2 MOVES nr. 64, published Dec/Jan 1981 \ I Mogazine z CCireulation: 10,000 Editor/ Executive Art Director Managing Editor Associate Editor Michael Moore ‘Art Director Manfred F. Milkuhn Contributing Editors Claude Bloodgood, lan Chadwick, ‘Steve List, Thomas G, Pratuch, Charles’ Vasey [MOVES Manazine i copyright © 961, Simulations Publications, I. Printed ia U.S.A. All ights served Al ‘Stitrial and general al shouldbe adesed o Simulations Publications Inc, 257 Park Avenue South, NY. {0010 MOVES is published b+ monthly. One year srions sks) ae for SI1.00 (US) Back ses ‘or single copies ofthe caren iste ae avaiable at $2.28 per cop. Please emi by check or money order (US fund), Printing and Binding by Welleey Press, Ine, Framingham, Mass, OREAT BRITAIN & EUROPE: Bosh and European customers should place thes oxdets fr SPL products of ‘xbscrpions with SIMULATIONS PUBLICATIONS, UNITED KINGDOM. Crown Passages, Hale, Aina, CCestire, WA 1598P, United Kindom. Basic subscription at for SPUK is (pound) 9.90 per year AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND residents shoul pace orders wth MILITARY SIMULATIONS PTY LD., 18 Foncsc Sire Modal, Vicoria3195, Australi ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS: Reader are vite o submit ales for posible plication in MOVES Magazine ‘Manuscripts must be typewritten, double-spaced, on B/sxI1 white bond, wit generous ine length of 5510 68 Characters Plea include our la ame and pase number each MS page and your name, adress, phone namber, Suggested ile, and honorarium preference On te cover page, Wih submission include a slamped self adresed postcard withthe name of your article onthe message sde.Amtices and iusatons cana be Feurbe. In Ho ance however,anSPLassumeresponibiity for manusrpisand istration 20 peciicly soled Redmond A. Simonsen Robert J. Ryer In this issue.. Civil War Survey sreveust 4 Fifth Corps ANTHONY G, CURTIS: WV The Next Next War DAVIOM. ROBERTS 7 The Kaiser's Battle PHILIPMARCHAL 23 Citadel of Blood Justmiares 25 ‘Advanced Tactics, Reality and Game, Part 1 THOMAS G PRATUCH 26 Computing Tactical Results JOWWA. GRawaN 29 Stat Rep: The Black Prince ‘LAUDE «10006000 36 Opening MOVES EDMOND A. SIMONSEN 2 MOVES in English CHARLES VASEY 19 Designer's Notes SAGO STAFF 34 Feedback/Playback Questions yoxrorut, voxoe! B Simulations Publications, Inc., 257 Park Avenue South, New York, N.Y. 10010 Opening Moves Recently, I had the opportunity of doing fone of the more interesting collateral activ- ities connected with being a personality” in the adventure gaming industry. I did a radio erview ata large station in Detroit. Iwasa idday show hosted by an engaging fellow, J.P. McCarthy, He also had (before me in the hour) a very funny guest, Soupy Sales. When my slot came up, J.P. asked Soupy to sitin, Perhaps it didn’t make for the greatest clucidation of gaming, but it surely provided more laughs than would have occurred otherwise Inits own way, the interview highlighted one of the problems we as gamers and game- ‘makers constantly face. There is more than a litle difficulty involved in describing and explaining to an uninitiated person what itis we're doing. There remains a conceptual bar- rier that one must leap even after the most spoon-fed explanation is delivered. This is not a reflection on the intelligence of the rnon-gaming listener; rather itis a comment con the unusual qualities of gaming as an in- tellectual pursuit. While it may seem perfect- ly transparent (0 us why one should sit at a board, pushing counters for hours, others find it hard to imagine the source of energy, ‘motivation and dedication required to doo. ‘The critical difference (I believe) is the level of imagination that players bring to games, More than any other factor, the play er’s willingness to accept the game environ- ‘ment and totally immerse himself init, pro- vides the key to understanding the depth and intensity of the gaming world. Those who don't fire up their imaginations, regardless Of intelligence, never get a real handle on what gamingis about It behooves us as game-makers (and players) to aid this process as much as pos- sible. The story-telling, narrative qualities of games should be emphasized in promotion and packaging. The obscure periods of his- \ory (or areas of fantasy) should be explained in terms of the more familiar and readily accessible. Without lapsing into condescen- sion, gamers and would-be gamers have to be led into the subject and the process, If more ‘successful ways to do this can be developed, complexity and obscurity of rules and history will become minor problems, The new player will solve them himself because his imagina- tion motivates him to do so. Redmond ®Subscribe now to le The Magazine of Science Fiction and Fantasy Simulation Reproduction of sample playing lees from Clade of Bld (200 pieces in eam). Reduced reproduction of pes from Ares The Dark Tower of Loki Hellsson 1 year (6 issues): $16.00 2 years (12 issues): $30.00 cemeiiee 3 years (18 issues): $42.00 SPECIAL! 5 years (30 issues): ONLY $55.00 et in yr conghe Nae Ate Date. FOROFFICE CusCode Total Credit Portage Tax USEONLY Subscribe to Subscribe to The Magazine for Gamers of Conflict Simulation 1 year (6 issues): $11.00 1 2 years (12 issues): $20.00 BL year (6 issues): $18.00 1 2 years (12 issues): $34.00 5 5 years (18 issues): $28.00 SPECIAL 5 years 1 3 years (18 issues): $48.00 1 SPECIAL 5 years (30 issues): ONLY $39.00 30 issues): ONLY $69.00. Note: Even if your sub isstillrunning, you can extendit now Note: Even if your sub is still running, you can extend it now and not miss the opportunity on the $year special! land not miss the opportunity on the 5 year special! S&T and Ares games analyzed in every MOVES! An original game in every issue!REVIEWS CIVIL WAR SURVEY Capsule Critiques of Games in Print by Steve List One of the main reasons that people like short reviews is that it allows them to gain nodding acquaintance with a garne that they ‘may never get a chance to play. Thereby, one can speak with familiarity of titles ‘thet molder in their closets. Another reason is that reading about a game is the next best thing to playing it. None of us has enough time to play al the games we should (except, perhaps, Mr List) =RAS ‘The recent proliferation of game titles ‘on the American Civil War (at least a dozen between Origins "79 and ’80) makes it appear that this topic is the latest motherlode of game situations, but in fact the ACW is the oldest historical game period: Avalon Hill followed the non-historical Tactics IT with the first incarnation of Gertysburg in 1958, and within the next few years added Chancellorsville, Civil War, and the 1961 hex version of Gertysburg. Battleline started as a Civil War oriented company, with Seven Days Battles and Shenandoah as its earliest works. SPI has by now discontinued more such games than most others have published: Lee Moves North (nee Lee at Gettysburg), Wilderness Campaign, American Civil War, Bull Run, Road to Richmond, The now- defunct Simulations Design Corporation produced Rifle-Musket, and the equally parted Rand fielded Lee vs Meade, Brandy Station, and Vicksburg. Even GDW got into the act with a revision of Manassas, original- ly published by Historical Simulations Ltd. All told, in excess of 45 Civil War games have been published to date, though at least a fourth of them have come since June of 1979. The older games adopted a wide variety ‘of approaches and pioneered many now ac- cepted game mechanics. The first Gertysburg was played on a simplified topographical ‘map with a square grid. Units were rectangles of various sizes, and a paper template was provided to show the area in front of the unit Into which it could fire, with bonuses for flank and rear attacks, In the basic version, units moved from square to square, but the “cournament game” rules provided for free ‘movement measured by a movement gauge, very much like miniatures. Chancellorsvlle and the hex Gettysburg had many problems, rot the least of which were graphical, but they made. stab at ranged artillery rules with their secondary ZOC’s, and had a fair ine of sight treatment as well. Even the ‘child's game" of the lot, Civil War (with plastic pawns in place of suitably military-looking colored cardboard) was a reasonable and ear- ly attempt to simulate the entire war, not Justa battle or campaign. SPI’s Bull Run in- troduced the dubious pleasures of pre- plotted simultaneous movement, and other {games made their contributions to, or detrac- tions from, the state of the art The bulk of ACW games had always been operational in scale, with a smattering fof strategic ones, up until Terrible Swift ‘Sword in 1976. This game proved popular {despite its size and time consumption, mainly because of its tactical flavor (the question of. its accuracy is irrelevant — it was perceived as being an accurate tactical game), Almost all the new games published since then have been tactical in scope, and most have been refinements or derivatives of the TSS system. Prior to TSS, tactical games were limited 10 ‘Manassas and two multi-scenario general games, SPI’s Rifle and Saber attempted (and badly failed) to simulate tactical land combat in the 19th century from the Mexican to the Boer Wars using the same basic rules. Rifle. ‘Musket at least confined itself to the ACW but was no better asa game ora simulation. ‘The spectrum of ACW game subjects is broad but unbalanced. Only The Jronclads and its Expansion Kit deal with naval com- bat, The rest are all land oriented and the ‘most heavily covered subject is Gettysburg. ‘Counting the various AH games of that ttle, this one battle has had 14 games devoted 10 all or part of it, The next best covered topic is Shiloh, with three titles. A similar bias is shown toward the eastern theater; neglecting Geitysburg games, the east has 19 titles 10 10, for the west (of which three are devoted 10 Shiloh). Why this should be is probably due to subjective reasons. The east_was the theater of Bobby Lee and Stonewall Jackson, of Southerners gallantly holding ‘back the Northern Hordes. Certainly the contemporary press found whatever glamour ‘they saw in war in the east, But while Lee and the bulk of the Confederacy's resources kept the Union armies almost stalemated in Virginia, the US Navy and the Federal armies in the west were dismembering the south and ensuring its ultimate defeat. Below are brief reviews of most of the ‘games now in print. OF those out of print, ‘most deserved their fate. However, some are worth obtaining if you ever run across a copy: Shenandoah, Vicksburg, Manassas, ‘American Civil War. REVIEWS TERRIBLE SWIFT SWORD (SPI, 1976) Designed and developed by Richard Bers. 3 ‘maps 227% 34", 2000 counters, 32 pp. rules, ‘additional chars, boxed. Rating: B Prior to the appearance of this game, ACW games were almost all operational, and strategic multiemap monsters were almost unknown; only Martial Enterprises had tried to make a monster game at the tactical level. TSS, despite many flaws (not the least being the inordinate amount of time required to play it) caught on and has fathered a large umber of direct and —non-so-direct descendents. ‘The game covers the Battle of Get tysburg ata pace of 20 minutes per turn dur ing the day, with 8 one-hour night turns. Ground scale is 120 yards per hex, while units are regiments and batteries. Losses are taken in increments of 100 men or one gun, and are indicated by placing a numerical counter below the unit counter to show the number of steps remaining. The game has five scenarios — one for each of the three days, one for the fighting at Little Round Top, and cone for the three days as a whole. In addition to the combat units, leaders are provided at Army, Corps and Division level for both sides. The Confederates have Brigade leaders as well, Since units must be within a certain distance of their leaders to ‘move, this allows the large Confederate divi- sions to spread out and detach brigades, while Union divisions stay bunched around their commander, Morale is reflected as well Each brigade is rated for the number of strength points it can lose before it loses “Brigade Combat Effectiveness,” which prevents it from initiating melee and makes it ‘more susceptible to rout. The rule is given as an option. Beyond that, units must check morale on certain occasions (chiefly when suffering a loss) by rolling one die. A roll higher than its current strength causes a unit to rout (retreat 3 hexes at once, and thereafter suffer limited mobility and usefulness until rallied). This made weak units more susceptible to rout than strong ones, and was altered in official errata. Now units are rated by letter (A to E) which gives the die roll number needed to rout.Casualties affect this only by adding one to the die roll once over $O% losses are taken. Stacking is limited to 2 units or 8 strength points, and only the top unit ina hex can fire (and ordinarily, suffer casualties). Fire combat is conducted by cross-indexing the unit weapon type with range to target to ‘get a multiplier applied to the unit’s current strength. The resulting value, modified by other considerations, determines which col- ‘umn on the Fire CRT is used. Possible results are strength point losses or a Pin, which makes a unit unable to fire offensively or initiate melee. Melee combat is based on the strength differential ofthe units involved and ‘can result in casualties via death or capture, and mandated retreats, The sequence of play is: Phasing player determines which units can move; he bom- bards with artillery; non-phasing player can fire artillery at units which bombarded; phas- ing player moves; non-phasing player fires with units which haven't yet fired; phasing player does the same; non-phasing units threatened by melee can retreat; phasing units initiate melee; phasing player removes Pins and attempts to rally routed units. The chief defect of this sequence is that it permits units which have moved to fire just as ef- fectively as those which have not, a major simplification considering the | muzzle- loading weapons in use by almost all the forces involved. The game has many, many detailed rules. The Line of Sight rules (which involve slope and crest hexsides as well as elevations) could have been done better, but are inter- pretable, Much of the remaining detail is ac- tually simplified compared 10 the com- plexities which could have been invoked, but is still dauntingly complex. Then again, some detail is pure chrome added to dazzle the player with historical ambience. Allin all, 1 hhave no major criticisms of the game, but beware of the time it takes to play. A Solid weekend of diligent activity might suffice to reach a conclusion in a single day scenario, bbut the whole battle cannot be played out in one sitting, ‘STONEWALL (SPI, 1978) Designed by Mark Herman and developed by Tom Walezyk. I map 22°32", 100 counters, 16 pp. rules, boxed. Rating: B ‘The popularity of the TSS system eried ‘out for it to be applied toa more manageable sized battle, This i it, the Battle of Kerns- fown of March 23, 1862 when Stonewall Jackson launched '@ surprise attack on Shield’s division in the Shenandoah Valley. ‘The Union brigades start the game a bit scat tered, and must create a cohesive front to prevent the Confederates from slipping around them, but they cannot afford to be badly beaten in the process. The Confederate player must in turn avoid heavy casualties and either escape from the map or seize several key terrain objectives. The TSS system is used with modifica- tions, The BCE rule is made mandatory and the morale rating system from the errata is standard. A nice touch in the rules is a sec- tion pointing out the various changes from TSS, which in most cases are deletions or ‘minor modifications, The artillery bombard- ‘ment and counter-battery fire phases have been dispensed with, for example. Indeed, TSSis the only game sing them. All in all, this is a much more playable game than TSS, but given the small forces use, it is a bit frustrating because it requires the players to substitute maneuver for mass ina system that makes maneuver difficult BLOODY APRIL (SPI, 1979), Designed and developed by Richard Berg. 2 ‘maps 22°34", 1200 counters, 32 pp. rules, 10 ‘ages notes, plus charts, Rating: C+ Having found the public susceptible to, more TSS style games, SPI applied the sys- tem to the Battle of Shiloh. The results were less satisfactory. This was chiefly due to the additions made to recreate the battle condi- tions — in addition to morale and BCE, the players must now do bookkeeping 10 account, for stragglers and the accumulation of fa tigue by units engaged in marching and fighting On top of allthis, a system had to be laid ‘on to keep the Union forces sitting around in camp while Confederates approached, a system to allow Union troops to discover the approaching bad guys, and a system to let those who had made such discoveries spread the word to the rest of the army. In addition, evolutionary changes to the original TSS system were made, such as stacking limits varying with terrain, and a new treatment of artillery battery composition (helpfully, data to allow the new method to be retrofitted 10 TSSis provided), The result ofall this is to create a morass Of rule hunting and record keeping that is as fatiguing as the marching and fighting being portrayed, a strong disincentive to. play. ‘Three scenarios are provided (plus hypo- thetical ones based on altered historical con- ditions): The battle as a whole, the first day by itself, and “The Confederate Attack,” billed as'“the only ‘short’ scenario” which ccan be played in 8-10 (HA!) hours, excluding setup time, which is another story (and evening). Stil, buried beneath that workload isan interesting game. WILSON’S CREEK (SPI, 1980) Designed by Richard Wright and developed by Thomas Hudson. | map 22"%34", 200 counters, 24 pp. rules and charts, boxed. Rating: B ‘The TSS system rules that emerged from Bloody April are being applied to a new se- ries of games of manageable size called “Great Battles of the American Civil War.”” ‘The first of these issued (though labeled Volume 3) is Wilson's Creek, a battle fought in Missouri on August 10, 1861, which went a long way toward keeping that state in the Union, Like Shiloh, the situation involves a weaker force (the Union, this time) making a surprise attack on an encamped enemy. Like Bloody April, it provides a system 10 allow the attacker to approach and to simulate the surprise in the defending camps. Like BA, it is hard for the attacker to win, Unlike BA, it can be played in a reasonable amount of time. The new, streamlined version of the TSS system is quite playable in modest doses. PEA RIDGE (SPI, 1980) Designed by Eric Smith and developed by Thomas Hudson & Smith. 1 map 22"% 34", 200 ‘counters, 28 pp. rules and chars, flat box. Rating: Volume 1 of the Great Battles is sub- titled ‘The Gettysburg of the West, March 7-8 1862." This battle determined that the Union would control the non-Confederate states west of the Mississippi, ‘Once again the TSS/BA rules are employed, modified a bit for the situation portrayed. This is an excellent game subject, as both sides get {0 maneuver and attack. It ‘opens with weak Union forces holding isolated but key locations, with strong Rebel forces bearing down on them. The separa- tion of these locales creates two separate bat- tles in which the Union player must hold out ‘until his reinforcements arrive. The Con- federate player must win both (or win one and achieve atleast an exhausted standoff in the other) on the first day to be sure of win- ning, or else the Union player has a good chance to recover on the second day and carry both ends of the field. A good game on ‘an interesting situation. DRIVE ON WASHINGTON (SPI, 1980), Designed by Thomas Hudson and developed by Eric Smith and Hudson. | map 22°%34", 200, ‘counters, 28 pp. rules and charts, flat box. Ravine: Volume 2 of the Great Battles is the Bat- tle of Monocacy Junction, July 9, 1864, when Jubal Early emerged from the Shenan doah Valley to threaten Washington and di vert Union forces from Grant's steady ad- vance and campaign of attrition to take Rich- mond. Early’s corps was held for a time at the crossings of the Monocacy River by scratch units from the Army of the Potomac and garrison troops, 5‘The main flaws of this game are the low BCE levels and morale of the Confederates compared to the Union forces. In addition, the Confederate divisions cannot move until Early enters the board (determined by a die roll) and travels around to each division com- ‘mander to snap him out of his trance. On top of that, a mechanism called ‘Confederate Limited Initiative" is used. Each division has CLI rating, the number of casualties it can suffer before losing initiative (typically 1/3 to 1/2 of its total BCE values). Once this limit is reached, a division is severely limited in most activites unless Early is stacked with the division commander. ‘The result of all this fiddling with the rules is to allow a pick-up force of 3 Union brigades to havea good chance of fighting to a standstill 12 brigades of the Confederacy’s best troops. While this makes for a gamable situation, (., the Union player can actually win), the historical objective was for the Union to delay Early's advance as long as possible, not (0 try to defeat him in open battle. MURFREESBORO (Yaquinto, 1978) Designed by Richard Berg and developed by J. Peck. 1 map 21°27", 340 counters, I8 PP. rules and charts, flat box. Rating: B This game covers the Battle of Stones River on a brigade/operational level (225 yards/hex, 40 minutes/turn), with infantry brigades, ‘artillery batteries and cavalry “regiments” (only 1-200 men each) as the maneuver units, Terrain in a hex is either clear, woods, city or hill, while hexsides can be river, stream or crest. Fords, bridges, roads and trails are also present. A salient feature of the game is the presentation of infantry brigades as double sized counters which occupy two hexes. In ef- fect, a brigade is composed of two separate but ‘physically connected units. Losses are recorded on a roster sheet for each side of the counter, until one side is reduced to zero strength, Then the double counter is replaced by @ normal sized one occupying one hex. ‘This technique graphically captures the prob- lems of handling large bodies of troops in the various formations, In column, the counter moves with a narrow end asits front, while inline it moves broadside. The sequence of play is simple: Rally phase (phasing player only); movement, defensive ranged fire, offensive ranged fire and assault phases, and disruption removal phase (for both players). Ranged fire is pos- sible for infantry up to 2 hexes and artillery up (0 6, except that units assaulting or being assaulted cannot fire. However, artillery being assaulted can fire if not stacked with another type of unit, and units can fire at any ‘cavalry charging them even if they are other wise being assaulted. Ranged fire can cause disruption, morale checks (if failed, this causes disruption) and strength point losses. Assault is the prevalent form of combat and is done on a strength point odds basis, re- sulting instep losses, retreats and/or morale checks (if failed, the unit routs), Cavalry can only attack by assault, and must charge in- fantry or artillery. Since they have only one combat factor and one step, they are of little use offensively. Since they can retreat before combat, they are useful in the classic roles of screen units and nuisance raiders. ‘The game has some peculiarities in which the rationale of the rules is not clear. One of these is the prohibition of defensive fire to units being assaulted. Another is that infantry in line cannot cross creeks moving forward, but can do so moving backward! It appears’ that insufficient development, proofreading or both has marred an other- wise interesting system. WAR BETWEEN THE STATES (SPI, 1977) Designed and developed by trad B. Hardy. 