Tag Archives: wargames

Fashion, music, politics, sports

[October 4, 1969] New kid in town (Strategy and Tactic's wargame, Crete)

2 Comments

photo of a man with glasses and curly, long, brown hair, and a beard and mustache
by Gideon Marcus

For the last decade or so, the term "wargame" has been virtually synonymous with Avalon Hill.  That Maryland game company has come out with one or two new titles every year in this exciting genre (along with a handful of other, more general releases).  But now, there's a new player in town.

Strategy & Tactics was, up to last month, one of many wargame fanzines.  Most such 'zines are devoted to supporting Play-by-Mail games of Diplomacy, but S&T has been more catholic in its coverage, reviewing many games and providing articles of general interest to wargame-lovers.  The magazine even included the occasional wargame, mostly rules for miniatures wargames (a related but different beast from board wargames).


Volume 1, Issue 7 of S&T including rules for the miniatures wargame of modern soldiering, Patrol


Janice and me playing Patrol with toy soldiers

With the latest issue, Volume 3, Issue 2 (#18 total), there is a new editor at the helm: Jim Dunnigan.  Dunnigan's name may be familiar to you as the fellow who developed 1914 and Jutland for Avalon Hill… and also a self-published game on last year's takeover of Columbia University.  He has elected to apply his wargame-creation talents toward designing a brand new board wargame for S&T—Crete.


Cover of the latest issue of S&T


Table of contents of the latest issue of S&T

This fascinating game is a full-fledged simulation, incorporating a number of neat innovations.  It is also a Do-It-Yourself-er: the map and counters (and rules) are just printed in the magazine, which means you either need to cut them out and affix them to pasteboard, or make your own copies from scratch.  Since I have access to a Xerox machine, I was able to have the best of both worlds, photocopying the pieces and playboard, the former on colored construction paper, and the latter tinted with colored pencils.

Lorelei provided the box cover art!

So how does it play?  Read on!

Vital Statistics

Crete is a two-player simulation of the German airborne invasion of the island of the same name in May 1941.  If you remember your history, the Nazis had pushed the Greeks and Commonwealth allies off the mainland the month before.  The subsequent assault on Crete represented the Goering's last parachutist assault on a target, and it was a very near thing.

Rather than portray the entire island, Crete instead has three separate mapboards, each representing the area around each of the airfields critical to German success in the invasion.  Until an airfield is captured, no reinforcements can arrive to aid the Luftwaffe airborne troops.


Three maps (one complete, two partial)

This game seats two players and takes about two hours to finish. The German player has to land 13 battalions of paratroopers to take on the 43 weaker British, Australian, New Zealander and Greek battalions. If the Germans dislodge the Allies from an airfield, they can unload a brigade of mountain troops each turn from the captured runways greatly enhancing the German forces. The German player also has seven invincible airplane units with infinite movement which add a bit of strength to attacks, improving the odds.

The goal of the game: points are scored for the destruction of each unit (one per strength point) and 5 points are awarded for the occupation of airfields, 10 for occupying the city of Suda Bay, at the end of the game. Whoever has more points wins—the bigger the margin, the bigger the victory.

The Rules

Those familiar with Avalon Hill games will recognize most of the concepts—and some of the stock language for beginners.  For instance, "unlike chess and checkers, you may move all of your units in a turn," and, "henceforth, all hexagons shall be called 'squares.'" The rules are very simple. Germans deploy, move and fight. British move and fight. Repeat for ten turns.


Drake (Trini's brother), playing the Germans, contemplating his first move

Each counter has a combat strength and movement rate. British unit strength values range from 1 to 6, 4s being the majority.  They are slow–average movement rate of 4.  The German mountain troops have a strength of 6, as do most of the paratroops, and 4 of the battalions have a whopping strength of 8!  The mountain troops move 6 and the paratroopers move 5, so the Germans have a mobility edge, as well.

Terrain effects are minimal: defense doubled in rough terrain or towns, roads triple movement. Travel between the boards is possible at specific road exit points at the map edges.

There are several novel aspects which make this game interesting.  The Germans employ a kind of hidden set-up, choosing on which board(s) to drop 7-13 paratroop battalions.  Leaving some paratroop units in reserve means the Allied forces never know where or when the next German troops will appear out of the sky.  This essentially freezes the defenders in place until all of the parachutists land.


Example of a secret setup allocation (and the victory point balance at the end of that game)

The airborne units may scatter upon landing, and they can't move or fight on the first turn unless they land on some hapless British unit.  Woe be to the Fallschirmjäger who drifts out into the sea and drowns… (this eventuality is not explicitly covered in the rules, which are not as rigorously laid out as Avalon Hill's, but it makes sense, and it's how we play).

There are two odds-based Combat Result Tables—one for "limited assault" and one for "all out attack", the attacker choosing which one is preferred (and it is an important choice).  There is no "defender/attacker retreats" option, as one finds in most other games.  Instead, a common combat result is "counter-attack"—the defender may retreat or choose to fight back…but you get to choose which stack you counter-attack.  In practice, that means a 3-1 on first attack can turn into a 1-1 or even 2-1 in the counter attack. Fights can seesaw back and forth for quite some time in an exciting fashion.

Gameplay

The game quickly becomes a pitched battle for one or more airfields. If the Germans can't secure one within a few turns, it's all over.  The Allied units are pathetic compared to the Germans, which they need to spend most of their time picking strategic defense points, only attacking on the rare occasion that they can pounce on an isolated German unit (which usually happens during the initial drop phase). The Germans need to be daring in their drop, landing amidst the Allied formations to cause a maximum of confusion.

Generally, only two of the boards will see action at any one time.  The Germans simply don't have the forces to hit all three at once.  Once the battle is won on two of the boards, it's a lost cause for the third, most likely.


Me, ebullient after a local victory

After Action Report

This game provided a surprisingly fun afternoon of play.  There are lots of decisions to make, and it can be a real nail-biter.  Not only does the game present an interesting puzzle, it is one of the shortest wargames out there.  The shortest Avalon Hill game, Afrika Korps, still takes a few hours to get through.  On the other hand, after a few games, the optimum Allied strategy presents itself, even with the Germans having several options for attack strategies.  Still, the game is good for several plays, is a great introduction to the hobby…and it's worth every penny you spend on it (i.e. virtually nothing).

Dunnigan has promised that each bimonthly issue of S&T will contain a brand new wargame (or two!) so this column promises to get a lot busier soon.  That's what I call a good problem to have!

(This report brought to you by the proud members of the Galactic Journey Wargaming Society!)




2 Comments Leave A Comment
Fashion, music, politics, sports

[July 4, 1969] When Joey goes over the top… (Avalon Hill's Anzio)

Leave a comment

photo of a man with glasses and curly, long, brown hair, and a beard and mustache
by Gideon Marcus

It's kind of a funny thing.  There are two feelings about war these days.  On the one hand, you've got the war in Vietnam raging without end despite LBJ resigning and Nixon running ostensibly to end the thing.  Now National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger is pleading for patience from those who say peace is taking to long.  "Come back in a year," he says.  It's no surprise that, in addition to innumerable protests and chart-topping songs, we've even got a wargame devoted to dissent: Up Against the Wall Motherfucker.

But "war" also conjures up other, less controversial, memories.  The veterans of World War 2 are my age—affluent and nostalgic.  We recently celebrated the centennial of the Civil War, which while bloody, shaped these United States we know today.  It's no surprise that the bulk of commercial wargames have been set in these two eras…with WW2 the big favorite: Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, D-Day, Stalingrad, Guadalcanal, Battle of the Bulge, Afrika Korps, Midway.

Avalon Hill is currently the leading publisher of wargames, generally coming out with one or two new ones every year (along with a handful of "family" titles).  Their latest, just released in April, is Anzio, and it's something of a revolution.

In 1943, flush with victory after kicking the Nazis and Fascists out of Africa, and having conquered the island of Sicily, it was pretty obvious where the Western Allies (mostly the United States and the Commonwealth) would attack next.  After all, France was still well guarded as Festung Europa, so a cross-channel invasion was not yet in the cards.  And so, Operation Avalanche was born: an amphibious invasion of the southwest Italian city of Salerno. 


