Circulation - Strategy & Tactics Pressstrategyandtacticspress.com/library-files/Moves...

2 MOVES nr. 34, published August/September 1977

Circulation: 9100

Editor/Executive Art Director Redmond A. Simonsen Managing Editor Robert J. Ryer

Art Director Manfred F. Milkuhn Contributing Editors

Richard Berg, James F. Dunnigan, Frederick Georgian, Phil Kosnett, Steve List, Mark Saha, Jerrold Thomas

MOVES Magazine is copyright O 1977, Simulations Publications, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. All rights reserved. All editorial and general mail should beaddressed to SimulationsPublications lnc.,44East 23rd Street, N.Y., N.Y. 10010. MOVES is published bimonthly. One year subscriptions (six issues) are available for $8.00 (U.S.). Back issues or singlecopiesofthecurrentissueareavailableat$2.50percopy.Pleaseremitbycheckormoneyorder(U.S.fundsonly)

Printing and Binding by American Press, Inc., Gordonsville, Va. ARTICLE SUBMISSIONS: Readers are invited to submit articles for possible publication in MOVES Magazine. Manuscripts must be typewritten, double-spaced, on 8% x 1 1 white bond, with generous margins. Pleaseinclude your full name on each MS page, and your name and address on the cover page. If you wish your manuscript returned, include a stamped, self-addressed 9 x 12 envelope. In no instance, however, can SPI assume responsibility for manuscripts and illustrations not specifically solicited.

In this issue. . . True Victory JOHN E. KOONTZ 4 Napoleon's Victory JERROLD THOMAS 1 1 Spanish Gold DAVID R. GRANT 16

A Productive Approach STEVELIST 17

Wacht am Rhein: Addenda JOE BAL KOSKI 22 The Long Patrol 24 STEVEN M . DICKES

MOSCOW Campaign PERRY MOORE 25 Wurzburg JACK BL UDIS 26

Opening MOVES REDMOND A. SIMONSEN

Designer's Notes SPI R ~ D STAFF 3

Your MOVES THE READERS 27 Forward Observer RICHARD BERG 28 Footnotes THE READERS 30 Playback THE PLAYERS 33 Feedback/Playback Questions vox POPULI, VOX DEI 34

Simulations Publications, Inc., 44 East 23rd Street, New York, N.Y. 10010

Opening Moves

"It seems we've stood and talked like thb before . . . "

Variation versus Innovation One of the most powerful words in advertis- ing is "new" - probably because in Western culture that which is new is almost always considered automatically better than that which is old or familiar. The impact of the concept of newness, however, is subject to modification by context; i.e., the quality of newness must be perceived as an improvement upon a familiar benefit rather than as a threatening global change wrenching the user into unfamiliar pathways, creating that

of tension (created by too-rapid in- trOduction of unknowns) "future- shock." we wargamers hunger for new games, but

the most part- what we are seeking are novel v a f i a t i 0 ~ On a few central themes rather than authentic, ground-breaking new approaches to wargaming. Much of the proof for this semi-outrageous statement can be found in the very form that most wargames take: a hex-grid map; numerically valued units; probabilistic resolution of combat using a table (or tables) and one or two dice. One might object on the grounds that this is a statement akin to saying that all automotive design is unoriginal because the cars all have wheels, motors, and steering aechanisms. such criticism fails to account for the fact that the grid-map format strongly influences what can be simulated, how the basic mechanics must work, the sort of rules statements necessary, the abstractions of terrain analysis, and a whole host of other aspects of conflict simulation. Also, the basic elements of automobiles are existential facts, not deliberately chosen forms such as is the case in grid-map games. This is not to say that the grid-map game form is not a highly successful and very flex- ible simulation environment - it is. Never- theless, with very little effort one can think of a number of other basic environments for manual conflict simulation. Some of these alternate forms have been tried - and have had only marginal success and consumer ac- ceptance. Area-movement games, for example, are generally not well received - even though they are a first cousin variation of the grid map form. No serious attempt has been made (commercially) to use a free-map simulation form, i.e.. using a real military- style map, rendering unit moves in terms of kilometers and coordinates, etc. Going even further afield, it should be possible to develop a successful series of simulations $hat rely mainly on highly evolved written instructions and interactions between opposing forces on a totally abstract display (that

nonetheless accurately simulates the combat environment). Some publishers have attempted, in specific instances, t o break f rom the grid- map/digital unit mold. SPI has done a number of area games, games that incor- porated displays in place of hexes, and games in which the units were valued by means other than strict digitalization. Recently SPI published BattleFIeet Mars - a game with many truly different movement and combat resolution techniques. It promises to be an exception to the lukewarm reception most such experimental systems have received in the past. This may be due in large part to its science-fiction setting. Garners seem more willing to allow radically different approaches within the sub-genre of SF games.

And, indeed, what we call conflict simulation gaming is truly a genre, i.e., a distinctly limited sub-set of conflict simulation. 1 suggest that we wargamers are more interested in the form of gaming than in the substance. Think of the great number of games (by SPI and other publishers) which, if you stripped them of their historical window-dressing, would be virtually identical, having only the most minor rules changes to separate them. People tend to allow subject and period to dominate their buying decisions - but many times this distinction is simply an illusion. Many games (including many SPI games) have nothing major in their systems which is a uniquely significant characteristic of the historical period being simulated. If you changed the names of the units and towns, you might as well be fighting the Battle of the Bulge rather than the Battle of Waterloo. Both the gamers and the publishers share responsibility for the limited nature of our hobby. As mentioned, the publishers have made some attempts to enlarge the definition of the field, but the response of the gamers has been less than enthusiastic. This may be partly due to the quality of the games that have been offered - but I truly feel that its due mostly to the preconceptions that we gamers bring to our hobby. I believe that most gamers respond best to the familiar elements of the positional, alternating move, hex-grid wargame. We feel most comfortable in this game environment. We feel that we are in control - not the game. We feel challenged enough by the intricate variations possible in this particular game setting and don't want to be burdened by radical changes of form. Whether we are devotees of dragoons or fans of Phantoms, we like them on hexagons with a seasoning of digital combat values lightly tossed with dice over a spread of probability tables. We seem to have delicate stomachs that are easily upset by dramatic changes in diet or presentation. I would like to make clear that what I'm suggesting are not simply cosmetic changes in format just so we can pat ourselves on the back and congratulate ourselves on our catholic tastes - I am suggesting that there are other avenues by which we can approach

the pleasures of simulation gaming that we have not seriously explored or encouraged. The publishers must of course produce these new approaches - but the gamers must widen their mind-set to create the at- mosphere in which such games can flourish. One of the problems that small industries face (and wargaming is a pretty small industry) is being able to afford the risk of radical new ventures - in this case, spending the creative and corporate capital-to develop dramatically new simulation gaming systems. In such cases, it helps if the audience gives evidence of being open-minded and adventurous enough to warrant the risk. The core of the wargaming audience is more of a true community than in most hobbies. The publishers (particularly SPI) rely heavily upon the inputs of this community to guide them in their product decisions. Much valuable material flows from the diverse and intelligent group of hobbyists of which you, the MOVES readership, form the majority. If, therefore, you agree with my basic thesis that the forms of conflict simulation are more limited than they should be, there are a few things you can do to help expand the horizons of our hobby. Examine your own prejudices concerning game forms - attempting as objectively as possible to separate form from substance. Encourage innovation through your letters and in the case of SPI) via Feedback. When you buy a game that doesn't fit your preconceptions - play it several times before you make up your mind about it. You can also write short articles for MOVES proposing new game forms - I don't mean scenario variants - I mean actual outlines of specific game systems . . . game systems that don't use hex grids or that are radically different in some other basic way. In this way we can all get our feet wet at relatively little risk. I realize that ultimately, it's up to the publishers to produce the breakthrough systems that I'm alluding to - but nevertheless, I'd like to get all of you as involved as possible. At the very least, write me and let me know your thinking on this problem.

-Redmond

I'm still getting letters from people telling me that they didn't get a Feedback card in their issue of MOVES. I've hopped up and down on the printer's head about this, and he's assured me that the problem is solved. If, however, you don't get a Feedback card in thk issue, drop me a postcard telling me so - I need ammunition to dump on his desk.

-RAS

Designers Notes

WORK IN PROGRESS Please don't order any of these titles until their availability is announced via S&T.

Descent on Crete The game is rolling along, now that the Order of Battle for both sides has been settled. The designer sifted through the many conflicting sources and sketchy descriptions of the different reorganization, and he believes he has come up with as nearly accurate an OB as possible. Once the designations and strengths of the units were determined, it was fairly easy to place all the units where they were when the Germans landed. In the early playtests, the Germans were winning too frequently. However, those Germans were overstrength, and with the corrected OB, they should not be overpowering. One of the interesting events in those playtests was the German Player's assault on a key New Zealander position. Airstrikes were called in, but, to the German Player's dismay took out his front line. Those rules, and the Com- mand and Control rules, are the successes of playtesting so far. Now, the blindtesters are going to receive the rules and the game, and the rough edges should be smoothed out.

Eric Goldberg

War in the Ice Surprised? Me too. This started out as a joke, a bad pun on War in the East. So Brad printed my feedback suggestion. And despite a large negative minority (25% rated it '1') there were enough favorable votes to make it borderline. So Jim pointed out that we have yet to get burned on a science fiction game, and it's original, and it's really modern period too, and it was your idea, Phil, so do it and do it right! So here we are with a game in 1987 Antarctica, a subterranean lost civilization, VTOL planes, robot tanks, lasers, multi-player, and a lot of white hexes on the map. I don't have to start it for a while, but I think it'll be less stupid than it sounds, and I have some fairly uncommon ideas for it. And the battlefield is simply fascinating in terms of the frustration military units would have to operate with. It'll be a different game. And don't worry, 25070 - we promise not to run it in S&T.

Phil Kosnett

Objective Moscow AKA Invective Moscow, with appropriate unprintable subtitles. We feedbacked it as Delusion: America the other way around, but it isn't working out that way. With four maps and sixty-kilometer hexes the thing just cries out to be done at division level rather than corps, so it'll be more detailed and

[continued on page 311

DESIGN CRITIQUE

TRUE VICTORY Wellington 3 Victory as Sta te-o f- the-A rt Napoleonics by John E. Koontz

Seldom do I get an article a s thoughtfully written a s this one. Mr. Koontz has obviously done his homework and has a great deal of sensitivity for the practical a s well a s theoretical aspects of designing historical games. I had Frank Davis (designer of Well- ington's Victory) read the piece and he, for the most part, agrees with the comments therein. RAS

Wargaming with Napoleonic miniatures is as venerable as the comparatively recent dates of subject and topic will permit. Boardgames for the period are more recent phenomena, however, especially at a tactical level. Significantly, the earliest Napoleonic boardgame was Waterloo (Avalon Hill, 1961). In my own opinion, the use of a straightforward adaptation of the operational approach of the time was not a notable success here. Simulations Publications, Inc's operational simulations of the battle and campaign begin in 197 1 with Napoleon at Waterloo, and they reached their greatest development with the Napoleon's Last Battles Quad (1976). However, also published by Simulations Publications in 1971 was Grenadier, the first, I believe, of the commercial tactical boardgames on the period. It was innovative and historically important, but, among other shortcomings, i t was handicapped by a miniatures-derived company level orienta- tion without the necessary attendant restrictions on combinations. Since then, 1974 has seen Game Designers' Workshop's seminal Torgau (Seven Years War) with its regimental counters, formations represented as states assumed by the counters, step reduction, and morale checks, bringing us t o 1975 and Martial Enterprises' La Bataille de la Moskowa, which, I suppose was directly responsible for the appearance in 1976 of SPI's own Terrible Swift Sword (American Civil War) a n d Wellington's Victory, together with concomitant widespread recog- nition of the new boardgame genus of the early modern period grand tactical wargame. With mention of Wellington's Victory, designed by Frank Davis, I have reached my subject and returned to Waterloo. This abrupt and epic end of the Napoleonic reality and commencement of the legend has captured the attention of theorists, historians, and armchair commanders ever since, to the extent that among the Napoleonic boardgames approximately half concern them selves with the battle itself or with some portion of the campaign. Inevitably, people will ask why we need another Waterloo game. Certainly the question is commercially meaningless; some subjects cannot be over-

done, and, of course, since La Bataille the grand tactical approach is a t least momen- tarily popular in itself. Yet the existence of Wellington's Victory can be justified otherwise as well. Of the other Waterloo simulations, the most successful have dealt with a n operational level and the entire Belgian front, as in Napoleon's Last Battles or 1815: Waterloo (Game Designers' Workshop, 1976). Wellington's Victory is a t once the best simulation yet of the actual engagement on the Brussels road - once the maneuvering had ceased - and the best tactical Napoleonic boardgame yet designed. My intent in the rest of this article is to discuss the merits of Wellington's Victory as a tactical simulation of Napoleonic warfare and of Waterloo, subject to the conditions that no practical commercial game product ever fills the bill as a true simulation and that historians d o not really know enough to support such a simulation anyway. In passing I will touch on several suggestions for tactical play, trying to avoid duplicating the excellent Player's and Designer's Notes. Following this, 1 will try to indicate where the game's order of battle might be improved, based on my own research, ending with a few direc- tions for further effort in Napoleonic tactical games. Before continuing, it may be desirable t o give a brief description of some of the game's more salient features, in order to assist those who are unfamiliar with it in reading what follows. It is, in many respects, typical of early modern grand tactical games a t present. The counters represent infantry battalions, cavalry regiments, batteries of guns, skirmishing companies, artillery crews, and staffs a t the brigade level and above. Casualties are taken by inverting staff counters or by placing chits under other units. There is a strong emphasis on command control of movement. Morale considerations govern utilization of troops, with casualties, rout of neighbors, and cavalry charges being the usual causes of morale checks. The cavalry charge subsystem is extensive, while t o a degree greater even than in Torgau, infantry's formation affects its capabilities. Skirmishers are important. Each combat unit is characterized by a strength (in hundreds or in guns), a movement value, and an effectiveness (a measure of original quality made current by modifications for casualties, formation, and other circumstances). Each piece has further a n iden- tity and a place in the command chain. Melee capabilities are based on strength and current effectiveness; fire capabilities o n strength, formation, and original effectiveness; target class, o n formation and terrain; morale,

upon current effectiveness. The rationale of these last will be taken for granted. The accuracy and esthetic appeal of Welling- ton's Victory are greatly enhanced by a fairly unique map done in a contour style with five shade-distinguished levels. The particular virtue of this system is that, combined with the line of sight rules, it permits units to take cover in the folds of the terrain, that is, in the washes and at the bases of the slopes, in a fashion very characteristic of the battle. The latter was possible because of the convex cross-sections of the slopes. It is difficult to see how this situation might have been con- veniently simulated otherwise. Another good feature of the terrain analysis is the very simple and elegant classification scheme - into hard, soft, and clear terrain - and the simple interactions of this scheme with movement, formations, stacking, and target classes. This has been an area of much irregularity and complexity in other attempts.

An aside on a physical systems question may be acceptable here. T w o unfor tuna te features of the map design result from their size. First, while the Hougomont and La Haye Sainte scenarios occupy between them an area equal to the area of only a single map sheet, the requirements of the full battle scenarios scatter them across two and four map sheets, respectively. A fifth sheet for these scenarios might have been one solution. Second, while the several recording tracks and the charts have been helpfully placed in the margins and corners, it is precisely these areas which the enterprising gamer with limited table space will fold under, rendering them inaccessible. Fortu- nately, separate combat results tables are provided, but the recording tracks and the turn sequence synopsis would have to be copied. One might add to them a synopsis of the morale penalties and the morale checking procedure, as well as the die rolls for leader casualties. The counters for Wellington's Victory are quite striking. While the scheme has apparently been chosen with an eye toward assisting the Anglo-Allied player in identify- ing his various contingents and their proper places in the command chain, care has been taken to adhere roughly to the historical uniform hues, except in the case of the Dutch, who are the green of the Nassau troops. The Prussians and the French are both shades of blue, and, while it is not possible to confuse these two and the Dutch, as the original par- ticipants did, this is a marked improvement over the "Pmssian Green" hawked in some quarters. A bonus of the colors and the over- printed formation marking system is that

battle situations photograph well in color, even at a distance. The combat results tables are remarkably good, and, though large, the only time consuming process involved in their use is the computation of differential troop effectiveness for shock combat. The primary function of shock combat is the historical one of compelling the defenders to give up possession of their position. Its main effect on formed troops is not to cause casualties, but to seize critical positions (such as the occupied buildings and hedgerows of the Waterloo field and, above all, the ridge) and to inflict disorder and panic. The major casualties are caused by firepower or attacks on unformed troops, as was the case historically. Another very good feature of the combat rules is that attacks are always conducted from a single hex to a single hex, reflecting the limited range of musketry, the difficulty of oblique fire, and the restrictions imposed by unit frontages. It is worth noting Mr. Davis' statement that his fire combat results table is based on B.P. Hughs' Firepower, a study of the effectiveness of period weapons.

A major component of the game system is the interleaved, assymetric turn sequence, a consideration in planning any course of action. The French, for example, can declare cavalry charges only in their Command Phase, for execution in their next Shock Phase, before which the Allies may use their own Formation and Movement Phases to react defensively by forming squares, posi- tioning batteries, and setting up their own cavalry for opportunity countercharges. Some of the pieces that they would have liked to have used may have routed, though, and all movement in the fan-shaped Charge Zone projected by a stack of charging cavalry is at double cost. These problems reflect the in- timidating effect of a cavalry charge and the relatively greater speed of the cavalry's advance. Cavalry itself checks morale before charging. Thus, increasing casualties decrease the likelihood of a successful charge, representing the wearing effect of use on cavalry's stamina. This mechanism com- bines with the low initial effectiveness ratings of certain Allied cavalry units to simulate their historical unwillingness to charge. The Allies as well as the French must face the problem of their opponent being able to respond in some degree to their charges, this problem resulting only from the interleaving of both sides' phases. In fact, the placement of the Movement Phases before the opposing Shock Phases serves to replace a retreat before combat system. The assymetry, however, affects the French particularly, leaving them vulnerable after their Shock Phase during the two mutual Fire Phases (Artillery and Infantry) while the Allies may move off after their Shock Phaseduring their own Movement Phase, preceding the French Shock Phase. This leaves the French, who are generally attacking, exposed in the Fire Phases, if they fail to rout their opponents or reach a covered position. On the other hand,

the Allies cannot take advantage of their Movement Phase to position themselves for a cavalry charge, as can the French, since they could then be fired at by French artillery before their attack was declared. This tends to relegate them to a more passive role. In summary, the formal placement of the Fire Phases in the game turn's middle is mis- leading, since the succession of turns leads to an effective sequence of French Movement, Allied Shock, Allied Movement, French Shock, followed by mutual fire attacks. While such a sequence might not suit every Napoleonic battle, for Waterloo it does tend to do no more than reinforce the traits inherent in the armies, and, as Mr. Davis points out, it is less crippling for the French than was the historical situation, in which they had to move while in the dark as to the disposition of any of Wellington's army except for his main line of artillery, visible on the ridge crest. Another point to observe regarding the turn sequence is that the French pay for their active brigades first, so that they must maintain an edge in amount of unexpended morale points. A tie would be their loss by demoralization. While the alternating firing of the mutual Fire Phases is supposed to prevent concentration on a single unit and reduce fire fights to nearly simultaneous local duels, it is unfortunate that the rules read to permit players to optimize their fire with a view to firing first where they might otherwise not get a chance. I recommend that, before playing, the players agree to follow some procedure similar to that "suggested" in the rules. In the final analysis, though, nothing will prevent a side from passing up non- crucial areas to arrive first at the crucial one. This area seems to need further development. The rather small movement allowances, relative to the physical distances and to the gun ranges, coupled with an optional rule limiting all movement activity to fifteen minutes of real time, are very nice features. Not only does the latter speed up play and encourage planned as opposed to reactive movement, but both together make for a more historically paced battle, avoiding the hyperactivity which can appear in some other simulations. There is nothing like a ticking clock to produce a good imitation of the fog of war. One rule with a bit of a patchy smell requires units to fire at the nearest unit with the highest effectiveness. Players should realize that this represents the overwhelming tendency of units firing at visible targets to fire at the enemy that threatens them most directly, while also making skirmishers near more attractive targets effective cover for the latter, without having recourse to a com- plicated rule for the blocking effects of skirmishers' zones of control. In La Bataille such a rule exists, with the result being as much a hindrance as a help to the supposed benefici- aries. A blocking zones rule also leads to use of skirmishers as mobile ridges, a use not at all historically justified. The function of the

skirmishing line was to actively distract and disrupt an enemy, not to passively seal out his fire. In this vein, at Waterloo the French artillery was much hampered by the accurate fire of the British riflemen. Skirmishers may be countered by other skirmishers or by cavalry. One of the persistent myths to rise out of the Peninsular War is that the French had from the Revolutionary Wars gone over to a system of attacking in columns, while the British, recognizing the superior power of the old linear formation, adhered to it and consequently overthrew the French columns on every occasion. The corrollaries of this appear to be that the French never realized what was happening and that other nations used either columns or lines that the French could usually best, ultimately leading to the conclusions that there are major differences in national qualities, that armies do not learn from experience, and that formal battles against the British were different in nature than those against other nations. Plainly, I am putting the worst light on this school of thought, and, in fact, battles against Well- ington were rather different affairs, though the difference was more of degree than of kind. There is little room for doubt of Well- ington's tactical genuis, especially in the defense. My point here is that Wellington's Victory does not seem to be based on the simplistic line vs. column school, and that players looking for such an approach will find that not only is an attack on a line by a column ill advised, but that an attack by a line is also difficult. There are, in fact, no easy solutions.

The only concessions to the national differences school in the game appears to be the low effectiveness of the French and Prussian lines. In point of fact, the British, due to their recruitment, drill, and peninsular reputat ion, had great confidence in themselves when in line. It might have been better to give the good ratings only to the Peninsular battalions among the British units, leaving all other units with reduced effectiveness in line. The apparent national differences in the effectiveness of cavalry are instead reflections of regiments' behavior in the historical battle and reflect only green- ness of units or differences in tactical doctrine employed. In general, when an infantry force defeated its opponents in melee, what happened was that the enemy decided that discretion was the better part of valor and decamped before any contact was made. Naturally, either side might do this, and the aim of the officers was to ensure that it was the other side. To this end it was necessary to shake the opponent's morale, a goal accomplished in Wellington's Victory, as in battles of the period simulated, by skirmishers, artillery, and cavalry in the attack, with infantry fire being added in the defense. Hand to hand combat generally oc- cured only with wounded or confused strag- glers or in attacking posts such as woods, villages, or breaches in fortifications. On these latter occasions, casualties could be

quite severe, though even in "hand to hand" combat most casualties were from gunfire. If an enemy were already engaged in a disordered flight, then it was safe to abandon formation and pursue closely, inflicting higher casualties. In such a situation both sides were mobs, with one having the ascen- dency. In the game disordered troops suffer double in melee, while any casualties to formed troops in melee are accompanied by disorder. The advantages of formation were several; primarily, massed formations were necessary to produce major effects with musket armed infantry. Other factors were the greater ease of management of ordered bodies and the psychological effect of shoulder to shoulder groups on the enemy and on the men themselves. These do not exhaust the list. By the Napoleonic Wars all nations employed primarily three classes of formations for infantry; lines for firepower; columns, for mobility; and squares, for defense against cavalry. The denser columns and squares were vulnerable as targets for guns and musketry, but were too well suited to their tasks to be abandoned. The basic formation was the column, from which line and square could be quickly formed. Lines were well suited for defense and for attacking a steady enemy standing in line, but were unsuited for the actual advance. This unsuitability was founded on the fact that in motion a line fell apart, bunching and curving, and on the notorious observation that the men ceased to advance when they began to fire. For the latter there was little to be done, but for the former the solution was to advance in column as quickly as possible, halt just out of musket range of a firm opposition, deploy into line, and advance as far as possible before beginnning to fire. At Waterloo, as elsewhere, the problem was that deployment was very difficult under fire or in bad terrain. Under fire, in fact, it was usually impossible. Wellington generally sta- tioned his main line of resistance under cover, keeping only skirmishers in advance, and distributing his artillery in support. The French, as a consequence, would blunder on- to his lines undeployed. The results have given rise to the line vs. column legend. It is significant that they are generally recorded as having been in the process of deploying when the British line advanced slowly to get in range, no less at Waterloo than in the Penin- sula. In Wellington's Victory, of course, the attacker always knows where the defender is, but his disadvantages are still numerous. The attacker is generally French or Prussian, meaning that when he deploys into the line his effectiveness sinks, tempting him to remain in column. Moreover, the ridges being contested often have fronts exposed to powerful artillery fire, sometimes in enfilade, and their tops are lined with sunken roads whose passage produces a disorder which is fatal in the face of opposition. Other com- plicating factors are the reduced movement allowances of lines and the assymetry of the turn sequence.

A good deal of the Allied armies are militia or landwehr. Historically these are held to account for Wellington's defensive posture at Waterloo and may also account for the slowness of the Prussian attacks. In game terms this is reflected in militia's relatively high firepower but low effectiveness. In melee, implicit in any advance, they are worthless; in a defensive firing line they are nearly as good as regular infantry, provided the latter cannot close with them. One of the major advances of the Well- ington's Victory system is in the treatment, under the head of skirmishers, of the general area of battlefield detachments at that period. I count this as being an improvement separate from the change in the function of skirmishers mentioned earlier. A striking feature of the Allied dispositions at Waterloo and Quatre Bras (as well as of other armies elsewhere) is the assignment of various companies to the defense (or attack) of certain strong points. Related to this, of course, is the whole method of forming the skirmishing line by detaching from battalions their light companies. Some battalions in the various armies were designed to be employed solely as sources for skirmishers, for example, the British Rifles, the Dutch Jaegers, and the Prussian Fusiliers. The employment of the British and French light regiments is less clearcut, but the French, especially, from the irregular distribution of these regiments and remarks in memoires, seem to have made no real distinction in employment.

The Wellington's Victory system's major advance is in the creation of a scheme in which some battalions may break down completely, while others may detach only one company, and in which it is possible as well as desirable to create by detachment a series of garrisons for strong points and of parties for storming them, along with a line of skirmishers. This is done with some distortion as to who, how many, and for what purpose, with the excuse certainly of simplicity. It should be noted that for the first two roles skirmishers should be stacked as much as possible, while for skirmishing they should be spread thinly. If skirmishers are not closely supported by other forces, they can experience considerable attrition. Their use should not long pre- cede a follow-up, since otherwise they and their effect will evaporate. The French seem most troubled by shortages of skirmishers. This is in part historical. Wel- lington strove in Peninsula for a numerical superiority on the skirmishing line, and there is no reason to suppose that he felt different- ly in 1815. In fact, even in the Revolutionary Wars the French claimed to have had fewer skirmishers than the Austrians, who employed specialist formations. However, in game terms the shortage is due partly to the ability of the Allied army to employ as skirmishers his many elite quality British regiments. In practice, Wellington detached Guards companies only as garrisons. For similar reasons, I favor the optional rule which restricts Highland regiments to one detachment. The sources of French skir-

mishers and detachments in the battle are not wholly clear, but Weller indicates that in D'Erlon's Corps, at least, whole battalion; were broken down into open formation lines for skirmishing. There was only one light regiment in this Corps. Possibly the proper solution to the problem in future designs would be to distinguish levels of quality of detachments and define permissible fields of use for those of various classes of regiments. This would require more elaborate rules and a more complex counter mix, however, and perhaps it was for these reasons that a somewhat ad hoc approach has prevailed in Wel- lington's Victory. The consequences of the characteristics of infantry in Wellington's Victory, and historically at Waterloo, along with the suitability of the terrain for Wellington's defensive tactics, are that the chances of success of a pure infantry attack on a main position held in strength are slim. It is too difficult to make attacking infantry alone formidable against defending infantry, especially when the latter has artillery and cavalry in support. Because of this, a successful attack must also be made by a combination of the arms. A combination of artillery and cavalry, for example, is very dangerous to infantry, since each of these is good against the defense against the other, as reflected in the rules and combat results table.

