-based air, and information counters


• Number of Players: two


• Complexity: high


• Solitaire Suitability: low (except for the Pearl Harbor Scenario)


• Average Playing Time: 4 + hours

Game Components:

• One 22” x 34’’ hexagonal grid Map Sheet (with various Strategic maps, the Tactical Display, Terrain Key, Turn Record and Sequence of Play Track, and various Combat Results Tables incorporated)


• 800 ½” cardboard Counters


• One 8½” x 11” Rules Booklet (with Surface to Surface Probability Table, Strike Contact Table, Wave Arrival Table, Anti-Air Combat Results Table, Anti-Ship Combat Results Table, Anti-Submarine Contact Table, Jet Age Strike Contact Table and Scenario Instructions incorporated)


• Two 7¾” x 12” Search Pattern Templates (one for each player)


• Sixteen 8” x 11¾” Task Force Operations Displays (eight for each player)


• One small six-sided Die

One SPI 12 “x 15”x 1” flat 24 compartment plastic Game Box (with clear compartment tray covers) and clear plastic game cover with Title Sheet

Recommended Reading

See my blog post Book Review of this title which is strongly recommended for those readers interested in further historical background. A Glorious Page in Our History: The Battle of Midway, 4-6 June 1942; by Robert J. Cressman; Pictorial Histories Publishing Co; 1^st edition (June 1990); ISBN-13: 978-0929521404




Also, see my blog post Book Review of this highly recommended title: Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power by Victor Davis Hanson; Anchor Books (August 2002); ISBN-13: 978-0385720380

Storming the Fortress: The ‘Second’ Battle of Tobruch, Part II

INTRODUCTION TO PART II

This post is the second and concluding chapter in the essay, The ‘Second’ Battle of Tobruch. In the first installment, the early (spring-summer 1941) strategies and goals of the Axis and British commanders were considered along with the contextual factors that typically determine the timing, psychology, and execution of the crucial, all-out Axis attempt to drive the British out of Tobruch. In this installment, the specific details of the several different Axis approaches to the final reduction of the fortress will be considered; in short, this essay will offer an analysis of the actual battlefield tactics employed by both sides during the ‘Second’ Battle of Tobruch. A word about definitions: typically, the ‘First’ Battle of Tobruch is the term applied to the early moves of AFRIKA KORPS, during which the British-controlled fortress is first encircled and then brought under siege by the units of the Deutsches Afrika Korps; the ‘Second’ Battle of Tobruch is the term commonly-used to describe the protracted, typically bloody, and sometimes game-deciding struggle for the final control of the fortress.

THE ‘FALL’ OFFENSIVE

Preparing the Battlefield

For the Axis player, the ‘Fall’ offensive strategy has two simple and mutually-reinforcing goals: to destroy the strongest (4-4-7, 3-3-7, and 2-2-6) Commonwealth units and, if possible, to capture Tobruch before the powerful British November reinforcements enter the game. For my own part, I will usually choose this approach for the Axis if, at the beginning of the September I '41 game turn, the overall situation in the battle area is more-or-less average. That is: the British have lost a minimum of eight more combat factors than the DAK. In addition, it is also usually essential for the Allies (because of previous battles) to have been pushed well to the east of Mersa Matruh, and Axis losses to be low (two or fewer Italian infantry divisions). That being said, if our hypothetical Desert Fox actually opts for this strategy, then he must set up for this series of attacks early (but not too early) because the timing of this operation is critical.

Typically, for the ‘Fall’ offensive plan to have a reasonable chance for success, the Deutsches Afrika Korps must stage to within striking distance of Tobruch during the September I player turn. Then, the DAK, assuming a sufficient quantity of supply is available, can launch the assault on the fortress beginning on the very next game turn. Needless-to-say, Axis supply rolls are crucial to the success of this operation. Still, if Rommel starts his assault with at least two supply units on the map, then, because of the proximity of the Axis Home Base, he can probably expect to attack the British garrison somewhere between two and four times before Commonwealth reinforcements swarm onto the game map on November I ’41. Admittedly, like any plan, the timing of this operation has both advantages and disadvantages. So let us now examine both, in turn, before moving on to consider the specifics of the battle itself.

Advantages

For General Rommel, the most obvious upside of an early ‘Fall’ offensive is that the Commonwealth commander, our make-believe General Wavell, can call on only a limited number of ‘strong’ units with which to defend Tobruch. This means that, until his November reinforcements arrive, the British player has only two armored 4-4-7’s, one mechanized 3-3-7, and probably two or at most three infantry 2-2-6’s to shoulder the main burden of defending the port. Interestingly, this collection of Commonwealth brigades is actually somewhat less impressive than it first appears. Obviously, the 4-4-7’s are the lynchpins of any British defense of Tobruch; but, because of the Axis ability — prior to the arrival in the battle area of Rommel’s November reinforcements — to stack thirty-two attack factors adjacent to the fortress, the 3-3-7 and the 2-2-6’s are all vulnerable to five-to-one automatic victory (AV) attacks as soon as even one of the 4-4-7’s is removed from the garrison. Thus, unless it is stacked with the two 4-4-7’s at the outset, the British 3-3-7 will oftentimes not play a major role in the defense of the port.

Another potential benefit of the Axis launching a ‘September II’ attack is the possibility of an early capture of an Allied supply unit. This possibility arises — assuming that the Axis player is able to dodge a doubled exchange and also that there are still several game turns remaining until November — the turn after one of the two British 4-4-7’s is eliminated. Again, the problem for the Commonwealth player is stacking: both his own and Rommel’s. Once a single 4-4-7 is eliminated, the possibility of successful (inexpensive) Axis low-odds attacks dramatically increases the threat of a one-turn capture of the fortress by the Deutsches Afrika Korps. Of course, the Allied supply unit in Tobruch can temporarily shuttle out to sea, but it or another supply counter must land at the port within two game turns or the British garrison will expire due to isolation.

Finally, a less obvious, but very real inducement for Rommel to exercise the ‘Fall’ option is that it provides the Axis player with a certain amount of flexibility should his initial round of attacks on Tobruch go badly; something, it should be remembered, that is going to happen 33% of the time. Thus, even if the initial Axis assault produces a doubled exchange, the impending arrival of fresh Axis troops will still permit the DAK to rapidly transition into some variant of the ‘Winter’ offensive once Rommel’s November reinforcements physically reach the battle area.