U.S. Army engineers haul a roll of wire mesh into position to make a beach roadway at Salerno, September 1943. USS LST-1 is in the center background (USA C-276).

In short order, southern Italy had been liberated, and the Germans had arrayed themselves along an unbreakable "Volturno Line". That's when the Allies tried to break the stalemate with a landing near Rome at Anzio beach.  That beachhead stalled for months until May 1944, when, accompanied by a big aerial push, the Allies managed to take the Italian capital.  That didn't end the war, though—the Germans just installed a puppet government in northern Italy and fought a delaying action until the Nazi surrender in May 1945.

As a result, the bloody Italian campaign is kind of an historical footnote.  Did it shorten the war by tying up troops?  Or was it just a meatgrinder for GI Joes and Tommies? 

Anzio doesn't answer these questions, but it does an excellent job of recreating the experience!

On the surface, it's just another WW2 wargame.  We've gotten strategic games covering the Eastern Front (Stalingrad) and the Western Front (D-Day) and the African Front (Afrika Korps), so it is only natural that the next one would cover the Italian Front.  Anzio even follows the Stalingrad pattern—using a key battle as the label for a multi-year, theater-wide conflict.  And if you just play the basic game rules, it's pretty much every other Avalon Hill wargame, with a hex grid for movement rather than the traditional squares, little chits representing military units, a combat results table, and dice for determining said results.

But it's in the advanced rules that the differences really come out.

The biggest is the new way in which combat is resolved.  In previous games, when units moved up next to each other, they had to fight.  You totaled up the combat strengths of the opposing sides, figured out the odds ratio, rolled a die, and determined the result using the Combat Results Table.  The result would be a retreat (one side or the other had to back away a certain number of spaces), or elimination of one or more units, or an exchange: smaller side destroyed, and an equal number of strength points removed from the larger side.

But now*, instead of a binary Alive/Dead situation, each unit has several diminished states.  Each adverse combat results in a "step-loss", where a unit loses some, but not all, of its strength.  This is much more realistic.  Reinforcement is done realistically, too, represented by actual raw troop units with no attack strength of their own, but which can be added to depleted units to restore strength.

*It has been pointed out that the step-loss system was actually introduced in Blitzkrieg, which I had forgotten, and also appears in last year's 1914, which I never played. But, in any wise, Anzio is the first game to really implement it in a meaningful way, I think.

This means that you get realistic situations—attackers rail against a line, slowly diminishing the defenders' strength, until they become too weak to hold, and then they must fall back to regroup.

Where Anzio isn't innovating, it's adopting the best features of its predecessors: from D-Day—the Allies get to choose from a number of invasion beaches, which keeps the Germans guessing; from Blitzkrieg (and Afrika Korps)—units can be moved en masse by sea from place to place; and of course, similar movement and combat rules to most of its ancestors so that picking up the basics of the game is a snap.

Indeed, I was surprised at just how easy it was to pick up this game, despite it having the longest rules set to date—even longer than Blitzkrieg's, I think.  There are some confusing bits, like it took us a while to realize that combatants suffer double losses when attacking defenders on favorable terrain, which makes attacks even more difficult.  But on the whole, despite the dizzying array of rules, it's not bad at all.

To be fair, we didn't play with the really gritty rules like Italian troops (who fight for both sides, natch) and really finicky stacking rules (every member of the Commonwealth seems to have a different size!) but they don't seem to change gameplay much.

Which leads us to the eternal question (paraphrasing the fellow from the Folger's Crystals commercial) "How does it play?!"


"Well, play it!"

Pretty well!  The Young Traveler and Trini played the Axis, conferring each turn on the best defensive strategy.  Trini noted that, of all the games she's played to date, this one felt the most immersive—that she was really a general taking all sorts of considerations into account.

Janice and I teamed up as the Allies, and it was rough.  There really is no quick way to do anything, and we had quite a lot of bad rolls at the beginning.  We weren't even able to take Naples in the many hours we played, which is the linchpin to success in southern Italy as it frees up forces to make another amphibious invasion.

Ultimately, it's a slow slog of a game.  The Allies must be patient, but also master the art of threatening multiple invasions at any given time.  As for the Axis, there are no daring Rommel or Manstein thrusts to undertake.  It's all about skillful retreats; if you're attacking, you're probably making a mistake…or the Allies have pulled quite the boner.

But it's definitely a beautiful game with a lot of fascinating new developments.  Certainly, there's nothing like it on the market, in style or subject.  If you've played out D-Day, and you've got a long weekend…or a string of short ones, this is a great game to take out for a spin.




No comments Leave A Comment
Fashion, music, politics, sports

[May 12, 1969] The Students are Revolting (the wargame Up Against the Wall, Motherfucker)

Leave a comment


by Gideon Marcus

My crowd can't decide what to take this semester, but we've narrowed it down to the administration building and the library.

~Judy Carne on Laugh-In

Last Spring, students and Afro-Americans formed an uneasy alliance at Columbia University, taking over multiple buildings in pursuit of several disparate aims.  Black students and denizens of the neighborhoods surrounding the campus fought against the school annexing public spaces (specifically, the building of the new Columbia gymnasium in Morningside Park).  Other students rallied against Columbia's doing research for the defense department—essentially an inside raid against the Vietnam War.

After assembling to protest, radicals managed to seize five campus buildings, where they squatted for nearly a week before New York's finest, the boys in blue, dismantled the makeshift furniture barricades one by one and dragged the occupiers to the paddy wagons.

This did not end the struggle—thousands of students boycotted classes in May, and Columbia President Kirk resigned in June after giving in to pressure not to press charges against the protesters.  Hundreds of students due to graduate that month held their own, unofficial commencement on Low Plaza, in front of the Low Library—scene of clashes in the early stages of the occupation.

Last June, the Columbia Sentinel published a game delightfully titled, Up Against the Wall, Motherfucker!, inspired by a phrase uttered more than once throughout the event, sometimes in official channels.  One of the game's authors is Jim Dunnigan, who wargamers will recognize as the fellow who wrote Jutland for the wargame company, Avalon Hill.  The other is "Jerry Avorn", a name that is unfamiliar to me.

The game is simple.  There is a map that represents Columbia's campus.  There are eleven tracks representing eleven communities associated with the school.  There are two players: the administration (whose power points are called Level of Administrative Will or LAWs) and the protestors (theirs are called Ratio of Activism Determinants or RADs).  Each turn, first the protestors get RADs to place on a track.  If there are any LAWs there from last turn, they can choose to clash.  A succesful confrontation moves the Position Unit Counter (PUC) one space toward the winner's side.  Each space has a point value, and at the end of the game (after twelve turns), the value of the points under the PUCs is totaled—whomever has more wins the game.

The number of LAWs afforded the administration goes up every turn; the radicals get fewer as time goes on.  In addition, each turn, a player draws a card from the provided deck, usually increasing the LAWs or RADs provided that turn.  There are more cards favoring the administration than otherwise.

Each turn, either side may attempt a board-wide clash rather than fighting for individual tracks.  At that point, the titular "Up Against the Wall, Motherfucker!" is exclaimed, and the pieces of both sides totaled.  This is a strategic move…or a Hail Mary pass.

Interestingly, the odds of victory in a clash go up as a side gets superiority…up til 4-1.  At 5-1, the attacker has a 1 in 6 chance of losing all LAWs/RADs engaged!  Presumably, this represents a bad-press atrocity that hurts the cause.

Janice and I got a copy of this game from a friend on the East Coast.  Even though things are calm at Columbia University (may they remain so!) the memory of last year's events are fresh enough that it still feels timely.  So we headed out for our favorite local diner and set up the game to play.

For our first bout, I took the radicals.  I was quickly crushed, both by bad luck and a lack of understanding how to play.  We switched sides, and had much more of a game of it.  Indeed, Janice played almost optimally.

There really is only one strategy for the radicals—it's the administration's game to lose—and it still depends a lot on luck.  At the start of the game, the point total favors the protestors by three points.  And the PUC only moves down the track in the event of a clash.  So it is in the radical player's interest to plunk down unassailable (for the moment) forces in a few key buildings.  Let the LAW(s) come to them.