The crucial observation for a player to make is that each of the arms has strengths and weaknesses which make it vulnerable to another or, especially, to a combination of the others, while it is itself, in turn, effective against still another arm. Some statements of good tactics, such as the desirability of supporting infantry or artillery by the close presence of cavalry, imply combinations explicitly. Others, such as the utility of cavalry against routed infantry, do not. But in such cases it should be realized that something must first rout the infantry, for example, artillery fire against the squares that the presence of cavalry had forced it to form. A point of interest here is that there is not sufficient cavalry to assign enough to each place that needs it. (This shows up well in the French situation in the La Haye Sainte scenario.) Thus, it follows that each concentration of cavalry will be engaged in several tasks. This points in turn to a method of attack against a combined force. Such a force should have some member of the team local- ly overloaded, so that its neutralization may be exploited. To force such a situation, as well as to protect against it, a system of immediate reserves is useful. In such a fashion a single local cavalry force might be drawn into an opportunity charge, opening the way for a further attack, which could, in turn, be prevented by a reserve. It may be worth men- tioning that the Allied cavalry brigades, being composed generally of three regiments, could employ one of these as a reserve force, if a commander is available to supervise it. In Wellington's Victory it is impossible for formed troops to move unless they are in the near proximity of their brigade commanders

or stacked either with officers of their own national army or of their superior units. They may fire without supervision, which was historically not easily controlled, or they may attack, if an opportunity presents itself; but they may not move or change formation. This reflects the conventions of command control in the period. There are instances on both sides of high level commanders impos- ing their own choices on battalion commanders. Because of this approach, the ap- palling situation in (two player) La Bataillein which several turns' passage might find whole Corps intermixed, with no two battalions of a regiment together, is unlikely in Wellington 's Victory.

In the attack, brigades should be stacked with their commander to preserve morale and facilitate movement. This will simulate de facto the "heavy columns" that the Allies observed so consistently in French practice in 1815 in the various battles. In the defense, brigades of infantry should be extended into line under cover. A too widely spread alloca- tion of a brigade will result in a strained command situation which an opponent can exploit handily. (As an example of such a situation, notice the initial deployment of the Nassau brigade near La Haye.) The practice in this period (and all others) of maneuvering basic units by their combinations is thus necessary in the game for facsimiles of the real reasons.

My final consideration of the Wellington's Victory system will be of the goals or victory conditions. It is notable in Napoleonic warfare that the decisive victories were gained, not by forcing of positions, but by destruc- tion of enemy armies. Thus, at Wagram or Borodino untenability of a position might force an enemy to withdraw, but, if their army remained in being, the victory was empty, unless other considerations forced a capitulation, as after Wagram. If their morale collapsed as at Austerlitz or Jena- Auerstadt, and especially if they were pur- sued vigorously, as in the latter case, victory was complete. To cause such a collapse it was necessary either to subject them to a great shock while they were off balance, as at Marengo, Austerlitz, or Salamanca, or to wear them thin over a long day of battle to a point where a final blow destroyed them, as at Leipzig or Ligny. In such a case, a very thrifty approach is necessary, with the side last retaining a reserve generally winning. This is exactly what Wellington 's Victory requires to win. Each army expends certain non-renewable resources in combat: artillery ammunition; full strength, effective battalions and commanders; skirmishers; and, above all. Morale Points. An army loses Morale Points for casualties; for units, while they remain routed (if a casualty is caused in a routed unit, a double loss is incurred); for loss of certain critical positions (with possession leading to a corresponding gain); and for use of its component brigades. Unemployed reserves are not paid for.

Victory comes from seizing or retaining certain critical positions while husbanding one's resources better than one's opponent has. The poor offensive quality of the Allied army, coupled with their superior position, make a more dramatic termination less likely than a victory by attrition.

I believe that if there is an area in which Wel- lington's Victory fails to be historical, it is in the order of battle. Some of the inaccuracies result from system considerations; others result from the nature of the sources used. One major problem results from reasonable assumptions about French artillery, which prove false in the light of exact information. System limitations, as well as a paucity of information, have resulted in game artillery crews of c. 100 men. Historically they actually had from 150 to 200,. including drivers, with British batteries having, perhaps, rather more. However, since a hit on a crew results in its reduction to a skirmishing company, which is in effect a less capable crew, each crew actually has two steps for all practical purposes. A less reasonable limitation concerns the placement of a ceiling of 900 on battalion sizes. Several English battalions were larger. I can well understand, though, why the designer quailed at adding doubly extended lines, stacking rules exceptions, and the like, to benefit only three units. It should be observed here that with 100 foot hexes, the number of men in many battalions causes lines to exceed the hex width, resulting in the extended line rule.

A trivial omission is that of the engineering troops. Too valuable to be risked in a fire fight, it is difficult to see what they could do in the context of Wellington's Victory, except to remove the two abatises.

Among the works in the Bibliography of Wellington's Victory (the inclusion of a bibliography is a laudable feature in itself), the most likely sources for the order of battle or Siborne and Houssaye. There are a number of defects in these sources. Siborne has several errors in unit numbers that look peculiarly like the results of bad handwriting on someone's part. His book has the only battalion level figures between the two, but these are for the Anglo-Allied Army alone. Following British practice of the time, he has omitted officers, sergeants, and musicians from the totals wherever he could. However, he has combined such figures for the British, King's German Legion, Hanoverians, and Prussians with complete totals for the Dutch, minor German states, and French, whose armies followed a different policy. His state for the French cavalry has several contradic- tions, and his information on the Prussian artillery and cavalry seems far from the mark. Finally, since neither of the sources provides battalion level figures for the French or Prussians, interpolation must be relied on, with the additional problem that the numbers of battalions are not known cor- rectly.

Fortunately, better sources are available. In what follows, the British are taken from Wel- lington's Despatches; the Dutch, etc., from De Bas; the French, from Couderc de St. Chamant, De Bas, and Regnault; the Prus- sians, from Lettow-Verbeck, De Bas, v. Plotho, and a list by Ray Johnson. The latter's figures disagree with those of the other sources, but as the difference is not too great, and his figures are at the regimental level, they have been used. Casualties on the 15th through the 17th have been deducted without mention where they are known by battalion. also for the French at Quatre Bras, where guessing is feasible. In other cases, the casualties are explicitly mentioned for assignment by the user. Such deductions should not reduce effectiveness. The pattern in French and Prussian casualties seems to be that within one Division one brigade suffers most, with one regiment bearing the brunt of the. brigade's casualties. Captured guns have been deducted without mention. No attempt has been made to represent straggling's effects or those of the alledgedly severe Prus- sian problems with desertion in certain of the Rhenish units. The French artillery has been given as composed of 6 and 12 pounders, consistent with the detailed situation in Couderc de St. Cha- mant. The equipment of the artillery of the Guard and Reserve is uncertain and is the product of some guesswork.

I believe that Napoleonic battles are best simulated at the battalion level. Regiments were primarily administrative divisions, while company maneuvers had no visibility outside the battalion. It is essentially worthless to go through the mechanics of maneuvering companies when a special marker or reversible counter would serve as well. De- tachments seem adequately handled as a special case. At the Divisional and Corps level the mechanics would be simpler, but, in fact, if we are interested in the battle alone, then it is highly unsatisfactory to convert the details of activities at a lower level, the level at which the battle is in fact being fought, in- to an affair of a chance die roll. Napoleonic warfare is not well enough understood to make facile generalizations at a level where the battle is the major concern. The brigade level is an interesting possibility, but a risky one. The British reference to formless French heavy columns shows that they did not understand French practice. The singularity of D'Erlon's formation shows that the French themselves were experimenting. Perhaps there was as yet no common practice even within a single army, or perhaps the details are simply not known today. Certain- ly Wellington's Victory is an interesting context for experimentation.

In the environment of a game, shortness and simplicity determine playability, except for tournament d i rec tors and fanat ics . However, it is difficult to design a small, yet accurate portrayal of a Napoleonic battle. Waterloo features a very small field and smallish armies, yet examine Wellington's

Victory! Furthermore, portions of battles like Waterloo are hard to isolate from each other, due to the small battlefields of the day. All of the Wellington's Victory scenarios have for this reason, a problem with distortion at their "edges." If grand tactical level games are ever to become simple evening or even weekend entertainments, designers will have to rediscover the smaller engagements. They can certainly afford to give Waterloo a rest for a while.

A Revised Order of Battle Anglo-Allied Army

I Prince of Orange 1/I Cooke

Sandham 1 -5-3/6-2-0 Kuhlrnann KGL Hrs 1-5-6/6-3-0

1/1/I Maitland 2/1 Gd 8-6-4 3/1 Gd 8-6-4

2/1/I Byng 212 Gd 1 1-6-4* 2/3 Gd 1 1-6-41

3/I Alten Lloyd 1-5-3/4-2-01

Cleeve KGL 1-5-3/6-2-0 51311 C. Halkett

33 6-4-4. 2/69 6-4-41 2/73 5-4-4 2/30 6-4-4

2/3/I Ornpteda KGL 1Lt 5-5-4* 2Lt 4-5-4

5 5-4-4* 8 5-4-4*

11311 Kielmansegge Hanoverian Brernen 5-4-4 Verden 6-4-4* 1/York 6-4-4*

Luneberg Lt 6-5-4 Grubenhagen Lt 7-5-4*

Jager 3-5-4 2 Ne/I Perponcher

Byleveld Hrs 1-5-6/4-3-01 Stievenaar 1-5-3/2-3-O*

112 Ne/I Bylandt 7 6-4-4

27 Jg 5-54' 5 MI 2-2-3' 7 MI 6-2-3 8 MI 5-2-3

212 Ne/I Weirnar Nassau 112 Nass Lt 9-5-4' 2/2 Nass Lt 9-5-4-

312 Nass Lt Lw 9-2-3. For Quatre-Bras deduct 1 sp. from 2 Nass Lt.

1/28 ON 9-4-41 2/28 ON 7-4-4'

Jg/28 ON 2-5-4* 3 Ne/I Chasse

Lux 1-5-3/8-3-0 Krahrner Hrs 1-5-6/8-3-0

113 Ne/I Ditmers 2 5-4-4

35 Jg 6-5-4 4 MI 5-2-3 6 MI 5-2-3

17 M1 5-2-3 19 MI 5-2-3

213 Ne/I D'Aubrerne 3

12 13

36 Jg 3 MI

10 MI

I1 Hill 2/11 Clinton

Bolton Sympher KGL Hrs

1/2/11 Du Plat KGL 1 2 3 4

3/2/11 Adam 1/52 Lt 1/71 Lt 2/95 Ri 3/95 Ri

3/2/11 H. Halkett Hanoverian Brem~rvorde Lw

2/York Osnabruck Lw 3/York Quackenbruck Lw

Salzgitter Lw (4/II)

Rettberg Hanoverian 4/4/11 Mitchell

3/14 1/23 Fu

51 Lt

R Wellington 5/R Picton

Rodgers Braun Hanoverian

8/5/R Kernpt 1 /28 1/32

1 /79HI 1/95 Ri

9/5/R Pack 3/1

1 /42 HI 2/44

1/92 HI 5/5/R Vincke Hanoverian

Harneln Lw Giffhorn Lw

Hildesheirn Peine Lw

(6/R) Sinclair

10/6/R Larnbert 1 /4

1 /27 1 /40

4/6/R Best Hanoverian* Verden Lw

Luneberg Lw Osterode Lw Munden Lw

Bw/R Brunswick (Depleted) Moll

Heirnann Hrs l/Bw/R Buttler

Adv Gd Guard

1 Lt 2 Lt 3 Lt

2/Bw/R v. Specht I 2 3

(Cv/Bw/R) Hu

Uhlans Nassau/R V. Kruse

1/1 Nass 2/1 Nass

3/1 Nass Lw Cv/R Uxbridge

Bull Hrs How Webber-Smith Hrs

Gardiner Hrs Whinyate Hrs

Rarnsay Hrs Mercer Hrs

l/Cv/R Somerset l LGd 2 LGd RHGd

1 Dr Gd 2/Cv/R Ponsonby

I Dr 2 Dr 6 Dr

3/Cv/R Dornberg I LDr KGL 2 LDr KGL

23 LDr Curnberland Hu

Hanoverian 4/Cv/R Vandeleur

I I LDr 12 LDr 16 LDr

S/Cv/R Grant 7 Hu

15 Hu 13 LDr

6/Cv/R Vivian 10 Hu 18 Hu

1 Hu KGL 7/Cv/R Arentschildt

3 Hu KGL Ne Cv/R Collaert

Petter Hrs Gey Hrs

1/Ne Cv/R Trip I Ca 2 Ca 3 Ca

2/Ne Cv/R Ghigny 4 LDr 8 Hu

3/Ne Cv/R Merlen 5 LDr 6 Hu

(Artillery/R) Beane Hrs

Ross Hrs

Prussian Army Army of the Rhine: Blucker, Muffling

1/I Steinrnetz Nr. 7 1-5-6/8-3-O* Nr. 7 1-5-3/8-3-O*

1/12 8-4-4* 2/12 8-4-4*

3/12 Fu 8-5-4* Jg/12 1-5-4'

1/24 . 8-4-4* 2/24 8-4-4*

3/24 Fu 8-5-4. Jg/24 1-5-4*

1/1WLw 9-2-3* 2/1 WLW 8-2-3'

3/1 WLW 8-2-3' Jg/WLw 2-5-4'

det/Sil Schutzen 4-5-4' 4 Hu 5-5-6'

6 Uhlans 5-4-6' For Ligny deduct 24 sp from 1/1 infantry. l/Cv/l Treskow

Nr. 2 Hrs 1-5-6/8-3-0' 3 Uhlans 5-4-6.

2 Dr 5-5-6' 5 Dr 6-5-6*

For Ligny deduct 5 sp from l/Cv cavalry.

I1 Pirch 5/11 Tippelskirchen

Nr. 10 1-5-6/8-3-O* 1/2 9-4-4* 2/2 8-4-4*

3/2 FU 9-5-4* Jg/2 3-54'

For Ligny deduct 4 sp from 2nd regiment. 1/25 8-4-4* 2/25 7-4-4*

3/25 FU 8-5-4* Jg/25 1-5-4*

For Ligny deduct 8 sp from 25th regiment.

1/5 WLW 8-2-3* 2/5 WLW 8-2-3* 3/5 WLW 7-2-3'

Jg/5 WLW 1-5-4* For Ligny deduct 6 sp from 5th WL w.

Field Jg Company 1-5-4* det/ll Hu 2-5-6'

6/11 Kraft Nr. 5 1-5-3/8-3-0'

1/9 9-4-4* 2/9 8-4-4*

3/9 FU 8-5-4* Jg/9 1-5-4*

For Ligny deduct 4 sp from 9th regiment. 1/26 7-4-4* 2/26 6-4-4

3/26 Fu 6-5-4 Jg/26 1-5-4*

For Ligny deduct 4 sp from 26 regiment. 1/1 ELw 9-2-3* 2/1 ELw 8-2-3' 3/1 ELw 8-2-3*

For Ligny deduct 7 sp from 1st EL w. det/l l Hu 2-5-6*

Cv/lI Jurgass l/Cv/ll Thumen (Depleted)'

Nr. 6 Hrs 1-5-6/8-3-O* 1 Dr 5-5-6* 6 Dr 3-5-6*

(det/6 Dr 2-5-6* at Philipe- vil le)

2 Uhlans 4-4-6* 2/Cv/ll Sohr

3 Hu 6-5-6* 5 HU 6-5-6*

IV Bulow 13/1V Hacke

Nr. 21 Lw 1/10 2/10

3/10 Fu Jg/lO

1/2 NLw 2/2 NLw 3/2 NLw 1/3 NLw 2/3 NLw 3/3 NLw

det/2 SLw Cv 14/1V Ryssel

Nr. 13 Lw 1/11 2/11

(3111 Fu

Jg/l l 1/1 PLw 2/1 PLw

(3/1 PLw

1/2 PLw 2/2 PLw 3/2 PLw

det/2 SLw Cv 15/1V Losthin

Nr. 14 1/18 2/18

3/18 Fu 1/3 SLw 2/3 SLw 3/3 SLw 1/4 SLw 2/4 SLw 3/4 SLw

det/3 SLw Cv 16/1V Hiller

Nr. 2 1/15 2/15

3/15 Fu Jg/ 15

1/1 SLw 2/1 SLw 3/1 SLw 1/2 SLw 2/2 SLw 3/2 SLw

det/3 SLw Cv Cv/IV Pr. William l/Cv/IV Schwerin'

Nr. 1 Hrs 6 Hu

(10 Hu

l Uhlans 2/Cv/IV Watzdorf'

Nr. 12 Hrs (det/Nr. 12 Hrs

8 Hu 3/Cv/IV Sydow'

1 NLw Cv 2 NLw CV 1 PLw Cv 2 PLw Cv I SLw Cv

1-5-3/8-3-0* 8-4-4' 7-4-4' 7-5-4 at Mt. St. Guibert)* 1-5-4* 9-2-3* 8-2-3* 8-2-3 at Mt. St. Guibert)' 8-2-3' 8-2-3' 8-2-3* 2-2-6'

1-5-6/8-3-0 7-5-6* 6-5-6 at Mt. St. Guibert)* 6-4-6*

1-5-6/6-3-0 1-5-6/2-3-0 at Mt. St.Guibert)* 4-5-6*

Two regiments of 3/Cv/IV at Mt. St. Guibert. (Artillery/lV)

Nr. 3 1-5-3/8-1-0 Nr. 5 1-5-3/8-1-0

Nr.13 1-5-3/8-1-0 Nr. 11 1-5-3/8-3-0

Nr. 11 Hrs 1-5-6/8-3-0

French Army Armee du Nord Napoleon, Ney

I D'Erlon 111 Quiot'

20/6 1-5-3/8-3-0' 1/1/1 X (Depleted)'

1/54 5-4-4 2/54 5-4-4 1/55 6-4-4' 2/55 6-4-4*

2/1/1 Bourgeois 1/28 4-4-4* 2/28 4-4-4*

1/105 5-4-4 2/105 5-4-4

211 Donzelot 10/6 1-5-3/8-3-0'

1/2/1 Schmitz 1/13 Lt 6-5-4 2/13 Lt 6-5-4 3/13 Lt 6-5-4'

1/17 6-4-4 2/17 5-4-4*

2/21] Aulard 1/19 5-4-4* 2/19 5-4-4' 1/51 6-4-4 2/51 6-4-4

311 Marcognet 1916 1-5-3/8-3-0

1/3/1 Nogues 1/21 5-4-4 2/21 5-4-4 1/46 5-4-4 2/46 4-4-4*

2/3/1 Grenier 1/25 5-4-4 2/25 5-4-4 1/45 5-4-4 2/45 5-4-4

411 Durutte 916 1-5-3/8-3-0*

1/4/1 Pegot 1/8 5-4-4 2/8 5-4-4

1/29 6-4-4* 2/29 6-4-4*

111 Jacquinot 2/1 Hrs 1-5-6/6-3-O*

1/1/1 Bruno 3 Ch 4-4-6 7 Hu 4-4-6*

2/1/1 Gobrecht 3 La 4-4-6* 4 La 3-4-6

I1 Reille 5/11 Bachelu

18/6 1-5-3/8-3-0* 1/5/11 Husson

1/2 Lt 6-5-4' 2/2 Lt 6-5-4' 3/2 Lt 6-5-4*

2/5/11 Campy

6/11 Bonaparte

1/6/11 Bauduin

9/11 Foy

1/9/11 Gauthier

2/11 Pire

1/2/11 Hubert

2/2/11 Wathiez

VI Lobau 19/VI Simmer

1/19/VI Bellair

2O/VI Jeannin

1/2O/VI Bony

2/2O/V1 Tromelin

4/2 Lt 1/61 2/61

1/72 2/72

]/lo8 2/108 3/108

2/2

1/3 2/3

1/1 Lt 2/1 Lt 3/1 Lt

1/1 2/1 3/1 1/2 2/2 3/2

1 /6

1 /92 2/92 1/93 2/93

1/100 2/100 3/100 1/4 Lt 2/4 Lt 3/4 Lt

2/4 Hrs

1 Ch 6 Ch

5 La 6 La

1/8

1/5 2/5

1/11 2/11 3/11

1/27 2/27 1 /84 2/84

2/8

1/5 Lt 2/5 Lt

1/10 2/10

(1/47

(2/47

5-5-4. 2-4-4. 2-4-4.

4-4-4. 4-4-4. 2-4-4. 2-4-4. 1-4-4.

1-5-3/8-3-0.

6-4-4. 6-4-4. 5-5-4 6-5-4. 6-5-4.

4-4-4' 4-4-4. 3-4-4. 6-4-4. 5-4-4 5-4-4.

1-5-3/8-3-0.

5-4-4 5-4-4 5-4-4. 5-4-4.

3-4-4. 2-4-4. 2-4-4. 3-5-4' 3-5-4. 3-5-4.

1-5-6/6-3-0.

4-4-6. 5-4-6.

2-4-6. 1-4-6.

1 -5-3/8-3-0.

5-4-4 5-4-4 4-4-4' 4-4-4. 4-4-4.

4-4-4. 4-4-4. 5-4-4 4-4-4.

1-5-3/8-3-0.

5-5-4. 5-5-4. 7-4-4. 7-4-4'

5-4-4 (in the Vendee). 5-4-4 (in the Vendee).

] / lo7 4-4-4. 2/107 4-4-4.

IG Drouot* 1/1/IG Friant

OG 1-6-3/8-1-0. 1/1 Gr 5-6-4. 2/1 Gr 5-6-4 1/2 Gr 6-6-4 2/2 Gr 5-6-4

2/1/1G Roguet* OG 1-6-3/8-1-0.

1/3 Gr 6-6-4 2/3 Gr 6-6-4. 1/4 Gr 5-6-4

For Ligny deduct 4 sp from I/IG infantry. 1/2/IG Morand

OG 1-6-3/8-1-0. 1/1 Ch 7-6-4. 2/1 Ch 6-6-4. 1/2 Ch 6-6-4 2/2 Ch 6-6-4.

2/2/1G Michel OG 1-6-3/8-1-0.

1/3 Ch 6-6-4 2/3 Ch 5-6-4 1/4 Ch 6-6-4. 2/4 Ch 5-6-4. *

For Ligny deduct 3 sp from 2/IG infantry. 3/IG Duhesme* 1/3/IG Cbartrand*

OG 1-6-3/8-3-0. 1/1 Ti 6-5-4. 2/1 Ti 5-5-4 1/1 Vo 6-5-4. 2/1 VO 6-5-4.

2/3/IG Guye* OG 1-6-3/8-3-0.

1/3 Ti 5-54. 2/3 Ti 5-5-4. 1/3 Vo 5-5-4 2/3 VO 5-5-4

For Ligny deduct 8 sp from 3/IG infantry. LC/IG Lefebvre I/LC/IG Colbert

OG 1-66/6-3-0. La 9-5-6

2/LC/IG Lallemand OG 1-6-6/6-3-0. Ch 12-5-6

HC/IG Guyot Ge 1-6-6.

l/HC/IG Dubois* OG 1-6-6/6-3-0. Gr 8-6-6

2/HC/IG Letort (Depleted)' OG 1-6-6/6-3-0' Dr 8-6-6

For Ligny deduct 5 sp from HC/IG cavalry.

IIIc Kellermann l l / l l l c L'Heritier

3/2 Hrs 1-5-6/6-3-0. I / l l / l l l c Picquet

2 Dr 6-5-6. 7 Dr 5-5-6.

2 / l l / l l lc Guiton 8 CU 3-5-6.

11 CU 2-5-6 12/lllc D'Hurbal

2/2 Hrs 1-5-6/6-3-0. 1/12/lllc Blancard

I Ca 4-5-6. 2 Ca 4-5-6.

2/12/111c Donop 2 Cu 3-5-6. 3 CU 5-5-6*

IVc Milhaud 13/IVc Wathier

5/1 Hrs 1-5-6/6-3-0. 1/13/1Vc Dubois

1 CU 5-56. 4 Cu 3-5-6.

2/13/1Vc Travers 7 CU 2-5-6.

12 Cu 2-5-6' 14/IVc Delort

4/3 Hrs 1-5-6/6-3-0' 1/14/1Vc Farine

5 CU 5-5-6. 6 CU 3-5-6.

2/14/1Vc Vial 9 CU 4-5-6

10 Cu 4-5-6. For Ligny deduct 3 sp from IVc cavalry.

3/III Domon 4/2 Hrs 1-5-6/4-3-0

1/3/11] Dommanget 4 Ch 3-4-6. 9 Ch 4-4-6

2/3/11] Vinot 12 Ch 3-4-6.

For Ligny deduct 3 sp from 3/IM cavalry. 5/lc Subewie

3/1 Hrs 1-5-6/6-3-0. 1/5/Ic Colbert

1 La 4-4-6 2 La 4-4-6

2/5/Ic Merlin 11 Ch 4-4-6

For Ligny deduct I sp from 5/Ic cavalry.

Corps and Reserve Artillery 11/6 in I 1-5-3/8-1-0. 7/2 in I1 1-5-3/8-1-0'

4/8 in VI 1-5-3/8-1-0. IG Line 4x1-5-3/8-1-0.

IG Line Hrs 1-5-6/6-3-0. IG YG 1-6-34-1-0.

KEY 1. Infantry fronts (column side) only aregiven, the

backs being easily derivable. 2. The mark '*' indicates an alteration of any

nature. Unmarked deletions comprise 2/Cv/l brigade of the Prussian army and 3/3 of 1/6/11 brigade of the French army.

3. Abbreviations are as for Wellington's Victory, with the addition of OG (Old Guard) and YG (Young Guard). Information is presented, in general, in the ordinary Wellington's Victory format.

BIBLIOGRAPHY F. de Bas and J. de T'Serclaes de Wommersom, La

campagne de 1815 aux Pays-Bas d'aprer les rapports officiels Neerlandais. Dewit, Brux- elles, 1908.

Henri Couderc de Saint Chamant, Napoleon, ses dernieres armees. Flammarion, Paris, 1902.

J. W. Fortescue, A History of the British Army, Vol. X. Macmillan, London, 1920.

Henri Houssaye, 1815, Waterloo. Perrin, Paris, 1921.

Ray Johnson, Order of Battle of the Royal Prussian Army ofthe Lower Rhineas of 14 June

1 1815. An unpublished manuscript. [continued on page 261

OPERA TIONAL ANAL YSIS

NAPOLEON'S VICTORY A French Plan for Wellington 3 Victory by Jerrold Thomas

The problem with a game as large and intense as Wellington's Victory is that to do it any justice at all one must use a great number of pages of the Magazine. I feel that this article is a nice companion piece to the one on page 4. Please don't get the idea that all of this is a plot to get you to buy the game - it's simply that I believe it deserves the coverage. - RAS

Players of Wellington's Victory, who will normally want to get right into the Campaign Game Scenario, should not reject the Historical Scenario as unbalanced. It is badly balanced only if the French Player insists on following Napoleon's uninspired plan of battle. Napoleon simply charged right in - his assault center, diversion left, plan is nearly the poorest possible. Napoleon tackled the strongest points in the Anglo-Allied position, those which negated the French cavalry and Artillery advantages, and emphasized the only French inferiority - skirmish power.