Disadvantages

No game strategy, of course, is ever perfect; thus, as we might expect, the ‘Fall’ offensive has two disadvantages that are each serious enough to warrant discussion. First, the success of an early assault on Tobruch is absolutely dependent on the Desert Fox receiving reasonably good supply luck at precisely that time in the game when the convoy table is, from the Axis standpoint, least favorable. With a 50% chance of a sinking on each game turn, it would not take too much bad luck to dash Rommel’s prospects for a sustained assault on the port. The second major problem with the ‘September II’ offensive is that it is front-loaded in terms of risk; that is: if the Axis player rolls an exchange against the 4-4-7 on the first attack, then the early offensive — barring, of course, a “Hail Mary” low-odds follow-up attack — is pretty much over. The exchange loss of eight factors is not, by itself, fatal to Rommel’s long-term prospects for victory; but such an outcome does make it imprudent (if not foolhardy) for the DAK to continue its offensive against the fortress until the November reinforcements can come east to bolster the Axis forces around Tobruch.

Basic Assumptions

Needless-to-say, after weighing the advantages against the disadvantages, Rommel will, more often than not, still decide to launch a ‘September II’ offensive. However, before moving on to a detailed discussion of the coming battle for Tobruch, I think that it would be useful to briefly review and ‘flesh-out’ a few of the (previously-mentioned) situational assumptions that will form the foundation for my future comments about the tactical choices associated with an Axis ‘Fall’ offensive. For the purposes of this discussion, these basic assumptions do not really need to be highly detailed, so force levels and unit positions typically will be described mainly in general terms. That being said, let us first consider the situation of our hypothetical Axis player.

To begin with, it is assumed that the DAK will thus far have lost only one Italian division and that the Axis will have eleven units and thirty-six combat factors near Tobruch; the Axis Home Base garrison, by the way, should have already been relieved by Rommel on the July II or August I game turns, and this last Italian division (probably Division Savena) should arrive in the battle area on or before the October I game turn. Further, it is also assumed that the Deutsches Afrika Korps is deployed so that virtually every Axis combat unit will be able to reach a hex adjacent to the fortress in one move; and finally, that the DAK has at least two supply units on the map at the beginning of the September II ’41 game turn. Thus, with the DAK supplied and poised to attack, let us now consider the Allied situation.

First, for the purposes of this exercise, it is assumed that the British player has already lost between ten and fifteen combat factors, but that these losses have been limited mainly to 1-1-6’s and, at most, two 2-2-6’s; further, that the Commonwealth occupies positions east of Mersa Matruh; that three units garrison Tobruch (at least two of which are 4-4-7’s). And finally, that at least one 1-1-6 has been held off the map in reserve, while an additional 2-2-6 is currently at sea (shuffling into and out of the fortress from turn to turn). Obviously, circumstances will vary slightly from game to game, but this description is, I believe, a fairly accurate depiction of the overall situation at this stage in a typical AFRIKA KORPS match. The stage is now set for the ‘Fall’ battle for Tobruch.

Tactical Considerations: Round One

Having decided to assault Tobruch beginning on the September II game turn, how Rommel chooses to organize the initial attack on the fortress will naturally depend on the initial composition of the port’s garrison. Because the strongest possible Commonwealth defense of Tobruch — at least during this stage in the game — is two 4-4-7’s and the 3-3-7; it will be this initial British defense that is considered here. This Allied defensive combination — for reasons that will soon become apparent — is actually relatively uncommon, nonetheless, it is always a possibility. Confronted by this formidable trio of defenders, Rommel’s best option will usually be to accept the 1 to 3 and 1 to 4 soak-offs, and to attack the remaining 4-4-7 at 3 to 1 (surrounded). This attack requires twenty-eight combat factors and eight units (seven units, if Division Ariete is used). It should be noted, however, that although Ariete could be used either for the soak-off at 1 to 4, or for the 3 to 1, the increased risk of Axis losses will usually make either of these options unacceptable. Therefore, assuming that the recommended plan is followed, this set of attacks will leave Division Ariete free to screen the Salum Pass area (oftentimes, hex J38), and at least one of the two German 2-2-12 reconnaissance battalions to cover Ariete’s southern flank; alternatively, the 2-2-12 — in an effort to discourage the lone British ‘recce’ from attempting to sneak too far west using the deep desert hex rows — might also take up a menacing position somewhere along one of the southern (U or V) hex rows, but within range of the Coast Road. Obviously, there are numerous other moves available to the Axis player in this situation, but this one is the most economical and, more importantly, the least likely to ‘blow-up’ in Rommel’s face. It should be noted that a one-turn debacle is a real concern because, during this stage of the game, the most critical worry for the Axis player is not so much a reduction in his combat strength as it is the loss of too many units. In any case, faced with the strongest possible Allied garrison, our hypothetical Rommel sucks it up, sends the panzers forward, and then rolls the die.

Several outcomes, of course, are possible given the preceding set of combats, but assuming statistically average results, the most probable consequence of these several attacks will be that the British 4-4-7 is eliminated at the cost of a single Italian soak-off unit. At this point, the Commonwealth commander will have to ask himself a crucial question: just how much is it worth to him to hold on to the fortress? It is a question with no easy answer. If General Wavell evacuates the port and leaves the defense of Tobruch to a single 1-1-6, he will save the bulk of his armor and, once the November reinforcements arrive, will be able — because of better-than-normal Allied stacking — to fight the DAK in the open desert on relatively equal terms. However, the decision to give up the fortress without any further serious resistance, particularly in 1941, will almost always seem to be such a huge gamble that very few Allied players will actually have the stomach to take it. Instead, in the great majority of matches, the Commonwealth commander will not even consider evacuation; on the contrary, he will choose to stand fast and to fight for the fortress to the bitter end. Unfortunately, this perfectly understandable decision immediately puts Wavell on the horns of yet another dilemma: if he leaves the 3-3-7 in Tobruch, it can be AV’d; alternatively, if he withdraws it, then he will have to defend the fortress — at least for one game turn — with a 4-4-7, a 2-2-6, and a puny 1-1-6 (remember, at least one 1-1-6 has been sitting off-map). This defensive arrangement — because of the increased number of attractive Axis attacks that it makes possible — is, if anything, even worse. To add to the British player’s woes, he must decide on a defense before he sees the result of the Axis supply roll. Given his two equally unsavory options, the Allied commander will probably decide to leave the 3-3-7 and his supply unit in Tobruch, and to reinforce the port with the 2-2-6 that was already at sea. In addition, since he has decided to continue the fight for the fortress, the Allied player will also probably embark his last remaining 2-2-6 (assuming that it can reach Alexandria) in order to insure that even if Rommel attacks the 2-2-6 and the 3-3-7 in the fortress at 3 to 1, the Commonwealth will still be able to garrison Tobruch with three units on the October II game turn. Finally, in a modest attempt to support the besieged fortress, General Wavell will usually order his field army west, but will probably take pains to keep most of it out of the (supplied) reach of the German panzer divisions next to Tobruch. Of course, once the British player’s defensive arrangements are completed, his best and most fervent hope, not surprisingly, will be for a string of Axis supply sinkings.