Now, this war of attrition still favors the administration, but if the radical player is lucky (as Janice was), favorable cards early in the game can allow a declaration or two of "Up Against the Wall…", moving PUCs and decimating (perhaps eliminating) administration presence.  The university still has the advantage, but it might come down to a couple of risky 2:1 attacks on the last turn—each has a 1 in 6 chance of backfiring.

As for the administration player, strategy is simple: build up a juggernaut at key places and strike when you hit 3:1.  Simple as that.  All you need is to shift two points to get the lead.

In the end, Up Against the Wall, Motherfucker is more of a logic puzzle than a game.  Once you've solved it, replay value is low.  Janice suggested a variant where PUCs move each turn, regardless of whether there is a clash or not, so long as a player ends one's turn with the only piece(s) on the track.  This gives more incentive to spread out one's pieces rather than squatting.

Maybe.  I think I've had it.  But I enjoyed the process, and as an educational tool, I think it's pretty nifty.  If you can get your hands on it, give it a spin…if only for the chance to utter those five immortal words…

By the way, friends of ours published an even better article on the game in CrimethInc, and we strongly recommend finding a copy—it even comes with a spruced up version of the game!




</small'

No comments Leave A Comment
Fashion, music, politics, sports

[June 20, 1968] Art imitates Life (the wargame Viet Nam)

Leave a comment


by Gideon Marcus

Over There

It seems like only yesterday that a minor naval engagement in the Gulf of Tonkin off the coast of Vietnam embroiled the world's mightiest nation in a struggle against Communism in Southeast Asia. Less than a year later, the American commitment totaled 100,000 troops. Today, as the last aftershocks of the second Tet Offensive are beaten back from Saigon, more than half a million soldiers are fighting and dying in those far off jungles and cities.

It's a war unlike any other we've fought, though perhaps not unlike wars our allies have fought–there's a reason why the British, who fought an ultimately successful anti-guerrilla war in Malaya, have declined to join us in Vietnam.  It's not really a war for territory, nor a total war, as we fought against the Nazis or the Japanese.  It's a holding action, a war for "hearts and minds", holding the bag until the South Vietnamese can fight for themselves–if, indeed, that will ever be possible.

So new and unusual is this conflict that one would hardly expect it to be a viable subject for board wargaming.  After all, the pushers of counters on hex grids have largely stuck to World War 2 and the Civil War for their battlefields, highly researched and decently distant as they are.

And yet, just one year after Tonkin, Game Science came out with Viet Nam, a sophisticated wargame covering the war on a strategic level.  Could a game developed so early in the conflict have any chance of modeling reality?  And is it any fun?  This Memorial Day, we took the game for a spin and came to some very interesting conclusions.

In the trenches

The first thing one notices about Viet Nam is the board.  Rather than use the hex grid that has become de rigueur these last several years, it reverts to areas like in last decade's Diplomacy.  This makes sense.  Viet Nam is not a game of tactical maneuvers but of strategic province control.

The Allied forces (Americans, ARVN, Koreans, Filipinos, Australians) and the Communists (Viet Cong and NVA) start out splitting the provinces between them.  Control is indicated with a little bingo disc that represents a local militia.  Each side also gets a number of regular armies, the Allies starting with more, but acquiring them at half the rate of the Communists.  The regular armies are important because they are the only units that can both move and hold ground, the local militias adding strength but being both immobile and subject to flipping by the enemy.

The Allies also get air units that can be used for tactical support of armies (adding to their strength), strategic bombing of provinces (with a chance of destroying Communist units in the area), interdicting the Ho Chi Minh Trail (which kills Communist reinforcements) and mass bombing of North Vietnam (which earns victory points).  Bad weather in the summer and fall months limits strategic air missions.

Each turn, simulating one month, begins with both sides allocating ten factors towards various political activities: bolstering/destabilizing the government, terrorism/counter-terrorism, psychological warfare (to flip militias), seeking world favor (worth victory points), and ambush/counter-ambush (a trap for Allied armies).  This is essentially Rock-Paper-Scissors and the place where the Communists can win the game.  Unless the Allies guess right every time, they will lose stability or provinces, each of which leads them down the path of losing victory points.  Once below a certain level, they go down to nine or fewer factors to apply in this phase, which is a spiral of doom toward defeat.

After the political phase, both sides plot their moves in secret.  The Communists are trying to seize provinces and Allied bases.  The Allies are seizing provinces, defending, and allocating air power.  As the Communist players in our game quickly learned, randomness is key–there are always a dozen places they can attack, and the less consistent they are, the less chance the Allies will anticipate and head off an attack.

Combat is another kind of Rock-Paper-Scissors, each side having a set of four cards depicting various attack strategies.  In each conflict, the two players choose cards and then compare the two to determine the result.  For the Americans, the outcome is either inconclusive or a victory resulting in the loss of a regular army.  For the Communists, they are either forced to retreat or they win.  In other words, this is a part of the game the Communists will also ultimately win once they understand the cards, as the Allies cannot guess right every time, and they run out of armies faster than the Communists.  The more provinces under Communist control, the more mobility they get, again building momentum toward victory.

So is the game hopeless for the Allies?  Maybe not.  The game begins in January 1965, when weather is excellent.  Optimal strategy suggests that the Allies should interdict the NVA for those good months, allowing the Allies to build up an army superiority.  The Communists can only really run rampant if they have the regular troops for it.  If any air power be left over, the Allies should immediately start bombing North Vietnam as it is the only sure way to get victory points–it is the Allied counterpart to the Communists' political factor advantage.

Provided the Allies can contain the NVA and make lucky guesses to keep the Communists stalled, it is possible that, over time, the Communists will be forced below 10 political points per turn and, themselves, end up on the slide to defeat.  It'd be a long slog, but it is at least conceivable.

Proof in the pudding

I spotted Viet Nam not at my local game store, but in the campus store at the new campus of University of California San Diego.  Though the copyright on the game is 1965, various references in the rules and components suggest this is a brand new edition, updated based on three years of conflict.  Thus, I don't know how prescient the original was.

That said, the game seems to suggest that unless the United States goes bombing right out of the gate, as many generals urged us to do, there is no chance of victory.  Even a six month delay results in swarms of NVA and endless Red provinces.  Moreover, even had we gone in, bombs blazing (and what might the political ramifications vis. a vis. the Soviets been of that?), Viet Nam suggests that victory still would not have been certain, and it would have taken a long time.

It seems like an accurate simulation to me!

But is it fun?  Well, we enjoyed it at the time, all eight hours that we played before the Allies conceded the game to the Communists in latter 1965.  But on further analysis, there actually isn't that much to enjoy.  It's all a matter of luck, see-sawing back and forth on the victory point chart, until a lucky break drives the meter over to either a win or the inevitable road to defeat.

Thus, Viet Nam is less a game and more a puzzle–and a lesson.  Once the puzzle be solved and the lesson absorbed, there is not much replay value.

Just like the real war…




</small

No comments Leave A Comment
Fashion, music, politics, sports

[May 24, 1967] Heavyweight Champion (Avalon Hill's Blitzkrieg)

8 Comments


by Gideon Marcus

With Muhammad Ali stripped of his title as heavyweight champion, owing to his refusal to enlist in America's armed forces to fight for nameless hills in Vietnam, the boxing world remains, for the moment, without a titular head.

Not so for the wargaming world.  A year and a half ago, Avalon Hill released its biggest, most complex title to date, and it still remains the monster amongst its hex-and-counter brethren.  Blitzkrieg is a truly impressive beast: three mapboards instead of the usual two, 100+ pieces per side (compare to chess' 16 or Afrika Korp's ~50), 16 pages of rules.

Yes, it's sure a big'n–but is it fun?  Read on!

Red vs. Blue–2

Nine years ago, Charles Roberts kicked off the board wargaming hobby in a big way with his Tactics 2 (there had been a Tactics (1) released a few years before, but its impact was slight).  Tactics 2, like chess, featured two more-or-less identical opponents with no geographical ties to any real world nations.  They fought with abstractions of regular forces, all army units.  So primitive was this game that it used squares instead of the now-standard hexes (still, paradoxically called "squares") that were a revolution in simulating movement.