3 ‘maps 22°34", 1200 counters, 20 pp. rules, 28 ‘pp. charts, boxed. Rating: B Introducing ““War in Europe Comes to North America’ — at roughly 10 miles per hex, the maps cover the country from South Jersey to Galveston on an operational scale land includes all the territory in which sig- nificant military activity took place. Units are divisions and brigades, and turns are one ‘week, though the game proceeds in cycles of 4turns plus a “strategic turn” in which siege activities, production, supply and political actions take place While supply and its distribution are a vital part of the game, play is dominated by the command control procedures. Units must have leaders to do anything, and leaders must be stacked with HQ's to be able to lead more than a few units. In the Cam: paign Game, HQ's are scarce until September of 1863, when they can be built as desired. Leaders, whose quality varies wide- ly, are picked at random each strategic tur. A poor leader can be fired, but goes back in to the pool, and a political point cost is assessed. For a leader to command other leaders, he must have an army HQ; in their absence, each corps is an independent com~ mand. Players may issue a limited number of ‘movement commands to leaders in a turn. Those not given commands can move only if the roll of a die is not greater than their in- itiative rating. Leaders can attack only by a similar die roll, and no “attack orders” are possible. While a player may get his troops where he wants them, he may not be able to attack with them. Given the low initiative levels and paucity of HQ's early in the war, it is easy to see why months could go by with no action — Lincoln and Davis were unable to roll the right numbers. ‘The game includes much more — exten- sive riverine-naval rules, construction and besieging of fortresses, establishing supply lines, drafting manpower, running for re- election, freeing the slaves. And for those who want only a piece of the action, six scenarios (East and West theaters in 1862, "63, ‘and '64) are provided in addition to the full ‘campaign game, Despite the cumbersome command rules, this game has a lot to offer. It is also the only strategic ACW game on the market, so despite its being an overgrown operational ‘game, itis the only one in town covering the entire war. THE IRONCLADS (Yaquinto, 1979) Designed by John Fuselor and developed by J Stephen Peek. 4 maps 1314" 19%, 267 counters, 36 pp. rules, 90 data cards plus chats, roster sheets and gauges, flat box. Rating: B. ‘THE IRONCLADS Expansion Kit (Yaquinto, 1980, credits as above) [No maps, 267 counters, 24 pp. rules plus charts, no roster sheets or gauges, 90 data cards, fat box. Rating: B For all the strategic importance of ‘marine and riverine warfare in the ACW, no game prior (0 this dealt with it on a tactical level. The scale is very small — 100 yards per hex, 3 minutes per turn — and a single counter represents a single ship or portion of, a shore battery, fort or obstruction (.8., boom, hulks, mines). There isa strong temp- tation to call the game “Iron Ships and Iron Men," but the resemblance is not that marked. Movement is plotted in advance and then resolved simultaneously (except that a turn can be split into 20 ‘movement se- quences” when necessary to determine who is ramming whom). After movement, guns are fired simultaneously, and if a ramming vessel survives fire, the ram attack is then resolved, ‘The game is a forest of charts — 22 of them, plus Critical and Special Hit Tables, that govern movement, combat, running aground, breaking through (or getting stuck in) obstacles, and so on. The undergrowth in this forests the record keeping. Each ship or battery must have a Log Sheet prepared for it, which requires copying a lot of informa- tion from the Data Card to start with, and re- cording all combat results as the game progresses. Guntfireis typical: roll wo dice toseeif a ‘gum hits its target (yes, each gum is fied indi- vidually). If t has, roll again to see where it hits. Calculate the penetration of the gun at that range, compare with the armor at chat point, and roll a die to see what happens (this may lead to more dice rolling for Penetra- tion, Special and/or Critical Hits, (00). Mosthits result in damage to the armor hit, which will eventually eliminate the protection at that point. ‘There are other hits: speed hits affect the ‘engines directly, while flotation hits can reduce speed as'they accumulate and even- tually lead to sinking, Hull hits can also af- fect speed and flotation, damage to smokestacks and paddlewheels can reduce speed, and hits on the crew can result in in- sufficient manpower to run the engines and work all the guns. One may gather from this that the game is super detailed. One would not be wrong, ‘The game contains 23 different scenar- jos, including ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore on rivers and at sea. Ninety different ship classes are provided, rated by point value asa guide for making up scenarios. Sadly, the data cards fail to give any extraneous infor- ion on the ships, such as dimensions and, isplacement, date of launching, ultimate fate and such non-functional trivia, All in- formation given is in terms of game parameters, which in some cases is pretty abstract. My copy is the “revised edition 1980,"" ‘but the rules still contain some annoying er- rors. Another oversight with the data cards is especialy irritating. There are 90 of them, printed on opposite sides of 45 pieces of card stock, and each is numbered. However, the ‘numbers don't seem to be assigned in’ any particular order, such as 1/2, 3/4, etc. In- stead, combinations such as 1/8, 2/10 and 27/47 are found, including Union and Confederate vessels on the same piece of paper. While this makes sorting the cards dif- ficult, even worse is the fact that in the sce- nario'instructions, ships are identified only by name, not by data card number. With 90 classes, some containing as many as 6 ships, there is alot of card flipping to find what you want. Players should make their own alphabetical roster. ‘The Expansion Kit is just that — more counters, more data cards, more charts and more rules, all of which are essentially ‘minutiae. Such topics are treated as in: creased powder loads, carcass shells, board- ing parties, ships firing at troops, “the cut- ting of a vessel in half by ramming," and so much more. And, for those who have been ‘anxiously awaiting them, major warships of the navies of England, France, Austria, Den- mark, Tlaly, Peru and Chile are provided, plus scenarios weemploy them in. In summary, The Ironclads and the Expansion Kit have staked out the territory of mid-19th century tactical naval simula- tion, For those who can enjoy (or at least tolerate) the detail with which the subject is treated, it is certainly rewarding if a flawed. For those with beer and pretzels at hand, find something else. McPHERSON’S RIDGE (Task Force Games, 1980) Designed by R. Vance Buck and developed by ‘Stephen Cole, 1 map 19" 22", 216 counters, 10, pp. rules and charts, bookcase box. Rating: C+ This is another game on part of the Bat- tle of Gettysburg, in this case the opening stages on July I when Heth’s division pushed ‘back Buford’s cavalry and the I Corps from ‘McPherson’s and Seminary Ridges (2 alter- nate scenarios are included, substituting Stuart's cavalry for Heth and XI Corps for I Corps), It is supestcially similar to the TSS system, with scales of 100 yards per hex, 15 ‘minutes per turn and 100 men or 1 gun'per strength point, ‘There are a few major differences from TSS, though. Phasing units fire before they move, and units which fire may not move as well. Combat is resolved in a similar way ex- cept that the only results on the CRT are ca~ sualties. What in TSS/BA would merely call for a Pin or a morale check draws blood in this game, and morale is checked as well, with failure causing rout. This leads to a rapid vanishment of units from the combat line, There is no form of BCE either, so proud regiments, or craven ones for that matter, will literally fight to the last strength point as long as they can manage to rally or avoid being routed inthe first place. Leaders are provided, but as a piece of ‘chrome; units are considered to have an in- herent leader who may be killed or captured, leaving the unit leaderless until the next friendly player turn. Leaderless units are ‘essentially incapable of offensive action. ‘Compared to the TSS system, as refined through six games, this one lacks polish. It is not unworkable, but in some ways is incom- plete and in others too gimmicky. Overall, this is not a bad game, but is by no means ‘outstanding in design, execution or graphics. PICKETT’S CHARGE (Yequinto, 1980) Designed and developed by 8. Craig Taylor. 1 ‘map 2115"% 2795", 350 counters, 34 pp. rules and charts, flat box. Rating: B Despite its title, this game tries to cover the whole of Gettysburg in one scenario, with additional scenarios for the separate days, the fight for Little Rdund Top and Pickett’s Charge itself. In scale, iis operational rather than tactical, with $00 yards/hex, 200-250 ‘men per strength point and 1 hour/turn at night), ‘The hexes are large (32mm) so the board is really only 34 17 hexes in playing area. Terrain is differentiated by 5 levels of height, and hexes are considered either clear, forest, town, sunken road or RR cut. There are cfeek and steep slope hexsides, while every hexside between different elevations is 4 slope as well. The game is presented as a Basic game with a plethora of optional rules. Counters are either 4" squares of YA" xK" rectangles, denoting unit size and determining stacking (this is a misnomer as the counters are placed side by side inthe hex rather than literally stacked). Leaders are provided for Army, Corps and levels, while the units themselves are brigades (or artillery battalions), The current strength and morale of each brigade is tracked on a roster sheet, while the counter shows its fire, ‘melee and movement factors, In combat, the fire (or melee) factor, after modification, determines which of several CRT’s will be used. Combat results are in terms of strength point losses, with a morale check req ‘whena lossis taken. ‘The sequence of play is: designate charging units and their targets; check ‘units and their targets; passed and place ‘a melee marker on them; move other Units; rally units; non-phasing units fire; phasing units fire; check morale due to fire combat; resolve melee combat. Units not stacked with leader move only one-half their printed ‘movement factor. Since it is generally impos- ible to stack all of a division in one hex, either part of the division which can’t stack with the commander gets left behind, or everybody sticks tothe slow pace. "The Basic game is a bit simplistic, The optional rules provide chrome like Dreastworks and prone formation, but also some significant changes or additions. Of ‘major impact is the ammo supply rule, and almost as important is the use of Reaction Movement by the non-phasing player, and the use of skirmishers and extended com- mand control rules. ‘This game takes a new approach to the portrayal of Civil War combat, and in some ‘cases is not as successful as it could be. Like TSS, though, it has the potential of fathering anew and important game system. ‘THE 20th MAINE (08a, 1979) Designed by L. Millman and developed by D. ‘Mortin and Millman. 1 map 11*% 17", 100 ‘counters, 12 pp. charts and rues, 6°%9" ‘lock. Rating: B+ This game covers the fight for Little Round Top on the second day at Gettysburg, with the 20th maine and parts of the 83rd Pennsylvania against 22 companies from three different Alabama regiments. Victory is based on points scored for inflicting ‘casualties and holding certain victory hexes at the hilltop. ‘The game system is similar to TSS though the scales are different (20 yards/hex, 6 minutes/turn, 20 men/strength point). Forgetting that counters are companies rather than regiments, the resemblence is remarkably strong. In a player turn, the player has a command phase in which, among other things, units may be rallied and. determination of which ones can move is made, based on their distance from a leader. Units then move, the defender fires, the at- tacker fires and resolves melee. Fire combat is 78 based_on the strength of the firing unit ‘modified by range and sundry other consid- erations, and can result in strength losses, loss of effectiveness and morale checks. Melee combat is based on strength differ- ential and has similar results. Failure of ‘morale checks is more likely with lower rated units and as losses mount Differences with TSS loom large, chiefly in the command control and morale areas. In the BCE rule, losses to parts ofa brigade can render the whole unit ineffective. In this game, each company is independent, and a regiment can fight until itis wiped out, as losses affect only the unit taking the loss. In the command control system, not only must ‘unit be close to an officer to move, the of- ficer must expend ‘command points” to move it. Virtually all action except fire com- bat requires expenditure of points, and since each hex moved by a company consumes them, itis seldom a unit will move the 5 hex ‘maximum it is allowed because the regi- mental officers will not have enough points to move all the companies that far. Thus, preserving cohesion means slow movement, and non-moving units (i., the defenders) will be able to spend points for things like devastating volley fire that moving units can’t afford. The game has some idiosyneracies, such as units with fixed bayonets not being. able to fire, and the firepower of units not being reduced by movement. Altogether, though, it is a well-balanced and enjoyable game with an interesting variation on the ‘almost standard TSS system, DEVIL'S DEN (08G, 1980) Designed and developed by D. Martin and L. Millman. I map 22"% 34", 400 counters, 24 9p, rules and charts, plus notes, Bookcase box. Rating: B+ Done by the same team who produced 20th Maine, this game seems to be a second ‘rack at the situation, for a scenario is given for the Little Round Top action as well as the fight for the Devil's Den. The map covers from north of Little Round Top to the center of Big Round Top, and goes west past Plum Run, Game scales are increased to 8 minutes per turn, 30 yards per hex and 15 men per strength point. Units now represent 2 com- panies instead of one, and 2 gun artillery sec- tions are added, with separate crew counters Also provided are brigade officers, plus Hood (the division commander for the Con- federates) and Warren (senior officer present for the Union). ‘The game system is refined from that of, 20th Maine. Units must still be placed under ‘command by expenditure of points, but need only be activated in order to move their full MA. The flip side of the unit counters no longer shows a unit in its Disorganized state (a marker is placed for that purpose), but rather its Ineffective state (reached after losing a certain number of strength points, generally 2). Ineffective units have lower morale ratings, are less useful in combat and are more prone to being put out of action en- tirely. In a way its like BCE, but again it af- fects only one unit at a time, not an entire brigade. The game plays well, but slowly compared to 20th Maine because of the sreater number of counters and markers in play, It is no worse in this respect than any of. the TSS family, though. Aside from some typos and other pro- duction errors, one almost trivial item about this game (and 20th Maine) bothers me. Itis stated that the 2nd US Sharpshooters are armed with the Sharps carbine, and indeed their effective range is something less than that of the rifle-musket armed units. Ac- cording to Civil War Guns by W.B. Edwards, in May 1862 both regiments of Sharp- shooters had been fully issued the Sharps ti- fle, a quite different weapon. I hope the use of the word “carbine"” is merely evidence of poor choice of words rather than lack of research, GETTYSBURG (Avalon Hill, 1977) Designed by Mick Uhl. 1 map 22°% 28", ‘mounted, 1080 counters, 0 pp. rules and chars Rating: C/B/C This game, often called Gettysburg ’77 to distinguish it from the three previous ‘games of the same title, is itself three games in one package. All are played on the same map, but use different counters and rules. ‘This makes for some confusion, and this is ‘one of the few titles for which AH has published an errata sheet which it actually calls errata ‘The map itself is a thing of beauty, covering the whole main battlefield at 756 feet to the hex. In addition, elevations at 20 foot intervals are represented by color codes — 14 in all, including 8 shades of green. While beautiful, it is also a bit hard on the eyes. Other types of terrain, shown on topographic style symbology include woods, rough, clumps of trees, orchards, rivers, buildings, roads and crests. Introductory Gettysburg_is simple, almost painfully 50; the rules take less than two pages. Terrain has absolutely no effect, ‘on movement or combat, and play is simple alternate player move and attack with rigid ZOC's and compulsory combat. Units are divisions and aday turn is about two hours. Intermediate Gertysburg uses a whole 6 pages of rules and some of the terrain as well, such as elevations and woods. Basic units are infantry and cavalry brigades and artillery battalions, with separate HQ’s. Units are identified by the names of their brigade and division commanders. In addition, Union brigades have the appropriate corps badge symbol, color coded by division. The Confederate units bear as a symbol the out- line of their state, color coded by corps. HQ’s are equipped with national flag sym- bols. Not quite as bad as medieval heraldry, but close. ‘The sequence of play isa bit more com- plicated. A player turn contains: 1. Disorganization " (‘‘disorganized 2" markers become “disorganized 1”) and Breastwork Placement Phase; 2. Movement Phase; 3. Combat Phase; 4, Reorganization Phase (roll adie for units with “disorganized 1" markers). Movement is simple, as there are no terrain effects except for roads, which affect only “strategic movement,” which is four times the normal rate. ZOC's are rigid, and units must stop when entering them. A unit may leave an enemy ZOC at the cost of becoming “disorganized 2."" ‘Combat is less conventional, but is based on strength odds. The phasing player ‘may continue (0 attack with units as long as he has any still adjacent to enemy units, but only the first attack by any given unit is re~ quired. Losses arein steps, with all units hav- ing only two steps. Losing the first step “shatters” the unit, making it useless until it recovers (overnight). Units which retreat are organized 2.” Disorganized units can also recover overnight or on a die roll of 1 or 2 (or more ifa HQ lends hand). This partic ular version isn’t bad, its chief defect being the notion that terrain doesn't affect move- ment on an operational scale. As a brigade level operational simulation, it is reasonably good and not too complex, ‘Advanced Gettysburg is not simple. In this version, the brigade counters from the intermediate version are used only to repre- sent the unit HQs. The actual combat troops are counters called ‘‘column" or “*battleline ‘markers,"" each worth & strength points (3 for cavalry), with losses shown by placing number chits beneath them. These markers ‘must be kept together when moving a bri- gade, either in line or column formation. New counters are provided for individual ar- tillery batteries and for HQ's. Each game turn now represents 20 minutes, and with a strength point at roughly 100 men, this version is a tactical game on an operational scale board.‘The sequence of play is convoluted, and places great deal of emphasis on command control. Units can be in one of three different command states, each with its own move- ment phase, followed by artillery fire, com- bat fire and assault phases. The rules are crammed with a mixture of chrome and necessary details: unit formation and facing, morale and leadership are all aken into ac: count, but except for roads, terrain sill does hot affect movement. Units have no move- ment allowance per se, but spend “activity points” to move and ckange formation. Ex- pending them to0 fas: builds up ‘‘disorgan- ization points,” which degrade a unit's per- formance. Losses are taken in “casualty points,” of which ten are required to cause a Joss of one strength point. Further exposition of the rules would make a history of Byzan- tine politics look straightforward. All inall, the Introductory game is too simple and the Advanced game too complex, and both are married to a map which s not the best seale for the purpose. The Inter- ‘mediate game isthe best, but was not as well done as it could be due to the time and in- fenity expended on ring to make the Ad- CHANCELLORSVILLE (Avalon Hill, 1974) redesigned” by Randall C. Reed. 1 map 22°% 28" mounied, 169 counters, [3 pp. rules ‘and notes, flat Box. Rating: B The original Chancellorsville is one of the “classics AH doesn’t like to talk about. This revision is a much more workable game. The map has been revised so it looks like a ‘map rather than an abstract pattern of pastel hhexagons, though functionally the terrain is about the same, Scales are not given, but hhexes seem to be about one kilometer and strength points about 1000 men, Day turns are three hours long, with two overnight turns. ‘The game covers the three days of the campaign at a divisional level, though ar~ tillery units are battalion strength and the Confederate divisions can break down into brigades. The turn sequence is move and fight, but with an interesting addition, Ar- tillery units no longer have a two-hex wide ZOC, but after movement, defending artil- lery can fire at enemy units up to two hexes away. After that, attacking artillery can do the same or combine their strength with in- fantry for a regular odds-based attack. Com- t results are long on retreats and disrup- tions; this is nota bloody game. The pontoon bridges, assault boats and fortifications of the earlier version have been retained. This allows the Union player to choose between forcing a crossing of a defended river, or as, Hooker did, attempt to outflank the Rebels. The Confederate in turn must disperse his strength and keep a maneuver reserve rather than sit back and wait to blast the attacker. Al told, a reasonably good division level ‘game. [tis not an ambitious design, but itis nota spectacular failure either. FURY IN THE WEST (Battietine/AH) Designed by J. Stephen Peek developed by 5, Craig Taylor. 1 map 22°% 28", 350 counters, 20 pp. rules, plus charts, flat box. Rating: B This one covers the Battle of Shiloh on an operational level. The predominant units are infantry brigades, with artillery bat- talions and cavalry regiments and individual gunboats. The scale is not given, but hexes seem to be about 400 yards and day turns about one hour, The sequence of play is the basic alternate one side moves-then-attacks, though when all options are in force, extra phases are added (arrival of reinforcements, determining initiative, communications among players on the same side). Combat is between adjacent units, with ranged artillery fire possible, and is based on odds. Terrain effects are figured in by having three dif- ferent results columns at each odds level on the CRT. Units are either in “battle” or “column” formation, with movement and ‘combat capabilities adjusted accordingly. Losses are in strength points, tracked on a roster sheet. In addition, most activities will ‘cause units to take losses through straggling, land these are tracked separately as they may be recovered, Other rules include use of leaders, capture of artillery, bayonet charges and the use of river gunboats by the Union. ‘There are three scenarios — for the whole battle and for the days individually. Graphically, the game is good-looking. The board is predominately a rich green overlayed with mottling to show woods, with bright yellow cleared fields and white hex- sides. The counters are also striking, with battleflags on the oversized infantry brigades (the hexes are 32mm to accommodate them). The large hexes and the relatively small umber of units in play make for an un- crowded map. However, the game itself ‘ot as beautiful as its components. It is solid and competent but not outstanding, The BLUE & GRAY Quads (spr) Each game has one 17*%22" map, 100 counters, 4 pp. standard rules, 3-4 pp. exclusive rales; scale 400 meters/hex On the whole, “quadrigames” are not ‘generally conceded to be at the pinnacle of the designer's art, but even the Blue & Gray, which rank right down there with Island War, have some positive aspects, They are games, not pretending to be simulations, and some of their inaccuracies and design com- promises annoy me. At least they are easily learned and fairly quick, if not fun, to play. The chief deficiencies in these games arise from two aspects of the Civil War, new ‘weapons and incompetent leadership ‘han- spped by a lack of good tactical intel igence about the enemy. A bloody lesson eventually learned was that the effective range of rifled weapons made Napoleoric in- fantry/artllery tactics costly at best and fre~ ‘quently fruitless. So what is the basic game system chosen for the quads? Nepoleon at Waterloo, of course. ‘A result of increased firepower was a clearcut advantage to the defender, yet in these games attack and defense use the same combat factor and 1-1 odds have an equal chance of loss for both sides. However, the attacker is handicapped in a peculiar way; if unit suffers an attacker retreat, it is rendered unable to attack again. If in an ‘enemy ZOC at the start of its turn, it suffers fan automatic retreat result as well, since ZOC's are rigid and combat mandatory. While attacking units could be badly bat- tered, applying the result to every failed at- tack is t00 lavish in its use, especially since no similar effect applies to defenders. De- fending units, even ones which have lost “‘at- tack effectiveness," can be literally booted from one end of the board to another ‘without an iota of illeffect on their morale or defensive combat power. Inall but one game, units must rest overnight to regain attack ‘effectiveness. If there is no next day, tough, Incompetent leadership is inevitable when a nation generates mass armies over- night. The Union, with more men under arms, had more incompetents to begin with and took longer to get them out of positions in which they could do harm. Even good leaders were hampered by poor recon- najssance, and the combination of the two was debilitating. McClellan at Antietam had 1 good plan, but failed to execute it, partly because it was his style to dither and party because he was convinced Lee outnumbered him. OF the eight games of these quads, some sort of arbitrary rule is introduced in almost. ‘every one to handicap the Union player, the attacker (the Union in five cases anyway) or both. Usually this handicap is a restriction on the number of units which can move, appar- cently on the grounds that since the historical commander employed his troops foolishly, the player must be compelled 10 do likewise. The result is a tendency for the games to reach their historical outcomes, not because the situation is accurately modeled but because of these restraints on the players. Handicaps are fine in horse races; in war- ‘games, they are a cheap out for the designer. BLUE & GRAYI1975 CEMETERY HILL Design: Ed Curran’ Rating: D= This creation has many deficiencies, so 1 fam not sure where to start. It covers the whole 3 day battle at a pace of 4 day and 1 night turn per day. Units are divisions and artillery brigades for the Union and half-divi sions and artillery battalions for the Con- federates, Terrain types are restricted to clear, rough, forest, forest-rough, road and town, with fordable creek hexsides. The map bears little semblance to the battlefield, and the course of the game bears litle semblance to history. Even without the handicap of loss Of attack effectiveness, the Confederates on the first day are hard-pressed to hold their own against the mighty XI Corps, much less sweep the field before them, ‘SHILOH Design: Christopher Allen Rating: C ‘The chief defects of this game are those of the quads as a whole, particularly the at- tack effectiveness rules. Basically, the Con- federates are not likely to win, The battle is10 covered in 13 turns (6 per day plus one night) With infantry brigades and artillery bat~ talions as the main units (and, of course, the Union gunboats). The terrain is mostly forest, rough and forest-rough, slowing the Confederates while not helping the Union muuch, since forests have no effect on com= bat. During the first two turns, all Union units notin enemy ZOC's must move one hex. north or northeast, which may force them to vacate nice defensible terrain ANTIETAM Design: Tom Walezyk Rating: B~ This isa one day battle in ten turns on a brigade level, Terrain is largely clear with blocks of rough and forest. The chief obstacle to the Union advance is Antietam Creek, which can be crossed only at five fords ‘and three bridges. The Union right wing starts already across the creek, though, and since they are both stronger and more ‘numerous units, they should have a walkover. But, McClellan attacked piece ‘meal, or father made no effort 1o coordinate the attacks of his corps commanders. So the Union player is compelled to do the same. He starts the game with 46 units but can move only 15 on the first turn and 10 on the later turns, Of course, he can pick which ones will move, a luxury not afforded McClellan, which makes it historically inaccurate. Given the structure of the game, sucha restriction is needed to prevent Union victory every time; however, it would be better to limit move ‘ment t0'the units of any three corps each turn, The Union offensive moved by fits and starts, but atleast the corps acted as units in ‘whatever they did, All things considered, this, is the second best of the eight games in the quads. CHICKAMAUGA Design: Irad B. Hardy IIL Rating: B+ Easily the best of the B&G'S, this has be- come a perennial convention tournament favorite, mainly because it is exciting and well balanced. The terrain is mostly forest, ‘with a lot of serpentine ridges of rough and forest-rough, cut by roads and trails. A superior force of Confederates must cross the length of the board and seize (wo exit hexes. The piecemeal arriving Union troops must hold them off long enough to get themselves off the board while killing Rebs and keeping them from exiting as wel ‘The game covers wo days in 15 turns with brigade level units. Fairly low unit dem sities, combined with the numerous choke points on the map, make for a game of maneuver more than head-on combat, and the outcome is usually in doubt to the end. Significantly, there are no artificial restric- tions on either side in this game, BLUE & GRAY Il, 1975 FREDERICKSBURG Design: Joe Angioliilo Rating: © This game covers Burnside’s disastrous attempt to chase Lee off the Rappahannock front in December 1862. He had about a S0% manpower advantage but had to attack ‘across a river, through a town and up a hill against a fortified enemy. As Burnside was ‘even more inept at running a battle than Me- Clellan, he was bloodily defeated. To insure that the Union Player doesn’t do significant- ly better, he is only allowed to move 15 of his ‘S6units in any given turn, ‘The game is on the brigade level, cover- ing (wo days in 11 turns, though it should all be over on the first day” A new terrain type, the redoubt, is added to aid the Confederate defense. 