Tactical Considerations: Round Two

If General Wavell gets his wish and the Axis October I supply convoy is sunk, then Rommel really has no choice but to halt the offensive pending the next turn’s supply roll. However, the Axis army should not be idle even in this situation. Instead of hunkering down near the fortress for a turn, the troops of the DAK should immediately redeploy to the east so that they can threaten both Tobruch and the small Commonwealth field army that has probably been cautiously creeping west along the Coast Road and onto the coastal escarpment. This pause in the action will, of course, arise 50% of the time; unfortunately for the British, the other 50% of the time, Rommel will be able to continue his offensive without a pause.

In this situation, what should Rommel do if catches a break and the Italian convoy makes it past the Royal Navy? At the start of the October I Axis player turn, the Desert Fox will have ten units and thirty-four combat factors within reach of Tobruch. Of course, this might not be the case if the British player has “thrown caution to the winds” and succeeded with a low-odds attack against Division Ariete, but an Allied gamble of this magnitude, at this stage of the game, is extraordinarily improbable; hence, for the purposes of this discussion, such an unlikely possibility will be ignored. Instead, we will assume that, given the forces that Rommel has available in the battle area, the arrival of another convoy virtually guarantees an immediate follow-up Axis attack; the only question is how it will be organized. It is at this stage that the ‘risk-reward’ calculus, personal predilections, and long-term goals of the Axis commander really come into play. However, this is also the point in the game during which a skillful Commonwealth player can, at very little cost, really begin to interfere with Rommel’s plans. So before analyzing the pros and cons of the DAK’s various offensive options, I think that it might be beneficial to redirect this discussion temporarily in order to examine one of the most common and pernicious of Wavell’s possible countermoves.

Tactical Considerations: A British Riposte

On its face, serious British mischief-making may seem improbable, but consider the effect on the Deutsches Afrika Korps' operations if, during the Allied September II player turn, an aggressive and cunning Commonwealth commander manages to dispatch his lone reconnaissance battalion deep into the southern desert (to hex U45, for instance). Such a British move, of course, will not be possible in every game: the ‘recce’ may have started the turn too far east, for example, or may even have already been eliminated in combat. Nonetheless, in a significant percentage of matches, Rommel will find himself confronted by exactly this problem and at precisely that time in the game when a ‘suicidal’ Commonwealth ‘recce’ battalion is most inconvenient. Moreover, the threat implicit in this British raid is obvious: if Rommel attacks Tobruch using nine units, while leaving an Italian infantry division to block the Salum Pass, Wavell will send his ‘recce’ racing west, probably to hex V34. This development, from the Axis player’s standpoint, would create an irritating distraction in coming turns: once the British battalion reaches V34, its movement range simply makes it too much of a nuisance to be ignored. Happily, there are several different ways for Rommel to deal with this threat, so let us consider them each in turn.

First, Rommel could temporarily ignore the British 'recce' and take the 5/6ths chance of trading another Italian infantry division for the certainty of AV’ing the 3-3-7 in Tobruch. Unfortunately, on the very next game turn, the Desert Fox would then almost certainly be obliged to dispatch his own two reconnaissance battalions — in a process that could take several turns — to shadow the British ‘recce’ unit until it could be eliminated either through combat or isolation. Needless-to-say, with November just around the corner, this diversion of the only available German reconnaissance battalions would be an irksome waste of Axis combat potential just when it is most needed elsewhere. Therefore, this approach — at least from the standpoint of an experienced Axis player — will probably be a nonstarter.

Second, the DAK could completely break-off the attack on Tobruch and send German mechanized and reconnaissance units into the southern desert to block the British ‘recce’ battalion for a turn while everyone waited for an Axis supply unit to reach this deep-desert section of the front. This response, while conservative, is not totally without merit. It has the advantage of allowing the two Axis supplies a chance to move one turn closer to the battle area, and it may even bluff Wavell into pulling the ‘recce’ back out of harm’s way. Or then again, it may not. If the British reconnaissance battalion pulls back, then, on the October II turn, the Axis can soak-off at 1 to 6 and still AV the 3-3-7 in Tobruch with a surrounded 5 to 1 (assuming, of course, that the 3-3-7 hasn’t swapped places with the 2-2-6 that was at sea). Unfortunately, the British player may get stubborn and swap the 3-3-7 out for the seaborne 2-2-6, while continuing to advance the ‘recce’ west as far as he can. In this case, the DAK would either have to AV the ‘recce’ on the October II game turn (which would divert badly-needed combat power and would also waste a precious supply), or it would have to isolate the little pest using three of Rommel’s ten available units. The other major problem with this Axis response is that it significantly reduces the pressure on the Commonwealth commander by giving up a critically important round of attacks against Tobruch.

Third, Rommel could choose to continue with his attacks against Tobruch (my usual response) while, at the same time, creating a partial barrier to the British ‘recce’ battalion’s continued westward movement. Such a block would typically look something like this: an Italian infantry division would shift east to occupy K35, while the two German reconnaissance battalions moved southeast to take up positions on T35 and W36, respectively. With the two German ‘recces’ in these particular desert hexes, the British reconnaissance unit would be prevented from advancing west without coming within Axis supply range of Tobruch; in addition, because the fate of the next Axis supply convoy would — at this stage in the game turn — still be unresolved, a prudent British player would probably retreat the ‘recce’ east to prevent it from being isolated should the Axis October II supply convoy be sunk. Most importantly, this move would also free seven Axis units and twenty-eight combat factors for the October I ’41 assault on the fortress.

Tactical Considerations: Round Two Resumed

In essence then, Rommel will begin his October I player turn either with the British army sitting passively by, or with an Allied ‘recce’ unit poised to slip around his southern flank. Let us examine each of these situations, in turn.

In the first case, as previously noted, my usual response is to take the 1 to 6 soak-off followed by the 5 to 1 AV against the 3-3-7. This, however, is not the only possible Axis option in this instance. Our hypothetical Rommel could also attempt to increase the rate of British attrition by choosing to soak-off against the 4-4-7 at 1 to 4, while taking a ‘big’ 3 to 1 against the 3-3-7 and the 2-2-6. The problem I personally have with this set of attacks is that, in order to destroy two extra combat factors, the Axis player must put ten of his own needlessly at risk. In my view, this is a very large gamble for a very modest return. The other alternative, of course, is to attack the remaining 4-4-7 at 3 to 1, while soaking off at 1 to 5 against the rest of the British garrison. The disadvantage of this set of attacks, is that — should the Axis player roll an exchange (still a 33% possibility) — then he will lose the ability to AV the 3-3-7 during the next few critical game turns, precisely when the threat of this attack matters most.