Tactics 2 was not a fun game. It was a boring, endless slog.

Blitzkrieg is Tactics 2 done right.

You've still got the two generic countries, in this case "Great Blue vs. Big Red", but now the map is a lot more interesting.  In between the two titans are seven "minor countries" that can be occupied for more production potential.  There are beaches to land on, deserts to cross, mountain ranges to hole up in, oceans to sail.

And the other armed services aren't just abstractions anymore.  The Navy still is, with transport represented simply by the number of troops which can be at sea at any time (and fleets can't shoot each other as they pass by), but now there are Marines (well, Rangers) that can land anywhere as opposed to their GI cousins who must make assaults on beaches only.  And there is a profusion of Air Force units: three types of bombers, from the short-ranged assault type to the long-ranged strategic variety, not to mention escorting fighters.  There are also airborne units that can fly from airfields and land great distances away–critical to taking farflung strongpoints behind the lines.

Even the Army is heterogenous, with units representing infantry, armor, and artillery (though functionally, they all work the same–the only difference is their movement and combat factors).

Cities are essential to the game: a player can only support 12 combat factors of units for every city controlled.  A player who loses cities may find his or her units evaporating without a shot being fired.

The game is won one of two ways: either one side completely destroys all of the other side's units, or (more achievable), one side occupies all of the other side's cities for a turn.  A third option says the game can end by negotiated surrender, just like real life.  In practice, this is the most common outcome.  There comes a point when the end is inevitable, even if it be far off.

Easy to learn, hard to master

Taken individually, none of the rules in Blitzkrieg is particularly challenging.  At the base of it all is the standard move, fight sequence of all other Avalon Hill games.  The Combat Results Table (CRT) is novel–instead of the standard "Defender/Attacker Eliminated", "Defender/Attacker Retreats", "Exchange" results, both sides have the chance to lose strength points.  This means that after every fight, a player is usually "making change", exchanging full strength units for depleted ones.  This is more realistic as individual battles rarely destroy entire units.

There are stacking limits (no more than 15 combat strength to a square), terrain modifications (units doubled on defense in towns and mountains), zones of control (units going next to others must stop and fight), replacement units and reinforcement units–all standard stuff.

The new rules aren't too onerous.  Invasions work kind of like in D-Day where assaulting units line up on the beach and fight their way ashore.  If there's no one defending the beach, they get to zoom inland. 

In addition to the aforementioned parachuters, a player can also move 12 units of Army from one city to another–including ones just taken from the enemy that turn.  This can be huge.

The Air Force adds a completely new dimension…literally!  Tactical bombers add their strength to an attack while strategic bombers bomb completely separately, interdict supply, or reduce towns to rubble.  Medium bombers can do either!  Fighters engage bombers or each other.

There are even weather, nuke, and sea-based aircraft rules!

Again, none of these are particularly difficult to apprehend.  But in order to win the game, all must be employed, and skillfully.  Neglect the air capabilities of an opponent in favor of the human wave tactics that won you Stalingrad or Waterloo, and you'll soon find troops behind your lines eating your supply.  Neglect the threat of naval invasion, either to your shores, or as a thrust to throw the enemy off balance, and you lose a powerful component of strategy.

So, that's the game, but I haven't answered the original question, have I? 

In Practice

At the beginning of the year, we set up the behemoth that is Blitzkrieg for a try.  Nominally a two-player game, we decided to make it a four-player game by having two people per side.  This makes a match both competitive and collaborative, which I find more fun than a straight head to head.  Plus, Janice is smarter than me, so she ensures we don't make dumb mistakes.

Against us were two Travelers, Lorelei and Elijah.  Would youthful vigor defeat aged wisdom?

Because of Great Red's proximity to more minor countries, and also because of somewhat better planning, Janice and I were able to take four of the seven minor countries with fewer losses and more quickly than our opponents.  This was not decisive, but it didn't help the kids.

Now, with both sides directly facing each other, with troops at sea threatening each other's shores, the question was where the first blows would land.

We quickly identified the largest concentration of Red troops that could be "bottled up".  If they could be taken out of the fight, Red would lose much of its offensive capabilities.  Accordingly, we landed in force on the middle south, around Curry Bend.  A titanic battle began that would take several turns to resolve and suck up more and more forces from both sides.

But what's this?  Elijah and Lorelei had paid more attention to the rules than we did.  They parachuted across the desert into one of our vacant cities in the northeast and promptly flew in another 12 points of units, which went on to occupy even more of our hinterland!  Our rear was open to the wind, our supply threatened.

Well, two could play at that game.  We took two of their cities in the northwest and set up hedgehog defenses in the home country.  While it was scary to lose several cities, the fact was, we had plenty of formerly neutral nations to supply our units.  We were never in any danger of losing troops to supply restrictions.

Great Blue, on the other hand, could not withstand the loss of dozens of combat factors in the south.  With their main offensive strength crushed on Turn 5, it was clear that their days as a fighting force were ended.  And so we adjourned to watch Star Trek.

After Action Report

I took three things away from this session of Blitzkrieg.  The first is what every good general has learned: to crush the enemy, you must destroy their armies in the field.  Taking cities is all very nice, but so long as one side is losing more troops each turn than the other, and the number of troops lost exceeds the four replacement units per turn, an inexorable imbalance grows until defeat is inevitable.

Secondly, we determined that Big Red has an inherent advantage over Great Blue.  Having a contiguous nation with greater access to more minor countries is an incontrovertible advantage.  Not insurmountable for Blue, but worth noting.

Thirdly, yes, this game is a lot of fun.  Highly recommended.  Just know that it'll take longer than most games!  Each team's turn took about half an hour to plan followed by half an hour to play out.  Thus, our five turn game (plus setup and learning), took about 12 hours played over several sessions.

But it was worth it!

Join the Fun!

If all this talk of playing general stirs something your bones (and hey, it's a lot more fun and less harmful than actual fighting), you are warmly invited to join our Galactic Journey Wargaming Society.  We have been facilitating several play-by-mail games so that even players remote from each other can enjoy a contest: over the summer, we had a smashing good time killing each other in a friendly game of Diplomacy.

And you get a spiffy newsletter!  What are you waiting for?



8 Comments Leave A Comment
Fashion, music, politics, sports

[November 6, 1965] Turns, Turns, Turns (Avalon Hill's Midway and Battle of the Bulge)

3 Comments


by Gideon Marcus

For the Byrds

"To everything (turn, turn, turn) there is a season (turn, turn, turn)" says the newest hit record by The Byrds.  It appears that America's premiere wargaming company, Avalon Hill, has taken this phrase to heart, releasing not one but two World War 2 themed games in the past year, one taking place in the sultry days just before summer, the other in the bleak frigidity of mid-December.

Midway and Battle of the Bulge both are significant departures from the games that preceded them (e.g. Afrika Korps, D-Day, Tactics II, Waterloo, Stalingrad, etc.) and both push the state of the art in armchair wargaming forward quite a bit.

Of course, as charter members of the Galactic Journey Wargaming Society, Janice, Lorelei, John, and I spent many hours giving these games a spin.  And you, luck readers, now get to see the fruits of our "labor"!

Midway

For seven months after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese raged almost unopposed across the Pacific.  Their juggernaut rolled over Indonesia, the Phillipines, Burma, Hong Kong, Singapore, New Guinea, and the American outpost of Wake Island.  Yet their primary goal, the elimination of the American navy, eluded them.  The Japanese doctrine was centered around a decisive fleet battle victory that would force the Americans to the negotiation table.

On June 4, 1942, the Japanese got their chance.  Six Japanese carriers and an invasion force steamed for the American island of Midway.  Three U.S. carriers were dispatched to prevent the island's capture.  Thanks to some expert code-breaking and a little luck, the Battle of Midway ended in a Japanese defeat, marking the high-water mark of their expansion.

But could it have gone differently?

Battleship for grownups

If you've ever played the Milton Bradley game Battleship, you already have an idea how Midway works.  Sort of.  Midway is actually two games in one.  The first takes place on a strategic board depicting the ocean around Midway island.  The Japanese fleet enters from the west in several groups while the American navy is arrayed in the east.  Each turn, both sides call out sections of the board to search with their scout aircraft.  If enemy ships are spotted, carriers (and the airfield on Midway) can launch aircraft to attack them. 

