Map and Counters

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.

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.

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.

Thoughts About "DonCons" Past, Present, and Future

This 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.

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

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.


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 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.

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.

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.

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!

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 4^th 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!

THE BATTLE OF LOBOSITZ is a grand-tactical simulation of the clash between a force of over twenty-four thousand Prussians, under Frederick the Great, and a larger Austrian army, led by Marshal von Browne, near the Saxon town of Lobositz in October of 1756. The game was designed by Frank Chadwick and published by Game Designers’ Workshop (GDW) in 1978. LOBOSITZ is one of a whole batch of different titles that, taken together, make up GDW’s Series 120 collection of small, folio-style introductory games. These Series 120 titles were described by GDW as “gateway” games because they were intended to be easy to learn, used 120 or fewer counters, and could typically be played to completion in two hours (120 minutes) or less.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Frederick the Great during the Seven Years War.

The Battle of Lobositz — sometimes referred to as the first battle of the “Seven Years’ War” — was the result of Frederick’s invasion of the Electorate of Saxony and his decision to besiege the Saxon Army of approximately 17,000 in Pirna. Saxony’s ally, Austria — ruled by the militarily-savvy Empress Maria Theresa — quickly responded by ordering that a relief force be assembled and dispatched, under the command of Marshal Maximilian von Browne, to the Saxons’ aid. Frederick learned of the Austrian advance and split his army, leaving one part to continue the siege while he personally led the rest of his troops (estimates vary widely, but this contingent probably numbered between 24,000 and 29,000 men) on a march to intercept Marshal von Browne and his nearly 35,000 Austrians.

The two belligerents stumbled into each other near Lobositz, a town on the banks of the Elbe River, early on the morning of 1 October, 1756. At first, contact between the two forces was sporadic and relatively light. The Prussian army, which was approaching Lobositz from the west, initially received fire from its left (the area of the Lobosch Heights), and the limited nature of this action led Frederick to think that he had encountered a small Austrian rearguard. Visibility was poor — a thick morning fog made an accurate assessment of the enemy’s dispositions impossible — however, as the volume of fire increased and spread to his front, the Prussian monarch, who was still convinced that he faced an inferior force, ordered his cavalry forward to determine the strength and intentions of the enemy troops in his path. What Frederick’s horsemen discovered was an unpleasant surprise to the Prussian king: a large Austrian field army, instead of a small blocking force, was deployed in a defensive north-south arc across the Prussian army’s entire front. This arc stretched from the Lobosch heights in the north, passed in front of the town of Lobositz, and then continued south to the marshes near the hamlet of Sullowitz on Frederick’s right. The Austrian defensive position, although not perfect — von Browne’s line south of Lobositz was bisected by a shallow stream, the Morellenbach — was still strongly situated with the Elbe River and Lobositz anchoring the Austrian right while Sullowitz and a combination of marshland and forest covered von Browne’s left.



Marshal Maximilian von Browne

Not surprisingly, given his initial misappraisal of the situation before him, the battle did not begin particularly well for Frederick. The fog hampered most of the Prussian king’s initial offensive moves against the Austrians, and also limited the effectiveness of his artillery. As the morning mist gradually cleared, however, the Prussians slowly began to gain the upper hand in the fighting around Lobositz. Finally, after being repeatedly repulsed, the Prussian infantry was at last able to storm the town at bayonet point: a success that forced the Austrian center to fall back. The Battle of Lobositz lasted most of the day, but finally ended when von Browne, having lost ground on his right and center, decided to withdraw his army from the field; which he did in good order.

Lobositz was far from Frederick’s finest battle. In fact, early in the day, after having lost heavily from among his best cavalry formations, the Prussian king actually thought that the action might be lost and considered abandoning the field to von Browne’s forces. Fortunately for Frederick, the discipline and élan of the magnificent Prussian infantry retrieved the situation before he could make any additional mistakes. Both sides lost about 3,000 men, but von Browne’s withdrawal left the Saxon garrison at Pirna with no option but to surrender, and (as was typical of the times) transfer their allegiance and service to Frederick and Prussia.

DESCRIPTION

THE BATTLE OF LOBOSITZ is a grand tactical (regiment/brigade/wing) simulation of the battle between 24-29,000 Prussians, led by Frederick the Great, and an Austrian army of 34,000, under Marshal Maximilian von Browne, which took place on the banks of the Elbe River in and around the Saxon town of Lobositz on 1 October, 1756.