The second scenario, unfortunately for the Desert Fox, is a little more challenging. In this situation, the Axis player does not have enough combat power both to screen the Salum Pass and the southern desert, and to still make the 5 to 1 against the British 3-3-7. So what is the alternative? For my own part, I believe that the best option for Rommel is probably to take his chances with the 4 to 1 against the 3-3-7 and to soak-off against the rest of the garrison at 1 to 6. The biggest appeal of this set of attacks is simple: even if things go terribly wrong (a 16% chance), the DAK will lose a maximum of only three units (two 3-3-10’s and a 2-3-4). Obviously, it would be better for the Axis to eliminate the remaining 4-4-7, but by concentrating his attack on the 3-3-7, Rommel cuts his risk of an exchange in half and still destroys one of the Commonwealth’s five strongest units.

The outcome of the second round of attacks, along with the next two supply rolls, will determine whether the Deutsches Afrika Korps has any real prospect of capturing Tobruch before November. If the Axis can dodge both exchanges, then the Allies will have a real problem; because even if Rommel’s October II supply convoy is bottomed, the British player will still have to sweat the possibility of an Axis 1 to 2, 3 to 1 (33% chance of capture) attack on November I. Of course, luck will heavily influence the action during the next few game turns: after all, either an exchange or a string of Axis supply sinking’s could well halt the ‘Fall’ offensive after only one or two attacks. This development certainly would not be good news for the Axis player, but it would also not be fatal; nor, in my opinion, would it be justification for Rommel to panic and launch a desperation low-odds assault against Tobruch. Instead, for the expert Axis player, such disappointing early results would simply be a strong inducement to hunker down and wait. In this case, the ‘Fall’ offensive would be over. Any pause in Axis attacks, however, would probably be short; under most circumstances, it would only be a matter of a few game turns before the Axis ‘Winter’ offensive jumped-off.

THE ‘WINTER’ OFFENSIVE

November

Rommel's ‘Fall’ offensive, as a strategic option, is both simple and direct: it is really little more than an unsubtle attempt by Axis forces to muscle their way into Tobruch. Thus, it depends, for its success, on the Deutsches Afrika Korps benefiting from at least a minimal amount of good luck during the spring and summer of 1941. Unfortunately, the DAK may not end up being all that lucky: Axis supplies may dry up, British casualties during the early game may be below average, or the first assault against Tobruch may produce an expensive, offensive-stopping exchange. In short, summer and fall of 1941 may come and go without Tobruch passing out of Allied hands. In this situation, the Axis player will have no option but to look to the winter months of 1941-42 to rescue his stalled North African campaign.

November of 1941, as virtually all experienced players will attest, is the start of one of the most important phases in AFRIKA KORPS; in fact, it can oftentimes be a critical tipping point in the game. The influx of powerful Commonwealth reinforcements invariably creates both a set of brand new problems for the Desert Fox and a number of promising opportunities for our hypothetical General Wavell. Hence, Rommel — since he still wants to win — must significantly change his plan of battle and begin preparations for a ‘Winter’ offensive; that is: an offensive timed specifically to end by the spring of 1942 with the capture of Tobruch, and organized around an integrated blend of both battle and maneuver. In most cases, DAK winter operations will commence sometime in December ’41 and will probably last into February ’42. And just as was the case in the earlier ‘Fall’ offensive, the later ‘Winter’ offensive presents both advantages and disadvantages to the Desert Fox.

Advantages

On the November I game turn, the British player will receive thirteen brand new combat units with a combined strength of twenty-two attack/defense factors. The arrival of two additional 4-4-7’s, two 2-2-7’s, a 2-2-6, and a second 1-1-12 reconnaissance battalion will thus — at first glance, at least — transform the Commonwealth field army into a formidable fighting force. Rommel, on the other hand, will only receive four fresh units that together total ten factors on attack and twelve factors on defense. Based on this description, the Axis reinforcements may not seem like much. However, if the major Axis units are all still in play, these newly-arriving units will increase Rommel’s stacking against Tobruch from thirty-two to thirty-four factors: a seemingly small change that will, nonetheless, allow the DAK to soak-off with one unit and still attack a 4-4-7 in Tobruch at 4 to 1. Moreover, the British strength advantage will not be as great as first appears. Assuming a typical DAK ‘worst case’ scenario: the Commonwealth will begin the November II game turn with approximately fifty-five combat factors against an Axis army totaling only forty-six factors on attack, and fifty-one on defense. However, this comparison is deceptive: somewhere between nine and twelve Allied combat factors will have to be diverted to defend Tobruch, and at least another three to four factors will need to be held in emergency reserve to replace possible one-turn fortress losses due to Axis attacks. Because Rommel will typically be able to screen the fortress with two Italian divisions, this means that the Axis field army will total forty-two attack factors against a British desert force of, at most, forty-three combat factors. Given the significant Axis advantages in stacking and mobility, these are, from Rommel’s standpoint, very acceptable odds.

The second major plus for Rommel of a ‘Winter’ offensive is supply. Beginning on the December I game turn, the convoy table becomes much friendlier to the Axis: the probability of supply sinking’s drops from 50% to 16%. Axis bad luck with supply rolls, of course, will still be a possibility, but the ‘laws of large numbers’ indicate that the Commonwealth can usually expect five to six Axis attacks between November II ’41 and March I ’42. And the DAK can do a lot of damage to British forces with that many rounds of combat.

Disadvantages

The single greatest disadvantage of the Axis ‘Winter’ strategy is that it — at least, partially — relinquishes the initiative to the Commonwealth player. A reinforced British Eighth Army insures that Rommel, for the first time in the game, will have to take pains to prevent ‘real’ (3 to 1, or better) Allied counterattacks; he will also have to steel himself for the possibility of low-odds British gambles against his armor. This is no small concern: it should be noted that even a pair of lowly 1 to 2’s against Rommel’s only two panzer regiments still has about a 30% chance of producing at least one exchange.

The other, potentially negative feature, for the Desert Fox, of the ‘Winter’ offensive is that the British player may unexpectedly leave Rommel "swinging at air." That is: having held Tobruch into 1942, the Commonwealth player may suddenly, and without warning, decide to abandon the fortress without a major fight. Most Allied players, of course, will not even consider such a retreat until Commonwealth losses have made the defense of Tobruch untenable; but among expert players, this is not all that unusual a move. Moreover, the logic underlying such a radical Commonwealth game strategy is actually fairly compelling. First, evacuating the British armor from the fortress guarantees that the DAK will have to face an undivided and dangerous Allied army: none of the powerful armored brigades will be stuck impotently in Tobruch while a weakened Eighth Army, starved for heavy armor, has to slug it out in the desert with the cream of the Deutsches Afrika Korps. Second, it removes the possibility of an Axis desperation low-odds attack against the fortress. No small consideration because, if things have been going badly for the Axis, there is no quicker way for our make-believe Rommel to reverse the momentum of an AFRIKA KORPS game than to win a ‘big’ 1 to 1 against Tobruch. Granted, an Axis 1 to 1 attack will only succeed about 33% of the time (a big doubled exchange is usually of little help to the Desert Fox), but one chance in three might still be very attractive odds to the Axis player; particularly if the DAK is significantly behind and the game clock is running down.