Only a limited number of sections can be searched per turn, depending on the nationality and disposition of ships, so there's a lot of cat and mouse to this portion of the game.  Whoever gets the first strike has an advantage, though a straight slugfest will tend to favor the Japanese as they have more planes.

Hornet's nest

The second portion of the game involves the actual plane to ship combat.  The defending player arranges their ships to maximize antiaircraft screening while the attacker arrays a combination of torpedo bombers, dive bombers, and escorting fighters to most effectively sink vessels.  No attacks can be made risk free, though it is always better to lose one or two planes in an assault if the yield is the loss of an enemy carrier deck.

Points are scored for vessels lost and the speed at which the Japanese take Midway.  Indeed, the Japanese can win their battles pretty handily, but just a turn or two delay or the loss of a key ship can cause them to lose the game on points.

That's what happened when John and I played — as the admiral of the Kidou Butai, I left the American navy at the bottom of the sea and took Midway, but the delay in my timeline caused me to come shy of my victory conditions by just a few points.

Scorecard

I appreciated the novelty of Midway.  It was quite different from the other wargames I had played to date, although, to be fair, I have not played Bismark, which I understand also has a search and evade dynamic.

Nevertheless, there just wasn't enough to the game to merit a lot of replay.  As much as I like ships and am an ardent Nipponophile, Midway failed to grab me.  John felt similarly.

Three stars.

Battle of the Bulge

Where Midway was the faltering step of a military at the height of its power, the Battle of the Bulge was the twilight of a fallen giant.  In December 1944, the Allied forces had steamrollered their way across France and the Low Countries, pushing the Nazi Reich back to its traditional Rhine border.  While it was clear that the war wouldn't be won by Christmas, it also seemed that the Germans, hard pressed in both the east and west, could no longer take any role other than the defensive.

This conclusion was wrong.

On December 16, 1944, an onslaught of panzers and troops smashed against a thinly defended point in the Ardennes forest — the same area the Germans had attacked on their way to Paris in May 1940.  Aided by a cloak of overcast, the Wehrmacht lanced into Belgium with the aim of dividing the British and American armies, seizing the port of Antwerp, and forcing the West to sue for a separate peace.  Within a few days, German troops had laid siege to the stubborn redoubt of Bastogne, and Tigers and Panthers were probing the banks of the Meuse river, an important allied defensive line.  By then, Hitler's last gasp had formed the shape on the ground for which this episode of the war was named.

Of course, we know how things ended.  The rugged defenders of Bastogne answered "Nuts" to calls for their surrender.  Allied reinforcements blunted and then repelled the Nazi advance.  The skies cleared up after Christmas allowing the overwhelming British and American air superiority to savage the German lines.  By early January 1945, the battle of the bulge was over, and Germany's ability to wage offensive war decisively destroyed.

What if?

Avalon Hill's newest game recreates this exciting (if preordained) battle in close detail.  Turns last just twelve hours, and units are represented down to the regiment/brigade level.  As with the game, Waterloo, the Germans start out with numerical superiority and have to work their way from one side of the map to the other against increasingly reinforced Allied lines.  Indeed, both Waterloo and Battle of the Bulge fight over practically the same real estate.  Poor little Belgium.  Victory is won by the German player if a sufficient number of troops is pushed across the Meuse and supported for 48 hours.  Alternatively, that number can be smaller if the Wehrmacht takes and holds the key towns of Clervaux, St. Vith, and Spa.

While many of the mechanics of the game look familiar at first blush, Battle of the Bulge represents a great departure from its predecessors.  For one thing, it has a completely different Combat Results Table.  Virtually all of the Avalon Hill games since Tactics II had used the same chart to determine the effects of combat.  This time, instead of just offering "eliminate", "retreat", and "exchange" (equal destruction of both forces) options, there are now also the results of "engaged" (which locks up units until the battle be decisively resolved) and "contact" (neither side inflicts any damage).

Roads and the holding thereof are critical.  Off the roads, troops and vehicles are slowed to a crawl.  On the roads, advances can slice deep into enemy territory.  However, such advances can only be made nilly-willy in the Basic Game; in the Advanced Game, there are supply considerations, which largely only affect the Germans.  If a Wehrmacht unit cannot trace a logistical path along roads back to the east side of the map without it being blocked by allied units or their surrounding "zones of control", it immediately loses much of its mobility.  After six turns of being cut off, surrounded units of either side cease to exist.

Treads hit the Road

In the first game, I played the Germans against John using the Basic Rules.  It was a handy victory, my panzers rushing with gay abandon behind the Allied lines and reaching the Meuse well before Christmas.  But without supply restrictions, the game felt little like a simulation of any real-world situation.

As it turned out, my next opponents were Janice and Lorelei, hot on the heels of an excellent and hard-fought game of Waterloo.  They enjoyed working together as a team (which made sense in both games as they played coalitions rather than single nations) and I appreciated the added challenge that came from matching wits with a double-brained foe.

Given the apparent German advantage in Battle of the Bulge, they needed every neuron they could get.  The Wehrmacht simply overwhelms the first few turns, and so long as the dice are reasonable, advance is swift.  The German assembles a ridiculous number of panzers to assault one spot, while assembling the rest into suite of two to one attacks, making sure to surround their prey.  Since no attacker deaths can result from either of these types of fights, the Huns can sweep through their resistance while taking very few casualties.

In the game we played, I don't feel the Allies made any specific mistakes and yet I reached the Meuse at around the same time as I had in my game with John, and I only lost a single unit in the process.  Needless to say, we'll have to play again (likely switching sides) to see if the issue is the game or just beginner's bad luck.  The current plan is to play a game starting December 16, 1965 and play through in "real-time". 

I'll be glad to play the good guys.  Putting on Wehrmacht gray makes me very uncomfortable.

Scorecard

As for rating, pending further study, I'd give Battle of the Bulge four stars.  It's definitely got replay value, and it's the most dynamic Avalon Hill game I've played to date with the possible exception of Afrika Korps.

Previews of Coming Attractions

It looks like Avalon Hill has managed to squeeze out one more title this year.  An advertisement for Blitzkrieg came with my latest catalog; it looks like it will be some kind of generic, division-level strategic game. Looks fun and customizable — needless to say, I've ordered my copy!

Join the Fun!

If all this talk of playing general stirs something your bones (and hey, it's a lot more fun and less harmful than actual fighting), you are warmly invited to join our Galactic Journey Wargaming Society.  We have been facilitating several play-by-mail games so that even players remote from each other can enjoy a contest: over the summer, we had a smashing good time killing each other in a friendly game of Diplomacy.

And you get a spiffy newsletter!  What are you waiting for?




3 Comments Leave A Comment
Fashion, music, politics, sports

[October 12, 1965] Gaming Across the Pond (Wargaming in Britain)

Leave a comment

The Journey lettercol continues to be active.  Last month, we received a piece so interesting that we felt it deserved an article slot on its own.  So let us present Mr. Geoff Kemp with his delightful survey of virtual conflicts in the UK…


Geoff Kemp

Two Roads Diverged…

Although primarily built on the foundations of two similar companies on either side of the Atlantic Ocean, board gaming has taken divergent paths over the course of the last 130 years. In America, Parker Brothers were formed in 1883 by George S. Parker. His gaming philosophy was to move away from the then current board games published to promote moral and social values, such as The Mansion of Happiness or which emphasized how hard work and manners would make you happy/wealthy, like Office Boy, to games that are fun to play. In contrast, in the United kingdom, John Waddington of Leeds founded a company which originally produced packs of cards and other paper products before moving over to initially card games and then board games primarily produced, like Parkers, for families to enjoy.

There was a great deal of crossover and communication between the two companies, with Parker Brothers producing ‘Monopoly’ in the USA before licensing Waddingtons to produce an English version: a London board rather than the original Atlantic City board used in the states. Later Cluedo was invented by Anthony E. Pratt of Birmingham, England and manufactured by Waddingtons before American rights were sold to Parker Brothers for production there. These were the two main players in producing board games for many years on both sides of the Atlantic, often licensing their games to each other. Thus gaming was seen as primarily seen as a family pastime and this continued with the arrival of companies such as Ariel Productions and H.P. Gibsons.