'major flaw is the placement of key terrain near the board edge, Hamilton's Crossing is worth 25 Victory Points (com pared to an average of 8 points for all other victory hexes) but is the last hex in the row. Thus itis protected on one side by redoubis and rough terrain and on the other by the edge of the world, forcing a frontal assault ‘on a one hex front to take it. The game has a second scenario, covering the diversionary attack by Sedgewick in May during the Chancellorsvlle campaign. While not really ood cither, it is better than the main HOOKER & LEE Design: Richard Berg Rating: © The map covers the area west of Fredericksburg where most of the fighting in the Chancellorsville campaign took place, and the game covers the last wo days of this campaign in 9 turns, using Union divisions and Confederate brigades. ‘The game starts with the Union army already across the river, so strategic surprise hhas been achieved as it was historically. The Confederate player is allowed to try a “tac- tical surprise," Jackson's flanking move, by removing units from the board and bringing them back on later. Unfortunately, the Union player gets to know what units left, when they'll return, and approximately where, So, ust to keep him tied up and asin effective as Hooker, he can move only 6 of his 27 units on any given turn. In effect, the Confederate has been given the offensive ball tocarry. One redeeming feature of the game is that the map mates up with the one from Fredericksburg, and rules are provided for Grand Chancellorsville. This game is superior to either of its components, and is similar in scope and quality to the AH 1974 version. It adds leaders to the countermix, and their effects on movement and combat CHATTANOOGA Design: Frederick Georgian Rating: © This is another two-day battle in 10 turns on a brigade level approach, covering the Union attack to break the Rebel siege of Chattanooga following Chickamauga. Both sides have lines of redoubts, but except for these and Lookout Mountain, most of the fighting will be done on clear terrain. Once again the Union force is stronger in numbers and average strength. Once again the Union player is shackled — he can move only 11 of his 41 counters on any given turn, BATTLE OF THE WILDERNESS, Design: Linda Mosca Rating: D= ‘The game covers two days of fighting in 16 turns on a divisional level. The board is mostly forest, with a road/trail net and a number of clearings, In the real battle, Grant tried to flank Lee by marching through the tangled second: growth scrub Forest called The Wilderness, in which Hooker had come to grief. Lee manag. ed to block him and the battle which follow ed was a series of isolated clashes by troops blundering around on the poor roads and trails, often out of touch with even their leaders due to the dreadfully impassible ter- rain. In the game, Union units cannot even enter Forest hexes on the first day unless they contain a road, trail or enemy ZOC, For some reason, on the second day they may enter any forest hex adjacent to aclear, road or trail hex, Not t00 bad a handicap’ com- pared to the other B&G's, However, the Confederates are given superhuman mobili- ty. They travel on trails as if they were roads and in forests asif they were trails. ‘The game should be played like double blind man’s bluff, with inverted counters and lots of dummy counters for both sides. Instead, it plays more like southeast Asia. Rebs come barreling down the pike toward a roadbound Union column, At the last mo- ‘ment, the lead units peel off into the forest ‘on either side to hem in the leading Federals. with enemy ZOC’s, so an ensuing defender retreat leads to elimination, The conflict becomes one of almost surgical strikes by a mobile defender against a ponderous attack, rather than an inchoate brawl that eventually died out due to mutual exhaustion JOPERATIONAL ANALYSIS by Anthony G. Curtis IF you'll think back to last issue, | lamented that | didn't have this article in time to go to press with it. It arrived the day after | wrote that column (closing the issue). We have the Express Mail Service to thank for the delay leven. though they promise overnight delivery, sometimes the “night” is arctic in duration). Mr. Curtis assisted in the develop: ment of the game and, herein, gives you the results of that experience. = RAS Fifth Corps/Central Front breaks a great deal of new ground in its treatment of warfare in Germany in the 1980's, With several new concepts in the game, there are bound to be questions not only about the hows" of playing the game, but also che “whys” behind some of the new concepts Asone of the Ceniral Front playtesters, I feel fortunate not only to have a good working knowledge of how the scenarios should be played, but also to have been included in ‘much of the give-and-take which went into the finalization of the game mechanics Before moving on to the scenarios, I'd like to provide some of the reasoning behind the Friction Point concept as well as the in- novative method of overruns Friction Point Gain Units. basically gain Friction Points either for combat (including artillery support missions) or movement. Taking losses for combat-related causes is understandable, Gaining Friction Points for movement is @ new concept, and those without any military service may well wonder why a unit should have to take losses without firing a shot in anger. Basically, fatigue and mechanical failure are the prime reasons for Friction Point gain. Both occur whenever units move. First there is fatigue. Warsaw Pact forces are trained 10 conduct a non-stop of- fensive. NATO forces will have t0 react 10 Warsaw Pact moves. Many units on both sides will be constantly on the move. Under such conditions, physical and mental per formance will be degraded, and non-battle casualties will increase. Second, and perhaps more serious, is the maintenance problem. After nine years of service as a commissioned officer, | know from personal experience that itis difficult in the extreme to keep units functioning at any- thing close to 100% in terms of operational equipment. When subjected to daily usage or training, equipment breaks down. It is only reasonable to assume that equipment break- downs will not only continue to occur during wartime, but would probably increase. Both sides have built in a vulnerability to loss through mechanical failure by equip- ping combat units wherever possible with tracked vehicles. Their advantages in fire power, crew protection, and cross-country ‘mobility are offset by their mechanical shor. comings. Tracked vehicles are complex and hard to maintain, They break down fre quently and often require considerable time and effort to repair. The Warsaw Pact forces are organized to operate in spite of the prob- lem. Maintenance support for their units is minimal, Sheer numbers are expected 10 in: sure that enough vehicles reach the fighting regardless of the breakdown rate. Although NATO units have a far greater maintenance capability than their Warsaw Pact counter: parts, time and the confusion of any modern European battlefield will insure that much of the equipment lost for mechanical reasons will not be repaired and returned to the units whereit isneeded Another aspect of Friction Point use likely to raise questions revolves around at- tack and defense strengths which remain constant when Friction Points representing losses are gained by the unit. Normally units which suffer losses have these losses reflected in reduced Attack and Defense Strengths This apparent inconsistency makes sense on- ly when you look at the current and projected methods of employing offensive and defen- sive formations in a European conflict There are two key concepts: reserves and depth. Units do not stand shoulder to shoulder with 100% of their firepower on the line. Both sides emphasize depth. There was a time that Army units from the platoon on up would establish defensive positions using the old “two up and one ‘back’ principle. Given the lethality and ex- tended range of weaponry today, standard procedure in the Army and throughout NATO now is only “one up and two or three back.” The combat factors on each unit represent that portion of the unit, its cutting edge, which is deployed up front. The units possess a certain amount of depth and this depth is depleted as Friction Points are eain- ed. For example, a unit with no Friction Points accrued could defend a sector with a forward line of defense, plus maintain numerous backup positions with reserve forces. As this unit gains FP"s this ability 10 provide reserves decreases FP gains for a defending unit mean that more of its remaining assets are required on "12 line with a much smaller percentage in reserve. The unit becomes, ineffect, a brittle, hollow shell, able to project a respectable amount of firepower but subject 10 complete disintegration if it suffers further loss. The same disintegration effect occurs in attacking units where losses have forced almost all re- ‘maining units assets to be employed in the assault role with little or nothing left for ‘back-up or exploitation Some may question why Overrun ‘Strengths are biased so much in favor of the Warsaw Pact forces and why Overrun Strengths are greater than the Attack Strengths of units attacking normally. In almost all cases in the game, as well as in ac- tual conflict, the Warsaw Pact forces will be doing the attacking. Warsaw Pact doctrine stresses the overrun concept heavily. Warsaw Pact forces are trained to utilize overruns whenever possible, and are considered to be very proficient at making such attacks. ‘Because an overrun is designed to place an overwhelming amount of offensive strength against’ small portion of a defender’ lines to open a hole for succeeding. elements, the disparity between Warsaw Pact and NATO overrun strengths represents ‘more of a ratio between Attack and Defense ‘Strength at a certain point in the defender's line than overall attack or defense strengths. ‘The reduction of the defender’s loss by one FP also shows that only part of the unit is in- volved. Requiring the defending unit to stand in place is one more way of simulating. the Warsaw Pact technique of attacking to ‘open holes for further advance while largely ignoring other defending units in the area. The defender is not allowed to retreat because successful overruns would be over, with the attacking force moving through the gap created, before the defending unit had time to react. ‘The Map Terrain Because the game's victory conditions require the Warsaw Pact forces to advance great distances to secure objectives, the focus fof the game for the Warsaw Pact player becomes how to move his forces most effi ciently. For the NATO player, the main ob- jectiveis to halt Warsaw Pact advances. ‘The Fifth Corps map offers both players the opportunity to succeed. The Warsaw Pact player has available to him wo major east-west autobahns, several good primary roads, and innumerable access hexsides These access hexsides represent the extensive secondary road network of forest trails and farm roads which criss-cross Germany. On the other hand, abundant defensive terrain blocks almost all avenues of advance at one (or more points. Because of the extremely favorable movement considerations, the Warsaw Pact player will almost always commit most of his forces to drives along the major autobahns. ‘The NATO player will defend the autobahns ‘most heavily. If this was all both sides had to do, the game would get stale preity quickly. Access “hexsides make the difference, especially on the first Movement Phase player the opportunity to slide strong forces around even the strongest NATO positions. ‘The NATO player will have difficulty defend- ing against these moves because there are so many hexsides available, Because the War- saw Pact forces are so much more powerful than the NATO units, any mistakes in defen- sive placement by the NATO player will almost always mean the loss of the position ‘being defended, and perhaps loss ofthe units aswell. Things are not in the Warsaw Pact’s favor by any means. The adept NATO player will use the access hexsides to shift reserves laterally behind his lines. Also, the careless ‘Warsaw Pact player will find NATO units slipping around his units to pin them from the rear or to set up blocking positions to delay incoming Warsaw Pact reinforce- ‘ments. Worse yet, the Warsaw Pact player ‘who does not plan ahead by atleast one turn for his units’ movement will find that he has powerful forces road-bound when the lead elements become blocked, and the follow-up ‘units cannot maneuver through the surround- ing hexsides because there are no access hhexsides, or the access hexsides do not allow travel in the proper direction. To win in every scenario, the Warsaw Pact player must move as far and as fast as possible. I cannot emphasize this point too strongly. As strong as the Warsaw Pact forces are, their chances for victory are creased each time they force NATO units to surrender territory by out-maneuvering them instead of fighting for it. Getting the most mileage out of each Friction Point becomes critical to the Warsaw Pact player. As a general rule, if the Warsaw Pact player finds that many of his units are gaining Friction Points for advances of two or three hexes, he should take a hard look at his movement planning. Lots of small advances will lose hhim the game. ‘One type of defensive terrain deserves special mention here. Cities are extremely im- portant to the NATO player, because they are the one type of terrain where the Warsaw act may never utilize overruns. For obvious reasons, the Warsaw Pact player should avoid attacking cities whenever possible. In rmultichex cities, the Warsaw Pact player ‘must always remember that Zones of Control do not extend through adjacent city hexsides. Unless all adjacent city hexsides are occupied by Warsaw Pact units, the defending unit is not surrounded and always has an open route of retreat. The NATO player must always remember that a mis-placement of his units will allow Warsaw Pact units to enter city hhexes and move between and past defending NATO units, again because ofthe absence of Zones of Control between city hexes. That fone feature of city hexes is definitely double- edged. ‘The Opposing Forces First, a look at the Warsaw Pact forces. ‘Awesome is a very good word to describe the forces available to hurl at NATO. In any ter- rain other than city hexes, there is no way for the NATO player to deny the terrain to the Warsaw Pact forces if the Warsaw Pact player is willing to take the necessary losses. The striking power is provided by the ‘mechanized and tank divisions. On balance, the mechanized division is stronger, when at- tacking, defending or overrunning, than the tank division. However, given non-divisional artillery suppor, the tank division is nearly the equal Of the mechanized division in non-city ter- rain, and better suited to attacks on city hexes. Both types of divisions are compact, powerful formations which are capable of at~ tacking or defending any objective the War- saw Pact player chooses. These divisions do hhave limitations. Because multi-hex attacks ‘must be carried out by units of only one divi- sion (with non-divisional support) divisions ccannot be split up to cover wide areas, Multi- hhex attacks are often necessary, usually because a NATO unit has become engaged with part of a division and is strong enough that most or all of the division's strength is required to remove it. If a division is widely separated, time will be lost and Friction Points will be gained in order to reunite the division, ‘Another shortcoming is the caveat which restricts all Warsaw Pact units to movement in west, southwest or northwest directions only. The restriction imposes a burden on the Warsaw Pact player to insure that his divisions do not get into situations where substantial portions of a division are pinned to the east of the land elements. Ifthe pinned elements cannot disengage or attack over the NATO unit, and if itis not possible to bring sufficient forces to bear from other divisions, the Warsaw Pact player will have permanently lost the striking power of the entire division. As powerful as the individual regiments are, the really tough NATO posi- tions can only be taken using the high attack strengths and column shifts the combined at- tacks provide ‘Another problem with individual regiments i their vulnerability to NATO sur- prise attacks. Three or four NATO bat- talions utilizing a prepared, mult-hex, sur- rounding attack with two battalions to the ‘east of the regiment will generate a five col- umn shift in their favor. At odds of between 4-1 and 6-1 there isa 66% chance of inflicting ‘a one FP loss even in the best defensive ter- rain. Thus, even these strong regiments can be destroyed. ‘The tank battalions in the mechanized divisions are an exception to my advice against splitting up Warsaw Pact divisions ‘Their relatively low strength will not be miss- ed in any multi-hex attack. They have value all out of proportion to thei size as blocking the pinning units or as end-run units to distract and worry the NATO player. Warsaw Pact artillery, both divisional and non-divisional, will often be the margin of difference between victory and defeat for the Warsaw Pact player. These units are numerous — more powerful than their NATO counterparts — highly mobile and able to fire a variety of missions. They pro- vide the only chemical delivery means when air superiority is missing. Because WarsawPact units can stack three to a hex, the ar- tillery provides the doubled direct-fire capability in sufficient strength to make at- tacks on city hexes possible. The non-division artillery is especially valuable, because it can be used to support numerous attacks in any Phase regardless of division. The artillery also has its weaknesses. It can be over-utilized and destroyed prematurely by the harmful prac- tice of using it in a direct fire role while simultaneously having it dispense chemicals. If'such a unit had to move prior to an attack and suffered a combat loss, it would gain four Friction Points in one Phase alone. Such attacks are often necessary, but the Warsaw Pact player is foolish if he uses ar- tillery in such a manner when not absolutely necessary. If too much artillery is lost early, the Warsaw Pact forces will not have enough strength to take the important city hexes en= ‘countered later in the scenari Non-stacked artillery is vulnerable to NATO units which have been by-passed in the advance or have been slipped through the lines. Most Warsaw Pact artillery is soft and defends with a strength of one when caught alone. Warsaw Pact artillery units caught when immobilized by Friction Point gain are often destroyed by single NATO battalions. None of the artillery units exerts a zone of control. This is often forgotten during the heat of battle with the result that artillery units end up in positions they cannot hold. Warsaw Pact helicopters are especially useful during the first turn of any scenario when the artillery has not yet caught up with the mech and tank regiments. They are also good for supporting attacks where sufficient divisional artillery is not available. ‘The engineers included in two of the ios are vital to any attacks being made ities, because they can provide a n of the defensive benefit of a city hhex to that of a rough hex. These units are weak and tend to get in the way of the larger units, but the Warsaw Pact player should never yield to the temptation to leave them ‘out of play or use them to garrison captured objectives. The airborne troops provide the War saw Pact with one of its most potent offen- sive weapons. When dropped by regiment or division they allow the Warsaw Pact player 10 isolate a portion of the battlefield of his ‘own choosing, Airborne units can also be us- ced to secure objectives or attack and destroy ‘weak NATO units. They are the only units which are not affected by the NATO surprise rule, and they can share this benefit with any other unit stacked with them. When used to capture objectives, the ability to provide all- round defense will make many objectives im- mune to NATO counterattack once tank or ‘mech regiments also stack on the objectives. The airborne units can be destroyed easily if dropped in areas containing other than fla or broken terrain, They emerge from drops into rough terrain with two to four FP’s gain- ed after moving. NATO players willing to trade FP losses can then destroy them. Also, because their ‘Combat Strength is not high, they will usually be weakened by attacking NATO units to such an extent that the NATO player can easly destroy them. Chemicals ‘The Warsaw Pact forces have a signifi- cant advantage over NATO in all scenarios because of their superior chemical warfare capability. When the column shift for chemical is at its highest early in the second and third scenarios, the Warsaw Pact player should not miss any opportunity to use them ‘when they would increase the odds of any at- tack, When the column shifts lessen, it may ‘be more beneficial not to fire chemicals if air- power isnot available and artillery strengths low. Always use the air superiority points on- ly for chemical attacks to help conserve a tilery. NATO Forces By contrast, when NATO strengths are compared to Warsaw Pact strengths, the contest appears hopeless at first. Actually, tance and a combat results table requiring high odds to inflict damage are all equalizers for the NATO forces. The defensive quality of many units when placed in the right terrain will be sufficient to slow down Warsaw Pact forces enough to win. Some capsule summaries of NATO unit strengths and weaknesses follow. US Armored Cavalry Companies. ‘Too weak to survive long, especially in the ‘open, All have overrun strengths, of one, making them useful for only short delays before being destroyed by overruns. If the ‘cavalry must defend in the open, use the 1-1 tank companies. Save the 1-2 companies for cities and unbridged rivers where their nor- ‘mal defense strength of 2 will allow them to hold longer. Properly positioned, cavalry units are the most economical forces to use in delaying operations while new lines are being constructed, or use them in pinning Warsaw Pact units from the rear to cause delay. E Gorman 22 and 2-3 Panzer Bat- talions. Basically unsatisfactory units. Theit low Attack Strength makes them only marginal in counterattack roles. With an overrun strength of two, they are destroyed fairly quickly in non-city hexes. When stacked with other units, they are useful in ci- ty defense, Their best use appears to be as units left behind in city hexes along the War- saw Pact route of advance. They can delay the capture ofa city hex for the better part of, player turnif fresh, US 45 and 46 Armored Battalions; 47 US Armored Cavalry Battalion; 2-4 German Jager Battalions, 6-5 German ‘Armored Cavalry Battalion. All of these units are the best units to use for holding non-city hexes because of their higher Over- 13 run Strengths. The Jager battalions are almost solely suited t0 the task because of low Attack Strength and a moderate Defense Strength. The German armored cavalry bi talion is the single most effective battalion for defending against the overrun. Although it can defend well in cities, it can always be put to better use defending in open terrain between cities. The 4-5 armored battalions should definitely hold in non-city terrain. The 4-6 armored battalions and the 47 ar- ‘mored cavalry are suited to either city or non- city defense, but if mechanized battalions are available for city defense, these units should be used in non-city terrain, These units are also the most suitable for surrounding and destroying isolated Warsaw Pact