Final Thoughts on the ‘Winter’ Strategy

The different possible battlefield situations that might set the scene for the start of an Axis ‘Winter’ offensive are so numerous that it is virtually impossible to offer any but very general comments about how such a campaign might develop over time. Nonetheless, a few broadly-framed observations are still possible. First, it is important for both players to remember that AFRIKA KORPS is thirty-eight, not fourteen game turns long. Far too many Axis players assume that they must establish a winning position by November ’41 or they will lose; and far too many Commonwealth commanders believe that they are pretty much ‘home free’ — at least, in game terms — if they still control their Home Base and Tobruch when November rolls around. In terms of expert play, neither of these assumptions is correct.

For the Axis player, the basic strategy for the ‘Winter’ offensive will usually follow a simple pattern: establish a Napoleonic-style ‘central position’ between Tobruch and Mersa Matruh and then alternate attacks between the garrison in the west and the Commonwealth field army in the east. This means that, in the period between November ’41 and March ’42, Rommel’s primary goal will be, as it was in the early game, both to chip away at the British player’s field army and to weaken the Tobruch garrison, bit by bit. The Allies, of course, will have more combat power during this phase of AFRIKA KORPS, and they will also have two ‘recce’ units with which to harry the DAK’s southern flank; however, limitations in British mobility and stacking will usually allow Rommel to contain the Eighth Army at comparatively little cost. When it comes to Tobruch, on the other hand, Rommel’s approach to the fortress will depend largely on the strength of the Commonwealth garrison; but British choices, in this regard, will not be easy: the stronger the units in the fortress, the weaker the Allied field army will be. Thus, east or west, Rommel should — during this phase of the contest — be able to attack the Allies on every game turn that supplies are available.

Tobruch, of course, is the prize. Ultimately, Rommel must capture the fortress; and, barring very unusual circumstances, he must do so no later than the March I ’42 game turn. If he fails, he will almost certainly lose the game. For this reason, both British stubbornness and Axis luck will play a large part in the ultimate fate of the fortress; in short, a tenacious Allied player is going to make the port a very tough nut to crack. In light of this fact, the Axis player needs to be realistic about casualties. For my own part, when facing a determined Allied player, I usually expect the DAK to lose twelve to sixteen factors at Tobruch. But if I do lose this much combat strength, I expect British losses to be heavy as well. Of course, there may be situations when Rommel simply will not have enough time to grind the port’s defenders down. In this situation, it is important for both players to understand that no matter how large the garrison in Tobruch is, it can still be assaulted. Thus, even in those cases in which the Allies have all five major units in play (four 4-4-7’s and the 3-3-7) and have built their strategy around holding Tobruch until March ’42, the fortress is actually more vulnerable than it might initially appear. This is because British defensive choices are relatively limited, while Axis offensive options abound. For example, the Deutsches Afrika Korps — assuming that it is pretty close to full strength — can, no matter what the Commonwealth player does, attack a stack of three doubled 4-4-7’s with a 33% chance of a one-turn capture of the fortress, and do so without risking a crippling twenty-four factor exchange. Such an attack, in fact, is not even that difficult to mount; it would merely require that Rommel attack two 4-4-7’s at 1 to 2 (using nine factors) with a 3 to 1 follow-up attack (using twenty-five factors). And for those Commonwealth players that think that this type of low-odds Axis gamble is far-fetched, consider this: unattractive as this set of attacks may seem, the actual odds of Rommel capturing Tobruch with no losses at all using this strategy are exactly the same as the Axis rolling an A elim followed by an exchange: 11%.

The British player, just like his Axis counterpart, will have his gaze fixed squarely on Tobruch during the winter of 1941-42. A tenacious defense of the fortress, at this stage in the game, represents the best opportunity for the Allies to inflict crippling losses on the DAK; however, such a defense, as has already been noted, comes at a price. And that price is not cheap. The stronger General Wavell chooses to make the Tobruch garrison; the weaker, of necessity, the Allied field army will be. For example, if the fortress is garrisoned with two 4-4-7’s and the 3-3-7, then one reserve 4-4-7 will probably have to be maintained at sea while a 2-2-6 is held off the map. This defensive arrangement will typically mean that the Commonwealth commander will only be able to field one 4-4-7, two 2-2-7’s, and two 2-2-6’s to serve as the backbone for the mobile component of the Eighth Army. Even with the skillful employment of the numerous Allied 1-1-6’s and the two 1-1-12’s, the British player will still have a difficult time holding a forward position anywhere near Mersa Matruh without sustaining punishing losses. This is probably the single, most difficult strategic problem confronting the Allies: if the British army remains far enough east to stay out of range of Rommel’s forces near Tobruch, then the Axis will be able to methodically reduce the fortress without fear of major interference. Moreover, just as worrisome for the Allied player is that, should Tobruch unexpectedly fall, then the fast-moving German panzers will be able to race east virtually unopposed. The fall of Tobruch in winter of 1941-42 may not signal the defeat of the Eighth Army, but the premature arrival of the Deutsches Afrika Korps in front of the El Daba-Ruweisat Line in March or April of ’42, almost certainly will.

Most British players heave a huge sigh of relief when their November reinforcements finally swarm onto the map. They shouldn’t. In reality, the real battle for North Africa is not over, it is just beginning. And from this point on in the game, the player who can best balance patience and tenacity against aggressiveness and prudent risk-taking will probably win. Thus, both players should hope for the best, but plan for the worst. Granted, luck can be a short-term factor in AFRIKA KORPS, but it is rarely the deciding factor; there are simply too many die-rolls in a game of thirty-eight turns: the ‘laws of large numbers’ indicate that luck, over time, will almost always even out. Thus, while a willingness to take a few risks may be worthwhile, any player who stakes the outcome of the entire game on a single battle or, even worse, on a single roll of the die should probably expect to be disappointed.

MOPPING UP

Most AFRIKA KORPS games will tend to follow a familiar pattern: the initial Axis encirclement and siege of Tobruch; the Axis summer raid into Egypt; the fall and winter battles for Tobruch; the Axis fighting advance east along the Coast Road; and the closing battles for El Alamein, then the Alam Halfa Ridge, and finally Alexandria. However, an AFRIKA KORPS game in which the Allied Home Base falls before the Axis capture of Tobruch, while rare, is not unheard of. Typically these game situations will take one of two general forms: the early-game, pre-March ’42 capture; and the middle-game, post-March ’42 capture. In the first instance, Alexandria usually falls because of an Allied positional error: the Commonwealth player inadvertently makes a mistake in a key unit placement which, in turn, allows the DAK to overrun its way into the Allied Home Base. In the second instance, Rommel consciously decides on an ‘Alexandria first’ strategy. This situation typically arises when the Desert Fox has enjoyed a fabulous streak of luck in the early game and — because of both very favorable attrition of the Commonwealth forces and an advanced lodgment near El Alamein — is able to bludgeon his way into Alexandria after a bitter, winter-long slog up the Coast Road.