The Anglo-Allied Defense The Anglo-Allied position contains weaknesses of terrain and unit deployment, and the Anglo-Allied army has inherent command and structure flaws. A review of these weak points will introduce the French plan developed in this article. First, the Anglo-Allied position is too long. The position is over 80 straight-line hexes across, and over 100 hexes in actual perimeter. This length leaves less than 5000 Class 1 and Class 3 infantry per mile, with no consideration for losses or skirmishers. (5000 men/mile was a minimum ratio for successful defense in Napoleonic battles.) The situation is aggravated because the Anglo- Allies cannot readily abandon the flanks of the position without compromising the center. Second, the "reverse-slope" deployment can be used against the Anglo-Allies. At several points along the ridgetop, adoption of a reverse-slope position allows the French to advance to a hex protected only from the north by soft cover. Should the French place their large batteries in a few of these hexes, the Anglo-Allied situation would become almost impossible. Examples of such positions are hexes A5422 and A5522; A4623 and A4724; and A3925, A4024, and A41 24. Third, the key positions of Hougomont and La Haye Sainte, which the Anglo-Allies must defend because of their intrinsic morale values, are too far forward of the main Allied lines. The French Player can set up an artillery gauntlet around these positions with

relative ease, making reinforcement pro- hibitively expensive. Fourth, the Anglo-Allied deployment is unbalanced. A line drawn through the A4lxx row of hexes, approximately at the geographical center of the position, finds seven infantry brigades east of the line and thirteen west of it. If the quality of the units is considered, the imbalance is even greater. Using the morale values given in the " ~ e s i ~ n e r ' s Notes", for battalions only, the ratio is 54/122.

Fifth, the Anglo-Allied deployment ag- gravates the command problems of their army. The First Corps is deployed across the entire front of the army, with units isolated out on each extreme flank, and a front of over 70 hexes. The Cavalry Division is deployed across more than 40 hexes. This division has no corps commander, as Well- ington has both Reserve Corps and Army command responsibilities. Wellington also has two independent brigades which only he can commit. This can mean that a given commander might not be able to reach a needed brigade in one turn, and it will tend to keep Wellington near the center of the position.

Sixth, the Anglo-Allied deployment (and organization) tends to complicate their nationality problems. The different national forces are all dispersed except for the Brunswickers, and this will often lead to difficulties with skirmisher movement and supply, as well as command. Command problems can become severe after a few command units become depleted, particularly on the Anglo-Allied left, where four or five nationalities can become mixed as a matter of course. The isolated Hanoverian and Netherlands skirmishers near Hougomont are examples of this problem in action at the very start.

Before setting forth a plan, there are some questions about the initial set-up. Normally, if Napoleon starts at Rossomme, then Well- ington should be deployed on hex A3027. Usually, I give the Anglo-Allied player the option of starting Napoleon at Rossomme or deploying him in a reduced state, but freely. I allow free deployment for Orange, Ux- bridge, and Ney, and allow deployment of one French Corps commander (simulating the actual situation in which orders had already gone to the troops for some French attacks by 11:OO; historical fanatics should deploy Reille on a I1 Corps unit instead of any commander), and then the Anglo-Allied Brigadeers are placed with the committed brigades, and play commences.

Basic French Plan Outline The following plan of battle is aimed at max- imizing the French chances by: I ) Forcing the Anglo-Allied Player to shift his forces to the greatest extent; 2) Making the Anglo-Allied player stretch his defense across the whole width of the position; 3) Setting the crucial actions in terrain that most favors the attacker; 4) Capitalizing on the initial lack of skirmishers on the Anglo-Allied left and center.

Broadly, this plan envisions three separated advances, on the flanks and center. Initially more strength is placed on the flanks, but the emphasis can be changed later, and the center is more easily reinforced in any case. For convenience and ease of understanding, the actions in each sector will be discussed separately, phase by phase. The plan, it should be noted, does not envi- sion the demoralization of the Anglo-Allies before turn 24, but before turn 34 or so. The Prussians are sufficiently handicapped that their initial morale advantage can be nullified, and points can be piled up against the demoralized Anglo-Allies. The plan pro- ceeds in Phases, which have related objectives on each sector, as follows: Phase One (Initial Advance) This phase is planned to seize a few Anglo-Allied positions, and force the reinforcement of others, generating the most possible Anglo-Allied movement in the process. Phase Two (Establishment of Primary Line of Departure - LOD) The phase involves further position-clearing, and the advancing and siting of artillery to provide a base for further operations; most Anglo-Allied units are to be forced to the rear slopes. Phase Three(Genera1 Advance) This phase is intended to break the Anglo-Allied position and put French Artillery on the ridgetop at several places. Phase Four (Pursuit) This phase encom- passes the demoralization of the Anglo- Allies, exiting units to prevent deactivation, and routing the Anglo-Allies as their effectiveness drops. Phase Five (Defense) This phase involves shifting all artillery with ammo to the east and defending behind it, while picking off the Prussian Cavalry to the greatest extent and deactivating as many brigades as possible to delay the French Demoralization.

Phase One, East Flank The French Player will commit 3/I and 4/1, and deploy sixteen skirmishers on Turn 11.

This force will advance down the road to Pappelotte. On Turn 12 or 13, depending on the Anglo-Allied reaction, the French Player will commit 2/ lCav/I, 2/ 13/IVCav, and possibly l/LC/IG. 1/1Cav/I and 1/13/IV- Cav are in immediate reserve for this flank and 2/3/IG is en route. Final Reserves include 2/1/IG, 2/LC/IG, and 2/19/V1.

This force will capitalize on Weimar's Brigade's unsuitability fo r defending obstructed terrain (i.e. its lack of skirmishers) to seize Pappelotte, La Haye, and Smohain, in that order, in the first two to

four turns. Once Pappelotte is occupied the other positions become untenable for a force without adequate skirmishers, and their reinforcement becomes difficult as well.

The cavalry can be especially useful if Weimar attempts an early retreat. The routing of any of his battalions leaves Weimar with the unhappy choice of rallying that battalion or moving the rest of the brigade - the nationality problem. Putting the Prince of Orange on this flank will alleviate this problem somewhat, but it leaves 3Neth/I horribly at risk on the right - un-

committable except by Wellington, who usually cannot afford to go so far out on one flank.

During this process, the artillery of 3/I, 4/I, lCav/I, 13/IVC, 14/IVC, and l /LC IG will be advancing, with 2/3/IG artillery coming up with its brigade. The only defending artillery of note is Rettberg, who is usually out of command control (if, as I assume, Braun/S/R is the unit which actually belongs here, the battery will have fewer command problems), because the Anglo-Allied player will not want to commit a Landwehr brigade

HANDLING UNITS: Tactics in Wellington 's Victory Commitment Since players will want to commit brigades only when necessary (i.e., a t the last effective moment), response time can be crucial. The best way to shorten this time is to deploy, as soon as possible, all superior (Division and Corps) commanders. While this can expose them to fire, it can also be a lifesaver when a brigade is needed right now! The French have an advantage in that they have never more than two brigades per division, and no independent brigades except in the Imperial Guard.

Superior Commanders T h e above brings us to the points of what to d o with these commanders once deployed. Pro- fitable employment includes rallying units and moving artillery. Artillery movement can be done even if their brigades are not yet committed. The French uniform nationality helps with this use, as each superior can command two artillery batteries; the one subordinate to him in his command range, and any other one that he is stacked with. The French can also d o more cross-formation command, though I use superior commanders for morale in melee only as a last resort, as two victory and morale points for their loss is expensive.

Deploying Skirmishers Always, first thing, detach a skirmish company from each committed Class 2 battalion - this preserves your options in case the battalion later takes a loss. With Class 1 battalions, usually you should keep a one strength point "cadre" even when you are detaching the rest of the battalion. This not only preserves your option to reform, but can be vital for the Anglo-Allied player in preventing movement restrictions which can come from the Allied nationality problems.

Small Battalions and Regiments These units should be preserved since they can be especially useful in maintaining effectiveness in shock combat when heavy losses are expected, since severe losses will

eliminate the whole unit, leaving a "fresh" unit on the top of the stack. Ex- amples of these units are the French 3-5-4 infantry and 1-6-6 and 2-5-6 cavalry; the Anglo-Allied 2-5-4 infantry and 1-4-6 and 2-6-6 cavalry; and the Prussian 2-5-6 and 2-4-6 cavalry. Remnants of Class 1 battalions can be used on top of reserve stacks, to prevent their need to check morale should a Class 2 battalion pass by in a rout or disordered retreat.

Class 3 Infantry This is a constant problem. The safest way to use it is columns stacked with a Class 2 or 1 unit. It can also be used as "filler" between better infantry, either in line or column, since its routing will not affect the adjacent units of lower classes.

Cavalry Cavalry should be used in brigade (8-12 strength point) stacks when formed infantry or enemy cavalry is present, and in regiments when only skirmishers are present. Against a large and vulnerable target, a "double" charge is excellent if the second cavalry unit is within two or three hexes of the original position of the stack. Should the first charge rout the stack, it will still be within the charge zone of the second cavalry, and subject to a n automatic four strength point loss.

Artillery Remember when firing at soft cover, that a six-gun, Class 3 battery is just as good as an eight-gun, Class 1 battery. Class differences are most important during artillery duels, or when firing on skirmishers; the differences in expected loss may be greater when firing on Class 1 targets, but the ratio of loss results is greatest with Class 3 targets.

Skirmisher and anti-Skirmisher Tactics The basic employment for skirmishers is firing from two-hex range, stacked one per hex. They are preferably firing on formed infantry, but usually are firing on other skirmishers.

Skirmishers are a good weapon against o ther skirmishers. Since, in most skirmisher-skirmisher fire, every shot has

a 1/6 chance of a hit, the goal is to get "free," or extra, shots against the opposing skirmishers. This can be done by massing against a few hexes of skirmishers and contacting all other nearby skirmishers. The ones massed against must withdraw, and give withdrawal fire, or be meleed at 300% or 400%; any nearby skirmishers coming to reinforce will have given withdrawal fire to the units contacting them. Implicit -in this tactic is the assumption that a unit gets only one withdrawal fire opportunity when a stack leaves its primary zone, no matter how many units the stack may contain.

Infantry in line formation can also be used against skirmishers where there are less than six companies in a hex. With nine or less strength points of units in Line formation, both sides will have a one- third chance for a hit, and the formed units will have a chance for a crushing melee. The French will usually get a withdrawal fire opportunity, since their melee phase comes before the fire phase. Charging Cavalry can be the most effective weapon against skirmishers. Skir- mishers can find security only in blocked terrain. Stacking the skirmishers six-high will a t least guarantee a cavalry point lost, which can sometimes be as useful as the two points the skirmishers are likely to lose. The real fear is that a cavalry unit will initiate a charge within two hexes of some skirmishers, so that if they rout they will still be within range and will lose four strength points. That is the time to have a horse artillery battery handy to protect the routed companies.

The French, as always, should exploit nationality problems with skirmishers - initially this can best be done near Hougo- mont. Single nationalities can be massed against since the French player will know that the units cannot effectively be reinforced and will have to withdraw. Also, once a Hanoverian or Netherlands skirmisher near Hougomont runs out of ammo, it can be attacked with impunity, since it dares not stack even with other skirmishers of the same nationality.

just to move the artillery. In any case the threat is minimal, since it is alone, and the Netherlands batteries are all but useless. There is one Landwehr (LW) battalion on hex A5721 which can be picked on early, but don't spend too many shots on him - your main goal is to auto-commit its brigade on turn 12 by inflicting one loss. (This also gives a small, but tantalizing, chance to rout all or part of the brigade away.) Phase One should end with French controlling at least Pap- pelotte, with 1 LW brigade committed and others entering the area by Turn 14.

Phase One, West Flank On Turn 11,6/11 and 1/9/11 are committed with 49 skirmishers, (keeping five Class I cadres); 2/2/11 is committed on Turn 12. Im- mediate reserves are 1/2/11, I / lO/IIICav, and 2/9/11. Reille, the corps commander, will go first to deploy Pire (2/2/II) and then will go to pick up the 11 Corps artillery and bring it west of Hougomont.

The skirmishers will advance with some stacks of 8 or 9 units on the Hougomont Woods, intending to clear the woods of Anglo-Allied skirmishers through both fire

and melee. They will initially outnumber the Anglo-Allies, who will also be having na- tionalitiy problems with the Hanoverians and Netherlanders. A few of the French skirmishers, with the cavalry and artillery, will advance down the ridge crest (which runs roughly from C2404 to A1421) in a northwesterly direction. This force will attempt to separate 3Neth/l from the rest of the Anglo-Allied army.

The Phase One objectives on this sector are to clear the outer row(s) of the Hougomont Woods, and advance the cavalry and artillery

The Allies have their own advantages cavalry can finish it off. This can work initial assault succeed only in getting a Dl when using cavalry against skirmishers - especially well when the infantry can drive result. The best method is to use Class 1 the movement sequence allows them to a unit out of blocked terrain into the battalions in line and Class 2 battalions in charge and then retreat between the fire open, and into a charge zone. A con- the assault; this way the line of battalions phases, so that carelessly placed skir- tinuous series of charges by several will not be affected by a morale failure or mishers can be attacked with impunity. brigades or regiments can paralyze a a bad melee result.

Combined Arms: Cavalry with Others

Cavalry charges can have a good effect even if the cavalry unit never melees anyone, when the charge is a part of a combined arms attack. Artillery, for example, can advance to place enemy units in its primary fire zone, and then the units can be charged by cavalry. If the units attempt to change facing or form square they will have to give primary.zone fire to the artillery unit; twice if the unit attempts to change from line to square formation. Should the unit make a routed or disordered retreat, it may give withdrawal fire opportunities to the artillery, provided that the cavalry has ' left a field of fire.

Similarly, a brigade column of infantry can advance on a single'battalion, then a charge can be initiated close by - this might disorder the unit, and even if the unit is not disordered, or is not in the charge zone, the movement restrictions will likely prevent its reinforcement. Should the infantry shock attack succeed in disordering or routing thedefender, the

whole sector while it is reduced.

Another use for the pinning effect of charge zones is to allow an enemy unit to rout off the map. Since the routing unit is unaffected by the charge zone while the leader is, the leader will not be able to catch up with the unit, and i t will be as good as dead.

Assaulting Extended Lines The best tactic in assaulting extended lines is to assault the joints (hexes Y or Z in II- lustration I). Depending on your inter- pretation of the LOS Rules, this can result in disordered fire from both defending units. Even if this is not your interpreta- tion, the fire can be blunted by adopting, in game terms, an "Ordre Mixte," by placing two battalions in Line Formation in the hexes adjacent to the assaulting Column, as shown in Illustration I . This tactic will not only screen the assault force; it will increase the Primary Zone Fire should the defender attempt to c h a n g e f o r m a t i o n o r w i t h d r a w . (Remember that an extended line cannot be reinforced.) It can also provide a chance for a follow-up assault should the

Artillery Firefights The Anglo-Allies must always be cautious with firefights as they stand to quickly be reduced to impotence from long range. Their 6-3-0 batteries are particularly weak against enemy artillery and skirmishers. The Anglo-Allies nationality problems haunt them again with artillery - the loss of a Brunswicker crew is a major disaster since you have only two; and likewise there may be shortages of other nationalities as well in certain sectors.

Basically the Anglo-Allies must find soft cover hexsides if they are to even attempt to come out ahead. Also, the Anglo-Allies should try to select the time and place for the inevitable firefight where they will gain the most time; they should not expect to win the firefight, just tocreate the maximum possible delay in their losing it.

The French should reduce the Anglo- Allied six-gun batteries to five-guns at long range, and then move in to medium range to pick off the crews; the Class 2 and 3 batteries are best for the long range work, while the big Class 1 and 2 batteries should tackle the crew killing.

When the Enemy is Demoralized Cavalry becomes especially important. A charge can force the recommitment of a brigade by causing a morale check; however, a few artillery batteries should be in the area to prevent the defense of forming in square before deactivating. A single loss has the effect of committing the whole brigade just as a charge will. Also, as the demoralized army's effectiveness drops, each morale check is more likely to result in a rout which is perma- nent. Attention must be given to the defending artillery crews, as these are the only hits immune to the loss of effectiveness.

along the ridge to at least the A32 row of hexes.

Phase One, Center Initially 1/2/I is committed with twelve skirmishers (keeping a cadre for each Class 1 battalion), to advance on La Haye Sainte. The Phase One objective for this force is to contest the La Haye Sainte position, forcing its reinforcement or abandonment, and preventing the skirmishers in the center from shifting to the east flank. On Turn 13,2/5/II is also committed to reinforce.

On Turns I1 or 12 (during Phase One), 2/3/IG and 1/3/IG are committed with 16 skirmishers each, Drouot is deployed and advances with the R/IG Artillery, and Lobau is deployed and advances with VI Artillery and VI Horse Artillery - all these units function in Phase Two.

Phase Two, East Flank The advance to the primary LOD will be led by skirmishers and cavalry, with the artillery and formed infantry following. Around Turn 15 the 2/3/IG skirmishers will arrive, enabling the French t o use a few six-unit skirmisher stacks, which give some protection against cavalry. The plentiful horse artillery should be pressed forward on the far east, while the heavy batteries advance more slowly towards the center. The French cavalry should be always looking t o charge unwary units, or to charge to force the commitment or recommitment of the Landwehr brigades. The only really effective Anglo-Allied starting force in this area is cavalry, so every chance should be taken to break it. Methods to achieve this include putting squares, six- unit skirmish piles, and artillery Primary Fire Zones directly in the charge paths. The actual tactics employed will depend on the Anglo-Allied Phase One reaction. The Anglo-Allied player must get a good number of skirmishers t o his flank, and the only two large and uncommitted groups (l/Bwk/R and 3/2/11) are four or five turns away. The Brunswickers are the more logical group since they are not close to the west flank either, but they add to the nationality problems. Usually if the Brunswickers are sent, they come in one group, which will bring more units and guns, but will cost two brigades committed. 1/2Neth/I is also usually committed, especially if Orange is in the area. The drawback with this brigade is the presence of even more Landwehr units on the east. The French can get some cheap points by routing these units. Cavalry is especially effective against Landwehr - with any charge there is always a chance to rout a LW unit, and then a commander has to g o t o rally the unit o r watch it rout off the map. Since the LW units start adjacent t o one another, a rout can spread into a disaster. This is particularly true on the flaaks when they are refused, since the rout paths will nearly parallel the lines, contacting reserve or reforming units and forcing them to check morale.

The French should be careful to keep their formed infantry stacks separated. The infantry should maneuver in brigade or half- brigade stacks, depending on the stacking of the defenders. The formed infantry can sometimes be used against the Anglo-Allied skirmishers as outlined in the "Tactics" sections. 3/I should operate between the A58xx and B07xx columns, with 4/1 operating east of the BO8xx column. When the 2/3/IG cadres arrive, they can be assigned to either division. Bunching can hamper the French skirmisher maneuverability if a whole division is rendered hors de combat at one time. Phase Two should end around Turn 18 or so, with the French holding an LOD from B1316 to B0124 and A5724. Weimar's brigade should be mauled, the 4/5/R and 5/5/R LW brigades should be committed, and the British cavalry should be damaged in propor- tion to how active it has been.

Phase Two, West Flank There are two options on this flank, depending on this status of 3Neth/I. If neither Orange nor Wellington is in the area and 3Neth/I is uncommitted, a specific campaign against this unit can be planned. In some cases an advance can be started in its direction to draw Wellington to the area so that he will be out of action for a few crucial turns. It can also be worthwhile to just attack the artillery (usually a melee by four skirmishers will d o it) so that they cannot be annoying. The basic plan t o crush 3Neth/I is t o advance to the flanks of the units with skirmishers, picking on one brigade at a time, and attempting t o damage the few good units first. A single stack could be surrounded by four skirmishers on its flanks and rear, giving an expected loss of 2.67 strength points and still leaving the unit(s) trapped, unless they rout away and take another .66 strength point of loss. If 3Neth/I is committed or committable (i.e., Chasse is deployed), the normal approach is followed. This approach aims at clearing the entire Hougomont' Woods and advancing around the flanks of the chateau position, as well as advancing down the ridge to at least the xx25 hexrow. Combat on this flank will be marked by large numbers of skirmishers on both sides, as both armies have the bulk of their Class 1 infantry here. Since this is the case, both players will be trying to employ their cavalry against the enemy skirmishers. Initially the Anglo-Allied player will have some decisions to make, as so much of his infantry is Class 1 and in large battalions; he will have t o choose between maximum skirmishers and an adequate body of formed infantry. The French, with 50 Strength Points of Class 2 infantry committed on Turn 11, should try to profit from the lack of formed infantry. Usually this will involve charges or charge threats; should the Anglo-Allies present many exposed units, the French can adopt a rapid commitment plan, committing 1/2/11, 2/11/IIIC, 1/12/IIIC, and 2/HC/IG by

Turn 13. These units will then adopt a rolling charge which can both immobilize and unhinge the whole flank. The French should be prepared for losses here, but with some prudence they should not exceeed the Anglo-Allied loss. Usually the advanced position of Hougomont and the number of Anglo-Allies here will result in much more intense Phase Two fighting in this sector. Often the deciding factors are the big French artillery batteries of 11, 6/11, and 9/11, all of which should be brought west of Hougomont as quickly as possible. They will be supplemented by the horse artillery of 2/11, 12/III, l l / I I lC , and 2/HC/IG. Some of these horse artillery batteries should be in the force advancing down the ridgecrest. By Turn 18-20 the French should hold a LOD running from C3801 t o C3005, C2703, C2502, and A2432, with Hougomont effectively cut off.

Phase Two, Center The main task of the central sector forces during this Phase is the Clearing of the forward slopes between hex columns A38xx and A52xx. Once this is accomplished, the fall of La Haye Sainte is assured, and the defense of Hougomont becomes extremely difficult. This task is accomplished by forming a "Grand Battery" consisting of I, V1, three RAG, 2/I, and 5/11 batteries plus VI horse artillery, with 2/3/IG, 1/I; 5/IC and 3/III horse artillery available, and 1/2/IG en route. Should the Anglo-Allied player attempt to form a counter-battery, initial attention should be given to the six-gun batteries; once they are reduced to five guns, some batteries should advance t o medium range t o finish off the crews, possibly along with a few skirmishers. The usual effect of an ~nglo-All ied counter battery is t o extend Phase Two but shorten the subsequent phases. The Anglo-Allies cannot trade gun-for-gun for long without losing their artillery as an effective weapon. During this phase 1/5/11 should be committed; on Turn 17, 1/1/I should be committed and should advance between the 51xx and 55xx hex columns with its four skirmishers. 1/14/IVC and 1/5/IC should also be committed then to advance in the alleys in hex columns 48xx and 56xx. Should the situation allow for an accelerated shift into Phase Three, 2/2/I and 1/3/III could also be committed. I will usually also commit 1/2/IG on Turn 17, to get it into position on time. While the "Grand Battery" clears the slopes, the infantry and skirmishers (increased by the arrival of 2/3/IG) will set about clearing La Haye Sainte. Once the Anglo-Allied artillery is driven off, good assaults on the chateau can be mounted from hex A4428, partially nullifying the defensive terrain advantage. You should note, also, that French units o n hexes A4428 and A2628 will trap any units carelessly left in the orchard. One of the things that makes L a Haye Sainte so vulnerable is that the French artillery, sited on hexes A4632, A4732, and A4831, can completely command the routes of reinforcement.

Phase Two in this sector can end from Turn 18 to Turn 23, depending on the commitment of Anglo-Allied artillery. The French LOD should run from A5424 to A4728, A4527, and A3830; with La Haye Sainte surrounded if it has not yet fallen.

Phase Three, East and Center In both sectors the plan and process is the same. Skirmishers backed by infantry will advance on the "reverse-protected" positions while cavalry advances up the alleys. (An alley is a path of hexes completely free of blocked hexsides which goes entirely through the Allied position.) Closely following this advance will be the artillery, with some batteries unlimbered for cover, and other always limbered for maximum movement. By this time the Anglo-Allies should be quite weak in good formed infantry, since a proper French strategy should have resulted in a heavy attrition of the Anglo-Allied skirmishers. Since the Anglo-Allies have only about 200 strength points of Class 2 infantry, the removal of their Class 1 units through skirmisher attrition will leave them no adequate counter for the large body of French Class 1 and 2 units which cannot form skirmishers, and so will be available as formed units. Should the Anglo-Allies attempt to fall further back beyond the ridge, the French should advance in the area parallel to the main road, where the ridgetop is so flat as to provide no cover. Such an advance can outflank both wings of the Anglo-Allied army, allowing for a defeat in detail. During this Phase, attention should be paid to distributing casualties among the Anglo- Allied battalions, rather than wholly eliminating a few. A point will be reached, as the Anglo-Allies near the Demoralization Level, when the French will want to go for routs to score a number of points in one turn, in order to get the Anglo-Allies over the limit. It is best to prepare for this situation by reducing the effectiveness of as many battalions as possible, so that there will not be a large body of intact infantry to provide a shield for the weaker units. The French should always keep at least one formed cavalry brigade in hand in each sector (in a pinch at least one good regiment) so that a charge can be announced at any time. This is necessary for the combined arms approach which will give the best chances for French success. This approach is covered in the "Units Handling" sections. During this phase, the French may begin to have batteries run out of ammo. If the French player has been audacious with his artillery, this will usually be balanced by his loss of crews; but if he has some crews to spare, he can try some very bold tactics. One is to advance a battery adjacent to an enemy infantry unit and unlimber; should the crew be turned into a skirmisher by fire, another- crew is brought up to handle the guns. Should the battery get unlimbered, the infantry unit is all but gone, facing a two or three strength point loss at least.

Another thing to consider is switching ammo; this can free some crews, and you can use the crews of guns which are not yet committed. You will need some batteries with full loads to handle the Prussian Cavalry. One regiment (preferably a weak one which has taken losses) should be heading east by about Turn 22. In some cases, two regiments can be useful if they can be spared. The regiments are kept in the-iboods or in towns; disordered, they have no command problems, and in blocked hexes they cannot be attacked by Prussian Cavalry. Their job is to prevent the Prussian artillery from using Grand Tactical Movement. The Prussians will enter 50-60 hexes from the French, and the presence of the cavalry can add five to six turns to the time when the Prussian Horse artillery can score a hit. Remember that you are not so concerned about losing the units so long as they cannot be hit by the artillery. Unit commitment for the French is hard to predict, as it will depend on what is needed. I usually have the Guards around, though I don't like to expose them except for something special, like putting the Anglo- Allies over the limit. Otherwise, they are excellent for mop-up on disordered units, and can be useful as a cavalry defense force. The Phase should end with French units holding the ridgecrest to about the A36xx column at least, with a number of French heavy batteries ensconced on the crest. The Allies should be only 50-45 points from demoralization, while the French should have around 110.

Phase Three, West Flank The strategy here will revolve around how stubbornly the Anglo-Allies defend Hougo- mont, a very strong defense should be countered by an effort at envelopment of the whole wing of the army (excepting 3Neth/l), in cooperation with forces from the center. Normally, the artillery on both sides of the salient will begin to make things too hot for the Anglo-Allies, who will fall back leaving a force in Hougomont.