units US 37 and 28 Mechanized Bat- talions; German 3-7 Panzer Grenadier Battalions: High Defense Strength makes these battalions the best possible choice t0 defend in urban areas, One such battalion in city hex has the ability to hold off a Warsaw Pact division-sized assault when unsup- ported, and to cripple or destroy numerous attacking Warsaw Pact units when supported. by artillery, helicopters or Air Points. Low Attack and Overrun Strengths place these units at a disadvantage when defending in non-city hexes. Only as a last resort should these units be positioned in non-city terrain. ‘They would probably be destroyed without inflicting any type of equal loss on the attack- ing Warsaw Pact Units. The NATO artillery units are neither as ‘numerous nor as powerful as the Warsaw Pact artillery; however, most are 1SSSP bat- talions which quality as hard targets, afford- ing them somewhat more protection than the Warsaw Pact artillery. NATO artillery is most useful providing indirect support against normal Warsaw Pact attacks. They are not nearly so effective against overruns, and the expenditure of one FP to provide only one additional point of Defense Strength should have a high probability of inflicting an FP loss on the overrunning War- saw Pact unit before such support is given. ‘These units are not well suited for any type of direct combat. Additionally, presence of ‘Warsaw Pact units adjacent t0 unstacked ar- tillery units precludes any type of indirect fire support from those units, One of the best places to stack NATO artillery units is with non-artllery units of the same nationality in acity hex, As with the Warsaw Pact artillery, the NATO artillery units have no Zone of Control, The same precautions for place- ‘ment apply.4 Motorized Territorial Battalions. ‘These units are as unsatisfactory as the Ger- ‘man Panzer Battalions. Although they have fan Overrun Strength of two, their chance of surviving in non-city hexes against strong Warsaw Pact overruns is very low. Being a soft target, each battalion is obliged to suffer a loss of up to two FP"s before being able 10 retreat as a result of a normal attack. The best place for these battalions isin city hexes in parts of the front away from the main ‘Warsaw Pact advances, As with the armored cavalry companies, these units exert only a semi-active Zone of Control, Static Territorial Units, When alone in a city hex, they are only strong enough to delay Warsaw Pact forces for perhaps one phase since they have a four FP gain limit in- stead of the normal five. When alone, they cannot receive any type of indirect support. (One benefit is that units of any nationality ‘may stack with them. They should be placed along the east-west autobahins where their presence will come as no sutprise to the War- saw Pact player, but theit Defense Strength will help in a small way to slow the Warsaw Pact advance. Saas 75305, eas 3503 Holicoptore. With a 30-hex range, they are the most exible NATO support units. ‘They should be used exclusively and selee- tively for support against normal attacks. Whenever possible, commit them only against Warsaw Pact attacks being made by at least one-half division (two regiments plus arillery) or more where there isa cer tainty of reducing the odds to a level where there iat least 33% chance for Warsaw Pact lose. Sometimes this is not possible, but the primary goal should always be to inflict the breast amount of damage before the hel- Eoptersare destroyed ‘Airpower. When available, they should be used as suggested for helicopiers with one very important difference. More than one air point may be applied in support of defense feainst overruns, Therefore, mult-hex over- runs are albo fair game. Overall airpower is the best support NATO can receive. How to Win Some hints have already been given, What i will do now is present a list of “how to's for each side which apply to all three scenarios, This will savea great deal of repiti- tion later. ‘Warsaw Pact/1. Study the victory con- ditions very carefully to determine whether the bulk of the VP's 10 be earned will come from exiting-units, destroying NATO uni ‘or occupying terrain objectives, Once the ob- jectives are clear to you, pursue them to the exclusion of everything else. If the objectives are to exit units or occupy terrain, do not squander strength going after NATO units that aren't barring the way. Wersaw Pact/2. Do not attack needlessly or with insufficient forces. Remember the Combat Results Table. In this, ‘game, odds of 6-1 of 7-1 are not good odds. By attacking in the first place you guarantee that each attacking unit will receive one FP for the expenditure of Movement Points. At tacking at lower odds dramatically increases the odds that a second FP for combat losses ‘willbe gained. An average Warsaw Pact unit «will gain atleast three FP’s, and often more, for movement alone as it makes its way from the east edge west. Distance is a NATO ally. Do not aid NATO by ruining your units ‘making unnecessary low odds attacks. ‘The Warsaw Pact player should act like a Russian, Mass! The Combat Results Table rewards it because mass produces the high- odds attacks. Don't do a half-hearted job when massing for multi-hex attacks. Ideally, each attack should go in with enough strength to make the addition of any NATO support points a waste of time, Also, in a ‘multichex attack, only one stack is going to be able to expend the remainder of its Move- ‘ment Points after the prepared attack has been resolved. This amounts to a gain of at least one FP for no movement (except advancing after combat) during an entire pphase for some of the units participating in the attack. Make the first attack a good one. ‘There is no good reason to suffer the same ‘movement penalty during the next phase because the first attack wasn’t strong enough. Better yet, by-pass NATO units whenever possible. It is always less costly 10 force NATO to surrender ground rather than having to fight fori. Warsaw Pact/3. Continuing with the idea of movement, always remember that NATO does not have enough units to ade- quately cover all routes of advance. The Warsaw Pact player must also be a very proficient movement coordinator for several important reasons. Because of the Soviet doctrine rule requiring movement in only westerly directions, Warsaw Pact forces can no longer surround NATO forces using the time-honored method of running past NATO units to the west and then doubling back to the east to pin them from the rear. ‘Surround situations will have to be set up by units “angling in”? from the southeast or northeast. Carelessly moving units 100 far to the west will insure they will not be able either to surround or attack the NATO units in question, ‘When moving each Warsaw Pact unit, always visually map out its next move. Have each unit end its movement in position to be- gin the next Movement Phase with the lowest possible expenditure of Movement Points Additionally, insure that the first units to ‘move in the following Phase do not have to ‘move through other friendly units. This is particularly important for units "moving through access hexsides. If any move through friendly units, they must pay the basic terrain cost for the hex. That becomes expensive when the terrain isrough or rough= wooded, During advances to contact, the lead unit in a column will not be stacked with any direct support artillery. Prior to making con- tact with NATO units, move the lead units ‘ut of the way 10 allow the heavier units to pass by without losing Movement Points for ‘ravelling through friendly units. Again, keep Warsaw Pact division elements deployed close together. Warsaw Pact/4. Always make sure Electronic Warfare Points are saved for the large scale attacks where NATO support tunitsare almost certain to intervene. Warsaw Pact/5. City hexes. Avoid them whenever possible. The amount of strength needed 0 gain respectable odds ‘against a single 3-7 mesh battalion is stagger- ing. Make absolutely sure the reasons for attacking are so. compelling that they will justify the inevitable losses and day. If an ltiack must be made, make sure an engineer unit is part of the assault. Surround the city hex if possible. Try to obtain at least a two or three column shift for a multi-hex attack. Use chemicals. Allocate four EW points. Use mass. NATO/1. Defend in city hexes when- ever possible, This maximizes NATO defen- sive strength and deprives the Warsaw Pact of the chance to overrun. Resolving combat con the city column of the Combat Results Table offers the best chance of inflicting loss fon Warsaw Pact units as well as minimizing NATO losses. NATO/2_ Insure that each unit occupies the best possible defensive terrain, and that there are no gaps in the main line of resist- ance which the Warsaw Pact player could use for a long distance advance. Faulty place- ‘ment against a competent Warsaw Pact play- cer often results in disaster for the NATO forces NATO/3. Always maintain uncom- mitted units to plug the holes that the War- saw Pact forces will make. NATO/A4. On the first Movement Phase of each turn, flip NATO units which are not ‘movingiin that Phase. If they are not lipped, they will not be able to move for the re- mainder of the tern, The NATO player can- not allow a situation to develop where his de- fense disintegrates because the units needed to bolster the line could not move. There are exceptions. Those units holding blocking positions the Warsaw Pact player mest go through and cannot avoid may be left unflip- ped to provide a stronger unit defensively. ‘Also, in longer scenarios, some NATO units hit by the pre-emptive air strike may remain Unflipped to help rebuild strength. NATO/S. Avoid attacking Warsaw Pact units t00 early. They are even stronger defen- sively than they are on offense. It is only human nature for the NATO player to want to attack and destroy any Warsaw Pact unit he can get a hold of after passively defending ‘against repeated Warsaw Pact attacks. At- tacking requires several NATO units to gain favorable odds, and almost always results in heavy loss to attacking NATO units. Usually the attacking NATO units are actually needed far more to bolster NATO defenses. ‘When they become irrevocably committed to their attacks, the Warsaw Pact forces oftenaccrue Victory Points for exiting units which could have been held on the map by a good defense in depth. Only when the Warsaw Pact forces are no longer strong enough to break through and exit should the NATO player initiate surround and destroy ‘operations. NATO/6. With an abundance of defen- sive terrain, never defend too far forward Make the Warsaw Pact units come to you. Remember that combat is a function of ‘movement. In each phase, the more move- ‘ment points that must be expended to reach your units, the fewer will be available for at- tacks. This forces the Warsaw Pact player to attack under less than ideal conditions (for example, one attack instead of two, or an at- tack on the March or Hasty column instead Of the Prepared column) or to delay the at- tacks until the following Phase. ‘The Scenarios ‘The Rhein-Main Raid. In. this scenario, both sides are going to be pushed to the limit. The Warsaw Pact must contend with time, distance, and NATO. The NATO forces are hopelessly outclassed and must try to protect three widely separated objectives. For the Warsaw Pact to win at least a ‘marginal victory, two of the three objectives. ‘ust be captured, and significant losses will hhave to be inflicted upon the NATO forces. without losing any Warsaw Pact units in the process. The best Warsaw Pact strategy evolved during playtesting was to commit ‘one Soviet mechanized division to each of the two east-west autobahns in order to cover a lot of ground quickly, The two key Warsaw Pact objectives were Giessen and the Wiesbaden airfield. Both were chosen because they are indefensible against the forces the Warsaw Pact possesses. Giessen, when properly garrisoned, will require almost an entire mechanized division to at- tack at favorable odds, Nevertheless, it can be isolated, surrounded, and stormed, ‘The NATO forces were most successful when they defended only wo objectives, ‘Wiesbaden airfield, because ofits location, is almost totally indefensible, so it is not defended at all. Giessen is given a strong ‘enough garrison to draw an entire Warsaw pact division to it if the Warsaw Pact player chooses to attack it. The remainder of the Ith ACR and the Germans are used to de- fend the Rhein-Main airfield utilizing the ‘numerous city hexes to form a strong defen: sive perimeter. There are some moves and unit disposi- tions both sides can make on the first turn which will allow either side a reasonable ‘chance for victory. For the Warsaw Pact, chemical interdic- tion markers are placed on hexes 3821, 3317, 3216, and 2609, Because ofthis placement: 1. Units cannot reach Alsfeld (hex 2632) 10 block the autobahn, 2. Any units gartisoning Giessen wil receive one ‘additional FP, because it now takes wo Movement Phases to reach Giessen, This means thatthe defenders will only be able to absorb three FP's to be destroyed if they are surrounded ‘and out of supply atthe end of the frst ura, ‘This increases the probability of outright, desiruction in one Phase instead of two. 3. Any cavalry units attempting to reach Gelnhausen (hex 1128) would be cauahi in the ‘open terrain south and east of Giessen by Soviet units advaneing to encircle Giessen. Their desieuction in such terrain would be a certainty ‘One Soviet division would enter in columns using hexes 2650 and 2247, The bulk of the division would proceed west toward Giessen on the autobahn, with a portion tak- ing an alternate route through Marburg (hex 3225) to aid in surrounding any NATO units in Giessen. If NATO defends Giessen, it will be entirely surrounded by the end of the first Player-Turn. The organic tank battalion and pethaps one rifle regiment should be sent further west to try to block or delay the second-turn reinforcements. The other mechanized division should be entered in hhexes 1149 and O9SI. After three Phases, the division should be closing on Gelnhausen from the east. The tank battalion should ad- vance into Geinhausen to prevent occupation by cavalry units from the Frankfurt area. At the close of the first turn, only the tank talions and perhaps one rifle regiment should hhave gained more than three FP's, The NATO forces have to key their defense 10 the city hexes if for no other reason than sheer survival. Single companies in non-city terrain will be overrun and destroyed, usually in a single Phase, and without significantly slowing the Soviets or causing loss. Five cavalry companies enter at hex 3914, Within two Movement Phases they take the following positions: Hex 2621: wo 1-2 companies Hex 2718: one 1-2 company Hex 2622: one I-1 company Hex 1820: one I-1 company The remaining seven companies plus artillery and helicopters enter at hex 3901, proceed to the Rhein-Main area and establish defensive scree One 1-1 company: hex 0613 Arilery & Helicopters: hex 1114 ‘One 1-2 company in each of the following hhoxes: 0915, 1015, 1117, 1217, 1416, 1616 ‘The cavalry companies in hexes 2718, and 1920 will force any detached Soviet units to fight if the Warsaw Pact player wants (0 quickly reach blocking positions on the north-south lateral roads leading 10 Frankfurt (On the second turn, in previous games, Giessen falls in one oF two Phases. The mechanized division redeploys to approach Frankfurt generally from the ngrth and west.. ‘The mechanized division around Gelnhausen should begin to threaten the cavalry screen to force it to begin to fall back toward Rhein-Main. If serious attacks are launched, they should be made in force around hexes 0613 or 1616, since both units are just outside the limits of the artillery bat- talion’s support, For NATO, the German units arrive at the end of Phase wo, The cavalry screen retires 10 the north side of the Main River to defend hexes 1313, 1314, 1315. On the south of the river, cavalry companies defend 1116, 0915, 0914. The German units defend 0912, 1111, 1312. 6 ‘On turn three, the outcome depends on hhow well the Warsaw Pact player manages his attacks and how much strength his units have left, All points along the perimeter are critical. “A breakthrough in any spot will allow Warsaw pact units to move adjacent 10 1114, nullifying any US support capability, If this happens, the Warsaw Pact will usually take all three objectives and win a decisive victory. Without any support, the cavalry companies will not hold the Soviets even defending incity hexes. Perhaps the weakest part of the peri- meter is the sector held by the Germans. While their units are stronger, because they cannot receive US support, their overall De- fense Strength would be less than a cavalry company with six points of helicopter and ar- tillery support. The player who is satisfied with a marginal Warsaw Pact victory can sometimes get one by eliminating two or three units on turn three. Often, however, this cautious strategy backfires when one ot ‘two Warsaw Pact units take losses in the ex- change and are eliminated also. The player who decides to make a determined effort to take Rhein-Main should realize before he tries that whether or not he succeeds, he will lose from Four to eight of his units, ‘The NATO player should remember the perils of defending in a multi-hex city. Also, he should be very sure on turns two and three that he will not need to move units before he decides against turning them over to their Friction Point side, The temptation to let the cavalry companies lose a Friction Point by remaining immobile in city hexes for a turn is. certainly a strong one. Most big Warsaw Pact victories came from a combination of unintentional gaps in city hex lines com- pounded by immobile defending units unable to move in response 10 the breakthrough, ‘The Warsaw Pact player has worries also. If not eliminated, the cavalry com- panies in hexes 2622, 2718, and 1920 could slip into Frankfurt to strengthen the defense there, pin and delay troops needed to assault Rhein-Main, or even launch counterattacks against Giessen or Wiesbaden airfield if they have been garrisoned through oversight by arillery units ‘The Fulda Scenario, NATO finally has enough good units — if they arrive in time — to stop the Warsaw Pact drive. The NATO player must hang on desperately in this one to prevent Warsaw Pact units from exiting before NATO reinforcements enter. The Warsaw Pact player must drive his units hard during the first turn, accepting the complete destruction of some in exchange for an ad- vance as close as possible to the scenario mapedge. ‘The NATO line has a strong side and a weak side. Ignore the panzer grenadier brigade and concentrate on the cavalry and territorials with both first wave divisions. Because of the gap between the first and second squadrons, several territorial bat- talions must be positioned in the line, and cannot move voluntarily on turn one, The Warsaw Pact player should use his pre- cemptive strike to hit both helicopter units,16 the US howitzer battalion, and the ter~ ritorial units in the line. The Warsaw Pact player could launch both divisions against the Sth PG Brigade and could probably destroy most of it. However, Warsaw Pact losses are so high and the amount of ground gained are so small that NATO second-turn reinforcements can enter and re-establish a new line, Hitting the south actually destroys the line, gains a significant amount of ‘ground, and forces the NATO player to send. the greater part of the PG brigade south, leaving a few units to block the roads in the north — an inviting target for second-turn ‘Warsaw Pact divisions. ‘The NATO player should expect to see the southern half of his line dissolve. The best he can hope to do is minimize the disaster. When positioning units, he should place one mobile teritorial battalion each in Bad Neustadt (hex 0643) and Lohr (hex 0129), On his first Movement Phase, he should move two 1-2 cavalry companies into hhexes 0132 and 0231, and attempt to blow the bridge at hex 0231. He should not withdraw from either Bad Neustadt or Bad Kissingen. These moves will deny the Soviets the chance to exit units from the extreme southern edge of the map. The panzer grenadier brigade, less the two panzer battalions, should be ‘moved south immediately. One 3-7 PG bat- talion each should be placed in hexes 1232 and 1435, The Jager battalion and artillery should be used to defend Fulda. The artillery should go to hex 1738. The NATO player should sacrifice whatever cavalry and ter- ritorials are necessary to insure that the Ger~ ‘mans have time to set up. If the NATO com= manger is successful, the Warsaw Pact forces must either attack through heavily defended cities oF filter between them. ‘An initial attack as described will often yield at least a marginal Warsaw Pact vic- tory. Significant numbers of Warsaw Pact units are going to be able to exit and gather the second-turn level Victory Points, Whether the Warsaw Pact commander emerges with a victory at the end of turn four depends almost entirely upon how he ‘manages the troops who do not exit the map. Assuming that a significant part of the War- “saw Pact forces have exited, by turn three the balance of power shifts to NATO with the arrival of the bulk of the Sth Panzer Di sion, Most of the Warsaw Pact units remain- ing on the map have been pinned, It now re- mains (o start the surround and destroy operations It is crucial for the Warsaw Pact player to assess each unit's chances to exit the map at some time during turn two. Those units Which have no chance of exiting should be hhalted immediately in the best defensive ter- rain possible. They should not be moved at all for the remainder of the game in order 10 benefit defensively from the loss of Friction Points. Some Warsaw Pact units will always be destroyed during the final two turns, but ‘many will survive if stopped in time in good defensive terrain. The Warsaw Pact player is working for the NATO player if he allows his units to accumulate five FP's and come to a Hal in poor defensive terrain. ‘The Fifth Corps Scenario. If you have the time to play it, this scenario is the most challenging of them all. The NATO player commands some very powerful American battalions for a change. The Warsaw Pact player can now isolate any portion of the bat- tlefield with an entire airborne division. The ultimate Warsaw Pact weapon has to be the pre-emptive air strike which can incapacitate Lup toseven units per strike True 10 actual deployment, the American units are clustered together — prime targets. Out of nine possible targets, the four American brigades should come at the top of the list, followed by the three helicopter units. The remaining two should bee used on units on the front line which are targets of first turn break-through attacks. Immediately following the strike, the War- saw Pact player has one of the few oppor tunities available to plot nuclear strikes on American units which will still be there on turn two, ‘The other big weapon, the airborne divi- sion, should be withheld until turns five through seven. If dropped too soon, many NATO units will stil bein the rear areas, and aid from Soviet ground forces would be a long time in coming. Later in the game, losses will have forced the NATO player t6 put most of his maneuver battalions into the line. With the safety of the airborne units as- sured, the Warsaw Pact player then has to decide ifthe division will drop in the Frank- furt area to secure Vietory Points for con- trolling the airfields, or ifit will drop to block roads and act as a bartier to NATO rein- forcements so that the Soviet ground forces can break through and exit to earn VP's, The mechanics of play are no different than for the other scenarios, but the length of the scenario introduces some new con siderations. Because the NATO player can commit the Sth Pz division to the fighting faster than in the Fulda scenario, there will be no decisive initial breakthrough anywhere on the line. ‘The Soviet player should not become anxious about his lack of progress. He should con- tinue 10 operate his divisions in pairs and work to achieve as many high odds attacks as possible. There is a limit to NATO strength, and the attrition caused by large losses from high odds attacks cannot go on indefinitely. On turn four, the Soviets receive two fresh divisions, Two of the four original divisions should be withdrawn and placed in city hexes for atleast three turns to lose FP's, This pro- vides one final surge of nearly fresh units which will be needed by then. Although there is no VP penalty for lost Warsaw Pact units, the loss of combat power will be penalty enough late in the game when more fresh units are needed. ‘The NATO player must also rest and rebuild units at every opportunity. During turns four to six, the NATO player will have ‘unengaged units. He should place these units in cities where they can remain immobile to lose FP's and be in place later in the game to block Warsaw Pact advances while remain- ing stationary. In a large scenario such as this, single mistakes may be costly, but not fatal. The winner will be the player who manages his units so that he receives the greatest amount of performance coupled with the least attri- tionin FP's, Game Development Many of you would be surprised, look- ing at the obvious strength of the Warsaw Pact forces, to learn that this game's development process was a constant struggle to balance the game so that the Warsaw Pact hhad a chance of winning. The process was repeated in all three scenarios, but, as an ex- ample, here is how the testing on the Rhein- Main Raid scenario progressed, ‘When I entered Friday night playtesting in New York, the scenario was very biased in favor of the NATO forces. Soviet forces were being blocked by cavalry units as far east of Giessen as Alsfeld. The same was true on the autobahn to the south. There were only two “objectives, Giessen and Rhein-Main, and the Germans had a fourth battalion, a 3-8 mech, in the second-turn reinforcements. NATO was coming on too quick. Jim suggested chemical interdiction, since the Warsaw Pact hhad the capability to do it in real life. The German 3-8 mech battalion was eliminated and the objectives were increased to three with the addition of the Wiesbaden Airfield. Further testing showed that both Soviet divi- sions were stil delayed far too effectively by the cavalry companies. Single companies