The ‘Early’ Axis Capture of Alexandria

If the Allied Home Base falls early to the Axis, this event will usually occur sometime between late August and October of 1941. Because of this timing, the Commonwealth player will, besides losing Alexandria, in most cases also see the surviving units of his mobile desert force surrounded, or at least isolated at the same time that the Allied Home Base is captured. Of course, there is always the possibility that a very small contingent of British survivors may, along with a supply unit, be able to retreat south through the gap between the Qattara Depression and the eastern board edge, but this is exceedingly rare in these ‘early collapse’ situations. However, if the British player manages such a withdrawal, the typical Axis reaction is simple: detail a single unit (probably an Italian infantry division) to screen the gap and send the rest of the Deutsches Afrika Korps racing back towards Tobruch. In most circumstances, the DAK should not even bother to garrison Alexandria until much later in the game.

Unfortunately, because of the distance between the El Alamein Line and Tobruch, it will usually take at least three game turns to bring enough Axis combat power west to begin the final reduction of the fortress. This means, in the vast majority of cases that, by the time the DAK has marched all the way back to the British-held fortress, the November Commonwealth reinforcements will already be queuing up off-map, ready to replace the Tobruch garrison’s losses just as quickly as they occur. Thus, Rommel — as he prepares for the final battles of the game — may well find himself facing an Allied force comprised of four 4-4-7’s, one 3-3-7, two 2-2-7’s, two 2-2-6’s, and a veritable hoard of 1’s. That’s the bad news; the good news is that, because of the AFRIKA KORPS replacement schedule, Allied replacement points will not begin to accumulate until the March I game turn, so any British units eliminated during this early fighting will be out of the game for at least eleven or twelve turns. Even worse for General Wavell, the Allies will have to wait a long time — until August ’42 — before they will receive any additional ‘useful’ reinforcements. The DAK, on the other hand, should be able to do a lot of damage right from the start; once Rommel’s November reinforcements reach the battle area, he will probably be able to call on somewhere between forty and forty-four combat factors with which to power his assault. This means that even with below average Axis luck, three of the British player’s strongest units will probably make the trip to the ‘dead pile’ before Rommel has to temporarily suspend his attacks while he waits for his February reinforcements to come east. In view of these facts, plain old attrition guided by patience will be the key to ultimate Axis success. Even if Rommel is unlucky in his early attacks, as long as he preserves his strongest units — the two panzer regiments and Division Ariete — the potent combination of accumulating replacements, powerful Axis reinforcements, and the ‘laws of big numbers’ should ultimately deliver to him his final prize. It may be a long, bloody slog, but, based on my own experience over the years, Tobruch will eventually fall.

The ‘Late’ Axis Capture of Alexandria

In expert play, the ‘late’ capture of Alexandria, unlike its ‘early’ counterpart, will often produce some of the most interesting and challenging battlefield situations to arise in any AFRIKA KORPS game. The reasons for this are several. First, unlike the ‘early capture’ situation, in this instance, the Allied Home Base will almost never fall because of an error on the part of the British player. Instead, Alexandria will usually only be given up after a protracted fight, and its capitulation will be anticipated by the Commonwealth player well in advance of the actual event. Thus, once the “writing is on the wall,” an expert British player will typically send any surviving 4-4-7’s to sea while he deploys a light screen around Alexandria to tie up Axis combat power and attack supply for as long as possible. At the same time, he will retreat whichever combat units he can — along with two or three supply counters — through the gap between the map edge and the Qattara Depression and into the deep desert to the far south. The composition of this force will, of course, vary from game to game; but, in the Allied ‘best case’ scenario, it should be comprised of the 3-3-7, two 2-2-7’s, a 1-1-7, both 1-1-12’s, and any 1-1-6’s that can make it at least as far as the gap. The Axis quandary created by this move is obvious: Rommel must either waste precious time and supplies reducing the enclave through combat or, alternatively, he must leave a strong enough contingent behind to contain this highly-mobile British force. If he doesn’t, the Desert Fox risks the dire possibility of an Allied breakout, and even the recapture by the Allies of Alexandria.

It goes without saying that the best situation for the Desert Fox will be the one in which the Commonwealth troops defending the Allied Home Base have largely been annihilated in the battles immediately preceding Alexandria’s fall. In this instance — assuming Axis losses have not been too great — Rommel will be able to pursue, albeit with a later start date, the same basic offensive strategy against Tobruch that he would in the case of the ‘early’ capture of the Allied Home Base. Unfortunately, for the reasons already noted, this may well not be the position in which Rommel finds himself. Instead, should the Allies succeed in establishing an enclave in the deep desert southeast of the Qattara Depression, then Rommel’s strategic situation will be far more complicated. To begin with, a screening contingent of at least three units (ten to eleven defense factors) will have to be left behind to cover the Qattara gap. This will most likely mean that, even when Rommel’s February reinforcements link up with the DAK near Tobruch, the Axis forces available for the initial assault on the British fortress will probably total only about thirty-four to thirty-eight attack factors. This is not a lot, particularly as the first Axis attacks — because of the protracted fighting around Alexandria — will usually not be able to commence until late March or early April ’42. In addition, the British player — if he has been smart — will probably be able to muster four 4-4-7’s for Tobruch’s defense, and will now also be able to draw on a steady stream of replacement points. Again, as was the case in the first situation, a lot will depend on Rommel’s luck in the early battles; however, now the Axis will be in a contest to destroy the strong British units faster than they can be rebuilt with Allied replacement points. It will be a tough race. Nonetheless, patience and a faith in ‘statistics’ should still direct the final Axis campaign against Tobruch. The Axis player needs to always remember that, although it is a fact that the die has no memory, it is also true that combat results — considered as a set of events — will, over time, tend to regress to the statistical mean. Of course, if Rommel’s luck is particularly bad, then it may be necessary for the Desert Fox to hoard replacements until a 1 to 2 (with nine factors), 3 to 1 combination of attacks against the fortress is possible. And if all else fails, there is always the Axis player’s “last resort,” the ‘big’ 1 to 1. For this reason, it is probably a good idea for the Desert Fox to always conserve at least enough combat strength to permit a last-ditch 1 to 1 against Tobruch. There may come a point in the game when our make-believe Rommel will really have no other choice. And if that point actually comes, the perfect time for this type of Axis “Hail Mary” attack is probably on the September I ’42 game turn; by attacking just a little early, Rommel still leaves open the option of attacking again, if the result from the first battle is an A back 2.