The LOBOSITZ game map is a three-color, hexagonal grid depiction of the area in Saxony (now part of the Czech Republic) over which the battle was fought. Each hex is 300 yards from side to side. In keeping with the game’s “introductory level” design parameters, the number of significant terrain types displayed on the game’s Terrain Key is fairly limited; however, the nine different terrain types represented (e.g., town, stream, forest, different elevations, swamp, etc.) all affect, to varying degrees, either movement or combat. Interestingly, the game begins with the battle area shrouded in fog; as the game turns tick off, this fog will gradually dissipate, beginning at the higher elevations and gradually burning-off until the main battlefield is clear. Not surprisingly, fog affects both movement and combat. In addition, certain hexes on the map are marked purely for easy set-up: players may deploy their forces as they wish, but only so long as their respective set-up hexes are occupied by at least one friendly unit of some sort. Also, some stacking is allowed. To simulate the confusion and uncertainty of the early part of the battle, all units that are covered by fog are inverted until an enemy counter moves adjacent to them. The differently-colored counters (mainly blue for Prussia and white for Austria) represent the infantry, cavalry, and artillery units that actually took part in the historical battle. As might be expected, all combat units display both a combat factor and movement allowance; in addition, all units, EXCEPT artillery batteries, also display a morale rating (more on this later) in their upper left-hand corner. As units engage with the enemy, these starting values will change. In LOBOSITZ, casualties are handled using a modified “step-loss” system; which is to say: as units suffer combat losses, their combat strength and morale rating are both reduced; this adjusted strength is represented by placing a numerical chit under the affected unit to record the change.

LOBOSITZ is played in “Igo-Ugo” game turns, and each game turn represents 30 minutes of real time. An individual game turn is composed of a Prussian followed by an Austrian player turn and sticks to a set sequence of player actions: the Movement phase (the active player moves any or all of his eligible units); the Rally phase (the active player rolls to rally any of his demoralized units); the Offensive Fire phase (the acting player fires any units that did not move during this turn’s movement phase); the Defensive Fire phase (the non-phasing player conducts fire attacks against any enemy units within range); and the Mêlée phase (the phasing player conducts adjacent mêlée attacks in those cases in which both the attacker and defender have passed their pre-mêlée “morale checks”. The game is 16 turns (eight hours in real time) long.

Combat in LOBOSITZ, as already alluded to, can take one of two forms: fire combat and mêlée combat. Each type follows its own unique combat resolution procedures, and each has its own influence on the flow and “feel” of the game.

In the case of fire attacks, only infantry units adjacent to an enemy hex and/or artillery with an unobstructed “line of sight” that extends four hexes or less to the target may participate in this type of combat; cavalry may NEVER attack using fire. Much like SPI’s GRENADIER, the resolution of fire attacks is based on the type of terrain in the defender’s hex and not the target unit’s combat strength; in addition, several other factors (such as type of unit) may also affect the outcome of a fire attack via the game mechanism of “die roll modifiers” (DRMs). The Fire Combat Results Table (CRT) is a simple “fire strength/die roll” matrix, and combat results can range (depending on the fire strength of the attacker) all the way from a “no effect” result to a loss of four strength points. These losses, which affect both the target unit’s combat power and its morale rating, are recorded through the use of chits. For example, if a combat unit whose starting strength is two or more suffers a one point loss as a result of a fire attack, a numerical counter of the appropriate value (in this case a “1”) is placed under the affected unit to indicate that its combat strength and morale rating have both been reduced. [This, by the way, brings up one of my main complaints about this game: when the fight for Lobositz shifts to “high gear” in the later game turns, there often aren’t enough strength and “demoralization” chits included in the counter-mix to keep track of both sides’ combat losses.] Once a unit’s combat power falls below its printed strength, it is permanently removed from play.