could pin regiments. Overruns were, at that time, basically conventional attacks using the (Overrun Strengths, Cavalry companies being overrun were allowed to retreat with their Zones of Control intact after taking a man- atory one FP loss, Warsaw Pact units were beating their heads against a wall and getting. FP'ed to death trying to move these com- panies out of the way. After one Friday night’s playtesting, we (the playtesters, John, and Jim) agreed that something had'to be done about overruns. ‘AL next Friday's session, the overrun rule and limited Zones of Control for cavalry companies was waiting for us. We were con- vinced we had the balance problem solved. We were wrong. I was responsible for the next problem, because I started working on NATO's defensive set-up now that standing against overruns was clearly suicidal. My dual strategy of defending far back in the Frankfurt city hex area while letting the War- saw Pact units burn themselves up getting there worked all too well. Both divisions ar- rived at their initial objectives of Frankfurt and Giessen without any combat along the way, but both were still oo weak in terms of FP’s gained to take either. The cavalry com- panies always seemed to have one Friction Point to spare when their Warsaw Pact at- tackers were atthe limit. We had decreased NATO strength once, Dut we decided to do it again. After all, cording to the scenario, the 11th ACR had been deployed out of zone and had seen com- bat John decided that having the llth ACR units come back with one FP already gained ronined on pete2})SCENARIOS & VARIANTS THE NEXT NEXT WAR 7 An Updated Chrome Plating of the Big One to Come by David M. Roberts Here are a few semi-oficial rules that may add Somme spice to your next game of The Next War. Note that some of the rules surround dubious technological advantages (such a8 Stealth alt- ‘rat. Even though some ofthis might turn out tO be so much movia gas, it's worth tinkering with the game to discover the possible effects of the putative exotica RAS In liew of the promised Next War Up- date, this article provides some new rules to reflect changes in weapons systems and doc- tine in NATO and the Warsaw Pact in the 1980's. Electronic Warfare Aircraft ‘The NATO player receives two Wild ‘Weasel counters on Game-Turn 3. The WP. player receives one AWACS unit that func- tions identically to the Wild Weasels on the GT following that in which the Nuclear ‘Threshold is reached. ‘These units have the old capability of lowering the opponent's pilot quality rating, with simultaneous deployments cancelling out the effect for both sides. WW/AWACS units may also now create ADS (Air Defense Suppression) Zones. ADS Zones consist of a target hex dnd the surrounding 4 hexes in all directions (ie., a mega-hex, nine hexes in diameter). (One such ADS Zone may be generated per ‘Game-Turn/ Air Sector where WW/AWACS units are committed, and ADS Zones may overlap each other and Air Sector boun- aries without additional effects. ADS Zones ‘may be placed at any time during the GT. Opposing ADS Zones cancel each other where they overlap. ADS Zones affect enemy flak by reducing the range of all flak within the Zone to one hex and by adding one to any die rolls (units with only a one-hex range nor- mally are unaffected). ADS Zones affect friendly flak units engaging targets withi them by subtracting one from all die rolls. When WW and AWACS assets are com- mitted to the same Sector, deployment of ADS Zones may be contested by the oppos- ing player at the risk of losing or damaging his own unit, When an ADS Zone is an- nounced by the opposing player in a con- tested Sector, the non-Phasing player rolls fone die, On a roll of 1 of 2, the AWACS is ‘ona $or6, the WW is damaged, 3 ff 4, there is an unsuccessful interception, “but no damage to either side. Damaged WW/AWACS assets are repaired off-map by rolling two dice and returning the units the resultant number of Game-Turns later. Rolls (of 12 result in permanent loss of the units, Helicopters NOE Flying. Any helicopter may opt to fly NOE at any point during its movement to reduce its vulnerability to flak. NOE flying increases the movement cost per hex to three points. Units may fly NOE, revert to normal ‘mode, revert again to NOE, and so forth, with no penalty, : 2 FARPS (Forward Area Rearming and Refueling Points). A FARP may be created by dedicating a transport helicopter within half its operational range of a given hex. A. FARP permits helicopters to operate from nnon-city hexes as if they were airfields, Lift capacity of one battalion will support one unit ata FARP. Transport units are con sidered to be actively transporting POL, ‘munitions, spares, and the like to the FARP and so are vulnerable to hostile flak units within range of any part of their flight path FARP supporting transports may fly NOE. Units operating from FARP’s count against the 20-unit maximum capacity of the airfield ‘that supports them. FARP's may be raided by special forces units asf they were airfields, except that they are never damaged. FARP’s become in- ‘operative immediately if the supporting air- field is damaged, and they recover im- mediately when itis repaired. A FARP miay ‘not support another FARP. A FARP need ‘not bein supply, as long asthe parent airfield is. Ground units actually present in a FARP hhex may be supplied there by transport assets at the same rate as they might be transported: three battalions of fift are the equivalent of fone brigade. Special Forces/Commando units are considered to be battalion-sized units for supply purposes. This rule provides for the creation of airheads and aerial supply 4 player has sufficient assets in transport helicopter to support them. CSWS. In the late 80's, the US plans to field the CSWS (Corps Support Weapon System) — a system that will replace the Lance missiles in Europe, With a range of 200km-+, the missles will be targeted by RPV's at 2nd echelon forces and will dispense sub-munitions in four flavors: nuclear, anti-armor, _anti-personnel/anti- material, and chemical. Their function will be to channel, delay, disrupt, and destroy. ‘The Rule: US Corps HQ’s may conduct one CSWS strike per GT at ranges out to 15 hhexes. Each strike is conducted against a hex as fit were an air-to-ground attack using the 5-6 column of the Air-to-Ground Combat Results Table (21.46). CSWS strikes may interdict FSH and Supply paths. CSWS may conduct Persistent Chemical Strikes in the manner of the WP SSM units within the range constraints above, Only the target hex affected by non-chemical attacks, with the ‘exception that CSWS/Corps HQ’s are now capable of nuclear strikes as well. CSWS. targets need not be reconned in any fashion; the RPV's (Remotely Piloted Vehicles) are organic to thesystem. Satellite Recon During GT's 1 through 6, both players ‘may roll one die when desiring to target air- craft. If the die roll is greater than the GT ‘number, then all targets desired during that entire GT are automatically successfully reconned. After GT-6, NATO may atlempt satellite recon each turn by rolling a 6 with cone die; the WP is successful on a $ or 6. Satelite recon is not affected by Bad ‘Weather (since the sat’s carry imaging radar oR). This rule is intended to reflect both the capability of satellites to acquire tactical targets on 4 realtime basis, and the fact that the US and USSR have anti-satellite capabilities Since the Soviets can launch oughly three to four times the number of sat’s as the US, they are given an edge in ef- fectiveness. ‘Tactical Directed Energy Weapons US and Soviet A, B, and C class flak are considered to be laser augmented. During fair weather turns, two is subtracted from all flak die rolls where augmented units are con- cerned. During bad weather GT's, laser- augmentation has no effect. ‘An Option: Allow the same capability to British units (They claim to have an X-Ray Laser that they are proud of.) Note that ail non-D class units are considered to be augmented in each force, not merely the mobile flak assets. Stoalth Aircraft Beginning in 1987, the US plans to have18 tactical stealth system aircraft operational Prior to that time, i is reasonable to assume that the US possesses a limited capability to field stealth system aircraft. and_ missiles Stealth squadrons will be deployed in lieu of recon and/or strike aircraft, The units are $-12-5/5-6-3's. They may be based at any Single US airbase. They have a range of 45 hhexes and are considered all-weather. Stealth Squadrons may conduct both recon and strikes at the same time (i.e., they can recon for their own strike). They can only be fired upon by flak units in the same hex when con- ducting strikes, When reconning, they may riot be fired upon. Stealth aireraft subtract fire from flak die rolls fired against them; mixed groups are dealt with normally, except that losses are taken from stealth squadrons last, Any number of stealth aircraft may at- tempt suppression without having any effect con thedie roll In scenarios that are considered to start prior to 1983, one stealth squadron arrives on GT 16; from 1983-85, one each on GT's 6 and 16; for 1986-87, one each on GT's 3, 6 and 16. For 1988-90, a full 10% of all US combat aircraft will utilize stealth systems; thus, two stealth squadrons are in place in stead of two recon squadrons at start; two ar- rive on GT 3 instead of recon squadrons; two arrive on GT 4 in place of F's (or their F-16 replacements); | arrives on GT $ and GT 6in place of low-fated bombers units; and one arrives on GT 1S in place of Harriers (whenever they actually do arrive): fora total of eight squadrons. RACO (Rear Area Combat Operations). Special Forces/Commando/ Reydoviki units may operate without supply. Special Forces type units (both NATO and WP) are considered battalion-sized units and ‘may be sub-divided into three company-sized units and a parent unit that operates at company strength, For each company deployed from a parent unit, a strength counter beneath reflects the number remov- ed (a battalion with a 3 beneath operates at company strength). SF units may operate in either Hide or Active mode. Units in Hide mode are remov- fed from the map and have their location and movements recorded in secret. Hide mode units may not be molested in any way by the ‘opposing player. NATO SF units move as leg infantry within non-WP national territory, and they have a Movement Allowance of $ within the on-map WP national territories WP SF units have a Movement Allowance of 10 within WP or conquered NATO territory, and Sin the NATO rear. Hide mode units may not enter heres oc- cupied by, or controlled by, hostile units or their ZOC, and they may leave ZOC’s. Units ‘may change mode during the SF phase. Units changing 10 Active mode may conduct SF assaults, skipping the vertical assault table, for may interdict supply lines. Supply lines fand paths traced within Wwo hexes of a company-sized SF unit in Active mode are considered t0 be traced over clear terrain HO units within the two-hex range have their supply range halved (SMP for WP, IMP for NATO). The presence of companies is cumulative: two companies double the ter rain cost and quarter range, A full battalion or equivalent (four companies) choke off an FSH path, quadruple terrain costs, choke out a WP'HQ to 2er0 range, and reduce a NATO HQ to two MP range. Active mode companies and battalions may opt to retreat if attacked strictly by ground units, although they may not retreat into hostile ZOC’s. Air units may not be used against SF units in ur- banor city hexes, Airpower Sustainment NATO. According to an authoritative industry source, the USAF maintains ade. quate stocks of spares for peacetime re. quirements, but the equivalent of only 10 to 20days of wartime needs, so. ‘The repair capacity of NATO airfields remains normal until GT 6 when it falls 10 two damaged steps per GT. On GT 10, the repair capacity falls to one and remains there until GT 31 (beyond even the campaign game), when it rises to wo again, and goes 10 3onGT46(M +92) Re-Organizing Squadrons. Half- Strength air units that are undamaged and operating from undamaged fields may be withdrawn from the map for re. organization, Fields from which the units are withdrawn must be in fully general supply ‘Two squadrons must be of the same type and nationality. FRG and Danish units must re main off-map for 12 GT's, All other na- tionalities remain off-map for 6 GT's and return as if they were normal reinforcing units, Helicopter units may re-organize as “cl. Engineer Capabi In place of the existing Repair-Point Schedule (34.3), which allows all 15 NATO points to be used in Italy during one GT and all in Denmark the following turn (two days real time), engineer capability is tied to the units themselves: US and FRG Corps HQ tunits possess two engineer points each that they may empty within 10 Movement Points (calculated at road mode). All other NATO Corps and Army HQ's possess one EP (engineer point). All divisions — both NATO and WP — possess ‘AEP that they may em. ploy within their ZOC if they are not chang- Ing mode in the same GT. WP HQ's possess fone EP, employable within SMP; RR regiments that do not move during the GT possess three EP's employable, within 10 MP. The WP player also possesses an intrin sic three EP useable within any WP nation, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. When divisions are broken down, the engineer capability is presumed to remain with the division-base, Use of EP's requires ‘that the unit concerned be in General Supply EP's from different units may be added together toaccomplish a task. AM MDG WINTERCONS REPORT by Paul Wood WinterCon 9 Gamefest, sponsored by Metro Detroit Gamers, attracted over 2,300 gamers for the eventilled weekend’ of November 14-16, 1980. Over 200 gaming events were staged, including tournaments in every type of game imaginable and seminars on ‘multi of up-to-date pame-related topics, ‘Attenders had their pick from the plenti- {ul supply of new sames and game-elated mer- chandite being sold at more than 70 exhibit booths which were siaffed by the nation's ‘same companies from New York t California, from Texas 0 Canada, An abundance of used aming goodies were made available by the MDG auetion team during almost six hours of Actions held over the weekend MDG's Hobbist Awatd, which was inst- tuted by MDG in 1978 to recognize oustand: ing service to the game hobby, was conferred ‘upon Tony Adams (of the Chicago Wargamers Association) and Lou Zocchi (long time game designer and principal of GameSeience) in honor of their excellent contributions toward the furtherance ofthe ame hobby. Other features ofthe convention included an expanded art show, with a diverse seletion Of fantasy, science fiction, and other art for sale; an expanded group of computer gaming activities; and_ $2,000 worth of tournament prizes, redeemable atthe convention's exhibits forthe prize of the winners’ choice. Several portant hobby and industry meetings were held by such groups as the Midwest Gaming ‘Association, American Wargaming Associa tion, Hobby Industry Association, and Game Manufacturers. Association (GAMA). The GAMA meeting was particularly impressive: the industry's company representatives. hut dled major stumbling block to industry unity tnd a smoother future forthe Origins rotating rational adventure gaming convention, WinterCon 9 Gamefest was the [7th inthe long string of Metro Detroit Gamers’ success Tul semi-annual conventions. Each year MDG. Sponsors wo major gaming conventions MichiCon Gamefest in June and WinterCon Garefest in November. The next major MDG convention will be held on June 12-14, 1981 (a ‘week later than had been ealier advertised) at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, just Norh of Detroit, For information, write MDG, P.O, Box 787, Troy, MI 48099, Schedule and pre-regisiation fir will be available in early March, 1981,19 WN WA MOVES IN ENGLISH edited by Charles Vasey EMPIRES OF ZN THE MIDDLE AGES AND SIMON DE MONTFORT by Charles Vasey This could be regarded as 'Son of Medieval Miscellany.” but it was prompted mostiy by my deste to express surprised pleasure at Empires of the Middle Ages ~ a game which will give any player some idea of Modaval kingship even though it has no rules forthe Pope! As | started in gaming with aim Dunnigan game, sre 0 see the Master popping up through the floorboards vith another fine work. Alongside it | decides 10 Feview Brish game published by WWW ~ on Association for which | have a cordial dike, but which paid some of is dues with this game. In fact, following on the taoist quotes | used in writing the reviews one might almost introduce ‘A Ancient Master resents Truth in the guise of 42 Simple Exerese ‘An old enemy produces a tine work and ‘receives praise am beginning te soundlike Kevin Zucker? cHy Empires of the Middle Ages Governing a large state is like boiling a ‘small fish, (La0 Teu, LX 138) The concept of Empires of the Middle Ages was one that seemed asifit might go the ‘way of all flesh — “A Thousand Years of History, Now You Are There’” and other ‘mentions in S&7 all confirmed my fears that this was going to be a real turkey. It is therefore pleasing to announce that despite it all, especially the bunch of play-testers I saw in New York, the result is rather good and. succeeds in the very areas where I expected dramatic failure. One might say the game rested on three foundations: the importance of the language-racial-religious divides of Europe (a demographic rather than feudal view); the limitations of Medieval person- alised kingship; and a mytiad special rules to give the game the ginger it requires to lift Out of the realms of high-grade Diplomacy and deposit it firmly in the ranks of historical simulations. But when territories are acquired in regions where there are differences in language, ‘customs and laws, thon great good fortune ‘and much hard work are required to hold them. (Mach 1 Principe, Book I Such could be the design-notes of this ‘game. Jim Dunnigan has taken this principle as the Grundnorm of his view of history. He does not deny that an able monarch could not rule myriad peoples, but he will find that it consumes much time and trouble. The map is accordingly divided into language groups and sub-groups, and into religious group- ings. Most medieval kingdoms transcended these borders, but the nodal groupings that were the heartland of what were later to become the first “national” states are already there. Indeed one might say the fact that they are as much in evidence in 900 AD as in 1490 AD is just one of the problems that must face any design that covers so much time, It cannot be stated too many times that the design accepts as inevitable the movement that culminated in the 1918 ‘massacre of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the hands of Woodrow Wilson. If you find it hhard to believe that a Carolingian thought himself a Frenchman, or that one should ac- cept the language of subject rather than lord asa determining factor, then you must accept that you disagree with Dunnigan’s view. 1 must admit 1 am not totally happy with it, but neither can one say it does not contain a great many truths. ‘A swift glance at the map shows the blocks of Anglo-Saxon speakers that con- stituted England, the Northern French block of Langue d’Oil speakers upon whom the Capetian Kingdom of France was based, the Greek speakers of the Byzantine Empire, and so on, What immediately attracts one’s at- tention is the Romanic Group of languages, because these chappies have both population and social status. Given the problems of language that will become evident later, it seems obvious that Northern Italy was the natural site for a kingdom the like of which was never seen. From this festung of popula- tion and wealth our new Roman Empire can spread through the Occidental-speaking areas of southern France and Catalonia and even take the bases of the Kingdoms of France, Spain and Sicily. It seems cruel to ask why this never happened. One reason might be that Dunnigan’s concept is not intended to be viewed as correct for all events. The fact that two national groups occur in the Italic group — Castille and France — prevents 100 much rascality, and the German arip on Northern Italy isa factor that slows things down, Even $0, it exposes the central problem of compressing much into little. In fone scenario, one player is the King of Burgundy (that is Arelat, not the medieval Burgundy), and his possibilities for success surprised me, as 1 was proceeding on the historical picture of this area being much given to political anarchy (or of the sort of division evidenced by the Guelfs and Ghibellines in Italy). Population and wealth do not make world beaters, nor do brothers always combine well; such lessons must be noted if the game's results are to be understood when they differ from history. Indeed, a moment's thought will uncover all sorts of anachronisms. 1 have already ‘mentioned the possibility of a resurgent Oc- cidental Burgundy ruining the Capetian Kingdom. Another question of interest is how did’ the Christians reconquer Spain when the Castllian and Aragonese kingdoms are pretty well over-shadowed by the Moslem emirates of Cordoba and Granada? In game turns the answer is, once more, that one does not get an Emir player! Never mind the potential of a state; it must also obey a se- cond condition — that is that it had the thrust to do something, and this is represented by giving it a player. Look at Scotland and ‘Wales: are these pesky littl rat-holes really the powers that obliged English kings (0 spend so much time in controlling them? The only time they are likely to do anything is fa very powerful magnate appears; instead of being constant thorns in the side of England they are demoted to banana-republic status, and (insult of insults) Scotland is demoted to ‘worse than Wales! Another prickly little na- tion — Switzerland — appears as just a poor province of Germany. The Sicily one sees on the map is not quite the brilliant creation of the de Hautevilles. All this is by-the-by; one ‘cannot expect everything, and one can bolt further sections on if you really wish ‘To handle the inevitable random factors of history, Dunnigan has devised the ‘Magnate rule. Neat stuff this, as one man can rise in some independent area and possibly carve himself an empire out of the other na- tions. He is still faced with a tough job as the player-powers can usually fight him off with money (fit is available. A Byzantine Empire, to be really stretched by a Bulgarian Magnate and a Syrian Magnate, must really have suf- fered an awful series of disasters to be threatened. As such, the Byzantine player is left with an awful lot of room to expand, safe from the attentions of most players. In'such cases | recommend a quick Crusade to teach the damned Greeks some manners. Nothing keeps the Gryfons from getting lippy quite like a Frankish Emperor in Constantinople and Franks in Greece. With a bit of luck, a Syrian Magnate should arise and help crush this perfidious race ‘As Ihave already mentioned, one might ‘query that it was the nature of the people that determined the racial bias or the nature of the rulers. The English court area appears to speak Anglo-Saxon — a quite ridiculous idea20 when speaking of anything after 1066, Hav- ing said that, one is forced to wonder how the Dukes of Normandy ever managed to cap- ture England; it would seem they were jolly lucky not to have the Irish come over and give them a good thrashing! Of course this, problem would only occur in the Campaign Game as Jim has studiously avoided the more atypical eras of the period. Let me pro- vide another example. Henry II of England was the overlord of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. While Wales was obviously’ co trolled by force, the other two states saw rul- ing castes of French blood agreeing to serve under a king of French blood. To see the national differences one must wait a few Having accepted the limitations of the game, one comes to its second area — the nature of Kingship. It is this that I find the ‘most impressive piece of the design, The average game always tends to translate potential strength and wealth into actual wealth and strength, This is not so here. To rule the German Empire is to know real frustration, as its huge potential requires more than’the abilities of one man. One is frequently sitting there contemplating some ‘reat evil (perhaps the complete capture and defeat of those annoying Italians), but by the time one has quelled unrest over the required taxation, dealt with diplomatic raids by the smaller players, one has no time for con- quest. As was said of Henry II's Angevin Empire, Henry was obliged to spend his life in the saddle just maintaining it at its present state, never mind increasing it. In some ways the bias may have swung towards the smaller powers, but only if the largest power is a diplomatic disaster. ‘The principle limitation is time. The ruler has the classic Five Card Trick. He may choose five “endeavours” to perform and apply the results shown on the cards. This limit applies no matter how large or small the empire in question. These endeavours are in- teresting, if only because they realise that one does not rule by fighting battles all the tim Conquest is an expensive procedure that re- Quires you (0 attack from a province which has a high Social Status — requiring you to make careful preparations first. Pillage, however, is always useful when your neighbours ae richer than you — although it will tend to irritate them rather. Its also far cheaper and produces real _money. Diplomacy is also rather effective; by establishing clients in an opponent's areas, you can foment all sorts of trouble if he wants to tax there and, by this sort of in- sidious behaviour, you may end up ruling the area, for itis much the procedure by which the French chased Henry II's descendents out of most of what we now know as France. One may keep cards aside, or use them out of turn, for Defense. This simulates our monarch tirelessly riding his borders, defeating evil enemies, one of the game's problems being that one can only add money and ability to the defence if playing the defence card. Kings could, after all, only be in one place at once. This rather disregards the possiblity of a capable Constable who ccould be the King’s right arm; a pity this was not considered. Ruling is probably the most ‘common endeavour (as indeed it