CONCLUSION

AFRIKA KORPS, when played by experts can be a very long game; and because of this fact, a typical match will see a great many battles. However, no battle in AFRIKA KORPS is more important, in terms of the final outcome of the game, than the struggle for possession of Tobruch. Like a well-sited castle in medieval times, Tobruch sits astride the only road on the map; and until the fortress falls to the Axis, it is a thorn in the side of the Deutsches Afrika Korps, and a vitally-important western bastion for the Commonwealth. Tobruch can be temporarily bypassed, but it cannot be permanently ignored. For this reason, the inevitable battle for Tobruch, and how it is conducted, will oftentimes lay the foundation for much of the play of the later game.

In this essay, I have attempted to examine Tobruch’s influence on the overall play of AFRIKA KORPS, both from an operational and from a psychological perspective. Obviously, Tobruch must and will be defended by the Allies. But for how long and at what cost? To win, Rommel must storm and capture the fortress. How should this attack be organized and when should it be launched? The answers to these different AFRIKA KORPS questions may, and usually will, vary from game to game; but how each player chooses to answer them, in more cases than not, will ultimately determine who will win and who will lose.

It is hard to believe, but Charles Robert’s classic design, AFRIKA KORPS, is now over half a century old. Despite its age, however, it is still one of my all-time favorite games. I say this even while recognizing the game’s many flaws: the inaccurate Orders of Battle; the ‘frou-frou’ pink and ‘baby’ blue counters; the absence of minefields or airpower; and even the odd terrain omissions, and the often curious spelling of place names on the map board. None of that really matters; in my opinion, it is still a great game. Nowadays, many players dismiss AFRIKA KORPS as being a poor simulation (which is probably true) and being unbalanced (which it is not). However, while I would be the first to admit that I have played simulations with far more detail and historical accuracy than AFRIKA KORPS (although I think that Roberts got most of the important things right), I have virtually never encountered really skillful play in any of those other titles. And the prospect of encountering expert play, in the end, is probably this game’s greatest appeal: a lot of us have been battling over the narrow yellow map board for a long time, and there are still a large number of very good (if graying) AFRIKA KORPS players around. For this reason alone, I strongly recommend that anyone who has never played the game give it a try. And if, after a few matches, you still think that it is too simple, or hopelessly unbalanced, then seek out an experienced online opponent, or better still, pack up a copy and head to the next board game convention. I suspect that you just might be in for quite a surprise.

Recommended Reading

For additional historical background on this WWII subject, please see my Book Review blog post on this title:

BATTLE FOR MIDWAY: Decision in the Pacific, 1942 is a combined air-naval-land simulation of the decisive clash between the Imperial Japanese forces attempting to invade and capture Midway Island, and the combined U.S. naval, air, and land forces tasked with its defense. BATTLE FOR MIDWAY was designed by Marc William Miller and published by Game Designer’s Workshop (GDW) in 1976.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

At 12:22pm on 4 June 1942, the planes of Air Group Six, which had launched from the U.S.S Enterprise a little over three hours earlier, began their dive bombing attack on the aircraft carriers of the Japanese Midway Invasion Force. In the space of a few brief minutes, three of the four Japanese carriers — the Kaga, Akagi, and Soryu — were out of action and sinking, and the naval-air balance of power in the Pacific had undergone a tectonic shift in favor of the Allies.

This single air strike, successful as it was, did not mark the end of the engagement; the final act to this drama would actually play out on the following day. Nonetheless, by the end of the Battle of Midway, the American fleet had lost one carrier, the Yorktown, and a single destroyer; the Japanese, in contrast, had lost all four of the fleet carriers that had taken part in the battle, including the initially untouched Hiryu which, along with the cruiser Mikuma, was sunk by follow-up American carrier airstrikes on June 5th.

Both operationally and strategically, the defeat at Midway was a catastrophe for the Japanese Imperial Navy. Four of Japan’s best fast carriers — with large percentages of their irreplaceable aircrews — were bottomed, in exchange for sinking only a single American aircraft carrier. Because of this crippling blow to the striking power of the Imperial Japanese Navy, the Battle of Midway represented a dramatic tipping point in the war in the Pacific; in fact, this single decisive American victory not only stopped Japan’s continued eastern expansion, but, more importantly, it forced Japan onto the strategic defensive, not just through 1942, but for the balance of the Pacific War.

DESCRIPTION

BATTLE FOR MIDWAY is a large-scale (fairly detailed) simulation of the Japanese naval-air-land campaign to capture the tiny American military outpost in the Central Pacific, Midway Island. This Japanese eastern advance, and the US Navy’s move to check it, culminated in the second major carrier battle between the Japanese and American fleets in 1942. The battle's outcome, not surprisingly, was -- for the Japanese High Command -- completely unexpected. Ironically, ever since their devastating attack on the US ships based at Pearl Harbor, the Imperial Japanese Navy had sought just such a decisive battle with the Americans, but with the expectation of a very different outcome: the total destruction of the US carrier forces in the Pacific.

The fact that the Battle of Midway was fought at all, actually owed to earlier Japanese failures to decisively engage and destroy the few American aircraft carriers that were, in 1942, operating in the Pacific. The Battle of the Coral Sea, barely a month earlier, had failed to yield the overwhelming victory the Imperial Japanese Navy had sought as a follow-up to its earlier surprise attack on the American Pacific Fleet. Instead, the result had been a tactical draw and a military reversal for Japanese strategic planners. To insure IJN success in the inevitable rematch, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto decided to set a trap for the American ‘flat tops’ in the Central Pacific. The bait would be Midway Island: the Japanese invasion of Midway — and the subsequent annihilation of the expected American naval forces coming to the island’s defense — would, the Imperial planners believed, finally give the Japanese the decisive naval-air victory that had hitherto eluded them.

BATTLE FOR MIDWAY is played in sequential, interwoven player turns. As is typical with most naval-air games, the game turn sequence for the BATTLE FOR MIDWAY is multi-phased and somewhat complicated. Each game turn is divided into seven phases: the initial phase; the reconnaissance phase; the air movement phase; the combat phase; the ship movement phase; the air return phase; and the terminal phase. Given previous simulations of this battle, it is not surprising that hidden movement is a critical factor in the game’s dynamic.

One of the few interesting aspects of the BATTLE FOR MIDWAY game system comes from the initiative die-rolls which occur during the initial phase of each game turn. Each player rolls a die during this phase and the winner has the option of assuming or declining the initiative. The player with the initiative acts first throughout the turn; hence, the player turn order is variable and unpredictable. Thus, besides the challenges imposed by frequent lack of knowledge as to the foe’s locations and intentions, the designer has added another layer of nerve-racking uncertainty. To make sure the players have ample time to savor the simulation’s many design features, the complete game lasts from evening, 26 May to evening 7 June 1942, a total of thirty game turns.