Fire combat, important as it is, actually plays a supporting role when it comes to victory or defeat in LOBOSITZ. Instead, the real focus of Chadwick’s game is on mêlée combat; this is because it is only by close assault that an attacking force can actually break a defender’s position and capture enemy-occupied ground. The procedures associated with the Mêlée Combat phase are relatively simple, but — because of the role played by morale — interesting, nonetheless. Mêlée combat begins with the attacker rolling for each unit that will attempt to assault during the current mêlée phase. If his die roll is equal to or less than the unit’s current morale rating (essentially allowing the attack to go forward), then the defender must conduct his own morale die roll (except in the case of artillery which has no morale rating). If the attacker’s “morale check” fails then no further action occurs; however, if the defending unit fails with its “morale check” (defending infantry, by the way, suffers a +1 DRM penalty), then it loses a point, becomes demoralized, and then routs towards the nearest friendly map edge. In those cases in which both sides successfully pass their morale checks, the attacker and defender then each total up the current (adjusted for previous combat) strength and morale ratings of their involved units and both roll a single six-sided die. The combat strength and morale value of the attacking and defending units are each added to their respective die rolls and the player with the higher (after all adjustments) total number wins the combat. In cases of a tie, the combat is rerolled until there is a winner and a loser. Whichever side loses the mêlée (whether attacker or defender) must follow exactly the same sequence of actions as a defending unit that fails its “morale check”. To add to the loser’s woes, any unit whose hex is passed through by a routing unit also becomes demoralized, and routs in turn. Needless-to-say, in a congested section of the front, one or two demoralization results can quickly produce a “snowball” effect. And there’s more: once a unit becomes demoralized, it can only be stopped from continuing to rout towards the map edge if the owning player, during the Rally phase, is able to roll a number equal to or lower than its combat-adjusted morale rating; since the LOBOSITZ game map is relatively small, what this really means is that neither player will have more than a few game turns to rally his or her demoralized troops before they disappear from play forever.

Battle of Lobositz.

Besides the elements that make up the basic LOBOSITZ game platform, Frank Chadwick also includes a few rules flourishes that — in my opinion, at least — really help to enhance the “historical” flavor of this otherwise relatively uncluttered design. The masking effect of fog, for example, has already been noted, but the dramatic impact of fog on the power of the game’s artillery units is worth discussing as well. For starters, until the fog lifts, artillery batteries, like infantry units, are only allowed to fire at adjacent hexes. And while I am on the subject of the game’s heavy guns, the designer’s treatment of artillery “range attenuation” is also interesting; which is to say: artillery is tripled at pointblank range (grapeshot, anyone?); doubled at two and three hexes; and only fires with its standard (printed) strength when it is four hexes from its target. Moreover, the artillery “line-of-sight” rules, although simple, often play an important role in the game, particularly when it comes to the hex-by-hex fight for Lobositz. In this particular instance, Frederick’s army will usually be able to blast the enemy infantry out of the exposed, outer precincts of Lobositz with their heavy guns; however, when it comes to clearing the Austrians from the rest of the town, the Prussian infantry — as was the case in the actual battle — will have to drive Marshal von Browne’s troops out at bayonet point. In addition, there are a number of other minor, but colorful rules, that I also find appealing. For instance, in LOBOSITZ it is more costly, in movement points, for ordered cavalry to move downhill than to move up: this is a nice touch because, in point of fact, it really is much more difficult to keep horses “in hand” when riding down a slope than when climbing one. The Croatian “skirmisher” battalions, and their several special capabilities, are another interesting touch. And finally, the movement restrictions on the Austrian left wing south of Lobositz — restrictions which prevent these troops from shifting north until Prussian units advance across the field to the Morellenbach — is a simple, but effective way of simulating Marshal von Browne’s initial uncertainty as to Frederick’s dispositions and plans.

When it comes to winning or losing THE BATTLE OF LOBOSITZ — as was the case historically — the burden of attack is squarely on the Prussian player; the Austrian commander only has to deny Frederick a significant battlefield success, not win one of his own. The good news for the Prussian player, such as it is, is that there are actually several different ways for Frederick to win the game. If the Prussian army manages, for instance, to sweep the map completely clear of Austrian units — something, by the way, that I have never seen — then the Prussians gain a (richly-deserved) decisive victory. More attainable, but still quite challenging for the Prussian player — in my view, at least — is the modest tactical victory that Frederick actually obtained in the real battle. Unfortunately, to accomplish even this limited success, the Prussians must capture, from the Austrians defending them, both the Lobosch Heights and every one of the hexes (eleven in all) that make up the town of Lobositz. And they must do all this in the face of a powerful enemy force, a blinding morning fog, and a limited number of game turns.