Things started to change for us in 1962, with the arrival firstly of 3M games (also known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company) closely followed by The Avalon Hill Games Company (known as TAHGC) in the USA. They produced games which started to move away from ‘family’ games and towards board games geared for traditional wargaming as played on tabletops, featuring wooden/metal and occasional plastic models, as well as more financial based games or strategic games. From 3M came Twixt ('63), Stocks And Bonds ('64) and Acquire ('65) whilst Avalon Hill produced Stalingrad ('62), Afrika Korps ('64), Midway ('64), and Battle of the Bulge ('65). Combined with games such as Diplomacy (Games Research – 1954) and Risk, which was published by both Waddingtons and Parker brothers, there has been a suite of games diverging from the family games genre. Possibly the biggest recent innovation, however, was Avalon Hill’s. They began producing a magazine devoted to their games, in the form of ‘The General’ which saw the first edition dated 1st May 1964 with articles on game tactics, history and industry (almost exclusively AH related).

This is where gamers on this side of the pond have turned a shade of green in envy as even the magazine (much less the games it describes) can take weeks to get to us here, although at least we now have more of an idea of what is happening in the States. Besides home grown products such as the games from Waddingtons, Gibsons, Ariel, and a few others, it is not easy to get hold of a lot of American games; even the exceptions such as Acquire or Diplomacy are only found in some of the bigger department stores, unfortunately.

Another area where boardgames have diverged is in the area of sports related games, although this is more likely down to the popularity of different sports in each country. Again you have various Avalon Hill games such as Football Strategy ('60), Baseball Strategy ('62), and Le Mans ('61) whilst in the UK we have Subbuteo Football ('47), Subbuteo Cricket ('49), Wembley ('52), Stirling Moss Rally ('65) and Formula One ('65).  Baseball being primarily an American sport and Cricket a British sport explains why each has gotten a game in their respective countries.

Possibly the biggest confusion is over ‘Football’ simulations as the game has different names on each side on the Atlantic. I believe in America, the Football Strategy game by Avalon Hill relates to what is known in the UK as ‘American Football’, whilst Subbuteo Football and Wembley are games reproducing Association Football which I understand to be known as ‘Soccer’ in the USA. Is this correct?

But racing is universal in appeal. Formula One is an excellent British game, easily the best British attempt to date to reproduce the excitement of Motor Racing. Unfortunately, although I have heard good reports of Le Mans, I have yet to see a copy so cannot really comment there. Stirling Moss Rally is based on Rallying (stage as opposed to circuit racing), which has been popular in Europe since 1895 and has many famous Races. The most well known is probably the Monte Carlo Rally which was first raced in 1911.

I have said that it is not easy for us here to be able to get hold of American Games, but is it the same for you in getting hold of some British games. I realise that in some cases certain games are available in both countries, such as Monopoly (published by both Waddingtons & Parkers) or Cluedo (Waddingtons), also I believe known as Clue (Parkers), but am unsure how many other games that applies to.

So what are you playing at the moment? Here I am enjoying a mixture of British and (when I can get them) American games. Current Favourites are in no particular order, Acquire (3M), Midway (Avalon Hill), Dog Fight and Square Mile (Milton Bradley), Astron, Risk, Railroader, Formula One and Mine A Million (Waddingtons), Wildlife (Spears), Wembley (Ariel) and Subbuteo Football. 

They say that war arises between two parties over scarcity of resources. It is clear, however, that there need be no resumption of hostilities between Britain and the United States in the near future thanks to the abundance of games produced and shared by our two nations.

Now, if only my copy of The General would arrive in the post!




No comments Leave A Comment
Fashion, music, politics, sports

[November 3, 1964] State of the Art of War(games)

8 Comments


by Gideon Marcus

Where we stand

Just over a decade ago, there were no board wargames.  Back then, if you wanted to simulate the field of battle on a scale smaller than 1:1, your only real option was to buy or cast an army of tin soldiers and fight per the few various rules sets that had been developed. 

And people did just that, mind you, whether they were playing Fletcher Pratt's naval wargames or H.G. Wells' Little Wars.

In 1954, Charles S. Roberts started a modest revolution with his game, Tactics.  Now, armies could be represented with cardboard chits instead of expensive figures.  And for nearly ten years, Roberts stood as virtual king of an entire class of games.  With the exception of Games Research's Diplomacy, Roberts' company, Avalon Hill, produced every board wargame ever made.  By 1961, his company war producing two a year (as well as several general audience games).

But in December 1963, straitened circumstances caused Roberts to sell the company over to Eric Dott, head of Monarch Services, Avalon Hill's creditor.  Roberts' friend and colleague, Tom Shaw, is now at the helm.

This turnover does not seem to have affected the wargame company from Baltimore.  Two games have been launched this year, both World War 2 titles: Afrika Korps, a simulation of Rommel's drive in North Africa, and Midway, depicting the savage naval battle between Japan and the United States near the Pacific island base. 

Of course, I was bit by the gaming bug right at the start, and I've done my best to keep on top of all the new games.  With the exception of the poorly rated Chancellorsville and the obtuse Gettysburg, I think I've played them all.  And that means I get to share my experiences with you on the current state of the art of wargaming.  Read on…and perhaps you'll get bit by the bug!

Breakout

In 1958, Roberts developed a sequel to Tactics imaginatively called Tactics II.  This game didn't simulate an historical battle.  Instead, "Red" faced "Blue" in a match that was geographically dissimilar, but with identical armies.  It was with this game that Roberts popularized a number of elements common to wargames today.

First, the idea that (as opposed to chess or checkers) that you can move all of your pieces during your turn.  This was a revolution, and it took time for new players to wrap their heads around it!

The second was the "Combat Results Table" (CRT).  Tactics II set the mold for wargames, incorporating a movement phase followed by a combat phase.  All units that ended their turn next to an enemy had to fight them, the results of said battle determined by the roll of a die and consultation with the CRT.  At odds of 1 to 1, or even 2 to 1, it was a brutal chart — more dangerous to the attacker than the defender. 

But at 3 to 1, the attacker was assured of success.  The enemy would have to retreat or would be outright eliminated, sometimes taking an equal number of attackers with them.  The odds of defender elimination rose as the odds increased in favor of the attacker. 

It was a simple concept, and yet, so profound was its impact in its elegance, that the think tank, Rand, approached Roberts.  It seemed that his CRT was strikingly similar to ones they were using in their own games!  A sheepish Roberts explained that he'd made his in about 15 minutes, developed from the textbook maxim that odds of 3 to 1 were considered the minimum necessary to guarantee victory.

That's the history — how's the game?  Well, Janice and I took a stab at it, but quite frankly, it didn't appeal.  The lack of historical underpinning, and the complete parity of the forces gave us a sense of "why bother".  Perhaps if we'd played the advanced game, which has more bells and whistles.

Also, we had been spoiled by the more advanced games that Roberts developed in the '60s.  Once you see the improvements made, you'll understand what we mean.

So, two stars for Tactics II, but coupled with admiration for the revolution it was.

The Great Invasion

There is no question that the most "popular" war of the last several centuries is World War 2.  This makes sense — all of us served, or had family who served.  It was global and thus rich in settings and scenarios.  It was a "good" war with clear good guys and bad guys.

It's no surprise, then, that four of the last five wargames put out by Avalon Hill (and at least the next two, per early reports) all have WW2 as their setting.

The first in this series, D-Day, covers the most dramatic American land engagement of the war: the assault on and liberation of Nazi-occupied France.

As with Tactics II, a lot of firsts were introduced in this game.  Unlike its historical predecessors, Gettysburg,Chancellorsville, D-Day didn't simulate a battle but a whole theater of war.  Moreover, instead of having a fixed setup, with units occupying (more or less) the places they held on the eve of the depicted battle, D-Day is the first alternate history wargame.

For the Allied player may choose one of seven invasion beaches, Normandy among them.  And the Germans largely have free reign on how to set up their forces in anticipation.  This means that every game has the potential to be completely different from the last.