Hougomont should be approached gingerly. Skirmishers should patiently peck away; up to nine hexes are available, since range means nothing; this gives an expected loss of 1.5 strength points per turn. The only counter for this loss rate would be a large body of infantry in the garden, and either skirmishers or other infantry in the woods can deal with them. Should the whole garden be occupied, 2.33 strength points per turn can be expected as losses, with no room at all in case of a rout. In fact, the French can sometimes "herd" Anglo-Allies into the Hougomont position, turning the fall of the Chateau into a major disaster. During this Phase, another opportunity might present itself, as the units advance down the ridgecrest in a northwesterly direction, for some cheap shots at 3Neth/l. These units have enough Landwehr t o be vulnerable whether they stay in the town or not; and they can sometimes be ambushed as

they try to rejoin the main army. Should a unit be routed, the Anglo-Allies will face the same problem of rallying the unit or commanding the brigade, since there are no other Netherlands units nearby. Cavalry should be kept in hand here, too, since a salient is especially vulnerable to being pinned by converging charge zones. A key decision will be when and where to use the l/HC/IG. The 1-6-6 placed on top of the 8-6-6 forms a nearly perfect force which can tackle even a strong position with good chances, or crush a weaker one. The little 2-5-6 cavalry can either be used as cheap charge zone makers, or stacked together to maintain effectiveness in an important charge assault. When the final assault is going in on Hougo- mont, it should be launched from hex C3002, in the garden, since this will partially offset the defensive benefit of the Chateau hex. Nine skirmishers should take the hex in short order. Phase Three should end on this sector with Hougomont taken or with the Anglo- Allied wing enveloped. If 3Neth/l has not joined the main force, it should be completely cut off from it. Morale should be as mentioned earlier.

Phase Four, All Fronts During this Phase, the French player should risk having units routed to cause Anglo- Allied routs. With the French Morale advantage, they will stay in good order long enough to rally the units, while the Anglo-Allies, once over their limit, cannot rally. Once demoralization has set in, the French should begin to disengage. They must keep a few cavalry brigades in contact, to launch charges as the Anglo-Allied effectiveness drops, but they should leave the fighting to the cavalry and a few skirmishers. The skirmishers can cause routs through fire losses, and can even begin to melee disordered allies at plus three. Should the Anglo-Allies attempt an exit, units must be gotten off the desired roads to prevent deactivation. One of the essences of the French plan is that the earlier (than the French) Anglo-Allied demoralization will allow them to make up any overall morale differential by crushing the Anglo-Allies more thoroughly.

Within three turns after the Anglo-Allied demoralization level is reached, the French should have no more than five brigades actively involved with them. Usually three Cavalry and two Infantry (to support the movement and supply of the skirmishers) brigades will be enough.

Phase Five, Defense There are two keys to successful defense against the Prussian Army; they are using blocking terrain, and reducing brigade commitment. Each kind of cover presents special problems to the Prussian. Since the great bulk of Prus- sian firepower is Class 3, it is useless against hard cover. Stacks of skirmishers in places like Frischermont, Smohain, and Plancenoit can be very hard for the Prussians to handle.


16

SCENARIOS AND VARIANTS

SPANISH GOLD A Major New Scenario for Conquistador by David R. Grant

When first playtested (by your Editor and others) Conquistadorwas long and boring. It evolved into a finished game that was long and interesting. Nevertheless, one still has the problem of how to cope when only an evening is available. Mr. Grant presents a solution that has the sea dogs of England and France chewing on the legs of the ocean straddling Spanish giant. - R A S

An an historical simulation, Conqubtador has some good plusses, but also has had to sacrifice some details in favor of playability. It quite accurately simulates the age of exploration in that it shows the rush of discoveries made in the early half of the sixteenth century. Another facet true to the historical situation was the success of English privateers in growing fat off intercepting Spanish gold and silver as it was transported across the Atlantic. When it comes to exploitation, however, only the Spanish solitaire scenario anywhere nearly approximates the actual historical settling of the New World. Spain did settle as well as explore in several areas of the New World (mainly in the Caribbean, Mexico, Isthmus, Colombia, Venezuela, and Peru). The only other nation to have successful colonies in the New World during the time span covered by the game was Portugal, which settled in Brazil. The first English colony that succeeded was Jamestown, founded in 1607. There were a couple of French efforts under Cartier and Roberval between 1538 and 1543, but nothing succeeded there, either. Scurvy, natives, and failure to find a passage to China or an abundance of gold discouraged the colonists. In the normal play of the three or four player campaign game, colonial efforts more apropos to the seven- teenth century develop from the earliest decades of the sixteenth century. History is thus telescoped in favor of playability, a fact which makes the game a game and more than just an exercise in determining naval attrition. If one doesn't mind French and English efforts being out of historical order, Con- qubtador is a good simulation of what it took to colonize and exploit the New World. As to playability, the only real problem the game has is its length. A long evening, at least, would be needed to finish a game. Ac- cordingly, a shortened scenario is herein offered. It bypasses the rush for discoveries, shows Spain's historical head start in settling and exploiting the New World, and picks up the action at 1551, just prior to the arrival of the English privateers on the scene. Historically, one will find that settling by England and France will still be telescoped

about fifty years. This scenario will provide the "feel" of the total game without the large investment of time required by the campaign game. The emphasis will focus more on diplomacy, war, resources, and gold. Spanish colonist units have been placed historically within the limits of the counter mix. It is recommended that rule [24.0], the German Banker option, not be used. The key to the action in this scenario will be the French and English efforts to keep Spain from becoming so rich that she would outstrip them militarily and in prestige. Some of the restrictions put on Spain in this scenario are to force a conformity to history (in location of settlements) and to give the other two or three players a chance to win. [21.3] THE PRIVATEERING SCENARIO with 1551 (Turn 12). England receives S. Cabot and France receives Cartier for Turn 12. Spain has Ulloa and Irala for Turn 12. Two to four players can play. [21.32] Treasury levels and

Monarch ratings. Spain: 500 ducats, A Monarch England: 250 ducats, B Monarch France: 300 ducats, B Monarch Portugal: 325 ducats, C Monarch [21.33] Initial Set-up

Spain Hex Historical Date Units

Site Estab 4213 Potosi and 1540-45 2 colonists

Sucre 4716 Santiago and 1541 2 colonists

Valparaiso 1 missionary 3719 Lima 1535 1 colonist

1 missionary 3319 Quito 1533 1 colonist 3017 Bogota 1538 1 colonist

1 missionary 2817 Cartagena 1533 1 colonist 2819 Panama City 1518 1 colonist 2316 Santo Domingo 1500 1 colonist

1 missionary 2220 Havana 151 1 1 colonist 2127 Mexico City 1521 2 colonists

1 missionary (Optional with expanded counter mix) 441 1 Asuncion 1537 1 colonist

1 missionary 2718 Santa Marta 1525 1 colonist 3118 Cali 1536 1 colonist 2813 Cumana 1502 1 colonist 2716 Coro 1505 1 colonist 2524 Guatemala City 1520's 1 colonist

1 missionary 2523 Tegucigalpa 1524 1 colonist

1 missionary 241 8 Jamaica 1505 1 colonist 2126 Veracruz 1520 1 colonist

Portugal (optional with (23.01) 3904 Salvadore de 1500 colonist

Balboa 3601 Olinda (Recife) 1537 1 colonist 4508 Sao Vicente 1507 1 colonist

(Santos) 4509 Sao Paulo 1532 1 colonist Native levels in all occupied areas are at zero. Other areas are as on map. If Portugal does not play, use rule [22.0] with Portuguese level at ten. [21.34] Spain must keep a colonist in each of these hexes. If the colonist unit is lost due to attrition, it must be replaced on the next game turn. Failure to do so will result in a loss of ten victory points per hex per turn left unoccupied, starting on the game turn after the loss occurs. (This does not apply if an enemy nation has occupied the hex). [21.35] Tenochtitlan and Cuzco are considered depleted. All other mines or treasure cities are undiscovered or operating if occupied. [21.36] Initiative is figured only for England, France, and Portugal. Spain always moves last. [21.37] Spanish Armada loss. At the end of Turn 19, Spain must reduce her navy by 50% (fractions rounded down). This includes losing the Galleon fleet which counts as one unit for purposes of this rule. [21.38] Spain is the only nation with a rutter to round the Cape. [21.39] Victory Conditions No credit is given for discoveries. Political control is the same as [20.0]. Two victory points are awarded for each ducat in a nation's treasury.

Game Notes: At first glance this scenario looks like a cakewalk for Spain. Her large headstart in both treasury and colonists on the map seems t o be insurmountable. Two factors, however, militate against Spain having an easy time of it. 1) The historical placement of her colonists is anything but an advantage. It is more like an albatross tied around her neck. They are located by and large in high attrition and un- doubled resource areas (the Caribbean being the lone exception). Spain will be hard push- ed to keep colonists in the historical sites, and in many cases (like hexes 2127 and 4213) it is like pouring colonists down the proverbial rat-hole. 2) Spain has the colonists scattered over a wide area of the map, thus increasing her ex- penses in bound (if more than one expedition is used) or in attrition losses (if one expedition makes all the stops). At some point in the game Spain will find that her colonists are


OPERATIONAL ANAL YSIS

A PRODUCTIVE APPROACH Developing Economic Strategy in A fter the Holocaust by Steve List

There are early signs that After the Holocaust is building up a vigorous multiplayer following that takes the whole business very seriously and operates at a very intense pitch. The game system is probably too complex and demanding to generate a widespread network of players such as surrounds Diplomacy but, nevertheless, it seems that lrad Hardy and I have put in motion a system of considerable momentum. Here Mr . List tells you how to give it a run for its money. - RAS

Playing After the Holocaust is much like riding a bicycle - learning how takes considerable time, during which one's perform- ance is painfully inept. Once mastery is achieved, it seems so easy one lets his attention wander, often with a painful "crash" as a result. This is a game in which the internal logic of the system is the chief opponent. You must be able to beat the system before you have a prayer of beating a human opponent. ATH depicts the continental U.S. after a nuclear war, fragmented into areas of subsistence agriculture coalescing into four distinct "regions" whose leaders, the players, are competing to dominate each other. The game mechanics provide for military forces, but this is not a military game. Players must produce the food, raw materials and manufactured goods to keep their economies operating, and (appropriate- ly for a part of the "Power Politics" series) the game requires that competition, to be effective, take place on several levels, not all of them overt. Skill at trading and diplomacy, long range planning and administration can win without it ever being apparent there is a real conflict going on.

Military Action Initially, let us dispose of the question of military activity. For the sake of discussion, each working labor and mech point is said to be able to produce one "production point" worth of output. Thus one food, fuel, or metals point is "worth" one production point, the labor needed to produce it. Similarly, a single mech point is "worth"' 1.5, a Consumer Point (CP) is 1.4, and so on. Consider a hypothetical, "typical" region of 8 or 9 areas, in Social State 3. It has a population of 50 labor points and is fully mechanized with 150 mech points. The region can turn out 200 production points each turn (always assuming a 100% harvest). To maintain itself in Social State 3 requires one food and two CP per labor point, or 50 and 100 respectively, which will cost 190 production points, which shrinks to only 2 when we consider that two labor points must be in the transport sector where they produce nothing and can-

not be mechanized. The cost to mobilize military units is the direct cost plus loss of production, which in this Social State ranges up to 20 production points for a mechanized division. Obviously, the cost is out of reach. If military units are somehow built or acquired, they must be maintained, and this cost runs from 6.4 to 8.8 production points, depending on unit type, which could be paid out of stockpiles only as long as they last, while the production lost by labor in military units is unrecoverable. Drop down to Social State 2. Here the 1abor:mech ratio is 1:2, so the region can put out only 144 production points (after deduct- ing labor for Transport). Now only one CP is needed for each labor point, which combined with food means the output for state maintenance is 120, leaving a surplus of 24. Likewise, at this Social State it costs less to mobilize and maintain military units (as the lost productivity per labor point is less), so an army of perhaps a half-dozen divisions could be created over several turns and maintained, depending on the food and CP stockpiles. If such stockpiles or outside supplies are not available, only three divisions could be supported by this size surplus. Mass armies are just not compatible with the higher Social States. But if the region were in State 1, it could produce 96 points while needing only 57 (50 food and 7 for 5 CPs) which would leave a surplus of 39. This would allow mobilizing two mech divisions per turn. or a whopping 13 militia points. Again, maintenance costs are lower, but again only 6-7 divisions could be maintained without drawing on stockpiled or imported goods. The only "good" thing here is that the larger your population, if it is maximally mechanized, the larger your surplus as the cost for CPs remains fixed. Thus larger regions in State 1 can afford to support larger armies. Unfortunately, there isn't enough time in a ten turn game to expand prodigious- ly, build an army and still industrialize enough to get above Social State 1, so having the biggest battalions on the block is a sure way to lose. Players cannot afford a standing army. Neither can they afford to continually mobilize and demobilize the same units, so the moral is don't build them unless you have to, and once you've got them, use them for as short a period as possible. Brief, if non- existent campaigns are best. The blackmail potential of mobilizing first may cause an opponent to build units he can't afford, with the resulting damage to his economy being all the edge you need to beat him non-militarily. In other circumstances it may pay to attack an undefended area control marker to either

give you a better chance to take it by plebiscite or just deprive someone else. But recognize that sustained, large scale military operations are too parasitic. Usually, you can use them to destroy an opponent only at the cost of your own chances for victory.

The Gradual Approach

Assuming no one cares to play soldier, what are the chances of victory? In order to be eligible to win at all, a player must have his region at least in Social State 2 on turns 9 and 10. This is achieved by awarding each labor point one Consumer Point in each of those turns. While it is possible to stockpile CPs, for now it is assumed that they will be manufactured in the turn they are expended. Another set of simplifying assumptions is that each region will not have added any areas, so that after two rounds of population increase the population will be either 36 or 43, or on the average. 40. Thus the player must be able to produce 40 CPs each turn, which will require an industrial capacity of 24 and raw materials of 16 food, 8 metals and 8 fuel (plus one for domestic transport). Com- bined with the 40 food points needed to feed the population, this requires 97 production points per turn. This must be produced by 38 labor points, since two are required for transport, so each one must turn out 255% productivity. This would require there be 1.55 working mech points for each labor point, for a total of 59. This is well within the 2:l ratio allowed for Social State 2, but it ex- ceeds the ratio for State 1. Since production must occur at State 1 before CPs are expended to reach State 2, this means it is impossible to produce enough to go from State I to 2 in one step. There are of course ways around this, the most obvious being to stockpile the CPs needed on turns 9 and 10, since there is not turn 11. Trouble is, as soon as the CP stockpile reaches 50% of your "deprived" labor force, you run the risk of a strike that could blow it for you.

A somewhat better approach is to stockpile the raw materials you will need and as much of the CPs as is safe. For a labor force of 40, 35 would be "deprived" normally in Social State 1, so a CP stockpile of only 17 is the best that can be done. Allowing for shrinkage in the stock and the fact that CPs must be built in lots of 5, you would still have to build 35 each on turns 9 and 10, so the industrial capacity requirement would have dropped only to 21. This approach would also cost money, as you stockpile excess raw materials and then on turn 8 spend great sums to transfer labor to industry and build up capacity.

A far better approach is to work up to it gradually. Go to State 2 a sector at a time, starting with the ones using the least labor. This will increase productivity by addition of mech points rather than manpower to the sector, leaving the manpower in agriculture to build the farm surplus needed when you start building great slugs of CPs. Industry should of course be increased in small in- crements throughout the game, as this is cheapest in investment terms and allows production of more and more mech points each turn. By turn 6 your industrial sector should be large enough to build the CPs needed to boost it up to sector state 2 itself. One labor point with its attendent mechs will produce the CPs needed to allow 4 other labor points ta be mechanized 2: 1 for a net output of 12. Similar advantages hold for the fuel and metal sectors as well. The last sectors to be upgraded are transport (because this gets you nothing but the right to upgrade the region as a whole) and farming (both because of the number of CPs required and the fact that it will be late in the game before you have enough mech points in farming to need the higher state). Just watch out, because as the number of "deprived" labor points falls, the fewer CPs you can safely stockpile. Achieving Social State 2 is not impossible. It is not even difficult. It just requires that you know what you are doing and that you plan ahead several turns, not making any foolish mistakes. Social State 3 is achievable in time by the same methods, but it will seldom be reached in only 8 turns. The player with the largest number of areas in Good Control in Social State 2 should normally win the standard game.

Productivity Before discussing the peculiarities of each region, productivity in and of itself should be touched on. In sector state 0, a site can produce only 1 production point (for the 1 labor point allowed). At state 1, this jumps to 4 (for 3 labor and 1 mech point), and after that it increases by 1 (due to added mech) for each increase in the Sector State. Since only one CP is needed in the sector to maintain Sector State 1, it is obvious that this State yields the greatest productivity per consumer point per site. It is also the least productive per labor point (barring state 0). While 2 metal or fuel sites would allow any of the regions to get most if not all of their needs, they would be losing the benefit of mechanization, and this would hamper the climb to higher Social States. A more effective approach is to initially staff a sector with only one labor and one mech point; expending one CP on this lone labor point raises the Sector State to 2, allowing a second mech to be added so that an output of 3 per CP is achieved, which is more cost effective than having three labor points with the two mech points for an output of 5 per 3 CP per site. To increase output, though, it is necessary to have more sites and expend more CPs in the sector. This kind of quandary is what pro- motes trade; as long as a player's needs for a commodity is low, he can either not produce

it at all or use this cost effectiveness trick, while trading for what he needs above that. Eventually, though, his needs will require increased output, necessitating additional manpower and mech points, and possibly more CPs. The ultimate key to effective overall productivity is the player himself. He must do things by plan, not improvisation. He must on one turn be aware of what his industrial capacity on the next turn will be, what manufacturing, production and trading he must do this turn to properly use his capacity next turn, what labor reallocation and investment will be needed to accomplish all this. He must always arrange to have an industrial capacity such that he can build what he needs and has raw materials for while fully utilizing his capacity. Under- utilization is not only costly in monetary terms; it means labor and/or mech points are sitting idle, consuming food or depreciating while producing nothing in return. The four reglons are started with widely vary- ing resources, but only one can be said to have enough of every type site. In the early. game, when most production is of mech points, fuel is not as big a need as metal, so the Midwest's 3 fuel sites can be considered adequate, while its 6 metal and 14 plant sites are more than enough. The Farwest has low but adequate numbers of plant and metal sites (9 and 4), but only 2 fuel sites (and fuel may be more important to the FW since it is so far from the other regions; they can trade among themselves with the fuel left over from domestic transport, while a round trip to the FW costs nearly a whole fuel point). The Northeast has abundant plant and fuel sites (16 and 7), but only two metal sites. The Southwest is in the worst shape, though. Its 7 fuel sites are more than it needs, while it has only 4 plants and 1 metal site. The MW and FW will probably have to import some fuel, and the NE metal. The SW will have to import both metal and manufactured goods until it can build or acquire additional plants. As noted, metal is generally a more valuable raw material than fuel. In the initial setup, 13 metal sites are controlled by the four regions. There are only four other metal sites (2 of which are in Canada) "unaffiliated"; for fuel the figures are 19 and 4 (all in the original US). There are also 11 unattached plant sites (1 in Canada). Unfortunately for the SW, none of the metal sites is adjacent to the region. FW is the only region adjacent to metal site area 1207, MW to the Canadian metal area 1615, while MW and NE are both adjacent to Canadian area 1320 (with a plant and metal site) and to the extra-rich area 07 18 (with 2 plants and a fuel site as well as a metal site). The SW is adjacent to 1014 and 1015 with 3 plants between them. Given the above, "logical" expansions of territory would see FW getting 1207 and 1408 for a metal and a fuel site, NE getting 1320 to ease its metal problems, and MW 0718 to pick up more fuel, leaving SW to alleviate its plant if not metal shorts by getting 1014 and 1015. The problem is that expansion itself is not too logical, especially early in the game. Only MW and SW have extra transport to

devote to this, and no one really has enough CPs (or money, for that matter) to expend on it. Adding areas will add population that must be mechanized and ultimately provided with CPs, meaning that the ultimate industrial capacity will have to be larger. Ex- pansion done too early will slow industrial growth and possibly allow other players to get too much of a lead; waiting too long will run the risk of someone else grabbing the choice real estate. In addition, lack of sites or the need to have the most areas in order to win may force one to expand. In short, the question of expansion is one of the many headaches the game provides for us all.

Regional Strategies

The various stockpiles and allocatable mech points each region begins with will cause them each to "start up" in a different fashion. Possible strategies for each are outlined below for the first two or three turns. NE: With a food reserve of only 3, this region must put most of its labor into farming and hope for at least a 90% crop on the first turn (the odds in favor of this are 5-1). Put 26 labor into farming, 2 into transport (mandatory), and 2 with the 2 allocatable mech points into industry. On the first turn, build 4 mech points, placing 2 into farming. If you don't need to trade for food and can trade a mech point for at least three metal points, do so, placing the last mech point (and another labor) into industry. This will allow the building of 6 mech points on turn 2. If you cannot trade for metals, place the fourth mech point and a labor into your metal sector to provide raw material for turn 2 production, when you will again build 4 mech points. On the first turn, expend CPs only on sectors in which you have mech points, so they can be used the next turn. Failure to expend a CP on transport will cause you to drop into Social State 0 on turn 2, but this is no real problem. It will prevent you from conducting plebiscites, which you are in no position to do anyway. At any rate, you will now have 25 labor and 8 mech points in farming, allowing you to withstand another 90% harvest even if your food reserve is gone. At the end of turn 2 you will be out of metal and CPs, so plan on producing these on turn 3 if no trade prospects are in sight. In general, concentrate on building mech points to put into your farming and manufacturing sectors, and for export to get the fuel and metal you need to operate. After several turns, you should have enough cushion in farming to divert labor and mech to your own fuel and metal sectors if necessary. If you can export fuel to obtain metal, do so and keep your mech points at home. MW: This region has a larger food reserve, 7, but has only one fuel point on hand. Still, this is enough for domestic and limited foreign trade on turn one, so this region can essentially follow the same plan as the NE, with the advantage of having an extra

allocatable mech point, and not having to trade off mech points for metal. The extra mech point can go into production of metal for export, hopefully to obtain more mechanization. Unlike the NE, though, the MW will have to trade for or produce both fuel and CPs on turn 2. S W: This region has the largest food and fuel stockpiles, enough metal for first turn use and enough CPs and extra transport on hand to expand on the first turn. But where to expand? Area 1015 would net 2 plants immediately, but taking area 0616 would place you adjacent to the rich 0718 area, in a position to battle NE and MW for it. The SW has an advantage over the other two eastern regions in that it can start with 3 labor and 3 mech points in industry and build itself 6 mech points on the first turn. It can for a while out-manufacture the industrial NE, but it will have to import more metal and spend a lot of capacity either building plants or expanding into plant-bearing areas. FW: The FW is essentially the same as the NE except the threat of a bad first crop isn't as debilitating. Fuel is less available and more in demand for foreign trade, but more allocatable mech points and CPs are available to permit fuel and/or metal production on the first turn. Because of the distances involved, the FW may find itself less involved in trade and forced to be more self-reliant than the other regions.

Free Market

Trade is heartily recommended by the designer; it allows you to obtain goods without expending labor or CPs directly on them. It requires, however, that somebody has a surplus of what you want while you can provide him with what he wants. Obviously, if everybody produces mech points for export on the first turn, trade will be stymied. It is of paramount importance for players to constantly communicate, so they can plan production of goods and raw materials based on what they anticipate importing and ex- porting. Unfortunately, a string of bad har- vests in the early game can sink you; a player who finds himself continually forced to build mech points to pay for food imports will never be able to adequately mechanize any of his sectors until he either gets a run of good crops or resorts to draconian measures like starvation and dissociation. As the rules on trade say, "this is a free market situation," and the old saw applies that the true value of a thing is what someone is willing to pay for it on the open market. Values will fluctuate, of course; you will gladly pay more for food when facing starvation than when you have a surplus yourself. It is in trade that much of the competition in this game arises, as players deal not only to obtain for themselves but to deprive others. Certain principles apply, epitomized by such phrases as "over a barrel" or "by the short hairs." It is easier to deal from strength than weakness, and if you are the sole source of something, you can name your price. But no one is likely to either corner the market or be

totally out of something, so absolute monopolies will be rare. Most of the time, mutual back-scratching will be required (though mutual backstabbing must always be watched for). While market values will have to fluctuate, everyone should have his own guidelines when entering into deals. Those presented here are not holy writ, but seem to be a reasonable basis for negotiation. First, cash is a minor commodity. Unless you frequently engage in contested plebiscites, you should be able to tax yourself for more cash than you will ever need. Take it in return for real goods only if you must or if it is a sweetener to a deal. On the other hand, if you can buy real goods for cash you don't need, do so gladly. Secondly, real goods can be classified as one or more of the following types: Raw Material, Manufactured, Durable, Con- sumable, and Productive. Food, fuel and metal all are consumable RM and as such can be regarded as basically equivalent, or equal in value. This is biased by the general market condition that food is scarcer in the early game, fuel becomes more in demand later, and metal starts out valuable and gets more so; even so, short-term supply/demand considerations will be the final determinant. All other goods are manufactured, and all but CPs are durable. Of the Durables, mech points are Productive as they can be combined with labor to create more RM or manufactured goods. Plant and transport points are in their own ways essential to productivity, but are not directly productive. Plants are like RM sites and transport something like idle labor in that they consume without producing, except that they are "essential overhead." Trade of manufactured goods for other manufactured goods or RM is muddled by the fact that industrial capacity has been used in their making. A trade of 2 plants and 3 fuel points for 3 transport and 1 metals point plus $4 is exactly even in one sense, but not in others. Similarly, the face value of 1 transport point is the same as 2 mech and 1 fuel point, but this ignores the productive nature of the mech points. The player trading them away is giving up not only the 3 "production points" it cost to make them, but the productivity they would yield in the future as well. Along these same lines is the consideration that when any manufactured goods are produced for trade purposes, the manufacturing player is foregoing the manufacture for his own use of mech points and the productivity they represent. Consumer points are especially hard to evaluate, since they are by definition consumable manufactured goods. A player trading one away should certainly try to get in return the RM represented, but something additional as well to pay for the manufacturing "cost." Trading of mech points should recover the "face value'' and something beyond to pay for the future productivity (which of course will decline as the end of the game approaches). This concept is similar to that of the present value of money, or dis- counting.

Keeping all this in mind, one mech point is worth at least one transport point; early in the game, it is worth at least 5 RM points (more, if payment is deferred or spread out). On the other hand, a Consumer point (face value 1.4) should bring at least 3 RM, if not a piece of some other manufactured goods. In one game, a player chose to make 10 CPs which he traded away, for a net result of 3 mech points received for 2 fuel points expended. This was lousy trading because he could have built himself 6 mech points at the cost of 3 metal points. In effect, he "saved" one point of raw material at the cost of 3 mechs. A transport point, as noted, is worth less than a mech but should always fetch 3-5 RM points in a trade. The value of a plant built for export is hard to pin down, except to note the building player could almost build 4 mech points for the same cost. These are all rough guides, highly sensitive to market conditions and a player's immediate needs. For example, two players may make a seemingly unequal trade of manufactured goods just because producing what they do allows 100% utilization of industrial capacity. Cash values have not been discussed because they are distinctly secondary. These guidelines will not guarantee prosperity in every trade, but they should prevent unmer- ciful fleecing.

Options and Variations

In the ordinary ten turn game, no one should be able to reach Social State 3, let alone higher. There are optional rules worth con- sidering, however, which will alter this. Rule 28.0 provides for investment in R&D to increase productivity, and rule 30.0 allows ex- penditure of fuel in the farm sector (as fer- tilizer) to increase harvest dice rolls. Neither of these will have time to have much effect, however, unless coupled with rule 36.0, the Open-Ended Game. This dispenses with the 10 turn limit, allowing the game to go on "until one player literally dominates the others." This is all that is said about ending the game, or victory conditions. I suggest the game end when one player controls 3 1 of the 60 areas, at which time the standard victory point formula is applied.