should be) bby which one raises the tax-potential of one's ‘empire, quietens unrest and strengthens the defences of the empire, as Lao Tu says. When the way prevails in the Empire, fleot footed horses are relegated to ploughing the fields; when the way does not prevail in the empire, war-horses breed on the border. (xLv1 108) ‘At times in the game, one is presented witha most agreeable picture of all the kings engaged in the pursuits of peace until some vulgar bully stirs up trouble. Of course one's activites are much influenced by the present monarch’s attributes, and a good admin- istrative leader should not be wasted in warfare, nor a good general in foolish at- tempts (0 reform the taxation of Southern Ruritania when he could be hacking through the enemy ranks. Certain points must be made to gamers. Firstly, if one power grows too mighty, he can soon be cut down to size by several ‘wheezes. First we have the Diplomatic Of- fensive. All players simply perform five Diplomacy endeavours on the tyrant’s areas, they then add to the dice for unrest in taxa tion, He can only beat this off by his own diplomatic missions, but he can only do five aturnif he abandons all other evil. Secondly, one can use the death of a ‘thousand cuts; this consists of bleeding away the tyrant’s cards in Defence endeavours to prevent him ever having time to be offensive. is at times ike this that one will have regard to the population of one’s court area. It is consequently much easier 10 topple a Ger- man Emperor than a French King (not that I accept that as being historically correct). The game combines the essential nature of kingship with plenty of diplomatic interac: tion. It is a fine role-player of the period, especially when added 0 the Events card pack. No single nation is able 1 rule forever, although [ must once again warn about the Byzantines. Indeed in one game, King John of England suffered a horrid fate a Philip of. France took Wessex while Otto of Germany took the Mercian and Northumbrian pro- vinces! One wonders whether in the long run things will not end towaeds equilibrium? ‘The third foundation of the game is the “specials,” and here my list must be in- ‘complete, There are lots of clever tricks lurk- ing around in the game, from the small rules, like the Venetian ‘propensity to in- dependence, to many major rules. Raiders fare perhaps the most obvious with their simulation of the external factors that may well have shaped the nation states that are assumed to beso immutable. The Vikings ap- pear as rather wet characters who raid the Atlantic coasts of Britain and France. They seem to avoid entering the Mediterranean or setting up the Kievan kingdoms on the drive to Constantinople. Due to a neat fix they always settle in Normandy as well (tsk tsk Mr. Dunnigan). The Saracens just engage in making sure the Romanic group has plenty about which to think. The Magyars also seem rather quiet and do not make many of the massive raids through to France. The remarks about magnates apply here, and cash and leadership reduce the effect to an ir- ritation taking time but not toppling kings. ‘What would King Canute have thought? ‘The Crusades and Schism rules are neat and quite good fun with plemy of possibilities for all sorts of rascality. Rather boringly, we managed to unite the churches fonce; these sections are less used in early ‘games, but will soon find their way forward as players get more skilled. The religious rules are pretty interesting too; some day I ‘may manage my desire to convert Rome to Islam! Such a policy is very much a long range activity to be carried out in some back- water. The same applies to colonisation, a method by which some of these national boundaries could be altered, although I ques- tion the economical basis of these activities. Excommunication appears as a rather pro- fane mass vote, Unfortunately one cannot say that is so inaccurate, as Popes were fre- quently at the mercy of various kings. Any rule that requires voting is, of course, bound to cause plenty of fun in a multi-player game. ‘The actual scenarios are rather a prob- lem, being far too long and requiring quite a few players. I would recommend you either play by mail or be prepared to limit the length Of the scenarios. Many ofthe historical prob- Tems have outlined will disappear as one plays the later scenarios, but all have something to offer, although one cannot help wondering who would play some of the smaller nations (which is perhaps why the larger ones are given Achilles Heel). The total effect of Empires is good. It ‘must inevitably fal to simulate so complex a subject as the history of nations, but it comes very close and — in the areas under con- sideration in the scenarios — even closer. Itis fa challenging game with plenty of available strategies and it is a good multi-player sub- ject, especially after the calculation of endeavours becomes second nature. Further- more, the amateur historian is handed a‘useful mechanism with which he can tinker. Empires of the Middle Ages stands a head higher than many of the ‘*Medieval-Ancient Fantasy Empire” games that sit around on the market, and the fact that i tries to be ac- curate in no way prevents it being interesting. Recently Phoenix magazine's resident wiseacre complained about SPI’s approach to games, and one of his supporters states (with no noticeable evidence) that people do not play games to learn, but to have fun. Well here my little man, is one game where youcan do both, Simon de Montfort Simon de Montfort was one of the great barons of England, and a member of the brotherhood of Frankish knights who bestride the Middle Ages like a race of Titans. He is also remembered by “historians” as a great figure in the rise of a parliamentary democracy and of liberty. That sort of “history” also sees Magna Carta as a sort of American Constitution, instead of being a restatement of the terms by which fone class, the tenants-in-chief, held their land of their king. None of this is really the sort of thing Tom Paine would have written hhome about, but viewed in the perspective ‘of our subsequent history, pethaps the events seem more important than they did then. The greatest problem of any period of history is reducing oneself to thinking as fone's subjects did, Any student of Eny history will have his view of the word ‘king? influenced by the excesses of our most im- perial monarch, Henry VILL, or the papist plans of our most obstinate monarch, James H, Most barons of the thirteenth century were too near in time and blood-lines to the ddays when ancestors of the present “King of England” had been merely Dukes of Nor ‘mandy. If Simon was not quite in the Patrick Henry mould, he was nevertheless an in- teresting character, one who rose above the ‘common herd and stamped his authority on his age, and whose ill-fortune in meeting the future Edward I perhaps lessened his attempt to reduce England to the kind of feudal chaos that bedevilled Germany and France. ‘The period also had its fair share of in- teresting characters, Henry III being one of the less spectacular kings of England. His son Edward was later to be known as The Hammer of the Scots, and his brother Richard was always known as King of the Romans from his attempts to become Holy Roman Emperor. It is not, however, with the precise period historicity of the game Simon de ‘Montfort that I intend to deal. For this is not ‘one of my periods of study, and I do not pro- pose to pontificate upon that which is only @ hazy outline to me. If you want reviewers who are instant experts, you must look elsewhere. Rather, I would like to look at this game as a symptom of the ways we can simulate this period, much as one might review White Death as a simulation of Velkie Luki or of an excellent way of simulating East Front battles in general, h ‘Simon de Montfort is designed by mar- tin Edwardes, whose name was formerly known to me in Diplomacy circles in Britain Itisa fairly simple game in concept (you do not require lots of pieces of paper for exam- ple) and it can end quite quickly. The scene ‘opens with Simon the leader of a disgruntled bbaronage who outnumber the Royalists. The jous nobles set up in their castles, and the first few turns of the war are spent in ‘manoeuvering with no combat being allowed between leaders (so apart from attacking castles defended by a few sergeants, the early ‘moves consist of massing for the attacks that ‘must come). The Rebels also make the moves that give them the whip-hand on the game by occupying the cities of York, Bristol and Norwich. Movement is made by leaders and attendant counters, an excellent rule which ever since the days of Frederick the Great has prevented vast numbers of small units ‘manoeuvering by radio-control. There is one rule about movement which must be noted, and that is one may not enter a hex contait ing both friendly and enemy units unless one force is under siege. The import of this that units must combine the turn before combat; they may not practice some kind of Napoleonic envelopment battle. This simple device (although not perfect) does much to simulate the difficulties that bedevilled com- ‘manders in an age when even maps were not alwaysavailable. Combat involves a simple read-off against the number of troops on each side with losses occurring between the knights, in- fantry, and leaders. After each round of combat, morale must be checked, and those who have ‘departed to kiss their wives and sweethearts” are removed. The usual result is cone side’s Knights fight to the last. Unfor- tunately the beaten troops who have withdrawn from combat are not obliged to — Toenter a clear terrain hex Toenter a forest hex Toenter amarch hex Toenter a rough terrain hex To.cross a river hexside To cross London bridge Tocross ar‘all-sea or wide river hexside. 2 retreat, or become disorganised (as in Fred- die), and often they descend on the erstwhile vietors and beat them up. This is far and away the weakest feature of the combat. After any great battle, both sides could well be considered out-for-the count ‘The neatest trick of all, however, is the recruitment rules. Rather than a seties of complex rules on baronial holdings, the designer -has simply allotted recruitment values to various towns and cities. These are added to the recruitment factors of the leaders and the requisite number of infantry raised. This device tends to impel nobles to operate and recruit in the areas of their strength. The political sides of the war are handled by nobles deserting the rebel cause uring the winter interphase. One can im- agine them looking at their calendars and seeing pencilled in “Desert rebels” around. the Christmas dates. ‘A few jollies appear, like Queen Eleanor ‘crosses from Calais with mercenaries. The ‘Oxford students march for the rebels (take a particular pleasure is slaughtering these im- pudent louts) as do the Welsh and the Lon- don Levy (although the latter do rather more running than marching). The basic system is simple and the rules not too contorted, although I feel they could have been given the once-over by a professional rules reader. Victory goes on a point total from holding the four cities and King each winter, with sudden-death if you hold all four and the King at the same time. The problems of the system and game are sufficient to make me say that, asa game, Ido not recommend you try it, although by the time you know all these problems (after two playings maximum) you would probably hhave put the game aside anyway! The first difficulty is play-balance. As I have remark- ced, the Rebels can take three cities at once, so 1 movement point (mp) amp amp 4mp not allowed +2mp, but there must be no ‘enemy force on the other bank. “+Omp, but there must be no ‘enemy force on the other bank, 5. Combat results table: deol 1 2 3 4 1 00 00 00 00 0 0 8 2 00 00 00 oo 0 0 0 0 3. 00 00 10 10 0 0 'o ‘0 4 0000 10 10 0 ‘0 ‘oo B 99 §0 99 ga 0 ‘0 ‘oo 6 10 11 44 28 o 0 'o “0 5 6 7 8 9 w 00 10 10 10 10 10 o 0 60 OO 10 10 10 10 10 10 o 0 60 oo 10 10 44 24 24 24 OEIC EEL OMNES) vo 11 4a 24 24 24 0 ‘0 ‘0 ‘0 0 0 Tee ieee eto ee keh) 0 ‘0 600 00 Yaa ecto) mY EST SY2 even if nothing moze occurs, they have a 3:2 Position at the end of the first year. They usually manage to get one of the other wo targets — London or Henry III. This throws the Royalists heavily on the defence, and ‘obliges the South-Western nobles t0 try to free Bristol before the nasty Rebels get the fifth target and go for instant victory. Fre- quently, even if the Royalists stave off sud- den death, they find the victory point di ference t09 large to beat. The victory points also have an unhistorical effect on campaigns by tending to concentrate matters. ‘This leads us conveniently ¢o the point Of politics. The game sets out its parameters with some care, and these cannot include a complete simulation of the complexities of a civil war. I do not blame Martin Edwardes for this; better that he should seek to do what hhe can within these limits than fail to make a ‘game out of the period. Having said this, and also saying that the major features of the war hhave appeared, it must be admitted that ‘much flavour is lost. The desertion of leaders is odd but not that unhistorical — barons were usually involved in a complex web of. family relationships that meant any desertion should be accomplished with as much tact as possible, and the signs would be obvious. What is missing, however, is the mechanism by which the Rebels lost those deserters and the Royalists gained them. We are left with an inevitable fore-knowledge of what will occur which limits strategies in a way neither side would have considered in the real event. Surely this could have been hhandled better, even if it was simply to make the desertions more random. All gaming is role-playing, and the players in this game have a great deal too much fore-knowledge. Of course, such a change would require more rules to be satisfying, and obviously Martin did not want to produce so weighty a game, lO Oly Comb factor recruitment factor attrition value _ 5 ad “enone tester) —— aaa 49 supply train which leads me to wonder whether despite this laudable aim simulating such a situation does require a certain minimum level of com- plexity if one is not to end up with more shadow than substance. ‘One more feature is missing that sticks in my memory, and to a degree in my craw: ‘And this isthe lack of a road system, Move- ‘ment is very slow in Simon de Montfort with its monthly turns, but this is less of a problem than it seems on the old gaming principle of fone hour of march and two hours of standing around. What is bad is that the road system which would give one a chance to use some real speed is gone. This in turn reduces the importance of various towns and castles which held the roads: The roads channeled ‘movement and established patterns; instead one is given a random system of movement which simply passes castles with total con- tempt. In this map-less age, I cannot feel a general would lightly set off into the wild blue yonder; and when a monarch did so, he could frequently come to grief as in the “Mud March”’of Louis X of France. ‘Where the game succeeds notably is its map. This actually isa full colour imap, and jolly period it looks with its strange views of Cities, towns and castles. While one could engage in many a happy hour of nit-picking about the status of certain cities and towns, the total effect is excellent, and aids in the suspension of disbelief required for the game. ‘The game also works in its mix of move- ‘ment and supply. Mr. Edwardes has made the bold leap of abandoning supply rules totaly. Instead he substitutes attrition rules. AAs long as forces are of reasonable size they ‘can support themselves anywhere, bat when they concentrate, they risk attriion, This tends to mean that managing @ large siege is. going to require the use of the supply- convoys one can raise. The result of this is that one is faced with a war without fronts; the indirect approach becomes pointless when one cannot threaten non-existent lines of supply. Thisrule alone is probably the ma- jor factor in my belief that even if the scenario does not fully work, the system is of interest to any medievalist. Experts of the period have certain com- piaints against the game, but these have real- ly been conceptually covered by the point bout simulating the politics of the period. Thus the political cost of Simon’s links with the Welsh among the Marcher lords is not shown but, as 1 remarked, such things re- Quire more complexity. The thrust of the game is correct however, and Martin Edwardes shows every evidence of actually having tried co simulate his period rather ‘han cannibalising an old AH or SPI system. ‘That he has not brought it off totaly is un- fortunate and, given his chosen level of com- plexity, perhaps inevitable, That he has done as much as he has is laudable, and it’s a long time since 1 have enjoyed playing a game which I later concluded was spiked. Perhaps it would be wiser to use this approach in a “national” war (a Hundred Years War cam- paign for example) where the battle-lines ‘were more clearly drawn, Fifth Corps jonncs/onmie 4) might provide the balance needed. It did, but only partially. The Warsaw Pact could now capture Giessen, but the division doing it was repeatedly mangled so badly as tobe of litle further usein the senatio. ‘We ied o have the division in the south tey first for Rhein-Main, and then. for Wiesbaden. For a change, NATO units were lost, but so were Warsaw Pact units. Neither objective fell. We were beginning to have some doubts about the viability of the Scenario, but two further alterations changed the balance to a point where NATO, finaly, needed some help. First, Chuck Kamps sent new information about increased. Warsaw Pact mechanized rifle regiment strengths. ‘The present strengths of 10-1 resulted from this information. ‘The old strengths, by the vay, were either 7-9 or 8-12. John had done Some more homework on movement rates and found that a second and subsequent Phase cost of one Operation Point per autobahn hex was both atainable and realistic for gaming purposes. Testings at this stage showed that the Warsaw Pact forces were 100 powerful insofar as their perfor- mance in terms of Victory Points was con- cerned. A marginal vietory used to occur at 14. The Warsaw Pact units achieved that ‘much repeatedly without having t0 try to {ake Rhein-Main. We agreed that the scenario definitely had the proper “backs 10 thesall” atmosphere with strong, fast Soviet units smashing away at the smaller NATO types hanging on for dear life, The last refinement was fairly simple. We raised the VP levels by two points to force the Warsaw act totry for Rhein-Main, Conclusions -ifth Comps isa very good simulation of what conflict in Europe will probably be Tike. I feel instinctively, based on prior ser- vice, that the Friction Point gain system for ‘movement is as true to life as you can get. 1 can still recall 100 many convoys where ‘ehieles had to drop out due to maintenance problems. I can also recall my mechanics patching them together somehow so they Could re-join —a Friction Poin Ios. ‘The’ tremendous advantages for the defender are mirrored in the Combat Results “Table. glance at the counters drives home the point that the Warsaw Pact possesses @ significant numerical superiority. The NATO player cannot escape feling how its to fight ‘outnumbered. Thete are some rough spots. ‘The nuclear weapons rules, for example, are not very workable. However, improved rules, applicable to Fifth Corps, are included inthenext game ofthe series (Hof Gap). “This game is the first in what [hope wil be a long series. Improvements are already being factored into the second game. There is always room for further improvement, however. One of the primary goals in this hobby should be to make the new games bet- ter than the ones that came before. Any of you out there with thoughts on how to make this game series better should send them to John Butterfield. Your suggestion could become the next improvement.PROFILE & AFTER ACTION REPORT KAISER’S BATTLE A Playtester’s Report by Philip Marchal We strained mightily in the Art Department to liven up the spotty and dull terrain of the game map we received from the designer No reflection on the designer, the map is an accurate reflection of the biasted and devastated terrain on which the battle occur red. Nevertheless, gamers expect a certain show of effort on the map — we tried to give it to them in the elaborate treatment of the tench lines. The author is one of the main playtesters of the game and was with it through most of itsdevelopment. — RAS The Kaiser's Battle is an unusual opera- tional game of mobile World War I combat, with some interesting tactical flavor added ‘The game simulates the last major German offensive of the war that neatly broke through the lines of the British Sth Army in the Somme River Valley. In some ways, this last German gamble was similar to the Battle of the Bulge in World War II, In both offensives the Ger- ‘mans had planned and prepared for the com- ing campaign over several months. In 1918, as in 1944, the Germans maintained the all. important element of surprise, The 1918 of- fensive was among the most mobile battles of World War I, as was the Battle of the Bulge in World War I. ‘The overwhelming German numerical superiority easily smashed through an unpre- pared British line that had already been severely weakened by a massive artillery bar- rage. The German stasstruppen divisions had been specially trained in infiltration tacties to exploit the small gaps in the British line. The Germans hoped 10 drive their lightning offensive straight to the sea, thereby cutting Off the British in the north from the French in the south, In the battle, after a long and bloody fight, the Germans were barely stopped, ‘The Map One of the most striking features of The Kaiser's Battle game map is the complete lack of roads and railroads, By 1918, all the roads and railroads in that section of France hhad been totally destroyed, The Battle of the ‘Somme (1916) had been fought in this same area, producing extensive damage to the area that was compounded by the 1918 German offensive Much of the terrain on the map is not really what it appears to be. For instance, ‘woods are not truly green forests, but masses ‘of twisted and splintered stumps, These stumps were definitely @ hindrance to move- ment, a fact that is reflected in the game by the movement point cost to traverse such ter rain, Yet, the shattered woods provided no real defensive benefit; no die roll modifiers are given to units defending in woods, The continual artillery pounding was as bad on the towns as on the woods. Many of the communities depicted on the map as towns were actually nothing more than devastated ruins, However, these towns did provide excellent defensive positions. Because of the small scale of the map, there is room for additional specialization of terrain features, There are three distinctly different types of fortification: wire, fieldworks, and redoubts. Each type pro: vides slightly different advantages and disad: vantages in movement and combat. Hilltops are represented on The Kaiser’s Battle map, since artillery is more effective if the target cean be observed from a height i should be mace clear at this point that The Kaiser's Bastle simulates only the southern portion of this major offensive ‘The southern sector was, however, the area through which the Germans historically did best — the attack in the north stalled after only a few days. The German plan for a ma- jor breakthrough was almost achieved in the south, The Counters The Kaiser's Battle has an extremely varied and interesting countermix, The most startling aspect of the mix is that the units" German Stosstruppen Division eosin [abe Combat Sirenetk Morale Value \ Movement os a Fsaio | 172045, sizes range from company to division. Such a wide variance is unusual ina simulation game because it is not easy 10 simulate fighting ac- curately using such a gamut of scales. How ever, the unique combat system allows The Kaiser's Battle vo account easily for this great difference in unit size Several special units are particularly fascinating. The German stosstruppen divi sions are capable of extraordinary advances through narrow gaps in the enemy Tines. On the other hand, the British service companies are patchwork units, thrown together from army cooks, doctors, and other personnel who were at hand, One feature not included in the counter- imix is artillery, which is represented abstract- ly by tracks on the game map. Though the use of artillery is of primary importance 10 the game, the abstract method of representation provides a great deal of unpredictability, as each player tries 10 guess how his opponent hhasallocated his artillery points. The Rules There are also a number of unusual features in the game's set of rules. Most lunusual is that the game uses no Combat Results Table. Instead, the players multiply the combat strengths of the units by adie roll and find their quotient, which is then com- pared with the defender's morale value 10 determine whether or not the attack was successful. This system gives combat a quite different feel that is particularly well-suited to The Kaiser's Battle: predictability is lost. A German division can, with some unlucky die rolls, be reduced extensively by a mere battalion of the British. Finally, the combat results allow only elimination or reduction results. This accurately portrays the lightning, advance by the Germans that allowed no retreats, ‘Supply is also treated in a new way: sup- ply status makes absolutely no difference for the defending unit, but all the difference for the attacking unit! Out of supply attacking units increase the combat die roll multiple for the defending unit. Other rules in the game system cover such items as gas, artillery, ad- vance after combat, and air power Game-Turns 1 and 2: On Turn One, the German artillery pulverized the British line. Although the German player bombard-24 ced a great number of front line British units, he succeeded in creating only one gap be- tween Castres and Urvlles. The barrage hhad, however, seriously weakened the secondary British line who were holding out in the fieldworks. ‘The German player, after advancing on- Iya few hexes through this gap, made a series of successful attacks. He attacked even in the south where he had no real power. After each attack the German player rolled the die for advance after combat, and with luck on his side, managed to sweep past what was left of the front line, not stopping until he had reached the secondary line entrenched in the line of fieldworks. The British player rolled the die for ‘movement capabilities, but as a result of poor luck on these rolls, was hard pressed t0 consolidate the portions of his line that were in particularly desperate situations (On Turn Two, once again massive ar- tilly barrages blew gaping holes in the British lines, through which the stosstruppen divisions poured into the rear area. After mopping up what was left of the original front line, the German player prepared (0 at- tack the ‘redoubt line, In the north and center, the Germans had already pushed beyond the redoubts and had reached the outskirts of both Vermand in the north and Castres in the center. Once again, the British player had little choice but to fall back as far as possible in the best order that he could manage. So far in this playtest, the German ad- vance was about average. He had made several important penetrations through the British lines and was continuing to advance at a steady pace. During Turn Two, he suc- ‘ceeded in clearing out the few British units that threatened his line of supply in the rear area. However, despite these strong initial ‘gains, only one reserve German division had been able to move up. Despite the heavy loss of British units and the sacrifice of much ground, the British situation was no worse than could be ex- pected. The Germans were bound to make several decisive breakthroughs, and the British player had to fall back’as best he ‘could to maintain a solid line for as long as possible. In the event that lone German divi- sions manage to slip into the far rear area, the British player should let them exit the map; due to their isolation from supplies, they will be unable to attack at advantageous odds. ‘The British player can give up half the map before surffering any adverse effects from German victory points. Game-Turns 36: On the second day of the offensive, air and artillery operations began in force, continuing throughout the next day. The German advance gained all along the map, piercing the redoubt line on Turn Three and massing divisions for an assault on the Crozat Canal by the end of Turn Four. The British line was firming up nicely along the Canal, but could not hold ‘out against the fierce German onslaught. In the north the Germans reached the last line of British fortifications — the wire — by Turn Three. On Turn Four, the Ger- man player attacked the wire. Three divisions were reduced near Roupy and Etrellers, blunting the drive in the north. By Tum Five, the Germans reached Tugny-et-Pont, Caulaincourt, _Beauvois Cugny, and Flavy Le Martel.’ The British brigades that would make or break the game ‘entered play and took their positions a few hexes in back of the current front line to await the German advance. (On Turn Six, the German player faced a problem: he could continue his lightning ad- vance, hoping 10 keep the British from recouping their initial losses, or he could hold up, letting his lagging divisions finish ‘mopping up the rear and join the lead ele- ‘ment on the front line, Each strategy has its advantages and disadvantages. To continue the advance places the troops in @ poor su ply status, which threatens their attack at ty. However, such an advance at this time could very well catch the British in an awk- ward spot and thus break open the game totally in the German's favor. Waiting for the lagging divisions — and, more impor- tantly, for the headquarters — to come up provides the German player with mass and favorable supply status. ‘The German player now felt the effects of his own advance; it had been so rapid that the disruptive force on the cohesion of his forces was almost as great as on the enemy forces. The next several turns were impor- tant. He had either 1o advance out of suppy (or wait for reinforcements, thus allowing the British forces also to coalesce. During Turns Four through Six, the British player suffered no movement restric- tions and could thus consolidate his forces and form cohesive lines to block the German. advance. The British brigade reinforcements had also arrived. The British player must make sure (0 use the brigades cohesively, as fone unit, or watch them get cut up piecemeal by three’or four German divisions acting in unison. Game-Turns 7 and 8: The German player decided to try both strategies. On ‘Turn Seven, he waited for the headquarters and rear division to catch up, while launch- ing limited attacks on the British line. ‘These attacks helped him establish a solid line through Ham, Brouchy, Ugny Le Gay, Toulle, Douilly, Lanchy, and Tertry. The slight bulge in the center was offset by the southern flank, which lagged behind, ‘The British player meanwhile stacked the nine service companies he received with the powerful brigades in the center; the ser- vice companies would be sacrificed to absorb step losses inflicted by the massive German attacks. The British line now appeared to have steadied. ‘On Turn Eight, the German assault was launched. In the north the German divisions smashed through the British line, gaining more territory and capturing Guizancourt. ‘The attacks in the south, however, made no progress. Although no German’ divisions were reduced, they only succeeded in barely cApturing Villeselve, In the center the main German force hit head-on with the main Allied force which consisted of seven power- ful brigades. The slugging match resulted ina very slim German gain at,the cost of two more reductions. The Germans extended their bulge only to Canizy. The British solidified their already sturdy line on Turn Eight with the addition Of four more service companies. Though the long German advance seemed contained in the center, the flanks were still very weak. ‘The Germans could stil exit the map during the last two turns and pick up extra victory points. Game-Turns 9 and 10: The German player launched his last major attack with all the divisions he could muster. In the north the beleaguered British were totally over- whelmed and the Germans raced unopposed to the banks of the Somme River. In the center, on the other hand, the Germans crumpled in their attacks ‘on the strong British brigades. Six German divisions were reduced, and the German forces were so weak that the British might have gone on the attack to recapture Ham, To the south the Germans continued to advance, though at a ‘much slower pace. No town was captured in this last push. The British player decided not to counterattack and take back a town. Instead, he shifted units t0 the north in hopes of Timiting the continuing German drive. ‘On Turn Ten, the Germans attacked in the north only. Though the British player hhad moved in reinforcements to this area, they were not strong enough to stop the Ger- ‘mans, who punched through and exited five divisions off the map. With those advances after combat, the offensive and the game ended. After count- ing up victory points, the British player suc- ‘ceeded in achieving a marginal victory. Keep- ing the strong divisions together in the center hhad proven crucial to the defense. As in most other playtests the last two turns proved to be pivotal, Both sides had committed every last available unit to the do-or-die situation, In all tests the game teetered on the edge t0 the very last moment of play. iM FEEDBACK RESULTS: MOVES 52 Rank Item. Rating 1, Designer's Notes 6.87 2. C'Est La Guerre 6.18 3. MOVES in English 6.95 4. Forward Observer 6.5 5. Tito Livest 624 6. Stat Rep: Bulge 6.08, 7. The Forest for the Trees 5.94 8. Opening MOVES 5.76 9. Charle-M 5.50 10. Con Crit 3.45 11. Conquering the Magic Kingdom 3.35 12, From Sea to Shining Sea 531 13. Photo-Toons 5.19 This issue overall esSCENARIOS & VARIANTS CITADEL OF BLOOD and an Interface to Swords & Sorcery by Justin Leites Through this and recent MOVES articles, we've been enhancing and moving forward a brand of fantasy adventure gaming that | believe will have a strong position in coming years. For lack of a better term, I'll call the category Non-mastered Character Gaming, It strikes me that fantasy gaming started out from 3 much less structured base than military gaming and is just now beginning to gather to itself the “aridwork" that allows for Controlled development and growth, asi i- lustrated by this article. RAS The DeathMaze system is one of the ‘most innovative FRP systems to appear in some years. Rather than forcing reliance on a gamesmaster to construct a dungeon and guide the party through adventures, Death- ‘Maze allows players to participate without any. advance preparation and without a auide. The system operates by placing chits that represent rooms and corridors as the party penetrates deeper into the dungeon ‘The original DeathMaze, although its rules may have posed some problems for begin- ners, was essentially very simple, Citadel of Blood, drawing from DeathMaze as well as Swords and Sorcery, is much more neatly state of the art than its simpler predecessor, and itis capable of challenging even the most advanced FRP gamers ‘Swords and Sorcery, upon its publica- tion a few years ago, met with mixed re- actions. Some gamers though it oo campy, citing such cute terain features asthe Natilly ‘Woods and the Hill of Avalon and the bad jokes that burden every other paragraph of the rules. This levity is doubly unfortunate, because beneath it all, both the Quest and ‘Any games are exceptionally enjoyable. ‘One of the major omissions from ‘Swords and Sorcery was a body of rules link- ing the Army and Quest games. A shortage Of interesting seenarios further hurt the game, Citadel of Blood is similarly deficient in cergin areas, namely in providing cam- paign scenarios and the wherewithal for introducing nterparty conflict. Asa result of such deficiencies, Citadel lacks variety. It a characteris successful in his quest for the Hellgate, the payer must — in order to con- tinue using that character — quest again for the same object er ignore mirrors, the Hell- sate, etc, There is 20 "campaign" game, no ‘way of travelling in the wilderness, Its the ‘purpose of this article 10 provide rules for playing Swords and Sorcery and Citadel of Blood in one extended campaign game. The System ‘The game should be set up as described in Scenario 14 of Swords and Sorcery, with cone player taking the Free Peoples and the other the Empire. All Swords and Sorcery rules should be used, with the exception of reincarnation. Note that both the Army and ‘Quest games should be used, withthe follow ing modifications. The Free Peoples should use quest G, and the Empire should use quest H. X the Unknown will automatically enter the game (on the side of the Empire on Game-Turn 18. ‘The Spiders will automatically enter on the side of the Free Peoples on Game-Turn 19. If the Hellgate is taken out of the Citadel, all of X the Unknown’s troops are immediately destroyed, Inaddition, on every fourth Game-Turn following the removal of the Hellgate, a refugee replacement is created for the Free Peoples on hex 0606. In this scenario, the Free Peoples, upon reaching hex 0904, must 0 through the Citadel using the Citadel of Blood rules, The player not questing should perform all die rolls for X and the monsters. ‘The characters should go immediately to (0606 and transfer their ratings to the Citadel of Blood system using Case 4.3 of Citadel CHART 1: Character Ratings (for characters net rated in Citadel c= We mp Av cB Wanpone oe se 7 None 3 6 Sword, Dagger +2Sword +2 HG 9 43/2 13 Dagger +2Dagger +1 DT 9 22/2 3 4 Sword,Bow +1 Bow +1HG 10 VIA 2 4 Sword, Dagger +1Sword +1 DT © Mellanthia 12 4/3/23 6 Sword, Dagger +1Sword +1 HG 10 None 2 4 Sword, Bow +2Sword = +2HG 6 2/3 2 2 Axe, Dagger +1 Axe +1HG 7 None 2 4 Sword, Bow | +2Sword = 41 HG 7 wr 2 4 Dagger Dageer — +2NG 9 None 2 $ Sword, Dagger +1 Sword +2NG 6 5) 30 None +2NG RISA TIN None #1 DT i 7 None 13) Hammer $1 Hammer +1 DT 5 ere a lane Detrap, Note that all characters carry 100 Gold Marks 28 and Chart 1 (following). Since Endurance in Swords and Sorcery is the same as Wound Points in Citadel, all damage taken in either system can be translated to the other (if Gon- 20 has taken three Endurance Points in S&S, hehas taken three WP's in Citadel). Note that as many characters as desired may enter the Citadel (eliminate Case 4.1A of Citadel). If the Free Peoples player wishes, he may have three ‘‘roled-up” characters (as per Section 46 of S45) appear in any free capital hex on Game-Turn 3. ‘These characters are exactly like Citadel In- itiates when entering the Citadel. If the characters make their way out of the Citadel, they appear on hex 0606 again, with t Hellgate. Note that Section 17 of Citadel is ignored for this scenario. The only way characters may regain Wound Points is to regain them by Case 40.53 of S&S. The Empire player must also enter a “Citadel” of sorts. In order to complete his quest, he must get (0 hex 3808 and enter Mellanthia’s maze. Using Citadel of Blood ‘counters, the Empire's characters must quest for Mellanthia's herbs. The following changes from Citadel apply. ‘The mirror counters still lead to the quest object, but instead of X the Unkown and his Demons, Mellanthia and her Spiders are guarding it. See Chart | for Mellanthia’s ralings. She is with 1D3+2 Spiders, each ‘hominid on panes)26 THEORY & TECHNIQUE ADVANCED TACTICS, REALITY AND GAME The Relationship of Military Tactics to the Play of Simulations, Part 1: The Offense by Thomas G. Pratuch In real, fe, Mr, Pratuch runs an armored unit for the benefit ofthis great land of ours. He has often included the simulation games that he enjoys $0 ‘much as pat of his professional activities. Here we fet the rewards of the return flow. Serious Gamers, by play and pracice, are often good seat fl-the pants tacticans, The depth of understan Sing shown by some approaches or surpasses pro fessignal leves (much to the chagtin of some pros) Nevertheless, many of us have serious gaps Imour knowledge of tactical orthodoxy. To remedy that staywith ths three-partseries. RAS Discussions of tacties in wargames has centered more on the game being played, or peculiarities of board surfaces, than on military tactical criteria. One early discussion even argued the merits of fighting along the grain of the hexfield versus against the grain, AAs the state of the art in wargame design has improved, so has the ability of a player to use military tactical considerations to influence the play of the game. This increased ability requires a fresh look at military tacties and their sein simulations. Not all aspects of military tactics are directly transferable to board simulations in fan accurate manner. The intent of this article is to present military tactics as they may af- fect the play of conflict simulations. This discussion will be in these three major areas: the offense, the defense, and special military ‘operations, ‘The Offense For military units, attacks may be characterized as one of 1wo types: deliberate cor hasty. The designation used is a function Of the planning time given to the attack. If cone leaves a predesignated area to attack a specific target area, with prior notice, then the attack is deliberate, When the “attack- ing” force conducts its attack because of & chance encounter with an opposing unit, then the attack is hasty. Most attacks in a wargame would technically fall into the category of a hasty attack, notwithstanding ‘one’s opponent's arguments on the length of time he takes to complete his turns. Regardless of how or why the attack oc- curs, there are many considerations to be dealt with before conducting the attack. {s the purpose of the attack to oli ‘enemy units or reach a specific area of ground? In the lust of watching enemy units being removed from the board, itis amazing how many players will lose sight of a goal to cross a river or seize a hill/town area, A player will tie down a large portion of his forces to eliminate a small (or large) unit, when such a goal is not truly desirable in terms of reaching an objective. Granted, ‘many games define victory in terms of enemy units eliminated. Even in those those games, however, the need 0 capture territory rather than eliminate enemy units can usually be discerned. The question then becomes: “How does a player recognize the dif- ference?” This can best be answered by using an example. Let us use what could be called the “standard” scenario and victory conditions. ‘An enemy force (Red-I) must be eliminated by the friendly player (Blue) before rein- forcements (Red-2) arrive on the scene. What the typical Blue player will usualy try to do is crush Red-1 before Red-2 arrives. Since most simulation game companies do not write reinforcements into scenarios where the initial force may be readily eliminated, the Blue force is normally locked in combat with Red-I when Red-2 arrives on the scene. This situation allows Red-2 to move and engage in ‘combat at will, while Blue can only react ‘A better use of the Blue forces might have been to divide them into two groups — the larger, containing the bulk of the units, to attack Red-1, and the smaller group to hold some area of ground that will prevent or delay the entry of Red-2. Before any cries arise about the attack ratio being reduced, let it be said that there are many factors, other than the number of units present, that affect an attack’s chances of success Returning to the discussion, Figure 1 shows how control of an area is often as im- portant, if not more so, than the elimination of an enemy force, Blue stil has a significant attack going against Red-1, and by holding the town, Blue has altered the situation for Red-2 considerably. Red-2 will now take a longer time to reach Red:1 because the road cannot be used. Red-2 will (a) take losses as it ‘crosses the open area, (b) take losses as it at tacks the Blue force in the town, or (c) delay its link with Red-1 by taking a longer route through terrain that is less favorable to movernent. Finally, Red-2is no longer free to ‘operate at will, but must account for a threat from Blue, Did the Blue force actually con- duct an attack to seize that town? Maybe not in game terms, but definitely so in military terminology. If there had been an opposing force in the town, the attack should have been given the highest priority in support so that the town would be secured before the ar- rival of Red-2. How does terrain influence the conduct of the attack? One of the areas in which the ‘effect of terrain is frst felis time. How long will it take to move from point A to point B depends on the type of terrain between the ‘wo locations. Ifa game situation requires 15 game turns as the maximum time for a con- clusion to be reached, then a route that would take 20 game turns to traverse is not suitable. Assume that two suitable routes have been found, in addition to one that is unsuitable. If both suitable routes allow the attacking force to move from the start point to the objective point, with sufficient time to attack/eliminate intervening enemy forces, hhow else will errain affect the choice? The cover and concealment afforded by the terrain along a route isa significant con sideration. Units crossing open spaces are prime targets for enemy fire. Given an enemy unit in a specific location, a friendly player may move through a wooded area or move so that a ridge/bill blocks the enemy unit. The ‘wooded route offers true concealment, with some cover; the hill provides cover primarily, with limited concealment as a secondary benefit, The problems and advantages of ‘cover aind concealment do not readily appear to a gamer, because most games provide the player with perfect information on enemy locations, information that is seldom available tothe ral life commander. ‘The wooded route so readily chosen by many gamers may be shunned by an actual commander who recognizes the danger of enemy infantry with short-ranged anti-tank weaponry. The possibilities for observation also distinguish the commander's attitude toward woods from that of the gamer. Where the player moving through woods or behind the hill knows the location of enemy units, the commander would be obliged to consider route that affords the best opportunities for long-range observation from concealed positions to check for possible enemy posi- tions, This need for observation of enemy Positions in actual combat requires the oc- ‘cupation of key terrain. Key terrain may be characterized by any orall ofthe following: 1. It may be a terrain feature that permits control ofa large area, because fields of view or of fire from that point can prevent orrestrict enemy movement overa large area. A hillis typical of this type of feature. 2. It may control access to an area by its physical location with respect toan avenue of movement, A town astride a major road or bridge across a river are common examples of terrain meeting this criterion. 3. It may permit fire to be brought to bear on the major objective of an operation. Such terrain is a more sharply defined version of that defined in (1). Since the commander in combat cannot divine the locations of enemy units, he is forced to treat his movement in expectation of meeting an enemy force at any moment. He must, therefore, occupy or check terrain that would afford him, or the ‘enemy, control of any key terrain, How do the combat units physically move during an attack to maximize pro- tection for themselves while causing heavy losses to the enemy? Not all at- tacks are heavy charges into the teeth of enemy guns. Units participating in such lethal activity may accumulate a good deal of alory, but alternate means — if available — certainly deserve consideration. The tech- niques of movement that have been developed can be broken into two major areas: movement prior to assault on the ob- jective, and the assault proper. Movement prior to assault encompasses what are called tactical movement and ad- ‘ministrative movement. Since administrative movement amounts to lining everyone up and moving by the fastest route (0a new area, and because any gamer worth his salt can tell when it is possible to move all his units down a road with impunity, there is no reason to delve into this type of movement. ‘The tactical movement requires disussion at ‘ereater length, FIGURE 1: US Attack on Soviet Forces Moi One type of tactical movement is ap- propriate when a force is deployed for com- bat and enemy contact is unlikely. In this type of movement, a company size force (aiven a game where the counters represent platoons or squads) would have its elements scattered over the terrain, moving without hhalts except as required by terrain or ‘obstacles. Prior to 1970, such movement was generally called by the shape the formation assumed: wedge, vee, line, or column. After 1970, commanders have been taught to per- form such movement with one or two clements leading and two elements, or oF following. This style of tactical movement is called travelling. ‘When enemy contact is highly likely, units move by bounds, splitting into a ‘minimum of two elements. If the movement Of the two elements involves element A mov- ing into the lead and halting, then element B ‘moving into the lead and halting, and so on, such movement is called alternate bounds. If element B merely moves up even with ele- ‘ment A, and element A moves again into the lead, then the movement is called successive bounds. Around 1970, this movement was further modified by constricting the distance of the bound from the distance of observa- tion between the Ovo elements, to. the distance at which one element could provide direct fire support for the forward element. The new name given to this style of was bounding overwatch, In bounding overwateh, the tactical in- tent is to find the enemy force with a ‘minimum of combat power lost or pinned by enemy fire, allowing the bulk of the bound- ing force to maneuver to eliminate enemy units. In wargames, the result of bounding foverwatch is the same as in actual combat, Dut the mental process differs. In actual com: Map A of Red Star/ White Star from Mech War2. ‘Comments: For the sake of clarity, only 2 fow counters ae used. Infantry inthe same hex as carr are dismounted, except the Soviet infantry in 27 bat, the enemy commander may not realize that the lead element is protected, or may realize the situation but choose nonetheless to try to eliminate the lead element before it finds its positions. In the game situation, the higher level of intelligence on enemy force locations turns this tactic into a ruse, similar to baiting a trap. If the opposing player chooses to attack the lead element, he may be engaged so completely that the rear elements of the bounding force can move at will, By the same token, the bounding player may lose his lead element completely if he has ‘underestimated his opponent's strength, ‘A recent innovation in the techniques of movement is called travelling overwatch, which falls between the two techniques thus far presented. Time scale and game rules cur- rently used in wargames do not permit the simulation of this technique. In travelling foverwatch, the lead element continues to move while the trailing element pauses on various terrain features to provide over- watch, ‘The second facet of movement 10 be discussed is the assault. At some point, it becomes necessary for the attacking force to bring all possible firepower to bear on the ob jective. Another necessary aspect of the ‘assault is to create panic and confusion among the defenders. ‘The attacker may split into two groups, fone of which would comprise the units that hhave long-range direct fire capability. These tunits could take a position separated from the defender and place direct fire on the defender’s positions. The second group of attackers, usually consisting of infantry type Units, assaults the objective by moving into the defender’s positions. In game terms and in military tactics, this movement is called close assault. It is important to note that the ranged fire provided by the first group must stop when the second group performs its close assault. ‘Another technique calls for several elements of the attacking force to alternate attacks against the defender by having one unit perform close assault, then @ second unit, and so forth, ‘One last — and least desirable — ‘method is to have all attacking units attack as ‘one combined force. This method is frowned upon, because it commits all forces to a specific use, thus denying a commander the ‘means of meeting unexpected enemy moves. ‘This disadvantage is sometimes absent from games where the CRT shows the combat ratio or differential o be so overwhelming as to guarantee success. ‘What about all those great little counters: that do not represent infantry or armor? ‘What of the unseen support from arty, air, or other sources? In military parlance, anything that assists combat is called a multiplier, and that term covers a host of units and items used in combat. ‘A cardinal rule in developing an attack js t0 create a weak point in the enemy defense, To do this, one must look at the ‘overall enemy arrangement.FIGURE 2: US Task Force(—) Attacks Soviet Map: Map Af fed Stor/ White Star from Mech War2. Reinforced Battalion 0s 45 Reserve Group, All 4020.THEORY & TECHNIQUE 29 COMPUTING TACTICAL RESULTS An Approach to Modern Weapons Combat Resolution byJohn A. Graham, Ill ‘The ways and means by which designers ative at those cryptic entries on your typical Combat Results Table are devious and diverse. itis rare (so far as 've observed) thatthe apparent amount of technical analysis is anywhere near the actual fort expended in developing such tables. Most tables are cooked up based upon Kentucky win ‘dage, relerence to existential realty, and’ good ‘guessing, Herewith isan attempt to approach the problem more cca RAS For several years I have been attempting to determine a mathematically sound method for computing tactical combat results. The method I have found seems to produce results like those one expects and is founded ‘on the principles of probability. This method. probably too complex to be incorporated (0 a play-by-hand system, but it has work- ed well for me on my home computer, which T have adapted to calculate results for Firefight, using the standard equipment for everything else, ‘To understand how I arrived at my for- mula for combat losses, i is necessary to first consider the factors that affect combat results. These factors are: A. The probability of defeating the target's armor. B. The number of rounds fired at cach target C. The range to the target versus the ‘maximum effective range characteris the firing weapon(s). D. The interference of intervening terrain features. E, The relative rates of unit movements during the firefight F, The relative altitude difference between firer and targets, G. The morale, training levels, weather, time of day, my Great Aunt Lucy's age, and other imponderables. For armored targets, the probability of a kill is related to the thickness of the target ar- ‘mor and the rated penetration of the fired ammunition, Figure I shows how the relative thickness of armor is calculated from the angle of attack, and the physical thickness of the armor being hit, From this we see the ef- fective thickness of the armor E is given by E=D/sin(a) where D is the physical thick- ness of the armor and ais the angle of attack. ‘The probability distribution of hits on a round tank turret is such that half the hits FIGURE: Effective Armor will occur at angles greater than 58.5 degrees and half at less than 58.5 degrees (see Figure II. Thus, the Figure 11 Hit Distri- bution factor 1.17D gives an average effec- tive armor thickness. The probability of ar- mor penetration P is given by P = 1 — (1,170/d) where D is the physical thickness Of the armored target, and d is the armor penetration rating of the firing weapons. T, isequation gives usa basic probability of a it for use with armored targets. For un- ‘armored targets, this basic probability is one, which can be interpreted as meaning any hit on a soft target will kill itor at least put it out of action, FIGURE II: Hit Distribution 0° 0° 90° 0° ‘The laws of probability tell us that if the probability of a kill with a single shot is P, then the probability of a hit with several similar shots $ is 1=(1~ P)®, Note that Pisa ‘number between Oand 1, ie.,a decimal frac- tion. 1—P is also a decimal fraction. Taking any fraction to a power higher than 1 makes ita smaller fraction. Thus, if &, the number Of shots, increases, the overall probability of a kill increases. Since the number of shots depends on the number of weapons firing, and the number of rounds each weapon can effectively fire in one time period (game- turn), both of these figures are needed to ‘compute target kills. The product of the ‘number of firing weapons and the rounds per ‘game-turn divided by the number of targets ives S. Range is normally given as “maximum, effective range” in military literature. The trick to using maximum effective range to compute the effect of actual range on the probability ofa killis complex. In ts simplest form, the probability of a killis multiplied by the factor R={(m-—cl/mB. Notice that as actual range © gets larger with respect 10 ‘maximum effective range m, this factor gets, smaller as the inverse square. This is demonstrated in the drawing in Figure I ‘When a weapon like a rifle, tank main gun, cor other direct fire weapon is aimed, its effect depends on the steadiness of whomever holds This steadiness, or lack of it, translates in- toacone of swing on either side of the aiming. line of sight as shown in Figure III. At range 1, this aiming cone completely covers the target. At range 2, only a quarter of the cone covers the same sized target. This translates into one-quarter of the original probability of ait, the inverse square of 2. FIGURE III: Aiming Cone Range? ‘A more complex treatment must be siven to guided missiles like the TOW, Dragon, or Sagger. These missiles follow in flight the inverse of the formula given above from range zero to 700m for Sagger, or to about 200m for TOW. From this minimum effective range to the listed maximum effec- tive range, they have a constant probability fa kill; then they again follow a normal in- verse square law from the end of their wire to the end of their flight, usually about 500m beyond the end of their listed maximum effective range. For simplicity's sake, I usually do not allow GM's to fire at less than their rated minimums, nor greater than their rated maximums, This allows me to use a constant for GM range effects, completely avoiding this complexity. ferrain acts to screen targets from the firers. The lowered probability of seeing the target lowers the probability of killing it. If the terrain density Tis represented by a frac- tion of the target that is visible to the firer (i.e, 0.5 if half of the target can be seen, 0.3 if one third of the target can be seen, etc.), then the adjusted probability of a kill kis given by k = TP, where P is the probability of a kill before adjusting for the number of shots (based on armor thickness only), The rate of target movement has (wo op- posing effects, First, the motion makes it ‘more difficult to hit the target because a “leading aiming point’ must be calculated. In other words, you can not hit the target by30 aiming where it is now. You must aim and fire at where its movement will place it when your bullet gets there. The second and reater effect is that the moving target is more easily seen and therefore more easily engaged and killed. We can calculate this adjustment M from M=10.3 [(m~s)/m] where m is the maximum speed of the target unit and 6 isthe actual speed. The use of 0.3 as a multiplier gives the result that when a unit is sitting still itis one-third harder to ef- fectively engage, compared to when it is ‘moving at full speed. This 0.3 was found by experiment with a BB gun, My son set ten toy soldiers on along. board running at a diagonal to where I stood. He placed scale trees and brush in front of them, Then I turned around, not having watched this set up and fired at them with 20, rounds as fast as I could, We then repeated the experiment, except that he moved the board at about the scale running speed of the soldiers. After several tials, using about 200 rounds, [had scored about 30% more hits on the moving targets. You may find something, from actual military firing ranges that may bbe more accurate than 0.3, but it will prob- ably be lose to this figure. The firer's rate of movement may also be taken into account. It proportionately lowers his rate of fire. Thus, if the firer is ‘moving at Full speed, he can not shoot effec- tively. If he is moving at one-third full speed asa nit, then his rate of fire is 1 —.3, or two- thirds of his rate of fire when motionless. This change in the rate of fire should be ac- counted for when adjusting for the number of rounds fired at each target The relative altitude difference between the firer and the target shows up as masking. or defilade. The amount of masking can be calculated as shown in Figure IV. If you do ot understand the use of trig functions, don't panic; simply ignore the slight effects that altitude differences have on the overall probability ofa kill. The altitude modifier A is found by A=0.5+0.5sinfarctan(a/s)] where a is the altitude difference in meters and fis the actual range 10 the target. This factor A is always less than one, soit can pro: perly be used as a multiplier of probabilities. But its value for level ground is not one, itis 0.5, which halves the adjusted probabilities found above. This adjustment is justified by the fact that in what is normally classified as “clear” terrain, the average standing soldier is only half visible. The other half is obscured by ground clutter, like grasses, minor foldsin the ground such as dead furrows, etc. These seteens have the same effect on obscuring things as large as tanks, because at the longer ranges in use, more clutter is encountered on the ine of sight. FIGURE IV: Altitude Differential We have now found p (the basic prob- ability of a kill due to armor penetrability), the range adjustment R, the terrain adjust- ‘ment T, the movement adjustment M, and the altitude adjustment A, Combined’ with the number of shots fired per each target S, we find the overall equation for the adjusted probability p to be p= 1 (1-RTMAPI2 We ‘can use this to find the average number of casualties ¢ as © = Np where N is the number of targets engaged. The imponderables can be accounted for using a random number adjustment to C, But to be probablistically correct, we must use the standard deviation of € to determine the upper and lower limits of probable ‘casualties, The standard deviation $ of C is found as 8 = [Np(1— pil. We can account for 99% of all probable casualty figures for identical conditions as being 2.88 above or below C. 689% of all outcomes will be be- tween € + sand © — 8. Thesum of apair of dice follows a similar probability curve Figure V shows the multiplier for s that cor- responds to the sums of two dice. This gives, usa 0.167 probability of getting the average ‘number of casualties . It also prevents us from getting an improbable number of very high or very low adjusted casualties, FIGURE V: Standard Dev Multipliors 2 25 2 -25 3 200M -20 4 15 10-15 s 10 9-10 6 os @ -05 7 00 7 00 ‘The implementation of this method for calculating simulated casualties is on my Compucolor Il. Ihave extracted the machine specific codes from my casualty computing program, leaving a BASIC program that runs on’ TRS-80 and most other simple BASIC systems that have trigonometric function cells. The listing of this program may be of use 0 those with a computer (or who can steal some computer time at the local University.) {OREM CASUALTY COMPUTATIONBY JOHN A GRAWAMII, 1 DEC 197 rem SPRINT “apn, NUMBER OF WEAPONS FIRING MAXIMUM RATE OF FIRE SOPRINT’3. MAXIMUM SPEED OF FIRER SOPRINT’S. ACTUAL SPEED OF FRER TOPRINT’S, MAXIMUM EFFECTIVE RANGE OF FIRER SDPRINT"S, ACTUAL RANGETO TARGET SOPRINT’7, FIRERS ARMOR PENETRATION RATING. QOPRINT"8. ACTUAL DEPTHOF TARGET ARMOR OPRINT'S. ALTITUDE OF FRER {2OPRINT"10. ALTITUDE OF TARGET {DOPRINT"11, NUMBER OF TARGETS, ‘WOPRINT“12. TARGET EXPOSUREAS (DECIMAL FRACTION on ISOPRINT"'3. MAXIMUM SPEEDOF TARGET “$1 GOPRINT"I4, ACTUAL SPEEDOFTARGET "182 1G2PRINT 104 PRINT“ENTER THE NUMBER OF THE ITEM "YOU Wisi TO CHANGE (0 DO CASUALTIES 106 INPUT NS 188 ON Ns GOTO 51,52, 30 540 580,550,575, 580, (6, 610,620,500 650, {70 REM CALCULATE ALL MULTIPLIERS AS GIVEN INTHE ARTICLE 10 IF D=0 THEN P=1-coTo210 10 1F D1 =0 THEN P=0:G0TO2I0: REM PREVENT FIRE BY NON-ARMOR WEAPON. 200 P=1-11.7D/0 210 FP COTHEN P=0. (nt = NOM A2 1=(3481-82)/51) 240 A=.5+ (S*SINIATNI(AI~A2/M2)) 250 S~NIREMIS3— $4)/S2)/N 280 REM CALCULATE ADJUSTED PROBABILITY OF AKL ZrO Pit = -(P*ReTMA 8) 230 REM CALCULATE AVERAGE CASUALTIES 0 C-PIN 50 REM CALCULATE STANDARD DEVIATION 30 S9=UINFPIVTPINA.S) 520 REM CALCULATE SIMULATED DICE ROLL 30 AI =ANOIOB ‘40 R2=ANDIIE 0 RI=AL+ A ‘30 REM ONE SHOULD TAKE THE INTEGER FUNCTION OF Ra TO OROP FRACTIONS 370 R6=35- (ROS) 20 PRINT [00 PRINT “AVERAGE CASUALTIES (CASUALTIES THIS TIME =" C+ RAS) 400 PRINT 480 PRINT ‘4% GoTo 510 INPUTNT:GOTOTO 520 INPUTRS.GOTOIO ‘50 NPUTS3:GoTO10 ‘540 INPUTS&:GOTOI0 580 INPUTMT-GOTOID ‘580 INPUTM2-GOTOIO {570 NPUTDI:GOTOIO 580 INPUTD:GOTOI0 S80 NPUTAI:GOTOIO ‘00 INPUTA2-GOTOIO {10 INPUTN:GOTOTO ‘20 INPUTT:GOTOIO {90 INPUTS:;GOTOTO 640 INPUTS2:GOTOIO (50 END EXAMPLE OF OUTPUT AUS Squad Being Ground Assaulted NUMBER OF WEAPONS FIRING 10 MAXIMUM RATE OF FIRE @ MAXIMUM SPEED OF FRER. 25 ACTUAL SPEED OF FIRER MAXIMUM EFFECTIVE RANGEOFFIRER 400 [ACTUALRANGETOTARGET 10 FIRERG ARMOR PENETRATIONRATING 0 ACTUALDEPTHOF TARGET ARMOR, ° ALTITUDE OF FIRER 0 ‘ALTITUDE OF TARGET 5 NUMBER OF TARGETS ® ‘TARGET EXPOSURE AS DECIMALFRACTION 5 MAXIMUM SPEED OF TARGET. 25 [ACTUAL SPEED OF TARGET ° Canualin = 16.925 elie This Time = 27.005 1. NUMBER OF WEAPONS FIRING @ 2. MAXIMUM RATE OF FIRE 100 23. MAXIMUM SPEED OF FIRER 25 ', ACTUAL SPEED OF FIRER ° 5. MAXIMUMEFFECTIVERANGEOFFIRER 200 6, ACTUAL RANGE TOTARGET 0 7, FIRERS ARMOR PENETRATIONRATING 0 18 ACTUAL DEPTH OF TARGET ARMOR ° 9. ALTITUDE OF FIRER 5 10. ALTITUDE OF TARGET 0 11, NUMBER OF TARGETS. 0 12, TARGET EXPOSURE AS DECIMAL FRACTION 0,31 MAP C:THEFIRST FLOOR Tn the golden days of the palace, the first floor was a enter of much activity, Guests ‘were received in the main hall the front entrance (IS1-A), “There were frequently balls and feasts inthe Great Hall (120-K) and troubadours entertained in the East Room (149-B), Now. however, the first floor is almost completly abandoned cmPalace Ontoncle The Palace of Ontoncle is a fantasy role-playing adventure scenario that can be used in conjunction Available in with SPI's DragonQuest. The gamesmaster uses retail stores this booklet to describe the missions forthe players, for $4.95 and to guide them through the palace of an evil ‘magician and his henchmen, ‘The DragonQuest Gamesmaster Screen is the perfect solution for every gamesmaster who has tired of looking through rule booklets for that one chart or table. All the important charts for the GM. appear on one side, and the weapon's chart on the other side for the’ players. This 1" x34" four- color screen folds down co fit inside the Dragon. (Quest box. Now available through retail dealers nationwide for $3.50 Map A — llectus The Blade of Allectus, the second DragonQuest adven- ure, isa playing aid for the Gamesmaster. The adventure turns upon a reseue attempt by a band of adventurers, who sail 10 an island to save a kidnapped Duke. The Blade of Allectus contains a ules booklet with ten maps and complete descriptions of the island and the various tures upon i Available nationwide in retail outlets for $4.95!32 Tactical Results covmedromparesa) ‘Average Canualon = 1.645 [ACTUAL DEPTHOF TARGET ARMOR. 6 18, MAXIMUM SPEED OF TARGET 25. Casvation This Time 572402 AALTITUDEOF FMEA ° ‘4, ACTUAL SPEED OF TARGET (0 “1 NUMBEROF WEAPONS FRING 410, ALTTUDEOF TARGET ° ‘Average Cesuaton = 290908 2. MAXIMUM RATE OF FRE © 1, NuMBeROF TARGETS 1 {Canuaton Tia Time = 2.045 5. MAXIMUM SPEED OF FIRER 50 2 TARGETEXPOSURE AS DECIMAL FRACTION 03 SCAMPLE OFoUrPUT 4 ACTUAL SPEED OF FIRER © {3 MAXIMUM SPEED OF TARGET ‘° 5. MAXIMUMEFFECTIVERANGEOFFIRER 4000 44, ACTUAL SPEED OF TARGET ° 4US Tanks in Hull Detilade Ambush 10Soviets in the Open {ACTUAL RANGETO TARGET 1000 Average Canuelien = 680427 7. FIRERS ARMOR PENETRATIONRATING —-&)Ganuailn Tis Time = = 227203 1. NUMBER OF WEAPONS FIRING 4 ACTUALDEPTHOF TARGET ARMOR 18 “TNUMBER OF WEAPONS FRING 1 2, MAXMUM RATEOF FIRE 8 5, AUTTTUDEOF FiRER © 2. MAXIMUMRATEOF FIRE 8 {2 MAXMUM SPEED OF FRER 3 10, ALTITUDEOF TARGET © 3. MAXIMUMSPEED OF FIRER x» 44 ACTUAL SPEED OF FRER 0. NUMBER OF TARGETS 7 ACTUALSPEEDOF FRER ° ‘5. MAXIMUMEFFECTIVERANGEOFFIRER 400012 TARGETEXPOSUREAS DECIMALFRACTION 1.0 § MAXMUMEFFECTIVERANGEOFFIRER 4000 6. ACTUAL RANGE TOTARGET 1000 12, MAXIMUM SPEED OF TARGET €© 6 ACTUALRANGE TOTARGET 1000 7. FRERS ARMOR PENETRATIONRATING § 4, ACTUAL SPEED OF TARGET © 7. FIRERSAAMOR PENETRATIONRATING 50 8. ACTUAL DEPTHOF TARGET ARMOR 18 AverageCanuahon =2.61629 8 ACTUAL DEPTH OF TARGET ARMOR . 9. ALTTUDEOFFIRER © ConualtosThis Time 1.8458 8. ALTITUDEOFFIRER 10, ALTTTUDEOF TARGET © 1. NUMBEROF WEAPONS FIRING 5 0, ALTITUDEOF TARGET Q 11. NUMBER OF TARGETS 10 2, MAXIMUMRATEOFFIRE © 1, NUMBEROF TARGETS 5 12. TARGET EXPOSURE AS DECIMALFRACTION 1.0 3, MAXIMUMSPEED OF FIRER 5 {2 TARGETEXPOSURE AS DECIMAL FRACTION 1.0, 13, MAXIMUM SPEEDOF TARGET @ 4, ACTUAL SPEEDOFFIRER © 13, MAXIMUM SPEED OF TARGET © “4, ACTUAL SPEED OF TARGET © 5. MAXMUMEFFECTIVERANGEOFFIRER 4000 44. ACTUAL SPEEDOF TARGET ° ‘Average Casuahion=3.09603 6. ACTUAL RANGE TOTARGET ‘000 Conuaon Tia Time = 2.06883 7, FIRERS ARMOR PENETRATIONRATING 8 And the Soviets Return Fs. 8 ACTUAL DEPTHOF TARGET ARMOR 18 “T NUMBER OF WEAPONS FRING 3 1. NUMBER OF WEAPONS FIRING 75, ALTITUOEOFFIRER © 2, MAXIMUMRATEOFFIRE 6 2. MAXMUM RATEOF FRE ® 10, ALTITUDEOF TARGET © 3. MAXIMUM SPEEDOF FIRER » 5. MAXIMUM SPEED OF FIRER 31, NUMBEROF TARGETS 44 ACTUALSPEEDOFFIRER ° 4: ACTUAL SPEED OF FRER © 12, TARGETEXPOSUREASDECIMALTRACTION 0:3 5. MAXIMUMEFFECTIVERANGEOFFIRER 4000 5 MAXMUMEFFECTVERANGEOFFIRER 4200 49" YAXIMUM SPEED OF TARGET @ 6. ACTUALRANGETOTARGET 00 {. ACTUAL RANGETO TARGET 1000 44, ACTUAL SPEEDOF TARGET © 7. FIRERS ARMOR PENETRATIONRATING 5 7. FIRERS ARMOR PENETRATIONRATING 5 &. ACTUAL DEPTHOF TARGET ARMOR 8 {. ACTUALOEPTHOF TARGET ARMOR 8 8. ALTITUDEOFFIRER ° 9. ALTTUDEOFFIRER 0 “T"NUMBER OF WEAPONS FIRING 130, ALTTTUDEOF TARGET ° 10, ALTITUDE OF TARGET © 2, MAXIMUMRATE OFFIRE S 11, NUMBEROF TARGETS 1 11, NUMBER OF TARGETS 103, MAXIMUM SPEED OFFIRER 5 12, TARGETEXPOSUREAS DECIMALFRACTION 03. {2 TARGETEXPOSUREAS DECIMAL FRACTION 03 4, ACTUAL SPEEDOFFIRER © 13, MAXIMUM SPEEDOF TARGET o 13, MAXIMUM SPEEDOF TARGET © 5 MAXIMUMEFFECTIVERANGEOFFIRER 40004. ACTUAL SPEED OF TARGET ° 14, ACTUAL SPEEDOF TARGET © 6. ACTUALRANGETO TARGET 100 Average Casunten = 5068, ‘Average Cesuaten= 1.5138 7. FIRERS ARMOR FENETRATIONRATING 50 Gauunfen Tha Time == 1.00028 Canuahon Tha Tia = 1.29675 8. ACTUAL DEPTHOF TARGET ARMOR. 18 1. NUMBEROF WEAPONS FIRING 1 ‘Oops! Too Many Targets! Once Again, 8. ALTITUDEOFFRER © 2. MAXMUM RATEOF FRE 6 1. NUMBER OF WEAPONS FIRING 2.40, ALTIUDEOF TARGET © 3. MAXIMUM SPEED OFFRER » 2. MAXIMUM RATEOF FIRE © 11, NUMBEROF TARGETS 5 4 ACTUALSPEEDOFFiRER ° 3. MAXIMUM SPEED OF FRER 2 jg. TARGETEXPOSUREASDECIMALFRACTION 1.0 &. MAXIMUMESFECTIVERANGEOFFIRER 400) 4 ACTUAL SPEED OF FRER 9 §3, MAXIMUM SPEED OF TARGET © 6. ACTUALRANGETOTARGET 1000 5. MAXIMUM EFFECTIVERANGEOFFIRER 400014. ACTUAL SPEED OF TARGET (© 7. IRERSARMOR PENETRATIONRATING —&0 6 ACTUAL RANGETO TARGET 1000 average Casuals = 700481 {8 ACTUAL DEPTHOFTARGET ARMOR 6 7. FIRERS ARMOR PENETRATIONRATING © —Gasuaee Te Tene 0004 # ALTTUGEOF MEA. ° {8 ACTUAL DEPTHOF TARGET ARMOR, 15 “TTNUMBER OF WEAPONS FRING 5 10, ALTTUDEOFTARGET ° 8. ALTITUDEOF FIRER © F MANMUMRATEOE TRE G ested $ 10, ALTITUDEOF TARGET 8 3, MAXIMUM SPEED OF FIRER 512 TARGET EXPOSURE AS DECMALFRACTION 1 11, NUMBER OF TARGETS 4 ACTUALSPEEDOF FRER © 12, MAXIMUM SPEED OF TARGET « 12. TARGET EXPOSURE AS DECIMALFRACTION 03 5, WAXIMUMEFFECTIVERANGEOFFIRER 00D. 44. ACTUAL SPEED OF TARGET ° 13. MAXIMUM SPEED OF TARGET © 6, ACTUALRANGE TO TARGET 1000 Average Casual =. 71784 1. ACTUAL SPEEDOF TARGET 7. FIRERS ARMOR PENETRATIONRATING 50 Canushan This Time Ty Note: Due othe atfculty in duplicating computer output with conventional typeseting, SPL can- notattst othe absolute accuracy ofthe data as presented inthis article. Advanced Tactics ‘observation in the area of the specific unit to unforseen occurs — a bad die roll, a reinfore- Iemma be attacked creates the necessary isolation. ing unit making it into the defense, or any defense of that ground. Did the defender The use of electronic warfare to prohibit the number of other possibilities — it is plait on moving his reserve to meet any attack that is too strong for his unit on that terrain to handle? If so, then tactical airctaft used to strike at his rear area reserves may stall or eliminate such support long enough for an attack to succeed. ‘Sometimes, if the defender has a good defensive position throughout the area where the attack will occur, itis necessary to create ‘a weak point, and the key to success in such an undertaking is isolation. When enemy defensive units can provide mutual support by direct fire, the use of smoke to restrict defender from calling in artillery or tactical ir support is another means of isolating the unit in question. Air defense units in the area of the attack isolate the defender by denying. his aircraft access to the area. Finally, isola- tion can be established by directing the at- tacking forces in a suitable fashion, The en- circlement of the defender is the ultimate ‘method of isolation, ‘What last advice should be given to the attacker? Always, always, always have a reserve force, No’ battle develops exactly along the lines the attacker plans, When the necessary to have a combat capability that is not critically committed to combat and is thus free to move and fight where needed. Even if that reserve is but a small fraction of the overall attacking force, its freedom can hhavean effect out of proportion toils size. Figure 2 shows an attack utilizing some of the techniques discussed in this presenta- ion of tactical considerations for the of- fense. For further reading in tactics for wargames, the articles by Fredrick Georgian in MOVES 22, 23, 24, and 28 are recom- mended.TAKE US TO YOUR DRAGON! 7 HOLY SCRMBLAT!: i's 400000000000 HoBsy SOF MILES To THE NEXT eo oy & HOBBY SHOP! MAYBE WE SHOULO TRY A BLACK HOLE! What’s a poor alien to do? We've searched the universe for the latest Dragon, but copies of the monthly adventure role-playing aid are as rare as zgwortz on Rdxnrk-19. Hey, aliens (and other humanoids)! Don’t throw yourself into a black hole. Intelligent life forms across the universe are solving this monthly dilemma by subscribing to DRAGON magazine, ensuring a constant supply of the best coverage of games and gaming. And, they’re saving money too — one-third off the newsstand price. So turn off your warp drive and explore the universe of fantasy from the convenience of your mailbox by writing to our mailbox — Dragon Publishing, P.O. Box 110, Lake Geneva, WI 53147 CO Beam us up, Scottie. Our days of DO Heck no, we like exploring strange wandering are over. Enclosed is a new worlds, dusty bookstores and check or money order for $24 U.S.* moldy hobby shops. Now if we could fora year of Dragon. just find a good map of Zeta sector! Name (please type or print neatly) Address City State Zip "Overseas rates are $50 for surface mail, $95 for air mail. Slightly higher in some galaxies.Designers Notes WORKS IN PROGRESS Please do not order these games in ad- vance of their publication announcement in Strategy & Tactics. ‘Sword and the Stars Last week Redmond, John Butterfield, and 1 sat down to decide’on a name for the final game. The working title has always been Empires of the Stellar Reaches, which we have never intended to use since itis so close to Empires of the Middles Ages. A title has now been decided upon, and with that the game's development is finished. I am very hhappy with the final result. The elements that Tam most pleased with include: 1. Game Length: You can now finish a game of Sword and the Stars in a single evening, 2. Increased Decisiveness: The addition Of the StarGate (0 allow Operations to be undertaken in any part of the galaxy has ‘changed the complextion of the Empires system drastically. 3. New Special Rules: New random events, Operation results, and more, 4. Game Value: This game will be a bargain; for 10 dollars the players will get a folio map, four hundred counters, a 24-page rules book, two dice, a one-inch bbox, and 56 Year Cards. In addition, the basic Empires of the Middle Ages system, which has proven 10 be so popular, remains virtually intact with changes made only to increase the entertainment value of the game. Thus, my time spent with the game is cover. Now it enters Art Department land, where it will undoubtedly receive the same kind of deluxe treatment the original game received. [ eagerly wait to see the new map which Iam sure will be beautiful. Eric Smith Groat Battles of the Civil War Thave had a chance now to look over two more recently submitted games on the TSS system, New Market and Corinth, In addition, Ihave sent wo other games back to the designers for additional work. Brice's Crossroads was sent back so the designer could wrap up a good set of Victory Condi- tions for the game, and Belmont was sent back for a re-design of the naval and map exiting mechanics, Neither game has been rejected; rather, both are stil very much in contention for the three slots available to TSS games in the production schedule. The three games chosen for production in the spring/summer will be decided upon soon, New Market This game, designed by veteran designer Mark Herman (of Stonewall and Mech War 2 fame) originally came in asa TSS system cap- sule game. I sent it back to Mark several ‘months ago, and he has brought the game ‘more into line with the Standard Rules of the Great Battles system. It remains a capsule ‘game, but is very close in design to the basic system. We tested it recently, and the testers did not know quite what to do with it. Itis a strange game, because the Confederates have only six (count'em) regiments of infantry and, a smattering of artillery. Add to this a nifty skirmisher rule, and the Confederate force nears 20 counters. The Union begins play th no more than 10 counters on the map. ‘The two armies face off, and the Confeder~ ates attack. The attack’ pushes the Union