Another big distinguishing element from Tactics II, though it was pioneered in Chancellorsville, are the hexagonal "squares" on the mapboard.  This was an innovation Roberts definitely borrowed from Rand's wargames; these innovative hexes allow equidistant movement in six directions, as opposed to squares, on which diagonal movement is greater than movement through the sides.

Needless to say, my friend John and I were eager to try out this behemoth of a game.  After a false start — it's really easy to lose as the Germans if your setup is suboptimal — we settled down for a twenty hour slog across France.  The first time out, I'd done a simple storm across the Channel into Picardy.  This time, I was experimenting with the southern option, going in from the Mediterranean.  That meant I'd flanked most of the German defenses.  I got lucky and managed to spill out into central France before John could solidify his defense, and so, halfway through the game, I had all of my invasion forces ashore, arrayed against a precarious line of his troops.

What ensued was a methodical, tedious grind as I slowly pushed him back, hex by hex.  Attempts at clever breakthroughs involving paratroop operations in Holland resulted in failure.  Time and time again, 50/50 die rolls went against me.  Finally, at the banks of the Rhine, I made a couple of desperate die tosses…and lost.

We were highly impressed with the game at that point.  It had afforded us several sessions of entertainment and had come down to a virtual draw.  But there was a nagging feeling tugging at the back of our brains.  While the opening rounds of the game were exciting and varied, we had a suspicion that it always came down to the mid-game slog…and dozens of hours of grinding to a conclusion.

To explore our concerns, we teamed up, working on the optimum German defense.  We found that, no matter what, the Allies can always crack through somewhere, and at that point, it's just a matter of time before the Allied behemoth is on the continent, working its way toward the Reich. 

Conclusion: D-Day is a great game to play once or twice, but it pales after that.

Four stars for the first games.  Two beyond.

Duel in the Desert

The next two games that Avalon Hill released after D-Day were Waterloo and Stalingrad, games I have reviewed in prior articles.  The first was a set piece battle a la Chancellorsville; the second an operation monster similar to D-Day.

The latest release, Afrika Korps, lies somewhere inbetween the two in scope.  A simulation of the battle for North Africa, 1941-42, it pits a powerful, mobile German force against a ragtag but ever increasing band of Allied defenders.  As with prior releases, there are a couple of interesting innovations. 

For one, logistics is not abstract, as in D-Day, or not a concern at all, as in Waterloo.  Instead, supply trucks are physical units you drive around, and they are expended in an attack — which can leave your aggressors high and dry even after a successful assault!

Also, because of the scale and nature of the desert terrain, moving units along a road doesn't just confer a +1 movement bonus; you get a whopping +10!  Also, the Germans have an immortal Rommel unit who confers an additional +2 movement bonus to accompanying troops.  That means that there are German units that can move a ridiculous 24 hexes in a single turn.

That kind of mobility and the lack of defensive terrain (no river lines, for instance) makes for a much more fluid game.  Units dart around, forward and back, trying to encircle the enemy and cut them off from supply while at the same time, trying to prevent being encircled themselves.  Rather than a slow slogfest, like D-Day, Stalingrad, or even Waterloo to a degree, Afrika Korps affords and rewards daring play. 

Unfortunately, a lot of the game is luck based.  In order to keep the Germans from stomping the Allies, and to model the interdiction of Axis transport by the British navy, there is a chance every turn that the fascists' supply trucks don't show up.  Enough turns like that, and the Germans become unable to do much before the defenders build up their forces. 

Morever, the Axis must take both El Alamein and Tobruch to win, and assaulting Tobruch is always a risky proposition.  Afrika Korps, like its predecessors, uses the exact same CRT as Tactics II.  There's a one in three chance a powerful unit gets destroyed in a 3 to 1 attack, the best the Germans will be able to muster.  And if the Germans lose one of their two big tank units, that's a huge blow.  That's not counting all the supply die rolls, which are often 50/50.

What this boils down to is that there's an awful lot of luck that goes into each game.  That may be realistic, but it's also frustrating.  Janice and I had (and are having) a lot of fun playing Afrika Korps, but these issues make it hard to give it more than three stars.

Come out and play!

Financial difficulties aside, Avalon Hill knows it's got a growing audience.  To that end, the company has launched a bimonthly newsletter, The General, in which new games are announced, players discuss strategy, and lonely players find each other for local contests.  It's a brilliant idea, and while the articles range from mildly interesting to somewhat sophomoric, there's no question it helps knit the community together. 

Heck, it's even inspired us to build our own network of players.  Because whatever the issues with the individual games, wargaming is an exciting new hobby.  It stretches the mind, enhances understanding of history, and is a lot of fun.

Perhaps you fancy yourself a future Napoleon, Wavell, or Xenobia — come join us!  We'd love to swap war stories…

[Come join us at Portal 55, Galactic Journey's real-time lounge! Talk about your favorite SFF, chat with the Traveler and co., relax, sit a spell…]




8 Comments Leave A Comment
Fashion, music, politics, sports

[September 29, 1963] Comrade Wargame (Avalon Hill's Stalingrad)

10 Comments


by Gideon Marcus

Here in sub-tropical San Diego, the change of the seasons is a subtle one.  As summer turns to fall, the nights slowly stretch, there is a pleasant chill in the morning air, and a marine layer of clouds hugs the ground like a blanket for the first sunlit hours. 

Across the sea, on the Ukrainian steppes, things are much different.  Autumn brings torrential rains that turn plains into bogs, and soon after come the freezing winds that herald the approach of winter.  It was just twenty two years ago that these savage twins, Comrade Mud and Comrade Snow, along with millions of human comrades in uniform, stemmed the advancing Nazi tide within sight of the towers of the Kremlin — the most titanic clash of peoples since Genghis Khan left Mongolia.

Big events invite dramatic speculation: What if the Soviets had faltered, and Hitler's 3rd Reich stretched unchallenged from Brittany to Vladivostok?  One shudders to contemplate the heights the Holocaust might have reached in such a world.  Or take the other side of the coin.  Imagine if the Red Army had been better prepared for the invasion and had stopped the Wehrmacht in its tracks.  Why, the Sickle and Hammer might have flown over the Reichstag before Western troops could set foot on Europe, and Communism might hold sway over most of the continent. 

Making History

It is no surprise that the fellows at Avalon Hill, who have made their mark with innovative board game simulations of conflicts, chose Operation Barbarossa for the topic of their newest wargame.  In their words:

Now YOU can re-fight the most gigantic military campaign the world has ever known.  You command all the major units that took part in the actual battles.  As the German commander, you begin your great offensive near the Polish-Russian border — leading the powerful Wehrmacht toward Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad.  Or, as the Russian commander, you direct a strategic defensive in the hopes of stopping the German thrust before the gates of Stalingrad.

By piecing together information from captured military records in government archives, Avalon Hill has set the stage for you to recreate history.  It is now June 1941 — time to mobilize your forces in this historical World War II battle campaign —

STALINGRAD

Well, who can resist a pitch like that?  I snatched a copy of Stalingrad as soon as it appeared at our local hobby store (the same folks who sold me Waterloo) and threw down a panzer-driver's black leather glove at my wife's feet.  Her lips curled in a menacing grin, and I shivered as I saw the frost of a Soviet December in her eye.  The challenge had been accepted.

The Game

In many ways Stalingrad and Waterloo are much alike.  Both feature maps of the contested region with a hexagonal overlay that serves as the game's chessboard.  Hexes, of course, are the ingenious innovation that makes each space equally distant from its neighbor (whereas with squares, distance is longer along the diagonal).  Armed forces are represented by cardboard chits with unit designations and types printed on them: The Soviet 2nd Infantry Corps, the 41st Panzer Corp, etc.  Even the troops of Nazi satellites like Hungary and Romania are represented.

Surprisingly, the two games even share a Combat Results Table, a chart of die-roll determined outcomes that is consulted every time enemy forces come into contact.  Results include circumstances like "Attacker Eliminated" and "Defender Retreats 2 Spaces" and the deadly "Exchange" in which BOTH sides suffer losses.