While this open version provides plenty of time for a player to bootstrap himself up several social states, it will probably see another phenomenon - rapacious expansion and military adventurism. An industrial capacity of 10, with sufficient raw materials, would allow a player to build 10 CPs, a transport point and 2 mech points each turn. If he stays in Social State 1, this would allow the acquisition and partial farm mechanization of one new area a turn. Industrial capacity above ten would allow for more mechanization for internal growth, of course, including building up to be able to take 2 or more new areas each turn. And of course once most of the areas on the board have been taken and a lot of mech points put into farming, the player will have both surplus population and industrial capacity for building armed forces. As long as he stays

in Social State 1, size will make might and forcible territorial expansion will be feasible. This sort of game will have a different com- plexion from the standard one. Since there would be no time limit to meet for improvement in social state, this becomes a secon-

dary consideration, while expansion takes on MW. The MW shares 3 of the 8 unattached a greater meaning. Even though no one can areas it starts adjacent to with the SW, which really afford to expand on turns 1 and 2, they is adjacent to 8 altogether. Only the FW does cannot really afford not to. The NE, for ex- not have to "share" any of its 7 unattached ample, is adjacent to only 4 unattached areas areas. Of the 6 unattached areas east of the at the start, and 3 of these are shared with the Mississippi, only two (Florida) are not adja-

Military Units The discussion in the main text of the cost of raising and maintaining military units was not strictly accurate in that it overstated the pessimistic case. For one thing, if a labor point is used in a military unit, it does not also consume food and CPs as a civilian. Infantry and mechanized divisions eat one food and two CPs each turn, the same as civilians in Social State 3, while militia consume the same as State 2 civilians. Military maintenance costs are then at least partly absorbed by the reduced civilian labor support cost at all social levels. Similarly, the cost of mobilizing a unit need not all be paid in one turn - transport and metal points can be drawn from existing stock. The remaining cost which must be paid at time of mobilization is the industrial capacity used and the production lost because the labor is not available for other work. In a fully mechanized society, the latter loss is one plus the number of mech points idled. Since most military action will probably take place in Social State 1, this will be a minimum, especially since the labor will probably come from a not- fully-mechanized farm sector anyway. The lost productivity cost to raise an infantry division will usually be only 2 or 3 Production Points. The cost to mobilize militia does not involve any productivity loss, since the labor involved must be drawn from the farm sector after it has produced its share of the harvest. In fact, a somewhat weaselish procedure can be used with militia. The rules do not clearly state it, but demobilization occurs after mobilization in the military mobilization phase. If a player were unable to use his full industrial capacity due, for instance, to a raw material shortage, it would be well worth the $1 per unit cost to mobilize enough militia to utilize full capacity. These could then be demobilized back into the farm sector in the same phase. A more far-fetched but still possible ploy is to convert labor points to militia to reduce the number of CPs needed to maintain Social State 3, assuming the lost production would not be missed the following turn. The average region discussed in the text, with its population of 40, would need 97 production points worth of raw materials, CPs and industrial capacity to maintain itself in Social State 2. Call this its Gross National Product. For each infantry division it would maintain (assuming available labor and neglecting the effect

on GNP of the added CPs required) it would need 1 Food and 2 Consumer Points, costing 3.8 Production Points. This is about 4% of the GNP. In comparison, armaments cost as a percent of GNP in 1975 were for the US 6%, for the USSR between 11 and 13%, and for Israel 34.6%. This comparison is highly suspect, of course, as it is absurd to equate a region of this game in Social State 2 with one of these countries in terms of GNP per capita, and the "game GNP" I have defined is only roughly comparable to GNP as computed by economists. But it is useful as a rough guide, and it shows that enormous size and affluence is needed to produce and maintain major military forces without wrenchingly high costs. The gamer cannot avoid the fact that to maintain one Labor Point in the form of an infantry division will cost the output of almost 4 Labor/Mech Points, which in turn will have to be supported by the remaining productive force. Despite all these difficulties, there are sure to be games in which someone will employ military units. How are they best to be used? Because of the small numbers of units a player can afford, armies will not be very large and it may seem that to eliminate the enemy's army is the best objective. This Clausewitzian amroach is not always applicable, though.Because of the mechanics of combat, it requires a great force to have a decent chance of eliminating units in combat, and even when this can be accomplished, exploitation is not possible until the next turn, giving the enemy time to mobilize new units. In such circumstances, action against an opponent's economic base is more practical. Most of the areas on the map have control center hexes adjacent to one or more other areas, and no area has more than one hex between its control center and at least one other area. The supply rules are such that as long as a unit is itself adjacent to a friendly area (barring enemy Zones of Control) it has a supply line. This means every control center can be attacked from at least one nearby area. Fur- ther, since military supply is determined prior to movement, divisions can move "out of supply" to attack and not face the consequences until the following turn (by which time they may be in a friendly area as a result of a plebiscite). A few divisions, not necessarily supported by supply units, could go about forcibly dissociating enemy areas. The only way to defend from this would be for the victim to have

nearly as strong a force and to be in the happy position of moving after the ag- gressor. To be used, units must be mobilized. This should not be done until the turn they are to be used, to save costs and possibly to surprise an opponent (another case where player order can be important). However, unemployed labor must be available at the time of mobilization, and deliberately unemploying labor in the prior turn may spoil the surprise. The alternative of always having some unemployed labor floating around suffers in that besides the productivity loss incurred, their presence may force the degradation of good controlled areas to poor ones.

Order of Play The rules state that most of the time, the order in which the players move is irrele- vant, but when it may make a difference, they should determine who should go first by some random method. The trouble with this is that if they still move in the same order, much of the benefit will be lost. Consider the NE player. 75% of the time he would move before the MW player or after the FW player, and 50% of the time he will move before or after the SW player. In other words, any player stands only a 25% chance of moving after the player who follows him in the normal order (i.e, when that player is the first to move). To eliminate this bias, the complete order should be determined at random, not just the starting point.

Limits to Growth As long as players are sticking to victory conditions that require upgrading of social state, CPs will be the main brake on growth in that one must always be able to produce or obtain them and/or the raw material needed to make them. This is not strictly a zero sum proposition, but resources are limited. If the 60 areas on the board were treated as a single region with a population of 300, then to maintain a social state of 2 would require 300 CPs. This would require an Industrial Capacity of 180, and 120 Food points (plus 300 for subsistence), 60 Fuel Points (plus 6 for internal trade) and 60 Metals Points. The available plant and raw material sites could produce 68 Metal, 92 Fuel and 216 Industrial Capacity points if each were manned with three Labor and one Mech Point, the maximum allowable in Social State 1. This would leave insuffi- cient labor in the farm sector, however, so greater mechanization, paid for by in-

-

21

cent t o a region, while the Grea t it. The NE can't control 31 areas without tion expansion every four turns he will have Plains/Rocky Mountain stretch from taking some away from other people. close to 200 labor points to provide CPs for Canada to Mexico contains 11 non-adjacent The player with the most areas will determine just to make Social State 2. his will pro- areas. Clearly the FW and SW can expand when the game ends, by not taking the 31st bably force him to build plants, since there freely for some time, the MW less so, and the area until he is ready. In the meantime, he are only 54 on the board. At the same time, a NE only as much as the MW and SW will let will have a lot of building to do; with popula- smaller region may be using improved

[continued on pow 241

creasing the sector states of everything There is an activity which is "profitable" labor point and spend part of his 16 points but farming would be needed to allow a for the player. To build 5 CPs costs $3 to provide the transport needed) and can stepwise increase of the regional social cash, but requires 4 points of Raw build odd numbers of Mech Points if state. In Social State 3, 120 Metal Points Material and 3 of Industrial Capacity be desired. After this building is completed, per turn would be needed, but with only produced and thus added to the tax base. the players will determine the size of their 17 sites, a maximum of 102 could be pro- When the 5 CPs are consumed, they can various stockpiles. These will be the sum duced (if the sector state for metals were be taxed as well, for a total contribution of numbers rolled on dice; for food, 2 bumped to 4, it could still only produce to the tax base of 12 factors. Taxing at dice; metal and fuel, one die each; for 119 Metal Points). The ceiling for fuel is 30% or better will thus recover more cash CPs, 3 dice; for money, 3 dice plus $6. somewhat higher, and the Industrial than was needed to build the CPs. Having determined the stockpiles, players Capacity ceiling is of course mobile since A Military Variant Scenario allocate Labor and Mech Points and more plants can be built. This is just begin play. All sectors are considered to another way of demonstrating what Gary The designer in the be in Sector State 1 for the first turn. A Kodish proved generally in MOVES 32, game be the impr0vement the lot player is out of the game if his capital area that the upper social states are unat- the people by the upgrading of is ever dissociated. If this happens, any tainable. The only way to get around the State- Less minded people player who acquires one of that region's site limitation is to increase productivity may argue that the true "best" way areas by plebiscite in the same turn gets by buying R&D. serve the people of this war shattered na- the Transport Point for the area, a pro- R&D can be undertaken in all four sectors tion would be to reunite them under a portionate share of the region's popula- plus the military. Assuming "rational" single government. For them, the primary tion and of the Mech Points assigned to players, the latter will be ignored as no objective is thus the acquisition of land. agriculture or sites in the area. once the one will build an army. Transport will be This variant is designed to allow a player turn in which the region falls apart is past, ignored because it mainly benefits those to Pursue either of the two courses, and it a11 the areas are treated like any other who expand to many areas. Of the rest, includes a simplified "pre-deployment unassociated areas. farm R&D seems the most attractive. recovery game" that gives each player There are two victory conditons. The Most of a player's labor is in farming, so more of everything to start with, so he can game ends following the turn in which an increase in productivity would bring throw his weight around earlier without ,ither was achieved. ~f both are

worrying so much about where his next in the same turn, the player achieving con- the largest increase in actual output (and meal is coming from- the most $ return on investment). dition A wins. However, the cost for this is stiff $6-8 on Each player has as his capita1 the capital victory Condition A: Be the first to be in the first turn for any of the players, and it of one of the fourregions. Eachthenadds Social State 2 for 3 consecutive turns. will go up as Mech Points are added. another five areas through the following Farm R&D, if successful, will be most bid procedure. Each player will list three victory Condition B: Have at least 31

beneficial early in the game, before areas in order of the priority he wants to areas in good and be at least in

mechanization increases so that surpluses claim them. Each then reveals his number State

are generally obtained anyway. Similar 1 pick, and if he is the only one to claim it, Military Mobilization and

considerations on a smaller scale apply to it is his. If more than one claim an area, Maintenance Costs

plant R&D. AS Mech Points are added, ~ O S S ~ S S ~ O ~ is determined by die roll, and Produc-

the costs go up. The situation is a bit dif- the loser gets his number 2 choice (unless Unit tivity Stock

ferent for fuel and metal production, it Was claimed number 2 by someone else Type Cost Cost Total

however. ~ o s t players will soon reach a who did not get his first choice either, in Mech Div

plateau in their manning/mechanization which case repeat the above). If somehow Mobilize 5,6,7 13.0 18.0,19.0,20.0 of these sectors, because of site limita- a player is unable to get any of his three Maintain 2,3,4 4.8 6.8,7.8,8.8 tions or actual need, so the investment choices, then after everyone else has got- Inf Div cost will stay fairly constant (and fairly ten an area, he can pick any available Mobilize 3,4,5 5.0 7,8,9 low), at'least through the mid-game. eligible area. Each player may get only Maintain 2,3,4 3.8 5.8,6.8,7.8

one area in each round of bidding, and ~ i l i ~ i ~ p t Cash payback of R&D costs, in the form only five rounds are conducted. Players Mobilize 1,1,1 0 1,1,1 of increased production and therefore may only bid on areas either adjacent to taxes, will be very slow in most sectors their capitals or adjacent to an area adja- Maintain 2,3,4 2,4 4.4,5.4,6.4

though. If, for example, a player invests cent to their capitals (similar to the rule in Unit

$6 on Turn 1 in farming and immediately 26.0). No money is expended in this bid- Mobilize 1.1.1 8.0 9,9,9

gets a 10% bonus, this will amount to ding. Productivity Cost is the industrial capaci- only 3-4 extra Food Points for the next After five rounds of bidding, everyone ty required plus the lost production of the several turns. Taxed at 50%, this increase will have 6 areas. The areas come with a Labor Point involved, assuming full would take 3-4 turns to pay back the cash total population of 33, 6 Mech Points in mechanization at Social States 1,2, and 3. invested (not that a cash payback period the farm sector and 6 Transport Points. Stock Cost is that part of the cost that can of 3-4 years is all that bad in the real In addition, each player may freely build be stored prior to mobilization/mainten- world). There is no question that suc- up to 16 Industrial Capacity Points of ance, i.e., food, fuel, metal, Cps, and cessful R&D will help one's economy, but anything except CPs. He need not pay any Transport Points, all expressed in terms it should not be thought of as a money other cost for these items (except if he of the "productive points" needed to maker. builds a military unit he must provide the produce them.

-

ADDENDA & ERRATA

WACHT AM RHEIIV Clarifications and New Rules (as of July, 7977) compiled by Joe Balkoski

As a result of post-publication playtesting, the following errata and addenda has been assembled to clarify and correct various errors or ambiguities in the original game com- ponents. The errata follows the sequence of the Wacht am Rhein rules folder.

Counter-Mix: (1) The German 560 VG Division's regiments as printed on the counters are in error. They should read 1128, 1129, and 1130 rather than 128, 129, and 130 respectively. (2) The German 9 Panzer Division has a tank battalion with a misprinted designation. It should read 1/11/9P rather than 1/119P. (3) The British engineer battalion260/42xx should read 260/43xx. (4) The German 26 VG Division should have an engineer battalion; this is not provided in the countermix. This is a standard VG engineer unit: 1-3-6. (5) The U.S. 741 tank battalion is duplicated in the counters. The correct battalion is 741/2xx. The 741/99xx is not used. (6) Players should ignore the Corps attachments on the following German HQ units: 3PG, I5 PC, 9P, 1 IP. When these Divisions enter the map as reinforcements, they may attach themselves to any corps HQ on the map, but once attached.they may never switch corps (or armies) for the remainder of the game. Map: (1) The River connecting the SE hexside of C1826 with the SE hexside of (21824 should not be a River; it should be a Creek.

(2) There should be a Ford between hexes C2433 and C2432, DO336 and D0435, and C3544 and D0244. (3) The road connecting hexes D3104, D3105, and D3005 does not bridge the Sauer River. The road is considered to stop at the River at all points. Rules Clarifications and Corrections: 17.311 (Clarification) Units in March Mode may never enter a Woods hex, although a unit in Tac- tical Mode on a Woods/Road hex may go into March Mode. [8.42] (Clarification) This rule stands without exception. An HQ unit in a Town or Village hex that is adjacent to Enemy units during its Friendly Combat Phase is still eliminated.

19.251 (Clarification) Two U.S. company-size units may enter March Mode under one March Mode marker as a team if they started that Friend- ly Movement Phase in the same hex. 110.4, 10.51 (Clarification) The maximum number of Regimental Integrity and Combined Arms bonuses that may be awarded per attack is one, regardless of how many attacking stacks possess it. [10.8] (Modification) Combat results take effect after all attacks made from a single hex have been rolled for. If two units in a single hex are attacking different hexes, no combat results may be applied until the second attack has been resolved. If, in one attack the defender could advance and in the other the attacker could advance, then neither Player may advance his unit after combat.

[10.94] (Clarification) Advancing units must stop when entering an Enemy Rigid Zone of Control, not including the first hex entered in this advance.

111.11 (Clarification) German VG Divisions do have Corps attachments. The starting VG Divi- sions are attached as follows: 212, 276, 352, 5FJ VG's: 7 Army; 26 VG: X L VII Corps; 560 VG: L VIII Corps; 18,62 VG's: LXVI Corps; 12,277, 3FJ VG's; ISS Corps; 326,272,246 VG's; LXVII Corps Reinforcing VG Divisions may attach themselves to any corps or army, but once attached they may never shift corps or army for the remainder of the game. (Note that they may still trace supply to any corps or army HQ.)

111.71 (Correction) The restriction against Ger- man Barrage Strength Points applies only to pure Artillery Strength Points. Rocket Artillery Bar- rage Strength Points are never counted against the 20 Point restriction. Nor do German "120" Ar- tillery units count against this restriction (these are mortars, although this is not indicated on the counters). 111.41 (Clarification) An Artillery unit may not use its FPF Strength if it is adjacent to an Enemy unit. [14.0] (Clarification) All German Artillery units with a Movement Allowance of zero are always considered to be in supply without exception. [15.1] (Correction) Engineer units may attempt to blow a bridge only if they can trace a path of hexes, free of Enemy Zones of Control, to a hex to which the bridge hexside is attached. Friendly units negate Enemy ZOC's in the hexes they occupy for the purposes of tracing this path of hexes. [16.0] (Clarification) Improved Positions and En- trenchments may not be built in the same hex. (16.01 (Clarification) If an Enemy unit comes within three hexes of a Friendly unit that is

building IP's or entrenchments, the IP or en- trenchment marker is immediately removed from play. 116.01 (Correction) Units in March Mode may not build IP's or entrenchments. They may never benefit from the effects of these positions.

117.01 (Clarification) U.S. companies may trace supply to any U.S. HQ unit. 117.01 (Clarification) During the first three Game- Turns of scenarios 25.1, 25.2, and 27.0 U.S. company-size units may receive full support from all artillery units listed under their Division for the starting set-up, plus all Artillery units listed under "Corps Troops" for these set-ups (only of course if the company's Corps is the same as that of the Corps Artillery). After the first three Game- Turns, U.S. company-size units never receive full artillery support from any Artillery unit. Barrage and FPF Strength Points are always halved as described in Case 1 1.14. 119.21 (Correction) For every two Air Points the Enemy Player has allocated to Patrol, the Owning Player must reduce the number of Ground Sup- port and/or Resupply Escort and/or Interdiction Air Points by one. The choice of which Air Points to be reduced is left to the Enemy Player. For example, if 10 German Air Points were allocated to Patrol, the German Player could reduce U.S. Ground Support Points be three, Resupply Escort Points by one and Interdiction Points by one. 119.431 (Clarification) During the Mutual Supply Determination Phase of the U.S. Player-Turn, the U.S. Player may attack any German unit or units that are in March Mode with his Interdiction Air Points. One or more Interdiction AP's must be allocated against each German unit in March Mode that is to be attacked. For example, if the U.S. Player allocated six AP's to Interdiction, he could attack six German units in March Mode at a strength of one, three units at a strength of two apiece, or two units at a strength of three apiece. 121.21 (Correction) Reinforcements whose entry hex is blocked may come on the map up to three entry boxes away from the scheduled entry box. A Game-Turn delay in arrival still takes effect, however. Otherwise, Case 21.22 applies in full.

(22.01 There are several ommisions on the U.S. Master Reinforcement Schedule. These are as follows: Game-Turn 5: C2 (North) - 33/7Axx (E) Game-Turn 7: C7 (North) - 613/V (D-M36) Game-Turn 11: C6 (North) - 745/1xx (T), 20/1xx (E); C2 (North) - 740/VII (T), 643/VIII(D) Game-Turn 12: C7 (North) - 195/VII(A) Game-Turn 17: Dl or 2 (South) - 602/III(D); D3,4, or 5,(South) - 737/III(T), 818/III(D)

Game-Turn 32: Between D4 and B4 (South) - 654/III(D)

[22.0] (Correction) The 9/VII(H) unit listed under Game-Turn 7 reinforcements should be 9/V(H). Delete the 9/V(H) unit from Game- Turn 21 reinforcements for the U.S. Player.

[22.0] (Clarification) Two U.S. units are provided in the counter-mix that are already considered broken down into companies at the beginning of the game. These are the 801/99xx(D) and 612/2xx(D). These units are never used in the game. They are provided for historical purposes only. Additionally, the 610/III(D) U.S. unit is not used in the game.

[22.0] (Correction) Delete U.S. Artillery unit 776/V from Game-Turn 38 reinforcements.

[22.0] (Clarification) The Engineer units of the following German divisions may enter the map with a bridge marker: 11th Panzer, 10th SS Panzer, 3rd and 15th Panzer Grenadier. These bridges are in addition to the others already listed on the Reinforcement Schedule.

[24.1] (Correction) Motorized infantry is any unit in the game with a standard infantry symbol that possesses seven or more Movement Points. It is strongly suggested that Players use this optional rule. Any unit that so converts has its Defense Strength reduced by two, but its Attack Strength reduced by one. 124.3, 24.41 (Clarification) German Truppenein- heit and parachute commando units never effect POL markers. U.S. units may retreat onto Trup- peneinheit units, but not parachute-commando units.

[24.4] ( C o r r e c t i o n ) G e r m a n p a r a c h u t e - commando units must drop on any Clear or Broken hex within five hexes of C1131.

[24.5] (Clarification) Units of the German 150th Panzer Brigade may attempt to leave an Enemy rigid ZOC to enter another hex. This second hex does not necessarily have to be another Enemy rigid ZOC. The 150th Panzer Brigade units d o not have to begin their Movement Phase in an Enemy rigid ZOC; they may enter this ZOC and then attempt to leave it as described in the rules of this Case. If the units are attempting to "infiltrate" in this manner, they d o not pay the one-half M P cost for leaving an Enemy rigid ZOC.

[25.12] (Correction) U.S. units 3/112/28(1) and 1/112/28/(1), starting on hexes DO520 and DO319 respectively, should start the game in Entrench- ments, not Improved Positions.

[25.16] (Clarification) Uncommitted units may not build Improved Positions or Entrenchments, blow bridges, o r breakdown into companies. Un- committed artillery units may use their Barrage and FPF Strength.

[25.22] (Correction) U.S. unit 323/99xx(E) should read 324/99xx(E); the German 18 VG Divi- sion has a Replacement Battalion (1-4-6) that starts on the map within one hex of C2508; the German Artillery unit 116Pxx(150) begins the game on hex C3514 not C3816.

[27.4] (Addition) Special Rule 2 5 . 2 4 applies to the Campaign Game. Special Rule 25.24b does not apply to the Campaign Game.

SUGGESTED RULES CHANGES Post-publication playtesting has indicated that certain rules changes and additions make the game far more realistic. Players should consider the following rules optional. They should be used only by agreement of both Players. However, they should be viewed as official SPI rules.

[11.9] ARTILLERY MOVEMENT

The movement of Artillery units has proven to be confusing and unwieldy. The following changes can solve most of these problems.

[11.91] All non-self-propelled Artillery units may move only in March Mode. They may never move in Tactical Mode. The act of going into March Mode indicates that the Artillery nit ,is Out of Battery. Flip the Artillery unit over to'indicate this state. This obviates the need for March Mode markers on Artillery units since any Artillery unit on its reverse side will be considered in March Mode. All standard March Mode rules apply. Ig- nore Case 6.3 when using this rule. Additionally, revise the "In Battery Segment" of the Sequence of Play to state, "The Player may flip all of his Out of Battery Artillery units to their In Battery sides."

[11.92] Some non-SP Artillery start the game in Woods hexes. Such units may enter March Mode and leave these hexes, but this is the only time during the course of the game that they may d o so.

[11.93] Self-propelled Artillery units may move in both March and Tactical Modes. All SP Artillery units may move up to six Movement Points in Tac- tical Mode without having to go Out of Battery. SP units enter March Mode like other Artillery units - by flipping the unit to its Out of Battery side (thus expending four MP's) and then moving. S P units may never enter March Mode and use their Barrage and F P F Strengths in the same Game-Turn. At the moment a n SP unit in Tactical Mode expends its seventh M P in its Friendly Movement Phase, it is flipped out of Battery.

[11.4] FINAL PROTECTIVE FIRE

These rules are slightly abstracted in Wacht am Rhein in that the Defensive Player has a tremendous leeway over odds determination because he states his F P F last. In a combat, it is suggested that the Attacking Player state his total Attack Strength not inchding any barraging Artillery while the Defensive Player states his total Defense Strength not including any FPF. Then the Defend- ing Player writes down how many F P F Strength Points he is using in support of his defense from Artillery units within range. Before this number is revealed, the Attacking Player states how many Barrage Points are supporting his attack from Ar- tillery units within range. Next, the Defending Player reveals his F P F number while pointing to the Artillery units providing this support. All Divi- sional and Corps Artillery integrity rules must be strictly adhered to by both Players. These Artillery Strengths are added to the proper Player's Stength. A final total is calculated and a ratio determined.

[15.2] GERMAN ENGINEERS AND BRIDGE BUILDING AND REPAIR

German Engineers had the ability to repair destroyed bridges. This occurred frequently in the Battle of the Bulge, although the delays hindered the German advance tremendously. Using this rule, a German Engineer unit may repair a blown bridge from either of the two hexes the bridge formerly connected (unless the Engineer unit is in a U.S. ZOC). The Engineer unit must remain in this hex for two complete Friendly Movement Phases without moving. In the Bridge Building and Blowing Phase following this second consecutive Movement Phase of immobility the blown bridge marker may be removed. The bridge is considered intact again for all purposes.

[31.0] MORALE

The combat rules of Wacht am Rhein allow both Players a complete freedom of choice as to how to retreat and/or take losses among their units suffer-

ing a combat result. This is an abstraction. In the heat of battle, high-ranking officers rarely knew the "strategic situation" other than in their immediate area. It usually didn't work that battalion "x" held its position to the last man so that battalion "y" had a more favorable retreat route - especially when both battalions were engaged in fighting at the same time. Battalion commanders could only act in such a situation on the basis of the morale of the men under their command.

[31.1] Given a n adverse combat result, the affected Player may always choose to retreat his units without restriction (subject of course to the retreat rules).

[31.2] If a Player wishes to take a step loss in lieu of retreating, he must roll a die and refer to the highest Morale Rating possessed by all of his affected units. If the die roll is equal to or lower than this Morale Rating, the Owning Player has complete latitude as to how he may fulfill his combat result for his affected units in that particular combat (as described in Case 10.75). If the die roll is above this Morale Rating, the Owning Player may not take step losses in lieu of retreating for the duration of his retreat. In this case, the units must retreat the required number of hexes (unless the unit is completely surrounded by Enemy-occupied hexes, in which case the unit would be forced to take step losses instead of retreating). At the moment a Player declares that he wishes to take a step loss instead of retreating, he rolls the die. This die roll will determine his ability or inability to control the rest of the retreat.

[31.3] Morale Ratings (for parent formations): U.S. airborne divisions; German SS divisions; British Guards Armored Division: 5 U.S. armored and infantry divisions (non-green - including those listed in Case 24.6); German 26 VG Division; German fallschirmjager divisions; German panzer and panzergrenadier divisions; all remaining British units: 4. All U.S. green divisions; U.S. corps troops; all non-green German VG divisions: 3.

German green VG divisions; non-U.S.-U.K. Allied units: 2. [31.4] All units in a reduced state have their Morale Ratings reduced by one. [31.5] All U.S. company units have Morale Rating of three.

[31.6] When using Morale rules, U.S. airborne battalions should reduce their Attack Strength to three and their Defense Strength to five. U.S. glider battalions should reduce their Attack Strength to two and their Defense Strength to four. The reduced side of airborne battalions should read 1-3-6 and that of glider battalions 1-2-6. Since the publication of Wacht am Rhein we have received numerous letters from all over the world. Most letters have been extremely helpful in working out the wrinkles in the game. We all are grateful to the people who have shown interest in the game and its ad- vancement. A new feeling around SPI among designers and developers is that a game has not reached a deadend with its publication. Many games, especially those of the "monster" variety, can only be corrected and improved with the comments and suggestions of those who have played it exten- sively. We at SPI usually have this ability, mostly due to the helpful letters we have continually received. If errata sheets such as this one go over well we will continue to produce them.