A PERSONAL OBSERVATION

LOBOSITZ is one of two Series 120 games, designed by Frank Chadwick, which cover battles from the Seven Years’ War. The other half of the pair, THE BATTLE OF PRAGUE, simulates a much smaller action between the Prussians and Austrians that occurred on 6 May 1757 near the city of the title. Both games use the same relatively simple, grand-tactical game platform. In terms of play-balance, LOBOSITZ tends to lean towards the Austrians, while PRAGUE — unless I’m missing something important — heavily favors the Prussians. These games, it should be noted, are not Chadwick’s first attempts to simulate the special nature of 18^th century warfare during the age of Frederick the Great: his larger and much more detailed TORGAU had already appeared a full four years earlier, in 1974. And although the two battles depicted in these later, smaller games are both modestly interesting from a historical standpoint, an obvious question, nevertheless, presents itself: Why did GDW choose to feature these two relatively obscure engagements and not a pair of more famous battles such as Rossbach and/or Leuthen?

One possible answer, of course, is that — at the time he began work on these two Series 120 games — Frank Chadwick actually had plans to design larger, more detailed TORGAU-style simulations of some of Frederick’s other, better-known battles at some later date. Such a possibility is certainly plausible; after all, the Battle of Leuthen, as Paul Dangel proved with his superb Clash of Arms game design, LEUTHEN: FREDERICK’S GREATEST VICTORY (1997), turned out to be, in the hands of the right person, an excellent wargame just waiting to be developed. For my own part, however, I have a sneaky suspicion that the designer’s decision to simulate this particular set of actions (LOBOSITZ and PRAGUE) was probably dictated more by the special requirements of the Series 120 design format than by any other factors. Still and all, whatever Chadwick’s original plans may have been for simulating some of the other battles of Frederick II^ndof Prussia using this clever, but relatively simple game platform: three decades later, we are still left with only PRAGUE and LOBOSITZ to consider; so I think that it is probably safe to assume that Frank has moved on to other things.

Since we, on the other hand, are at least temporarily focused on this early Chadwick design, I will attempt to move things along by raising an obvious, if rhetorical question: How does THE BATTLE OF LOBOSITZ look now, after having bumped around in relative obscurity for over thirty years? My short answer is that — all things considered — it really doesn’t look all that bad. Admittedly, the graphics for LOBOSITZ — as was typical of virtually all GDW games during this era — are neither especially evocative of the battle’s historical period (see AGINCOURT for a particularly egregious example of this) or even all that interesting to the eye, the “ugly duckling” appearance of this title conceals a surprisingly nicely-done “swan” of a grand-tactical game engine. That being said, LOBOSITZ is not, despite its Series 120 pedigree, really a “gateway” wargame in the same sense, for example, that SPI’s many NAPOLEON AT WATERLOO-based titles are. To be fair, the game is not especially difficult to learn if the prospective player understands at least something about conflict simulations. Nonetheless, I personally do not believe that any wargame which incorporates a multi-stage combat subroutine, elevation differences, “line-of-sight” rules, morale, and step-reduction should ever really be described — by me or anyone else — as an “introductory” game. That being said, and in spite of its somewhat denser than expected design architecture, I do think that LOBOSITZ would be readily accessible to almost any player with even a modest amount of gaming experience. Thus, while I would never recommend this particular title — or most of its Series 120 cousins, for that matter — as an “introductory” game suitable for an absolute novice, I do think that it is an excellent choice for more seasoned gamers of almost any stripe. Particularly if those players are interested in the campaigns of Frederick the Great, but don’t want to spend an entire day refighting one of his battles: which, based on my own previous experiences, is always a distinct possibility when it comes to tackling more sophisticated games like COAG’s LEUTHEN, or GDW’s TORGAU.

Design Characteristics:

• Time Scale: 30 minutes per game turn
• Map Scale: 300 yards per hex
• Unit Size: battalion/regiment/brigade/wing/battery
• Unit Types: infantry, cavalry, artillery
• Number of Players: two
• Complexity: average
• Solitaire Suitability: below average
• Average Playing Time: 1.5 - 2 hours

Game Components:

• One 17” x 22” hexagonal grid Map Sheet (with Turn Record Track and Terrain Key incorporated)
• 120 ½” cardboard Counters
• One 8½” x 11” Rules Booklet (with Fire Combat Results Table and Terrain Effects Chart incorporated)
• One 9¼” x 12” Ziploc Bag

Related Reading