But Stalingrad also features several innovations.  For instance, each side is able to replace a certain number of units every turn — and the Soviet capacity for this is much greater than that of the Germans.  Thus, though the Nazis start out with a significant numerical advantage, their opponent recovers its losses more quickly. 

Another advancement is the depiction of railroads.  Whereas in Waterloo, units moved solely under their own power, in Stalingrad, your troops can zip around the map on the printed rail lines.  Any successful battle plan relies on careful consideration of these quick routes.

Supply is also a factor at the strategic level (it was not at the tactical plane of Waterloo). Forces that cannot trace a line of logistics to their side of the map are eliminated after two months of isolation.  Thus, "pocketing" the enemy is a viable alternative to direct confrontation.

Finally, weather is simulated, as it must be for Stalingrad to emulate history.  And, as is real life, weather cannot be predicted; instead, it is determined each autumn and winter month by a die roll.  Rainy weather slows movement to a crawl.  Snow does so as well, but it also negates the defensive value of rivers, and it makes lakes and swamps as easy to traverse as highways.  Both are, thus, mixed blessings to both sides.

The terms of victory are simple: The Germany player must conquer all three major Soviet cities (each conquest reduces the replacement pool available to the Russians) by May 1943.  Failure to do so results in a Soviet player win.

The Play-through

Well then, how did Barbarossa, 1963 edition go?  Like this: Janice set up a most formidable defense, perhaps as perfect a line as could be devised.  There were no obvious weak spots in her frontier, certainly not along the Finnish border where a good portion of my army was rendered momentarily impotent.  So I did the only thing I could — I marshaled my forces into three strong spearheads and hunkered for a drawn-out brawl.

The Russians maintained good order, giving up an inch only after the most tenacious fighting.  Each month, I had to shift my spearheads around on rail lines just to get reasonable odds.  June, August, and September passed with the Wehrmacht making only nominal advances north and south of the Pripyet Marches and along the Black Sea coast toward Odessa.  By October, the Germans had punched some big holes in the Soviet lines, but then the rains came, preventing significant exploitation.  The Red Army retreated into two defensive fronts, one in the north to protect Leningrad, and one in the south to stop the Ukrainian offense.

It might have worked. 

But November's weather, instead of being inclement as occurred historically, was surprisingly balmy.  The rail line to Moscow was open, and an opportunistic panzer army was able to roll right into the Soviet capital.  This split the nation in two, making it difficult for Russian forces to shift fronts.  Other elements of the German army were able to strike deep into the USSR, putting themselves in excellent position to threaten the other two target cities.  When the December snows came and the lakes and marshes around Leningrad froze, the Finnish forces were able to spring into action, surrounding the city of Peter the Great. 

By January 1942, the Soviets had lost two of their three sources of replacements, and the Nazis were threatening Stalingrad.  Janice conceded at that point.  One falter had turned a brilliant beginning into a crushing defeat.  But make no mistake — there will be a rematch, and I suspect I will be the one flying the white flag next time.

Lessons learned

All in all, it was a tense exercise filled with countless bouts of nailbiting.  In the final assessment, it makes sense to compare this game with its predecessors.  Stalingrad is a game with endless replay value, thanks both to the variable weather and also its sheer scope.  A chess board has but 32 pieces.  Stalingrad has more than twice that, and a far more varied map.  And unlike Waterloo, whose battle plans felt strictly dictated by terrain, Avalon Hill's latest game seems to offer a lot more flexibility in strategy, both offensive and defensive.  I don't know that I'll be playing much of Waterloo (or Chess!), but I do expect Stalingrad will hit the table again, soon.

10 Comments Leave A Comment
Fashion, music, politics, sports

[December 6, 1962] How to Kill Friends and Influence People (The game, Diplomacy)

6 Comments

[if you’re new to the Journey, read this to see what we’re all about!]


by Gideon Marcus

"…but she took off the great lid of the box with her hands and scattered all these and her thought caused sorrow and mischief to men."

So goes Hesiod's account of Pandora, the first woman, and how woe was delivered unto mankind.  Until last month, I'd come to believe that the box was strictly allegorical.  And then I found it.

More accurately, I bought it.  I was visiting the local toy store.  You know, where they sell big bouncy balls, Airfix model kits, Erector Sets.  And social, wholesome boardgames like Clue and Scrabble.  Mixed among these innocuous pleasures was something new, a creation of the "Games Research" company.  Its title was brief and opaque: Diplomacy.  Intrigued, I purchased it and took it home.

Inside the maroon box is a map of Europe delineated with the pre-WWI national boundaries, a variety of wooden pieces, and a set of rules.  "'Diplomacy' is a game of skill and cunning negotiations," they proclaim.  Diplomacy appears to be the latest in the new category of diversions known as "wargames."  The goal is to take the role of one of the seven Great Powers and take over the rest of Europe. 

What makes Diplomacy unique from other wargames is its multi-player aspect; all the other wargames I've played to date have been two-player affairs.  Also, as the rules go on to say, "Chance plays no part."  This is true – no dice are included with or employed by the game. 

Though the rules booklet runs several pages, the gist of the game is incredibly simple.  The map is divided into two types of provinces: ones with "supply centers" and ones without.  All player nations start out with three supply centers (except Russia, which gets four).  No nation may have more pieces than supply centers; thus, each player starts with three (or four) pieces.  These pieces may be armies, which move on land, and fleets, which may move in sea spaces or land spaces that border sea spaces. 

Each turn, a player dispatches orders to each of her/his pieces privately in writing.  Units are directed to move, either individually or with the support of adjacent friendly pieces.  Orders are resolved simultaneously – in the event that two units are sent to the same province, the one with more support wins, and the other must retreat.  Every other turn, control of supply centers is tallied – they belong to whomever was last in them on a tallying turn.  And so the fortune of nations rises and falls.  When one has control of no supply centers, that player is eliminated from the game.

Easy, no?  Ah, but here's the tricky bit.  Turns are divided into two segments.  The latter is the one just described, where players write their marching orders.  The former is a 15-minute diplomacy segment.  This is the period in which players discuss their plans, try to hatch alliances, attempt to deceive about intentions.  It is virtually impossible to win the game without help on the way up; it is completely impossible to win without eventually turning on your allies.  Backstabbery is common, even necessary.  Honesty is a vice.

Diplomacy is, thus, not a nice game.  In fact, I suspect this game will strike rifts between even the best chums.  So why play at all?  Why suffer 4-12 hours of agony, especially when you might well be eliminated within the first few turns, left to watch the rest of your companions pick over your bones?

Well, it's kind of fun.

I'll give you an example.  Last weekend, I was fortunate to have over exactly the seven people needed to play.  We drew our countries randomly – I picked Russia, my daughter got the neighboring country of Turkey.  Right away, we had to establish our relationship.  Would we forge a treaty, enabling us to strike west into central Europe?  Or would we be adversaries, soliciting the aid of another power (say, Austria-Hungary) in a bloody war for domination of the Black Sea?

As it turned out, the question was not neatly answered.  As my forces fenced with the British Royal Navy for control of Scandinavia, and Italy plunged into the south of France, the Hapsburg Emperor proved a stubborn foe.  After several turns of thwarting Turkey's Balkan ambitions, she convinced Lorelei to launch a surprise attack against my rear, the Sultan's forces heading straight for Sevastopol.

Only two things kept the Czar on the throne: Firstly, I'd penned a secret alliance with the Kaiser to join in a three-way alliance to devour the Dual Monarchy.  Secondly, and more luckily, Lorelei had botched her orders, and her attack stalled. 

I held absolutely no grudge against the kid.  Instead, I merely pulled her aside during the next diplomacy session and explained that she could work with me and finally break out of Asia Minor…or she could not cooperate, and both our chances of winning would be slim.  She bit, and next turn, Austria-Hungary ceased to be.  We went on to tie for first place, both of us having a full eight supply centers when we called it a day after five hours of play.  But I've no doubt that, had we decided to continue, my dear daughter, apple of my eye, would not have hesitated to drive the knife deep into my spine. 

Such is the nature of Diplomacy.  It's an unique pleasure, to be sure, one that will test your cunning, your generalship, and your charisma.  And your friendships.  Don't say I didn't warn you…

6 Comments Leave A Comment