- Joe Balkoski

SCENARIOS 8 VARIANTS

THE LONG PA TROL A Campaign Structure for Patrol by Steven M. Dickes

Every once in a while I have a conversation with a gamerwho has found his name on one of the Patrolcounters and seems inordinate- ly pleased about it. Do we all long for immor- tality? Sans namesake, Mr. Dickes offers here a simple system of connected scenarios that gives you a chance to see how long your alter ego survives. - RAS

One of my favorite conflict simulations is Patrol. It takes a rather complex situation and portrays it in a rather simple but novel game system. It is quite fun too, with the hand grenades, horses, claymores and the barbed wire, which provide for endless opportunities and variants with this game. There is one thing that needs to be portrayed better, and that is the idea of minimizing losses. The preservation rule touches upon this to some extent, but what is needed is a way to portray a battle where survivors of one skirmish are used in another skirmish. This brings us up to the Patrol Campaign Game. In the campaign game, the players will use the three basic scenarios - reconnaissance, assault, and patrol, in that order. To do this, first determine who will be the Alpha (attacking) player and who will be the Bravo (defending) player. Next pick any scenario that has orders of battle for both the Recon- naissance situation and the Assault situation. Now set up the maps and the pieces as per Case 26.6: The Reconnaissance Situation and the orders of battle, except the number of pill-boxes used is the number listed in the Assault order of battle. If there are n o pillboxes listed in the Assault order of battle, then the players should use one pillbox. After playing this situation, move on to the Assault situation, but leave the maps set up as in Case 26.6. The pillbox(es) are also left on the map in the same state as they were at the end of the Reconnaissance situation. So if Alpha saw two pillboxes out of three, the two that were sighted are placed on the map, and the other remains hidden. Use the order of battle from the Assault situation. Also write down the casualties, by unit type from the Reconnaissance situation. After playing the Assault situation, move on to the Patrol situation. Set up the maps and the entry, exit sides as per Case 26.5: The Patrol Situation. The orders of battle for this situation are much different from the other two situations. The survivors of the first two situations are the forces in the Patrol situation. Also, both players may get extra men that were wounded in the previous situations. A player may also get incapacitated men if they get the men off the map or have

possession of the field. The states in which men are received is summarized in the following table. State from State in Previous Patrol Situation Situation Wounded (Recon. Sit.) F

(Assault Sit.) 1-2:F; 3-6:W lncap (Recon. Sit.) 1-2:F; 3-5:W; 6:1

(Assault Sit.) 1:F; 2-3:W; 4-6:1

Explanation: If a man was incapacitated in the Assault situation, for instance, a die is rolled to determine his status in the Patrol situation. If a 1 is rolled, he is Fit (F); 2 or 3 and he is Wounded (W); 4, 5, o r 6 and he is Incapacitated (I) for the Patrol situation.

All fit and wounded men may participate in the Patrol situation. Of course, killed men can not be used, and neither can incapacitated men. If a tank or APC is used in the Assault situation, it can not be used in the Patrol situation.

Victory Conditions: Points are awarded to each player for each situation by that situation's victory point schedule. If a player uses wounded men in the Patrol situation, he must remember which men started the game wounded to avoid giving the other player points for wounding them. The player with the most total points is the winner. General Observations: In this campaign game, a player will be forced to obtain his military objectives with a minimum of casualties. If a player takes high casualties in the first two situations, he will probably lose the Patrol situation, which would give his opponent at least 10 points for possession of the field. This would probably be enough points, in conjunction with his high losses, to cause the player to lose the entire campaign game. If a player needs men for the Patrol situation, he will have to use his wounded men (those which have been upgraded to wounded or those that could not be upgraded to fit from wounded). This is dangerous, because they could be incapacitated easily and they are slow and weak in terms of firepower, grenade throwing ability, and hand-to-hand strength. But it may be necessary to raise the needed manpower t o seriously challenge his opponent in the Patrol situation. Preservation will play a slightly greater role than in a normal scenario of Patrol. In the Patrol situation, if a player is close to reaching his preservation level, he should consider exiting the map. The player will lose possession of the field, but he should still have his points for wounding and killing the enemy. In the Reconnaissance and the Assault situations, both players should stick it out unless losses become too high. Then a

player should consider exiting just so he can have enough men for the Patrol situation. Final Observations: I believe this campaign game adds more realism to Patrol. You can play it in two styles (or combinations thereof). One style is like the U.S. Army. That is to minimize casualties to the point where the entire operation is hindered. Or it could be played like the World War 11 Rus- sians with allout attacks regardless of casualties. This campaign game is similar to a couple of games already on the market. There is Avalon Hill's Wooden Ships & Iron Men, and there is Simlation Publications Inc.'s October War. They both have a campaign game in their rules. These campaign games provide more hours of enjoyment from the games while adding more realism.

A Productive Approach [continued from paze 211

technology t o push above Social State 3 and be in a position to win that way, so that military force to tear down such competition will be required. This type of game should be virtually endless. Players can always chop a monster like this down t o size by creating new victory conditions. Social State could be dispensed with, so the winner is the first to have 31 areas in control, or the one with the most areas in good control when n o uncontrolled areas are left, or the first to double his original population and keep them fed for 2 consecutive turns, ad nauseum.

Details and Diplomacy Players should take to heart the advice given in the Player's Notes section, especially the notion that this is a game that can be lost before you kndw it. The game requires constant attention to detail. You must plan ahead the manning and mechanization of each of your sectors to utilize them most efficiently. You should always watch your opponents' activities to be aware of what they are doing, how it may affect you, how you might pro- fitably interact with them or cut them off. You must possess the charm and subtlety of a snake-oil salesman. Whenever you stab someone, d o it by inaction or by helping a third party, and always have a plausible reason for doing (or not doing) what you did so your victim doesn't see the animosity behind your move. Always be valuable to someone else, the more the better. This discourages the others from ganging up on you, and makes it easier t o recruit your own gang if needed. This game demands all the skills needed for Diplomacy and War in Europe, and not a small amount of luck as well.

GAME PROFILE

MOSCOW CAMPAIGN An Appreciation of a Perennial by L t. Perry Moore

I've received some complaints recently about not paying enough attention to some of SPl's earlier efforts - particularly those games that are of the not-glamorous, but sturdy variety. Moscow Campaign is such an item - and while this short profile by Perry Moore will not quell the clamor, it may spark some of you to generate a more extensive piece on such a game. - R A S

Sept. 30-Oct 2. The Moscow Campaign ex- plodes as German forces tear a 70 mile gap in Soviet lines in the south and 100 miles wide in the north in their drive for Moscow.

Oct. 10-Oct. 12 German Pa,nzers race toward Moscow, wrecking all Russian rail lines.

Oct. 14-Oct. 16 German 9th, 8th, 2nd and 6th Armored Divisions approach Moscow, while fifteen more armored and motorized divisions are 50 miles behind in the mud. The Soviets wait. German High Command orders its forces not to take Moscow, but to wreck the rail net. Nov. 20 German Panzer units are 20 miles out of Moscow. 10th Panzer Division pro- ceeds under orders to slip through enemy lines and cut rail lines 100 miles east of Moscow. Nov. 22 loth Panzer is surrounded; 8th Panzer Division slips through Soviet lines. Front lines are now along the Volga River and 50 miles east of the Oka River. Moscow, its garrison destroyed, is Germany's. Nov. 25 Thirty Soviet divisions pin ten Ger- man divisions in the forests southeast of Smolensk. Dec. 7 German Panzer divisions press on, 30 miles east of Moscow. Out of supply in harsh winter weather, German forces go on the defensive.

Dec. 30-Jan 4 Germany still occupies Moscow. Soviet forces attack repeatedly; several holes in the German line are exploited by Soviet armor brigades. The Germans thin their lines. The Soviets manage to cut supply lines in the north and at Smolensk. Jan. 10-Jan. 12 German units hastily ring Moscow. German Command decides to retreat the armor from Moscow, leaving infantry to defend. Gaps 70 miles across have appeared in the northern lines. German has lost 18 motorized and armor divisions, 31 infantry; the Soviets have lost 88 infantry divisions and 13 armor.

The Soviets had a marginal victory. Had the German lost less armor, he would have had a fairly strong victory. By early April, Moscow would return to the Russians; the Germans had retreated 100 miles west of Moscow to

re-group. The retreat at Moscow was a final blow. Out of 17 divisions, only 3 armor escaped, leaving 14 to die. Only 13 divisions remained of Germany's attack force.

That is a typical action of the SPI game, Moscow Campaign. It is one of those games (like Panzergmppe Guderian) that can be played endlessly for the excitement of the German sweep into Moscow before the rains and mud come, for the tense battles as time becomes a hindrance to the German, for the continual struggle to maintain supply.

Game Systems The game map of Moscow Campaign depicts some 200 miles west of Smolensk to 100 miles east of Moscow. This area is filled with swamps, forests, rivers, rail lines, towns and fortifications.

The game system is double impulse for the German motorized units, single for the Rus- sian. ZOC's are rigid (for Russian supply) and controlled (for movement - if there's a hole in your line, any motorized unit could slip through). Russian ZOC over Germans are the same for movement, but supplies can be traced through (a German unit must be totally surrounded to be unsupplied). There are two combat result charts. The German must have at least 3-1 odds before having any good effect. The Russian must have 4-1 odds. This difference reflects the weaponry and manpower.

Weather especially hinders the German, causing long delays. In most cases, jt halves movement and/or attack (if a German unit is unsupplied in winter, his attack strength is halved twice - once for being unsupplied, the other because it is winter). Weather effects are: rain, mud, freeze and winter. Sup- plies must be within 12 hexes for the German and 6 hexes for the Russian. They must con- nect to unbroken rail lines.

In order to repair a rail line, a EB unit (rail repair) must end its movement in the broken rail hex. Combat is the standard rules common to most games. Overrun is achieved at 11-1 odds. A unit inverts the defender and the overrunning unit may attack another unit, then move, thus destroying two units. Special units include broken rail markers, Soviet trains, EB units, and fortification destroyed markers. The game contains 24 different scenarios, each with a different OB and starting season.

Tactics The German player: The German offensive power is their Panzer divisions (6-8, 5-8,4-8, 3-8, 2-8). If too many are destroyed, the German will lose. He should use this power in the opening week,

when the weather is good. He can cause severe losses if concentrated, and he can even arrive in Moscow before the rains. It is essential that these units break out and cut as many rail lines as they can, weakening the Soviets and causing higher losses. When the armor arrives at Moscow, the German player must decide whether to attack or not. If he does and loses, it is very costly. Or he may continue east of Moscow and hope to cut as many lines as he can (he may find himself promptly surrounded). Still he could sit there, waiting for the infantry before attacking:The latter is best, for the infantry will take the losses. The problem here is that they rarely arrive earlier than mid-November. Cutting supply is the key to both sides. Also, punching as many holes in the front line as one can (you get 1 VP for each hole each turn) is important. In December, the German must be in good defending position against the increasing Russians. The Russian Player A glance at the Russian OB is depressing. All units are either 1-4 or 1-10, except a few 5-10, 3-10 and 4-10 in December. The Russian should concentrate on cutting supplies and attacking weak units, and just getting in the way. The Fortifications are a good defense only if the German attacks that way; if he attacks from the south, they are useless. In any case, defend Moscow. The [I]-10 units must be stacked with other non-bracketed units in order to be useful. They are valuable for slipping through holes in the line and raising hell, though they are easily destroyed by German units. Moscow is important for, if the German succeeds in cutting rail lines east of Moscow and captures the city, then no more EB units are available. This makes the rail lines permanently dead, further weakening the Soviets.

As long as the Soviet player destroys several armor units and their KG counterparts, he will have a good chance. His finest hour comes in December, when his heavy armor arrives. For the first six turns, he should retreat from the clear areas, for he'll only be destroyed (forests are excellent defenses). Both sides should protect their EB units. In December, the Soviet player should concentrate his armor on unsupplied victims, engulfing them. Then he should send armor through the numerous holes in the German line to destroy any supply routes. If the Ger- man continues to survive, just keep at it, bit by bit.

Final That is basically the game system and tactics. It is an exciting game for both sides, and the rules are clear and work well.

(continued on page 261

OPERATIONAL ANAL YSIS

WURZBURG Stacking the Odds for the Novice by Jack ~ludis-

There is a problem in recruiting and teaching new players: they tend to get depressed when they are (inevitably) trounced in the first full game that they play. Mr. Bludis attempts to provide a solution to this situation by suggesting the use of what he considers an ideally unbalanced scenario from the most popular of the Modern Battles games. Now what do we do for the "expert" who loses his first game to his student? - R A S

The folio game Wurzburg (Modern Battles Quad) has been rated steadily as one of SPI's most widely enjoyed games. It is reasonably complex, and it can be played in part of an evening. With four scenarios, it is a game that can be played again and again and enjoyed by beginner and aficionado alike. Because of the overwhelming advantages of the Russian Player in "Siege of Wurz- burg" scenario, it can be used by an ex- perienced player to introduce war gaming to a beginner, and the beginner will have a better than average chance to win. It's a "hang on" type of game. That is, if the American player can maintain at least one unit in Wurzburg with a line of supply by the eighth move, the American is the winner. But as the game note says, "The Americans have their hands full with this one." It's an accurate statement, and it is therefore suggested that the better player take the American side in this scenario. The U.S. player will probably find that his best defense is to establish a line from Waldbuttelbrunn in the west to Rottendorf east of Wurzburg, taking full advantage of the special "Shift-four." 2-3-12 city defense units and filling the spaces between with the other units. It is best to hold this line for as long as possible, being careful not to get backed up against rivers with odds that favor the Russian player. That in itself is a tall order, but with skill the American Player can hold onto the north bank of the Main for as long as three moves - as long as five moves if he is particularly skillful or particularly fortunate - but he must know that the north bank has to eventually be given up and his strong line of resistance set up in the hexes just south of the river. The American Player must try for as long as he can to prevent the Russians from turning either flank. Initially, the artillery units should be placed just north of Wurzburg and used almost exclusively on defense. In subsequent turns, they should be moved to the rough hexes south of the city. The pieces themselves should be used almost exclusively for defensive purposes - since this is where their strength lies. Also, it is very important for the American player to remember to use his ground support points. In them, perhaps,

lies his only chance of victory. The special helicopter unit should be used to plug gaps in the line or for sheer diversion. Sometimes Russian units can be slowed down solely by this versatile but expendable unit. It is the Russian Player who has the overwhelming advantage in this game, however. Russian forces enter the game with six 3-2-12 units, which should be massed with artillery behind them. Used together, they are almost invincible before any American defense. These units can blast a hole in the American defense and surrround the American front line, but they must not permit themselves to be surrounded in the operation. The best use of these units is by direct frontal attack or along the Main River to the west. Unlike the American artillery, the Soviet artillery should be used almost exclusively on offense. The 1-2-12 units should be used to envelop. If the stronger units are used for a direct frontal attack, the 1-2-12's should be used six along the Main to the east and six along the Main the west in an attempt to surround the Americans. If the 3-2-12's are used along the Main in the west, the weaker units should be massed together in an effort to envelop the Americans from the east. In the early moves, the Americans must fight for every hex to allow the reinforcements time to take their positions. The Americans must continue to blast up the central road, keeping it free of Soviet units which may cut off the American line of supply. He must also never give up his "shift-four" locations unless a Soviet victory is certain. The smart Soviet player will know that a time will come when he should ignore these units, but it's surprising-how often a player who should know better will use troops to try to crush them which would better be used by pressing on to Wurzburg or enveloping the American flanks. Conversely, the American player should recognize when the enemy has given up on these units and bring them back into play as soon as possible. They can often be used in a surprise move that pins the enemy against a river or helps surround him with the help of other units. The Active CRT table should be used by the Russians, not in any special turn, but whenever it seems most appropriate - for example when he has several American units "caught" on the north bank of the main, or even within a hex of it. The Active table should be used by the Americans particularly on the last turn of the game to blast their way back into Wurzburg and to achieve victory that may not otherwise be possible. Another time it might be used by the American is when he has several Soviet power units surrounded, and he has some of his rare superiority with Ground Support Points.

This can be a frustrating scenario for the American when the players are of equal ability. It can be a good training scenario for a new player. The American rarely achieves victory, but when he does, it is particularly satisfying. One way to even the odds is to cut the game turns from eight to seven or even six according to the relative skill of the players, but that's a whole new ball game.

True Victory [continued from page 101

John Keegan, The Face of Battle. Viking, N.Y., 1976.

V. Lettow-Vorbeck, Napoleons Untergong 1815. Mittler, Berlin, 1904.

Carl v. Plotho, DerKrieg des verbundeten Europa gegen Frankreich im Jahre 1815. Amelang, Berlin, 1818.

Robert Quimby, The Background of Napoleonic Warfare . . . . Columbia University, New York, 1957.

J. C. L. Regnault, La campagne de 1815, mobilization et concentration. Fournier, Paris, 1935.

H. C. B. Rogers, Napoleon'sArmy. Hippocrene, New York, 1973.

William Siborne, History of the War in France and Belgium, in 1815. Boone, London, 1848.

Strategy & Tactics, various issues. Simulations Publications, New York.

Jac Weller, Wellinglon at Waterloo. Crowell, New York, 1967.

Walter Wood, ed., The Despatches of Field- Marshal The Duke of Wellington . . . . Dutton, New York, 1902.

Moscow Campaign [continued from page 251

In real life, the Germans had a good shot at it. In fact, the only thing that stopped the Germans was the weather - not the Rus- sians. The game victory conditions require that the German achieve a 3-1 ratio for a marginal victory. Any thing below 3-1 will be a Soviet victory. A German decisive victory requires a 6 1 ratio, and at times the German achieves this. In all cases, the German must maintain low attrition of his own forces and cause enormous Soviet losses. He must protect his armor and attack with infantry. The Germans could have taken Moscow and some 40 miles east of it. It would be up to the Russians to surrender or fight. If the Soviets fought, Moscow would probably be retaken unless the German had been supplied from the air (it was not covered in the game). Whether the Russians would have sur- rendered after the Germans had taken Moscow will always be a "what if."

Your Moves

Bill Tallen: A design/policy (I'm not sure what to call it) decision I'd like to see is that put forth by Berg in his commitment to continually update TSS. When you have a winning system (a game that sells?), don't just pat yourself on the back and hustle on to the next project. The main reason I have been a big consumer of new games is that I have found few that 1 am really happy with. Now I realize that you are in it to make money, and that means selling games. But please, to some extent, honor your, um, prior achievements and their 'dedicated following'. Surely a sizable portion of your market does play a good game more than once . . . and those of us who do have a great deal of appreciation for a show of continued interest, be i t timely issue of errata, production and publication of variants and scenarios from whatever source, or above all the sort of 'Designer Returns to the Scene' article that Berg has given us for TSS. I look for this sort of involvement of the designer/developer with his games for this reason: amateur designers and apt historian-gamers can always take a game and modify i t for a more 'naturalistic' or realistic result - I often do, particularly with the tactical games. But where true realism as opposed to 'naturalism' (I liked your comments on the difference, Redmond), or playability fairly demands alteration of a game, I would like to see the designer return to it, with the backing of the research and playtest facilities at his disposal, and his familiarity with the submerged part of the iceberg (that is the convoluted reason- ing and balancing of factors that produced the 'tip' we players see). Thus we might have 'official' rules changes, or at least authoritative suggestions which I consider more trustworthy than our amateur uniformity . . . I like to be able to play a game in its 'corrected' form without an hour's dispute over whose home-baked corrections to apply. Following through on a game in the post- publication environment is certainly a worthy idea. In many respects, the errata sheets routinely issued by SPI perform that function. System modifications are a little harder to handle, but not impossible. Some of the obstacles to doing so are: staff turnover, limitations on time, and - as a game ages - the inevitable lessening of involvement with it on the part of the designer. We do try to do as much as we can along this line, of which you'll soon be seeing evidence. -RAS

Wesley D. Ives: I play the Big Games; often with one or more opponents, sometimes solo, but they do get used. The map for WITE (first edition) is slowly wearing out from repeated stapling to the table; I've played TSS three times, with the same opponent; Wellington's Victory is currently set up at a friend's house - I've played that one twice before, and he and I have not yet reached a decision point in this game we have set up now; I played HWTR through, twice, solitaire, trying to get a feel for the rules . . . I feel that the main value of the Big Games is the signal lack of the "Game Die Roll." I cannot count on blind luck to pull a dumb move to safety; neither can I rely on my luck to cause the other player's well-planned attack on my hasty, ill-prepared defense to fail. Every single attack in the Big Games consists of at least several smaller attacks, so the odds catch up with you

right then, not over a series of attacks in a series of games. The map i~ simple and compelling - if an "AE" shows up 1/6 of the time, then when 1 attack the Fletches in Borodino, there'sa 1/6 chance that 1'11 be wiped out. The same attack in Bataille de la Moscova would be spread over three 20-minute turns instead of one hour-long turn, would involve twenty or thirty units, and around seventy die rolls. If the same 1/6 chance obtains a bad result, you can easily see that I would have to totally defy the laws of probability tocause this attack to fail. (Since I have neither Borodino or BdlM before me at the moment, I hope you'll read the previous in the light intended - as an example of whal could happen, not as a reflection of the state of affairs in either Borodino or BdlM. I don't even remember if there are AE's on the Borodino CRT).

The fragile nature of games with a limited number of die-rolls is an unfortunate aspect of most low- unit-count games - level~ng your luck with seventy die-rolls per turn, however, seems to me to be a somewhat dubious trade-off. Personally, I prefer operational level games - not too fragile and playable in one long evening. -RAS

Bruce Degi: I would like to comment on the letter from Richard Wilson and your reaction to it in #33 concerning Math related articles and why there are those of us who find them very distasteful. There are two reasons that I do not bother with such things: (I) My only exposure to math above the high school level was from a Japanese graduate student in Freshman Calculus who could not speak a word of English. When I see pages of equations like the ones for ATH I have hot flashes, complete with visions of fishhead-and-rice-covered final exams. (2) More importantly, however, I think I can explain my position best by relating it to my own field. I was (and until 1 can get out of Grad School - still am) an English Major. In the study of literature or poetry, for example, there are those who become very excited on taking a written work and applying all manner of conventional and dried up rules, laws, forms etc. to tear a work down to its bones. This, I suppose is fine. But a work of art exists as more than thesum of its parts. YES, poetry does have form and shape and iambic pentameter and so on. YES, the poet was well aware that he was using such things when he wrote it and YES they are important to the work. But please don't ask me to spoil an experience by relating to the work on that level - that is NOT why the person wrote it, believe it or not. Gaming, for me, takes on this same kind of artful experience. I don't care that this move will give my group .00001% fewer failures over another move, or that by spending 5 hours working equations for a 2 minute move where I'll be rolling dice anyway that I might do better than my opponent, and then again might not. YES, yes, yes, all you guys who do all this great math stuff are the only real game players - I play for fun and the challenge of thinking on my feet (rear?). So, I cannot knock your great work, but don't expect me to read it.

But Bruce, math is a very pure art form and a traditional realm for the creative. Only in "modern" times has the false dichotomy between art and math been drawn as part of the wave of anti- technological neo-romanticism from which we still suffer. Just so? -RAS

We'd Like You to Write For MOVES Most of the article in MOVES are written by readers. So if you can write a well-organized article about a conflict simulation that will be of interest to the MOVES audience, there is a good chance that your article will be published.

The Topic of your article is, of course, up to your discretion, so long as you select a subject with fairly wide appeal.

The Types of articles we are looking for fit essentially into seven categories:

I . Game Profile. Describes and analyzes the game with regard to system, technique of simulation; and overall effectiveness of game design vis a vis its subject.

2. OperationalAnalysis. Deals with the tactics and strategy of play in a specific game and its scenarios.

3. Scenarioplex: An experimental column of scenarios (each no longer than two double-spaced pages) in the same style as the parent game rules.

4. Design Critique. Deals with the strengths and weaknesses of a game system v$ a vis playability and historical accuracy.

5. Field Report. Provides organized and valid information on some aspect of conflict simulation of general interest.

6. A fter-Action Reports. A well-researched treatment of actual history, reflecting how the historical event occurs on the game map.

7. Footnotes. Short essays of less than 750 words on almost any subject related to gaming in general or specific games.

How Articles Should Be Done. All articles should be typewritten, double-spaced, on 8% x I I" white bond paper. Each typewritten line should be no more than 65 characters long and no less than 55 characters (including word spaces). Type no more than 25 lines per manuscript page. A cover sheet should include the author's name, address, a phone number; the category of the article; and the suggested title for the article.

How Long an Article Should Be. All articles except Footnotes should he at least 1,000 words long. Articles should not exceed 7,000 words.

What You Get For What You Write. MOVES magazine pays an honorarium for all articles published except Footnotes. This honorarium is currently $4 per running 10" column of edited text (calculated to the nearest half-column). Alter- natively, authors may receive their honorarium in the form of SPI products. This will be rendered in terms of current list price of items, and paid at double the rate of cash honorarium, i.e., $8 per running column of text. Please state your honorarium preference on the cover sheet of your article. Honorariums will be rendered thirty days after publication.