Naval movement is handled in a relatively orthodox, but interesting way. The opposing fleets maneuver on the large two-piece game map using different ‘task force’ markers to conceal the actual composition and location of the main Japanese and American naval forces. Also, there is a strong ‘si-move’ element built into the game because the movement of the various task force markers is pre-plotted using task force plotting and ship status sheets. BATTLE FOR MIDWAY is, of course, mainly a naval game, so terrain types are limited to open sea and land (island hexes), although varying types of weather can also play an important (if frustrating) role in the game, as well.

The two critical elements in any game that attempts to simulate the Battle of Midway are, of course, the reconnaissance and combat subroutines. To attack an enemy fleet, the phasing player must first locate it. In BATTLE FOR MIDWAY, this process is both incredibly tedious, and unexpectedly boring. And even when the enemy fleet is spotted, the actual resolution of an airstrike will typically involve at least four combat subroutines: air-to-air combat, anti-aircraft fire, dive bombing attacks, and torpedo attacks. Each of these phases must be resolved sequentially, and each makes use of its own combat results table (CRT). In addition, both submarines and American land-based (level) bombers may also attack Japanese vessels. And should the opposing fleets actually wander within surface range of each other, then ship-to-ship combat is resolved using a naval gunfire table. Damage to individual vessels is recorded on each player’s ship status pad. Finally, the game also includes airfield bombing and ground combat tables to cover the Japanese attack on the American island outpost. Purely from a simulation standpoint, all of the different CRTs make sense; but from a player’s perspective, they combine to slow the process of combat resolution to a crawl. In some ways, resolving air-to-ship battles in this game reminds me of combat resolution in Dunnigan’s FAST CARRIERS, only not as interesting or as fast-paced.

The winner of BATTLE FOR MIDWAY, as might be expected, is determined by a comparison of victory points at the end of the game. Victory points are accrued for enemy vessels sunk or damaged and, for the Japanese player, for the successful invasion and conquest of Midway Island.

BATTLE FOR MIDWAY offers, besides the historical Standard Game, the option of adding extra naval units to the order of battles of both players. These are ships that might have participated in the engagement had events transpired differently. Each player rolls a die prior to the start of the game and receives the forces stipulated by his individual die roll. The Japanese player can receive anything from zero to two CV’s; The American, from one CV, to three BB’s and one CV. In addition, the designer — optimistic to the last — suggests that players who want more variety in their matches experiment with different game formats such as double-blind or umpired games.

A PERSONAL OBSERVATION

The Battle of Midway was one of the truly epochal events of World War II. Because of luck, individual initiative, and sheer courage, the strategic balance in the Pacific underwent a stunning transformation in the space of a few devastating minutes in June, 1942. For this reason, it is hard to think of a subject for a naval-air conflict simulation that could be more tense, drama-filled, or interesting than this one. It is also one of my favorite World War II subjects. Thus, when I saw that GDW was offering their own game treatment of the Midway Campaign, I couldn’t wait to get my hands on a copy. Unfortunately, in my momentary flush of excitement, I neglected to check to see who at GDW had actually designed the game; instead I went ahead and ordered BATTLE FOR MIDWAY, CORAL SEA, and INDIAN OCEAN ADVENTURE, all at the same time. That oversight, sadly, soon came back to haunt me. It turned out that all three games had been designed by Marc William Miller. As soon as I took BATTLE FOR MIDWAY out of its Zip-Lock^® bag, I instantly recognized Miller’s distinctive rules-writing style; I didn’t even need to check the design credits in the back of the rules booklet.

Marc William Miller, as should be obvious to those who have read more than a few of my previous game profiles, is my least favorite GDW designer. Probably the main reason for my frustration with this particular member of the original GDW design team is his slipshod rules writing. Even when the basic ideas of one of his games are good, he has an uncanny knack for obscuring the essential while overstating the obvious. In more than a few instances, there have been rules cases in Mr. Miller’s games that I have reread five or more times and still not been truly confident that I understood the designer’s intent. Alas, in this game there are a lot of them. The rules, for example, governing search subroutines, airfields, weather, and submarines border on, and in some cases cross over into the realm of the utterly incomprehensible. There may be a game trapped somewhere in this package; but, speaking for myself; I was never able to find it.

I suppose that for those collectors who feel compelled to own every last naval game ever published, this might be a worthwhile acquisition. However, for those players who want a truly detailed, but playable simulation of the Battle of Midway, and who don’t mind investing the better part of a day in the exercise, I heartily recommend Yaquinto’s excellent simulation, CV. And for those players who just want a good, easy-to-learn game on the topic, I recommend Avalon Hill’s solid, if somewhat dated classic, MIDWAY. It may be old, but it is still a great game.

Design Characteristics:

• Time Scale: 6 hours per game turn


• Map Scale: 37.5 statute miles (33 nautical miles) per hex


• Unit Size: individual ships, groups of auxiliaries, half squadrons of aircraft, and elements of two to three scout aircraft


• Unit Types: fighter, dive bomber, torpedo bomber, land-based air, CV, CVL, BB, CA, CL, CLA, DD, AP, APD, AO, SS, SM, AS, AV and information markers


• Number of Players: two (good candidate for team play; that way, you can sneak away without causing the game to break-up)


• Complexity: above average/high/incomprehensible?


• Solitaire Suitability: low to nonexistent


• Average Playing Time: 5–10 + hours (with experienced and really determined players or teams; of course, if one side blunders — almost a certainty — it can be over a lot more quickly)

Game Components:

• Two 22” x 27” Hexagonal Grid Maps


• 480 ½” cardboard Counters


• One 8½” x 11” Rules Booklet (with Game Setup and Reinforcement Instructions)


• Two 8½” x 11” Task Force Composition Charts


• One 8½” x 11” back-printed Universal Table (with Naval Gunnery Tables; Air-to-Air Combat Results Table; Torpedo Fire Tables for both Air, Surface, and Submarine Attacks; and Anti-Aircraft Fire Tables)


• One 8½” x 11” back-printed Universal Table (with Dive Bombing (Ships) Table; Level Bombing Table; Dive and Level Air-Field Bombing Table; Naval Bombardment (Land) Table; ASW Table; Land Combat Table; and Assorted Weather Tables)


• Two 5½” x 8½” back-printed Task Force Plotting and Ship Status Pads (One Japanese; One American)


• One 8½” x 11” Sheet of Errata for CORAL SEA and BATTLE for MIDWAY (July, 1976)


• One Zip-Lock^® Bag (original packaging)

Recommended Reading

See my blog post Book Review of this title which is strongly recommended for those readers interested in further historical background. A Glorious Page in Our History: The Battle of Midway, 4-6 June 1942; by Robert J. Cressman; Pictorial Histories Publishing Co; 1^st edition (June 1990); ISBN-13: 978-0929521404




Also, see my blog post Book Review of this highly recommended title: Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power by Victor Davis Hanson; Anchor Books (August 2002); ISBN-13: 978-0385720380