Copyrights and Conditions. All submissions to MOVES become the property of Simulations Publications, Inc. SPI assumes no responsibility for submitted material. Authors who wish their unpublished manuscripts returned should include a stamped, self-addressed 9" x 12" envelope. Material should not be submitted if it has been previously published or is currently under submis- sion to another publisher or will be within the en- suing six months. Articles Should Be Submitted To:

Redmond Simonsen (MOVES) Simulations Publications, Inc. 44 East 23rd Street New York, N.Y. 10010

RENDER UNTO CAESAR I always look forward to the new games from the estimable Game Designer's Workshop; they're always doing something interesting. While considered to be the third largest wargame company, GDW is still somewhat of a cottage industry and leads what has been politically termed the "Third World" of gaming. (This appellation is more the result of the writings of my friend and fellow col- league/critic, Jack Greene, Jr., who could probably find political meaning in a wheel of cheddar cheese. Jack, by the way, is the Bobo Newsom of wargaming; he has been "traded" to more companies than any man I know.) There was a time - and that not too long ago - that any game that appeared from a "Third World" company was immediately hailed as a masterwork, less for its design than for the simple fact that it came out at all. To some extent this was valid, as small companies (most of them one-man operations) have an incredibly long road to hoe to even get a game into production. That many of them were pretty good tended to feed the opinion that the Third World was going to be the saviour of the hobby. (Saving us from what was never made clear; the simple fact of salvation was enough for the naive band that fostered these thoughts). Fortunately, wargame criticism seems to be entering a more mature and responsible phase, and games are now being reviewed solely for their content rather than for their backgrounds of travail and perseverence. In light of all the above I'm sure that the GDW folks are waiting, like that ancient Syracusan courtier, for the sword of Damocles to descend. The "moving finger" points this time to GDW's least-known designer, Loren Weisman and his developer, John Harshman for the battle game, Phar- salus. Now, you have to hand it to GDW right off the bat: how many companies would even consider doing a game on such a subject as a single battle, the knowledge of which is extremely limited - even to experts in the area. But GDW has never shrunk from such a challenge; they seem to thrive on it! Pharsalus covers the classic battle of the Roman Civil War between Caesar and Pompey, both commanding forces compris- ed of Roman Legions. The battle took place in August, 48 B.C., in Greece, and the exact location of the battle has been the subject of controversy ever since. The latter is relatively unimportant for game purposes, as we shall see below. As usual, GDW has produced a handsome product, if not as spectacular as some of its previous efforts. All charts are on a separate table - a GDW trademark - and the counters are bright if on the functional side. There is a nice rules booklet, although the artwork on the front seems to me to be

representative of something other than Phar- salus (while the Lancer may be Roman, the Lancee appears to be Gallic; I may be wrong). The game-map is also utilitarian, and that because, like most ancient battles, Pharsalus was fought on basically level terrain. What additional terrain there is tends to limit the flanks more than anything else. And therein lies the first problem with Phar- salus, or any other simulation of an ancient- era battle for that matter. Virtually all battles in this era were fought on terrain as unen- cumbered of landmarks as the two opposing generals could find. There are exceptions to this (Cynocephalae comes to mind immediately), but it is tough to find an ancient battle contested on anything but flat ground. Now this is both a plus and a minus for the designer. On the pro side there is the fact that the designer doesn't have to worry about the effects of terrain on movement, combat, command, etc. However, it also severely restricts the strategic and tactical choices given to the playerdgenerals. And this is the situations which confronts the players in Pharsalus: the only problem facing the players is the other player. This tends to stereotype a lot of play, and there is little the players can do in the way of strategy. The system used in Pharsalus has some interesting innovations, most of them designed to recreate unit effectiveness and the problems of fatigue, etc. While the game covers an individual battle, the feel of the game is not tactical as one would expect. Centurion, the scenarios of which cover a great deal less space, has a somewhat greater tactical feel than Pharsalus. It is hard to pinpoint exactly why this is; perhaps it is because tactically there is not a great deal one can do in this era, aside from moving, throwing, and meleeing. Or perhaps it is the fact that there are no "Leaders" in Pharsalus, enabling units to move at will - a co-ordination of effort usually un-attainable by ancient armies. So for a gamer who is more at home with Napoleonics or the intricacies of something like Panzerblitz, the effect of Pharsalus may be-somewhat disappointing. The system itself is quite simple, once one gets used to the usual convoluted GDW stacking rules. Each counter is equivalent to a cohort (so there are ten for each legion), with each strength point the equivalent of 100 men. Strength, however, is not the sole measurement of a unit's capability. Each unit is also rated for effectiveness, a quan- tification of a unit's durability as well as a modification for any combat. Basically, units involved in combat compare strength, with the resultant number expressed as a combat differential. Thus a '4' unit attacking a '5' unit attacks at a Differential of minus one. However, at the same time the units involved compare Effectiveness Ratings; thus if the same units had Effectiveness Ratings of '6' and '3' the unit would still attack at minus one but would add three to the dieroll. In such a manner the smaller, crack legions are supposedly able to handle the larger but less dependable units. I say supposedly because the effect is somewhat of an illusion.

The basic unit in the game is the legion. The legion is capable of both close combat (melee) and a limited form of missile fire with the use of theirpila, thrown just prior to clos- ing. Both sides receive archers and slingers, which operate effectively as skirmishers in quite realistic fashion because of their capability to retreat prior to melee. Cavalry is present, with Pompey getting the lion's share of the horse. However, with their low Effec- tiveness Ratings the cavalry units seem best suited to guarding the flanks - much as they did in Roman times. They can be useful for a one-shot shock charge against a key legion, but this tactic is best suited to Pompey rather than Caesar. Caesar does receive a number of voltigeurs. (I'm not too sure this is an altogether fortunate choice of military terms here; it seems somewhat out of place. Then again, after Gaul was divided into three parts I went to the Classic comic . . .) These light infantry can ride along with Caesar's limited cavalry, giving them a striking power they normally would not have. The brunt of the battle, however, is shouldeted by the legions. The sequence of play is the by-now-familiar move-fire-melee, with addenda. There is also a Rest Phase in which certain units may reduce their fatigue factors. Missile fire results in fatigue (for the throwee, not the thrower) while melee results in strengths losses, retreats, and extension of fatigue. While all of this may seem much the same as the other ancient battle games available Pharsalus seems to have one thing going for it that others do not: it looks like what Hollywood has taught us a "spear-and- sword" epic should appear to be. Legions move in marvelous box-like order (mostly a result of the peculiar stacking rules, which are somewhat akin to reading the last two pages of your loan from the Jaws Finance Agency, but at least partially the result of this player's penchant for neatness on the game- map), and there is a great deal of thrust and feint, counterthrust and maneuver. There is also quite a bit of refusing the flank and trying to maneuver the other side so that he breaks his line. Since the units have large movement capabilities (increased by a charge rule), this could prove to be fatal to the player so out-maneuvered. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. The problem is quite simple. Caesar does not have any credible attack capability, and, realizing this, Pompey, with his quite superior - in numbers - force, will simply move forward slowly, using his I and 111 legions as a strike reserve with his superior cavalry on the flanks until he has pinned Caesar's legions, including the vaunted X, in a position where they can be attritted to death. (And if that sentence isn't worthy of an old second-year Latin student then I'll ponere my castra elsewhere.) Since total elimination (or surrender) is the sole victory condition this can be very frustrating to the Caesarean player.

The reasons for this anomoly lies in the Melee CRT and how it interprets the Effec- tiveness Ratings mutations on combat dif-

ferential. E.g., Caesar's best legion is his X, with a strength (for each of the ten cohorts) of '3' and an effectiveness of '9', highest in the game. Now no Pompeyan player will allow the X to face his worst legion, so let us compare the X to one of Pompey's better (but not best) legions, his Hispanic, rated at 4-7. Now, if the Hispanic attacks the X it would be attacking at + 1, subtract two from the dieroll. It would have a 67% chance of inflicting a greater result (albeit marginal in the majority of them) on the X than it would on itself. Conversely, if the X were to attack the Hispanic - at - 1 add two to the dieroll - the X would have to take a step loss no matter what the dieroll (as would the Hipanic). Since the strength of the X is only 75% of that of the Hispanic, simple addition reveals a maxim of attrition. And the X is by far the best Caesarean legion. Add to this the fact that Pompey has three more legions than Caesar (1 1-8), that two of Caesar's legions - the VIII and IX - are virtually incapable of attacking, as well as the superiority of Pompey's cavalry and you have an inevitable end result. I am not that familiar with the actual battle to know exactly how Caesar triumphed over Pompey's superior force. I d o know that he wasn't working with the loaded deck that Loren has slipped to the gamer disguised as a CRT. I d o know that both games I played to conclusion had the same result: a surrender by Caesar after the loss of several legions in fruitless attacks after being pressed to the edge of the game-map by an inexorable Pompey advance. I fear that inadequate playtesting and dcvelopment - the bane of GDW's house - is at fault here. The differences in the CRT, and its fissures, are subtle; they are not faults easily discerned. But they are not so hidden that adequate developmental work could not have un- covered them. lnadequate development is a problem with every company today, regardless of the production time given t o their games. And poor development can d o more to harm a game than any other single aspect of production. So perhaps the blame should fall less on Loren Weisman, who has certainly evolved a nice system, and more on John Harshman, who was in charge of this portion of the game. Be it as it may, it is frustrating for the player to encounter a game where so many things seem right yet the end result is useless. Phar- salus is not a convoluted game and it is not a bad game. It has a fair amount of flavor and shows the earmarks of a great deal of research. But it fails to convey any insight into how or why Caesar destroyed Pompey on the plains of Greece because it fails to make that result probable. It simply fails to give Caesar - and the player - his due.

Berg Pharsalus is available from GDW, Box.432, Normal, Illinois for $8.75

Napoleon's Victory [conlinued from page 151.

The French player should not even hesitate t o fall back to the La Haye Sainte, La Belle Alliance, Plancenoit line if advantage can be gained from the shift. Soft cover hexes (not hexsides) are also valuable since so much of the Prussian potential is in their cavalry, and since they have a limited ability to form the dkirinishers which are most effective in the woods. Should the French be demoralized, they should place as many units as possible in blocked hexes (not hexsides), either soft or hard cover, to avoid routing from Prussian charge zones. Units in blocked hexes d o not check morale, as charge zones d o not extend into these hexes.

Blocked heasides are most useful as artillery sites; their morale benefits can be a real help, too, if the French find themselves demoralized right at the end of the game, though units will still face morale checks from Prussian charges. Brigades committed t o the Prussian defense should not exceed five - usually three infantry and two cavalry. The defense should be anchored by the maximum number of skirmishers and artillery batteries - the Guard Artillery is especially useful because of the higher morale of the crews. The batteries should occupy the ridgecrests between the covered hexes which are held by masses of skirmishers. The formed infantry and cavalry should be concealed on the reverse slopes to counterattack any charging Prus- sian cavalry, and t o resupply the skirmishers. Maximum use is made of artillery and skirmishers because they d o not require brigade commitment; also the morale loss should an artillery battery be routed is only one point. Throughout the entire battle, brigades which have been decimated should be pulled out of the battle and deactivated. This will be easier for the French since they will basically be advancing. The brigades should move south and west, dropping off all possible skirmishers, including removing any eligible damaged battalions (if optional rule 15.33 is being used). The brigades should move a t the maximum possible rate until the first hour turn that they are far enough away, then they should deactivate. Don't waste an extra point; you can always re-commit the brigade later if you must. Once the Anglo-Allies are demoralized, the movement should be more west than south, to put distance between the units and the Prussians. Whenever a brigade of infantry is to be deactivated, the units should go into "Square" formation; this will prevent their recommitment by Prussian cavalry, at least until they have actually been meleed, or until the Prussian artillery arrives. A successful defense will delay the French Demoralization past Turn 40, and if they can go beyond Turn 44 they are the likely win- ners. Should the Prussians get careless, they can find themselves demoralized, too. Vive la France!

Spanish Gold [continued from page r 61

worth more in a close, safe (low in attrition level), doubled resource area than the ten victory points per turn it will cost t o not replace a colonist lost in attrition. Of course, some other nation might d o her a favor by mount- ing a war and/or occupying some of the vital hexes (4213 is an attractive spot if mines aren't depleted). Let them have them. The player with the best chance of winning is the one who makes friends and quietly minds his own business of placing his colonists on the eastern seaboard of North America (in areas of doubled resources and low bounds expense for transportation). T o d o so will require that he resist the urge to succumb t o gold fever. Especially from Turn 17 on, well- placed colonists are much more valuable col- lecting resources than wasting energies (and ducats for transportation) on a n often fruitless search for gold. Spain should concentrate on the Caribbean. The Deep South and Rio are also good areas. California is a long way off, but could be supplied through Panama and a transfer of colonists from Atlantic t o Pacific. Gold should be mined from P a n a m a , Midwest P la teau , a n d Saguenay (Brazil also if Portugal plays). Players will be very unwise to let any other player quietly develop his empire in more than one doubled resource area. Colonists start paying off richly in the last half of this game (a nation with the maximum twenty colonists in the Atlantic Coast would draw 200 ducats from that area on Turn 20). A surprise attack designed to eliminate ports and colonists is in order to keep that player from running away with the game. Conversely, the player who is concentrating his efforts on resources while his friends go after the gold and Spain tries vainly to maintain her empire will be advised to garrison strategic ports and passes.

Beginning on Game-Turns 19-20, the players should make plans to expand their borders t o include adjacent areas (and win political control victory points) by judicious replacement of colonists and soldier detachments. Political control is worth 150 victory points. Also remember that in a close game, a careful placement of units can deny another player his 150 victory points for that area (75% of soldiers in an area must be friendly t o gain political control). Soldier units are especially dangerous because of their wide movement allowance that permits them t o strike from distant areas. Wars should be carefully calculated as to expense versus gains. Eliminating five colonists could mean a loss of 40-50 ducats per turn for your opponent, which would be well worth the 40 ducats required in just one turn to buy an army. The play of this scenario will be challenging and closely contested. It will give one the enjoyment of the military side of the game when borders start meeting as well as the feel of the economic decisions required to win.

Foot notes

MORE FIREFIGHT SCENARIOS SCENARIO 10 (USE BOTH MAPS) Note: See diagram on page 3 of rules. GENERAL SITUATION A U.S. armored cavalry platoon is screening U.S. units offboard to the west. A Soviet tank company( + ) is on a recon mission to 10 Km. in front of its regiment and is t o find the positions and strength of the offboard U.S. forces in preparation for an attack by the Soviet regiment. TASK ORGANIZATION U.S. Forces: Armored Cavalry Platoon - three M551 Sheridans, four M114's, two M113's, two TM + 's, one Dragon; Organic Support: '/2 4.2" mtr.; Direct Support: two 155 mm. Soviet Forces: 1 Tank Company - ten T62's, 1 Motorized Rifle Platoon - three BMP's, five TM + 's, two MG's, three RPG- 7's; Direct Support: two 122 mm., two 152 mm. MISSION Soviet Player: Recon the area offboard west of Map B. U.S. Player: Screen the offboard U.S. units. DEPLOYMENT The U.S. player deploys first anywhere on Map B. The Soviet Player enters anywhere on the east edge of Map A. VICTORY CONDITIONS The Soviet Player receives two Victory Points for each of his units exited off the west map edge. The U.S. Player receives one Victory Point for each Soviet unit not exited.

GAME LENGTH 20 Turns. SPECIAL RULES Use the values for the M55 1 and M 114 given in MOVES 30. The !h 4.2" uses the 81mm. delay and has a strength of 4 on impact hex, 2 on adjacent hexes. SCENARIO I1 (USE BOTH MAPS) Note: See diagram on page 3 of rules. GENERAL SITUATION A U.S. Tank Heavy Task Force is in pursuit of a retreating Soviet regiment. A Soviet Tank Company(+ ) is acting as a rear guard to slow the U.S. pursuit.

TASK ORGANIZATION U.S. Forces: Two Armored Companies, one Mechanized C o m p a n y , four M150's; Organic Support: three 81mm. mtr., two 4.2" mtr.; Direct Support: six 155mm. Soviet Forces: Thirteen T62's, one Motoriz- ed Rifle Platoon, one Anti-Tank Platoon, three BRDM's; Organic Support: three 120mm. mtr.; Direct Support: two 122mm., two 152mm.

MISSION U.S. Player: Advance down Rte. 1A in pursuit of retreating Soviet forces. Soviet Player: Delay the U.S. forces. DEPLOYMENT The U.S. Player enters anywhere on the north edge of Map B. The Soviet Player deploys first, anywhere within fifteen hexes of hex 2832. VICTORY CONDITIONS The U.S. Player receives 3 Victory Points for each U.S. unit exited off south edge of Map B and 2 Victory Points for each unit exited off south edge of Map A. The Soviet Player receives one Victory Point for each destroyed U.S. unit and one Victory Point for each Soviet unit left within 15 hexes of hex 2832 at game's end. GAME LENGTH 20 Turns minimum. Roll dice as per Scenario 8 rules. SPECIAL RULES There is no Soviet planned fire within six hexes of the north map edge or for the first three turns. Both U.S. armored companies are M60A-1. Soviet Player has 10 Mine Pointsas per rule 18.0. -Kevin Kinder

John Kinder

THE PILUM IN LEGION SPI's excellent simulation of tactical warfare in the Roman Age, 100 BC-700 AD, Legion (published 1975) has only one flaw, the Roman pilum is not simulated in any way shape or form. The pilum was a n important defensive fire weapon for the legions and helped t o contribute greatly to many of their victories. - T o simulate this weapon the following rule is proposed, which with a few minor variations is the rule used to simulate the use of the francisca in the game Viking. [LO] ROMAN OPTIONAL RULES [1.6] Pilum GENERAL RULE: Roman Sword units in all scenarios, are considered armed with the "pilum," a javelin- like weapon used as a defensive missile weapon. This weapon may be used only once in normal defensive fire fashion. PROCEDURE: The Roman player has the option to use defensive fire from each of his SD units once per Game. The "pilum" has a fire attack strength of "one" and may only be used in defensive fire. CASES: [1.61] Until the defensive fire is actually used for an SD unit, the unit is treated as a fire unit (i.e., has power to stop movement, etc., as specified in Case 7.4). [1.62] The capability to use the "pilum" may be saved indefinitely. However, once it is used, the unit is no longer treated as a fire unit. [1.63] Under no circumstances may the "pilum" be anything but a defensive weapon

with a range reaching only to the hex adjacent to the SD unit. [1.64] Players should list the identification number of all Roman SD units and check them off as the "pilum" capability is used.

-Scott H. Usborne

QUADRIGAME: PBM In my opinion, the Blue& Gray/Napoleon at War Quadrigames are the best idea in wargaming in a long time. However, a problem arises when trying t o play these and similar games by mail. In face-to-face games, the attacker may decide to stand fast after seeing preceding 1-1 and 2-1 attacks fail miserably. In play-by- mail games, a player must decide whether t o advance after combat before knowing any combat results when deciding where t o retreat and if to advance on any resulting AR (Attacker Retreats). He even has his following movement phase to study before making such decisions. There are two ways t o cope with this: 1. Let things stand as they are and the at-

tacker takes his lumps, although the lumps could really hurt the player who is in the overall position of being the ag- gressor.

2. Before his units are attacked, a player states where they will retreat if attacked and a DR (Defender Retreats) occurs, and if they will advance on an AR result. Naturally, the retreat statement would be ignored if the attacker has this decision. This statement of "posture" could be made individually by unit, by groups of units or for the entire force. The posture would be recorded separately from the unit movements and the individual com- bats. It would be sealed, identified (by turn and by side), initialed and sent along with the move. The opponent would also initial it and return it still sealed with his move. The originator then returns it unsealed to show that his units followed orders. Some garners should recognize this procedure as being similar to that used for Indirect Fire in Panzer L,eader play-by-mail. Thus, in any particular mailing by Player A, he would include his sealed posture statement for Player B's upcoming attacks, his unsealed posture statement for Player B's preceding attacks, and Player B's still sealed posture statement for Player A's current attacks.

With any era of warfare, there were command control problems. This was especially evident in the Union handling of the Civil War as well as other armies and other wars. T o allow for this in a token fashion, I offer the following: 1. For the side without the problem (or with

fewer problems), let a certain number of units not be required to follow orders. This number could be prearranged before the game or varied in some way by die roll from turn to turn.

2. For the side with the problem (or more problems), let only a certain number of units be allowed to advance on an AR result. This number can be determined as above.

3. Let a die roll affect the posture in some way. T o name two: (a) the die roll dictates the actual posture; (b) the die roll requires a unit(s) to g o against orders.

- Walter N. Waldau 111

EMBATTLED RHODESIA For those wargamers who are frightened by South Africa's long "open ended" standard scenario, the following variant is offered. Before the RSA is defeated, Black Na- tionalist forces will certainly deal with Rhodesia. This mini-game covers a possible military campaign for that country. The standard rules of South Africa apply except where noted below. RSA forces are not used in the game, but the RSA counter mix is used for Rhodesian forces. [5.25] BN units may not enter the RSA Proper at any time. Rhodesian forces may retreat into the RSA voluntarily or by combat, but they may never return to Rhodesia. [12.13] Deployment of Rhodesian Forces. Rhodesia is considered fully mobilized to withstand invasion. Rhodesia requires only manpower points to rebuild units, and has only 15 of these available. Rhodesia may not build new units and may not rebuild units marked with an asterisk. Rhodesian Army: 4 x 5-5-5 (1st & 2nd Rhodesian Light Infan- try, and 1st & 2nd Rhodesian African Rifles) 1 x 10-5-3 artillery bn cadre* 1 x 0-1-3 engineer squadron* 1 x 4-4-5 composite recce regiment* 1 x 5-5-10 transport helicopter group* 1 x 10-9-8 light strike group* 10 x 3-3-1 territorial force battalions* British South Africa Police (Rhodesian Security Forces): 5 x 3-2-3 Police units (Bulawayo, Fort Vic- toria, Umtali, Salisbury, and Gwelo) Note that only Rhodesian Army infantry battalions, and RSA Police units may be rebuilt. Rhodesia has n o resource points, as it is assumed that these are supplied by the RSA. Rhodesia need not expend points of any kind for maintenance. The 15 manpower points available must last for the entire game. [12.14] BN Force Deployment. BN forces are deployed as in the standard game except that the units beginning in Rhodesia start from Zambia instead. BN forces may maneuver freely in Mozambique, Zambia, Angola, Southwest Africa, and Botswana. BN forces get their normal resource points during the strategic turn by rolling one die and receiving one point for each spot. This reflects unpredictable support from Cuba, and Russia o r China.

Charles T. Kamps, Jr.

FIRST WE'LL EAT, THEN WE'LL FIGHT

Israel has just deployed a new main battle tank, the first designed from scratch in that country. Israel has been modifying US, British, Soviet and French tanks for thirty years, and the new Merkava (Chariot) shows the quality and originality typical of the Israeli Defense Industries and Israeli Defense Forces. Armed with the standard NATO 105mm gun mounted by most Israeli tanks, the Merkava's armor is sloped and arranged for maximum crew protection-earning it the nickname "Jewish Mother." There is one feature never seen before on an operational tank; ten infantrymen can be carried in the rear ammo compartment, allowing the Merkava t o double as a personnel carrier!

Israeli doctrine is to use the Merkava in the APC role by teaming platoons of them with platoons of other tanks or Merkavas without infantry. The Merkavas would maneuver toward their objective while the gun tanks engaged the defenders with fire. Near the objective the infantry would leap out of the rear hatches and the Merkavas would join the firing tanks in reducing the objective, providing twice the effective firepower of the teamed tanks and M113A1 APC's Israel now uses, while the tank/APC's heavier armor would better protect the infantry in their approach before dismounting.

The Merkava can operate as an APC for only a limited period of time. The ammo compartment is much too cramped for the infantry to stay in long, and apparently there are n o firing ports to allow the grunts to fire while mounted. And with half the ammo replaced by the infantry, the tank's firepower is reduced. The Merkava is perhaps not revolutionary, then, but it should help prevent any unlikely recurrence of the initial APC shortage which forced the Israelis to make their first counterattacks in 1973 with pure-tank teams-disastrously. In Arab-Israeli Wars the Merkava's values are 25-A-14/18-6. It can carry a n infantry platoon according to the standard rules for carriers. Infantry may not bail out or fire mounted from a Merkava. The vehicle may split fire/move and can fire smoke. An infantry unit cannot stay mounted in a Merkava for more than five consecutive turns (thirty minutes) without becoming fatigued. Roll the die each additional turn before movement; on a 1-3 the infantry must be unloaded immediately. A Merkava carry- ing infantry has only half the units of fire (optional) o r a modified attack strength of 15 (standard).

In October War the values are 15-S-12/ [14]-6. Due t o the generally shorter scenarios supply should not be a problem; follow the other guidlines above. -Phil Kosnett

Designer's NOW [eontinvedfrompage31

realistic. And designer Joe Angiolillo insists on doing 1980 scenarios with the exact order of battle and unit placement for the armies and air forces of NATO, the USA, Iran, China, both Koreas, Japan, Afghanistan, Warsaw Pact, and that Iong-time victim of capitalist imperialist aggression, the USSR - all 180 divisions of Russians from North Cape to Ulan Bator. Air units are wings or divisions from 30 t o 130 planes each. Only armored and mechanized units have ZOC's (fluid at that) so things tend to be free -wheeling - except in Europe, which is crowded as hell. Exchanges are tied t o each division's Personnel Points; since NATO averages three PP's t o each Soviet one, the Soviets melt away quicker. They're harder to replace, too. The big problem with the 1980 scenario is that it's unlikely - can you see the US and China allying to invade Russia this year? Now, in the 2000 scenarios the politics can be manipulated to a more believable premise for the game, and more balanced as well - in 1980 it's rough going for NATO in Europe. Some more cute features include Corps and Army Com- manders you can promote and fire according t o their ability, naval movement grid from Europe t o Japan via America so you choose where to send your US reserves, weather table to sock-in the poorer Soviet planes, tracing movement supply to oil refineries and wells, Soviet Class I1 and 111 division mobilization and training, and (in 2000) Spacedrop Satellites for deep-penetration paratroops, Cruise Missile brigades, laser ABM's t o neutralize the strategic nuke rules we still haven't come up with for 1980, hovercraft divisions, and the Israeli Expedi- tionary Force. Mark Herman and I are gon- na have fun developing this one, all right, and you'll like it too. Phil Kosnett

Atlantic Wall Atlantic Wall, our new operational game of the D-Day landings, is well into the initial stages of its design. The map will be one kilometer per hex. There will be four daylight Game-Turns and one night Game-Turn per day. Units will be battalions with frequent breakdowns into companies. Unfortunately, the order of battle work is massive for both sides. The Germans seemed t o have abandoned traditional organization by this stage of the war in the west, as their order of battle is packed with "Ost" battalions. Panzer Replacement bat tal ions, machine-gun regiments, and "Festung" units. Similarly, the Allies initially utilized units such as the 87th Chemical battalion, 1st Engineer Special Brigade, and the 26th Armored Engineer Flail Tank Company. All these various units are falling into place a t the present time. Initial design work has also begun o n the rules. We hope t o have a very detailed coverage of the actual landings, utilizing individual assault companies, demolition teams, "DD" tanks, fire support ships, air squadrons, rocket-firing LST's, and Naval

Shore Fire Control Parties. The Germans will have strongpoints of various strengths (i.e., hardened or non-hardened), beach obstacles, minefields, and coastal batteries. Special rules will cover tide, weather, drift currents, and the infamous "seawall". Hopefully, we will soon plod into the parachute rules. Everything's still pretty rusty now, however.

Joe Balkoski

Red Sun Rising Red Sun Rising is now moving forward slowly but surely. One of the major problems en- countered is that the Japanese historically beat the Russians in several major naval battles with a numerically inferior force, but a very superior force quantitatively. Basically, if the Japanese ever lost sea supremacy they would have lost the war because their supply line would have been cut. If the Japanese maintain sea supremacy, it just allows them an opportunity to win the land war. Thus, the game reflects this situation; the Russians have a very small chance of wresting control of the seas from the Japanese. But the land war is a very even contest. The Japanese have the leadership advantage, but the Russians have the interior lines. The winner is very often in doubt until the end of the war.

Mark Herman

Campaigns for North Africa The big behemoth moves slowly forward. Work on the OB is the main thrust of our latest efforts, and this has proven to be a larger task then we originally thought. Not that finding out what was what is difficult; however, relating it to logistic information can be quite complex. For example, determining how much fuel a Panzer IV uses visa visa Matilda or a Sherman can be somewhat confusing, especially when you add into that such delightful statistics as a gallon of gas weighs 6.11 pounds (without the can; with a can it's 7.14 pounds). Now all this has to be translated into tonnage information. The tonnage information then is dichotomized into shipping (transport) terms and usage terms. For the former, that means we have to know tonnage capacities for all the Italian transports. This is a bit more difficult than it would initially seem: e.g., how much does a "man" weigh in terms of transport and tonnage? Since the logistics system is the heart of North Africa, we are paying especially strict attention t o these items. As of yet we have not finalized our combat system, but it will not be too complex. Our scale is now 8 km per hex (actually about 7.89 km per hex), and this scale would preclude any extensive tactical-style system, such as carried by Tobruk or Highway to the Reich. We will be integrating tank, anti-tank, and artillery information, but exactly how this will be done is still in the future. We have also compressed our map somewhat to give us the 8km scale, and in the process we lopped off the Tunisia portion of the campaign. The latter was proving t o be a n albatross around the designer's neck both in terms of the scale

(leaving it in would have meant a scale of 10.5 km per hex, much too large for what we wanted to do) and design intent (the operations in Tunisia were somewhat different than the desert warfare).

Berg

Siege of Constantinople We've got some good sources on this and we're just about to begin testing. The system being used will have t o encompass the tremendous differentiation between the size of the armies involved (7000 to 80,000 + ) and the fact that defending on walls is relatively easy and leads to minimal casualties. (The Greeks often went days without losing a man, while the Turks were being slaughtered - or at least taking many losses). The game will combine both the land and naval actions (of the latter there were plenty) and will concentrate, in terms of system, on leadership and morale. We're hoping t o use a n unlimited movement system; however, the problems inherent in this can be multifold. We have divided the Walls of Theodosius into a number of areas (all historical) for purposes of planning assaults, etc. Thus, the Turks have to plan their assaults for the game-turn (or choose to bombard the walls with their immense cannon in preparation for the next assault) while the Greeks (and Venetians, and Genoese', and Catalans, etc.) have to spread their thin forces and hope they can react in time. Units will be rated for combat s t rength, ability t o withstand casualties, and morale (which will affect their ability to remain in place after suffering casualties). The naval system is still a bit hazy, but it will definitely add a major ele- ment into the planning of the siege. -Berg

Cobra The game which is to appear in S&T 65 has entered into the testing stage, expanded in scope and reduced in scale. The game covers the period from mid-July to mid-August, during which time the Allied offensive in Normandy built up to a climax which resulted in the American breakout and the formation of the "Falaise pocket", in which some 100,000 German troops were encircled. The game scale is approximately 3 kilometers to the hex; the map covers the area from Lessay in the northwest south to Fougeres at the base of the Brittany peninsula in the southwest, and east to Mamers (south) and Lisieux (north). A modified Panzergruppe: Guderian combat system is being utilized, with unit integrity and step losses; there are no untried units, however. Roads play a key roll in the game, as mechanized movement off of them is severely restricted. Also represented on the map is the bocage country, which over and above the normal terrain effects of woods, forest, and rivers, adds t o the defensive capacity of units and makes it m o r e d i f f icu l t f o move . T h e u n i t s represented are primarily regimental or brigade sized, with a few independent battalions. Countermix permitting, replace-

ments may be represented by counters as well, as the Germans had a great deal of difficulty moving them up t o the front due to the Allied Air Power, which, by the way, has a pervasive effect on movement and combat generally.

Hessel

War in the Pacific Production We've been getting some results from our testing of the Production System. For the most part the comments involve a mis- understanding of the reasons behind specific mechanical aspects of the game. We are solv- ing this difficulty by adding more "commentary" to the individual rules. We already have quite a lot of commentary, and more of it will apparently help the game rather than hurt it. For example, in the game, merchant shipping in the "pipeline" (convoy) mode is twice as efficient as shipping in the "tactical" (local, "on call") mode. This is because (unloading delays notwithstanding) convoy shipping is (and was) the most efficient use of shipping while local (tactical) use of shipping managed to involve practically every inefficient use of shipping imaginable. Things like using the ships as floating warehouses. Or letting the shipping lie about doing nothing until it was needed, on the theory that if you let it out of your control you may not get it back when you need it. The net result (in practice) was t o make tactical shipping half as efficient as "pipeline'' shipping. This could be gotten around, of course, by using "mini-pipelines" and, in general, keeping track of ones' shipping. For certain operations, amphibious ones for example, you have to use shipping inefficiently because these operations are almost always too volatile to allow for shipping used in anything but the tactical mode. When viewed in this light the approach we chose appears t o be the most effective one. Other approaches were not, it turned out, the most effective. Chief among these was my oversight in how the unloading of ships in the tactical mode would be applied t o port capacity. (Now that sounds sufficiently obscure to border on the unintelligible). The way the rules are now written, unloaded supply is counted against a ports ' given capacity only during the strategic phase. Supply unloaded by ships in the tactical mode was getting a free ride (since these ships did not unload during the strategic phase, but during the regular "tactical'' game turns. As one tester pointed out, there were critical (although not very numerous) occasions when a lot of supply would come through certain low capacity ports from tactical shipping. We're fixing this problem as well as the numerous others that occur when the production system (literally a game unto itself) is meshed with the strategic game (another game unto itself). And then there's the tactical game, which I have nothing t o d o with. JFD

Drive to Stalingrad Drive to Stalingrad (previously called Road to Ruin) is now entering the final stages of

playtesting and development. The system is quite close to that used in Panzergruppe Guderian, although Soviet units have steps as d o Axis units. More complex rules for Supply and air effects are used than were used in Panzergruppe. At this point, the major problems seem to be that the Germans d o better than they should in the early game, but are more or less over- whelmed by the Soviets in the endgame. We're hoping to solve this problem by fiddl- ing with the Victory Conditions and Hitler Directives.

The game seems to be fast-moving, and, although a large, two-map game, relatively quick and simple to play. Assuming the problems still remaining in the game are knocked out by the time it goes into the Art Department (and I anticipate little problem in debugging thegame), it should prove to be one of SPI's more enjoyable operational games. -Greg Costikyan

CONVENTIONS Up and Coming What follows is a list of some conventions scheduled to take place in the near future, including place, name of con, and who to contact for further information.

Septemher 2-5 SUNCON, at the Hotel Fountainbleau, Miami Beach, Florida. Conlac/: Michael J . Walsh, 946 Montpelier St., Baltimore, Maryland 21213 Attn: SunCon.

Scptemher 3-5 GENCON WEST 77, at the Villa Hotel, San Mateo, California. Conlact: GenCon West 7 7 , P.O. Box 4042, Foster City, California 94404.

September 9-1 1 SIMCON 11, at the Pioneer High School, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Conlacl: John C. Finley, University of Michigan Simulation Players, Room 4000 Michigan Union, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109.

January 13-15 ORCCON, at California State University, Fullerton. Conlacl: James John Myers, 1371 8 Norbeck Dr., La Mirada, California 90638.

FEEDBACK RESULTS, MOVES 32 Rank Article Rating 1. Designer's Notes 7.15 2. October War 6.72 3. Forward Observer 6.54 4. TSS: The First Day 6.38 5. Star Trooper/StarSoldier 6.31 6. Starsoldier 6.23 7. Footnotes (overall) 6.23 8. Grand Chancellorsville 6.04 9. Von Manstein 5.95 10. Playback 5.89 11. After the Holocaust 5.87 12. Opening MOVES 5.81 13. Holocaust: Limits 5.18

This Issue Overall 6.52

noney's wl

Y' DATA

Playback MOVES Feedback responses. Readers have been asked to rate each aspect of the games on a scale of I (Poor) to 9 (Excellent). For the actual text of the questions, see Section B of

READER REV1 EWS Feedback on page 35. Publisher Abbrevia- tions: SPI = Simulations Publications, Inc.,

Playback ratings are reader evaluations of New York; GDW = came ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v games that are acquired through S&T and Workshop, Normal, Illinois; F&F = Fact and

Fantasy, Maryland Heights, Missouri.

. % * bo i -+ \ g *F" 8 ,,&' 8 +*"%

., P&" d;." 8 a b $* 8s? &' Typical

Rating Publisher SPI SPI SPI GDW GDW F&F Range Publication D '76 8/7( Price .OO 6.0( Nr. of ~ l i y e r r 18 38 Date Reviewed 7/77 7/77 7/77 7/77 7/77 7/77 A. Map, Physical Quali !8 6.64 7.69 7.79 7.32 5.58 6.1-6.8 B. Rules, Physical Qual '3 6.62 7.18 5.64 6.16 5.74 6.4-7.1 C. Counters, Physical 0 . 9 6.34 7.42 7.66 7.37 5.68 6.5-7.2 D. Ease of Play 6.10 5.77 6.03 5.59 6.55 6.94 6.3-7.0 E. Rules Completeness 6.75 6.38 6.97 5.02 5.74 5.70 6.3-6.9 F. Play Balance 6.56 7.21 7.11 6.36 6.35 6.86 6.1-6.7 G. Game Length Suitability 5.46 6.26 5.93 6.45 6.78 6.2-6.8 H. Set-Up Time Suitability 7.1 1 6.13 5.34 6.68 6.89 6.2-6.8 J. Complexity Suitability 6.61 6.98 6.55 6.71 6.27 6.2-6.9 K. Realism 5.99 6 66 7.81 6.89 6.71 6.19 5.9-6.5 .. . L. Overall ~ a t i n g ' 6.75 '6.82 7.35 6.57 6.50 6.51 6.1-6.8 M. Yo Who'd still buy 75% 76% 86% 77% 74% 81% 77% N. % Rec'd n orth 85% 78%

S&T SURVE' -.

070 ~ h o ' v e played game 62"10 14% 17% 7% 6 Acceptability Rating 3 6.7 7.3 6.9 6.5 6.0 . . - . . .

Complexity Rating 8 7.3 7.8 7.0 5.5 5.3 Game Length (hours) 6.0+ 3.0 6.0+ 8.0 5.0 2.5 Solitaire Playability 6.3 1.5 6.0 4.0 4.0 5.5

CONQUISTADOR! Comments: Battalion level simulation of entire Design: Richard Berg battle at Waterloo; includes battle formation Development: Greg Costikyan tactics, skirmishes, artillerists. Art: Redmond A. Simonsen Comments: A quasi-historical simulation AVALANCHE

Design: Frank Chadwick based on the exploration and conquest o f the Comments: Operational simulation with tat- New World in the 16th Century. tical flavor of the Salerno landings; historical

OB, extensive terrain rules, odds ratio CRT AFTER T H E HOLOCAUST plus artillery table, extensive unit-type dif- Design: Redmond A. Simonsen ferentiation. Development: Irad B. Hardy BURMA Art: Redmond A. Simonsen Design: Thomas Fowler Comments: Multi-player Power Politics Series ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ : operational simulation of B~~~~ game on the fragmentation and reunification campaign; rail and road network affecting of the United States after nuclear devastation; both movement and supply, road-building, heavily economic airdrops, beachheads, unit training rules,

paratroop and glider units.

WELLINGTON'S VICTORY SIEGE Design: Frank Davis Design: Richard Jordison Development: Fred Georgian, Tom Kassel, Comments: Deals primarily with the pre- Pete Bennett, Joe Balkoski, Ron Toelke gunpowder age; assault, sieges, scaling, storm- Art: Redmond A. Simonsen ing; scenarios.

Feedback MOVES nr. 34, published Aug/Sep 1977

How to use the Feedback Response Card: After you've finished reading this issue of MOVES, please read the Feedback questions below, and give us your answers by writing the answer- numbers on the card in the response boxes which correspond to each question number. See center- fold for card. Please be sure to answer all questions (but do not write anything in the box for question-numbers labelled "no question"). Incompletely filled-out cards cannot be processed.

What the numbers mean: When answering questions, "0" always means NO OPINION or NOT APPLICABLE. When the Question isa "yes or no:' question, "1" means YES and "2" means NO. When the question is a rating question, "1" is the WORST rating, "9" is the BEST rating, "5" is an AVERAGE rating, and all numbers in between ex- press various shades of approval or disapproval.

SECTION A 1-3. No question (leave blank) Questions4 through 18 ask you t o rate the articles in this issue on a scale of 1 (poor) through 9 (excellent); 0 = no opinion.

4. True Victory 5. Napoleon's Victory

6. Spanish Gold

7. A Productive Approach

8. Wacht am Rhein 9. The Long Patrol

10. Moscow Campaign 11. Wurzburg 12. Opening MOVES

13. Designer's Notes 14. Your MOVES

15. Forward Observer

16. Playback

17. This issue (overall) 18. Was this issue better than the last one? The following questions ask you to rate the individual Footnotes on a scale of 1 (poor) t o 9 (excellent); 0 = no opinion.

19, More Firefight Scenarios

20. The Pilum in Legion 21. QuadriGame: PBM 22. Embattled Rhodesia 23. First We'll Eat. . . 24. No question 25. Assume that you don't subscribe to MOVES. Would the quality of this issue alone motivate you to subscribe?

26. For how many issues have you had a continu- ous subscription to MOVES? 0 = I don't subscribe; 1 =This is my first issue; 2= This is my second or third issue; 3=This is my fourth or fifth issue; 4=This is my sixth issue; 5=This is my seventh through eleventh issue; 6=This is my twelfth issue; 7= This is my thirteenth through eighteenth issue; 8=This is my nineteenth or subsequent issue; 9 = 1 am a MOVES Lifetime Subscriber (regardless of number of issues received).

27. What level of complexity do you prefer in games? Rate your preference on a 1-9 scale, with

higher numbers indicating increased complexity. Use the following games as guidelines. American Revolution - 4; East is Red - 5, NATO - 6, Patrol! - 7.

28. Your age: 1 =13 years old or younger; 2 = 14-17; 3 = 18-21; 4 = 22-27; 5 = 28-35; 6 = 36 or older. 29. Your sex: 1 = Male; 2 = Female.

30. Education: 1 = 11 years or less; 2 = 12 years; 3 = 13-15 years; 4= 13-15 years and still in school; 5= 16 years; 6= 17 years or more.

31. How long have you been playing conflict simulation games? 0 = less than a year; 1 = 1 year; 2 = 2 years. . .8 = 8 years; 9 = 9 or more years. 32. What is the average number of hours you spend playing simulation games each month? 0 = none; 1 = 1 hour or less; 2 = 2-5 hours; 3 = 6-9 hours; 4= 10-15 hours; 5= 16-20 hours; 6=21-25; 7= 26-30; 8=31-40; 9=40or more hours.

33. How many simulation games (of all publishers) do you possess? 1 = 1-10; 2 = 11-20; 3=21-30; 4=31-40; 5=41 -50 ; 6=51-60; 7 = 61 -70; 8 = 71-80; 9 = 81 or more. 34. Did you send in the feedback card for your last issue of MOVES? 1 =yes; 2 =no. 35. Pick the one area about which you would most like to see games and articles done: 1 =An- cient (Rome, Greek, Biblical, 300 BC-GOOAD); 2= Dark Ages and Renaissance (600 AD- 1600 AD); 3=30 Years War and pre-Napoleonic (1600 AD- 1790); 4= Napoleonic (1790- 1830); 5 = Civil War/ 19th Century (1830- 1900); 6 =World War 1 (1900-1930); 7=World War 11 (1930- 1945); 8=post-World War II (1945-present); 9= Present and future (anything goes). Rate the following game proposals on a scale of 1 t o 9. with one indicating very little intention t o buy.. .[up through1 nine indicating very great likelihood of buying the game.

36. This is to be a Power Politics game dealing with the trade between the Levant and Europe in the fourteenthand fifteenth centuries. Each player represents one of the major trading states or military powers of the age - either Venice, Genoa, Florence, Siena, the German bankers, the Dutch, the French or the Spanish - or one of the Levantine states - the Byzantines, the Turks, or the Mamelukes. Although military aspects will be represented, the major concentration will be on trade. Separate scenarios will deal with various periods within the scope of the game - competition between Venice and Genoa, the rise of Florence and Leghorn, the decline of the Mediter- ranean resulting from the connexions built between the East and the Atlantic states by Portugal and others. Each of tkie trading states must continually attempt to grab as much of the Levantine trade as possible while building up as large a trading and warring fleet as possible. To sell for $12 to $15.

37. This is to be a Power Politics game dealing with Europe of the 19th Century. It will concentrate on the economic, societal, and colonial aspects of the period, with only secondary attention to the military. Each of several players will represent one of the great powers - Britain, France, Austria, Russia, Germany, Italy, the United States, and Japan. Each must attempt to expand colonially and territorially, while advancing societally and technologically at home. Each must attempt to industrialize and build up his military, while gradually introducing democratic institutions a l home. Each must continually guard against the ,spectre of revolution at home and uprisings in the colonies. National prestige, production, and colonial holdings are all factors in the determination of victory at the end of the game. To sell for $12 to $15.

38. A game covering the May 1942 battle in the vicinity of Izium, in which a Russian offensiveaim- ed at Kharkov was defeated by a German counterattack that cut off the entire penetration. The game would utilize the Panzergruppe: Guderian game system (10.5 KMIhex, bi-weekly turns). The situation is interesting, because it involved a pretty powerful Russian attacking force that was poorly employed, and then allowed by the Russian high command to be cut-off. Had the attack been more aggressively handled by the Soviets, the Germans would have been in deeper trouble than they were; had the Russians not insisted on ignor- ing the German counter-attack until after their troops were cut off, they could have avoided the disaster that the formation of the "lzium pocket" became. Simulating the constraints placed upon the original commanders, with options to see what would have happened had they been left free to act "sensibly", the game will be a one-map, 400 * counter game, to sell for $9. 39. Between January and May 1944, the war in Italy became stalemated by the inability of the US Fifth and British Eighth Armies to penetrate a strong German defense known as the Gustav Line which included the Monte Cassino strongpoint astride Highway 6. The stalemate continued for five months during which the Allies launched four distinct assaults to capture the mountaintop fortress considered the gatepost guarding Rome. The simulation of this battle would employ a new game system designed to portray the tactical engagements of the Rapido River crossing, the street battle in the town of Cassino, and the close- assault which finally captured the monastery- fortress atop Monte Cassino. The game scale would recreate company and battalion level actions through a variety of scenarios encompassed by the entire five month battle. The game com- ponents would include four maps (scaled at approximately 250 meters per hex) and 12-1600 . counters. The game would sell for approximately $20. 4

40. A game on the political and military aspects of Civil Disobedience. This game would be entirely different from any we have done so far in as much , as it would deal with the polit~cal, tactical aspects of guerrilla warfare and terrorism. On one hand there would be a set of cards which would be the main component in the political game which would involve more player interaction. On the other hand there would be two actual maps where actual terrorist, activist, or guerrilla action would take place. This game would show the .intimate connection between the political scene and the military scene in a revolutionary environment. There would be scenarios covering everything from a pacifist anti-war movement to a civil rights movement to urban terrorist guerrillas. This would be a member of our $12 power politics series which comes in a hard box with a mounted map.

41. This game would allow 1 to 24 players to ven- ture into commando or secret agent missions through the mechanics of role playing. The game , would consist of three booklets: the People, which would give the characteristics of various comman- dos, mercenaries, guards, revolutionaries, and secret agents as human beings; the Machines, which would describe the characteristics of the multitude of weaponry available to the modern operative; and the Objectives, which would describe how to set up a map or model of various buildings, laboratories bunkers, pill boxes, etc. This game would cover all Special Action from WWl l to the present. There would be a set of historical scenarios, and hypothetical or free set up rules. The game would be adaptable for board gaming, paper and pencil play, or miniatures and would stress player identification within multi-

player scenarios. There would also be a ran- domizer for solitaire play.

42. A game covering the potential chaos resulting from the death of Marshal Tito of Yugoslavia. The game map would cover all of Yugoslavia and adjacent border areas. Rules would provide for political as well as military operations. The possible civil war scenarios are many. There at least half a dozen factions within Yugoslavia plus Russia, NATO nations, and the UN. The game would cover the political-military implications of any upset in that area. Linked to the military game covering both conventional and guerrilla actions would be an optional political game. Naval forces in the Adriatic would be used and air power, including airborne operations. The scale would be about 28 km to the hex with turns representing two to three days each. Basically a two-player game, there would be three-and four-player !or more) versions. Special rules for mountain operations, amphibious and airborne landings, political loyalty and many other aspects of a most unusual situation.

43. This is a science-fiction role-playing game, which takes place in the distant future. The background is one of conflict between an Empire that has managed to seize control of the entire galaxy, and of a revolutionary underground that is fighting for the re-establishment of freedom and individual effort. Each player will take as his character an individual person; robots, aliens and humans are possible. Each character will, depending on his rank, be able to control certain portions of the galaxy, the economy, the armed forces, or whatever. Thegamewill be on an operationallper- sonal level, with interplanetary and terrestrial con- flicts allowing the complexity of character- building to be an important part of the game. The central part of the game will bea lengthy rulebook, containing a number of scenarios, which will act as a guidelines for the players' imaginations. To sell for $15 to $20.

44. Trireme. Ship to ship combat during the "heroic" age. Lead your squadron of ships upon the enemy in ramming formation. Rake the deck of the opposing ships with arrows as your marines prepare to board. Then the crunching, tearing sound of the ram penetrating the enemy hull. Grappling hooks are thrown, and your men go over the side. After a fierce contest you row away as your enemy slips beneath the waves. Trireme will cover ship to ship combat from the earliest times through the Punic wars. The major battles to be covered will be Salamis, Arginussae, Tyre, and many others. The game will have two maps one of an island area with many inlets the other will be of a harbor similar to the type near which Salamis was fought. The game will sell for $12. 45. Triple Game: War in Korea. A new approach, Warin Korea is designed to give insight into every aspect of a very unusual war. There are three complete and independent games, each with a full-size map and 200-300 counters. Battles for Korea is a regimentldivision level game based upon SPl's old Korea game, but with an improved map and more emphasis on the differences in the organization and capabilities of the opposing armies. Air and seapower, supply, and the possibility of more active Soviet intervention are important. As a bonus, units and rules for a 1980 clash are provided. Pusan Perimeter is a battalion level game dealing with the desperate UN defense in thedark days of the war and the eventual successful counterof- fensive. Using Untried Unit Strength, the game compares the infantry army and infiltration tactics of the North Koreans with the conventional linear system of the mechanized UN army. Supply, air- power, terrain, artillery, guerrillas, engineers, morale, street fighting, weather, replacements,

naval gunfire, armor and antitank, maybe even limited North Korean hidden movement. Finally, The Hills of Korea is a cornpanylplatoon tactical game. While there are some things in common with the Mech-War series, Hills is almost entirely an infantrylartillery game. Communist infiltration and "human sea" tactics, night fighting, out- posts, bunkers, barbed wire, engineers, sappers, demolition, flamethrowers, command control (radio or bugle), mortars, grenade close assault, napalm, tanks (a few), ammo supply, trucks and halftracks, panic, morale, and Turkish elan. Historical scenarios (Gloster Hill, Porkchop Hill, Heartbreak Ridge, Little Gibraltar. Task Force Smith) and generalized ones. The map would be basically a section of front with ridges and "No Man's Land" in the WWI-style war. Possibly a second map with urban terrain and clear for street battles (Seoul, Taejon, Inchon, Pyongyang) and a hypothetical tank battle (North Koreanswith T34's versus US Shermans and Pershings, British Cen- turions). The triple game would sell for about $25-$30. Rate the whole package.

Rate the component games, which would be available separately.

46. Battles for Korea (regiment division), $9 47. Pusan Perimeter Ibattalionl, $94 12 48. Hills of Korea (cornpanylplatoon). $9-$15

49. Did you attend Origins 77 at Staten Island, New York?

50. If you did nor attend, why not? 1 = Don't like conventions; 2 = Convention site too far away; 3 = Timing was inconvenient; 4 = Lack of funds; 5 = Specifically did not want to travel to New York; 6 = Hadn't heard about it in time; 7 = Went to Origins II last year and was discouraged by experience; 8 = Didn't want to attend a convention run by SPI; 9 = Intended to go but personal problems interfered. (0 = did attend). 51. If you did attend Origins 77, how much did you enjoy it? (Rate on a scale of 1 to 9). 52. What specific feature did you especially enjoy? 1 = Tournaments; 2 = Seminars; 3 = Miniatures displays; 4 = Exhibit hall; 5 = Meeting other garners; 6 = Informal game playing; 7 = Meeting some of the designers and staffers of the wargame companies; 8 = Some other aspect not listed. (0 = did not attend). 53. How well-run was Origins 77? Rate 1-9 (0 = did not attend). 54. If you attended Origins II (in Baltimore) and Origins 77 in Staten Island, how do you compare them? 1 = Origins II wassignificantly better; 2 = Origins II was marginally better; 3 = They were about equal; 4 = Origins77 was marginally better; Origins 77 was significantly better. (0 = did not attend both conventions). 55. In the next or subsequent issue of MOVES, the Editor intends to run about two pages of various new (reader-created) scenarios to many different games. This two page experimental section will be called ScenarioPlex. Rate this concept on a scale of 1 to 9. If you rated the ScenarioPlex concept "6" or higher, indicate for which of the following games you'd like to see new scenarios, 1 = don't want any new scenarios; 2 = want some new scenarios; 3 = want as many new scenarios as become available. Write "0" if you don't play the game or are not interested in the ScenarioPlex concept. 56. Firefight

57. Modern Battles I 58. Sinai

59. MechWar 77

60. SSN (GDW)

61. Sixth Fleet

62. War in EuropeIWar in the WestIWar in the East

63. Highway to the Reich

64. Russian Campaign (AH)

65. Panzergruppe Guderian 66. DNO (GDW) 67. Sniper

68. Patrol 69. Submarine (Battleline)

70. Fast Carriers 71. Third Reich (AH)

72. Panzer '44 73. Panzer Leader (AH) 74. Panzer Armee Afrika

75. Tobruk (AH) 76. Global War

77. Wacht am Rhein

78. Wooden Ships (AH)

79. Wellington's Victory

80. Torgau (GDW) 81. Dreadnought

82. Musket & Pike

83. Prestags Games System 84. Richthofen's War (AH)

85. Conquistador 86. La Grande Armee

87. Frederick the Great

88. Starsoldier 89. Outreach

90. StarForce 91. Sorcerer

92. After the Holocaust

93. Stellar Conquest (MGC) 94. Starship Troopers (AH) 95, 96. No question.

SECTION B The results of the following survey are used in our PLAYBACK system. This system reviews games by showing the response of the people who play the games. Questions 104-188 are part of PLAYBACK.

After each game title there are thirteen questions [lettered "A" through "N"1. Unless otherwise noted, these questions are answered with a "1" [poor] through "9' [excellentl rating.

Question A - What did you think of the physical quality and layout of the mapsheet?

Question B - What d ~ d you think of the physical quality and layout of the rules folder?

Question C- What did you think of the physical quality and layout of the unit counters?

Question D - What did you think of the game's "ease of play" (how well the game moved along?

Quest ion E -Wha t did you th ink of the "completeness" of the game's rules (was everything thoroughly explained)?

Question F-What did you think of the game's play balance !was the game interesting for both sides)?

Question G-What did you think about the ap- propriateness of the length of the average game?

Question H -What did you think of theamountof "set-up time" needed before you could begin playing the game?

Question J-What did you think of the ap- propriateness of the complexity of this game?

Question K - What did you think of this game's realism?

Simalatlom R~bllutlonr, Inc. 44 East 23rd Street New York, N.Y. 10010

RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED

Question L-What d ~ d you think of this game overall?

Question M-Would you st111 have bought this game if you knew then what you know now about it (1 = Yes; 2 = No).

Quest~on N-Do you think you received your money's worth with this game? 11 = Yes; 2 = No). We will ask you to rate six games. If you have not played these games, or have not.played them enough to be able to evaluate them, then simply place "0" in the boxes.

ROAD TO RICHMOND 104. A (mapsheet) 111. H (set-up time) 105. B (rules) 112. J (complex~ty) 106. C (counters) 113. K (real~sm) 107. D (ease of play) 114. L (overall) 108. E (rules completeness) 115. M lthen and now) 109. F (balance) 116. N (money's worth) 110. G (length) 117. No questlon

HIGHWAY TO THE REICH 118. A (mapsheet) 125. H (set-up tcme) 119. B (rules) 126. J (complex~ty) 120. C (counters) 127. K (realtsm) 121. D (ease of play) 128. L (overall) 122. E (rules completeness) 129. M (then and now) 123. F (balance) 130. N (money's worthl 124. G (length) 131,132. No questlon

WACHT AM RHEIN 133. A (mapsheet) 140. H (set-up time) 134. B (rules) 141. J (complexity) 135. C (counters) , 142. K (real~sm) 136. D (ease of play) 143. L (overall) 137. E (rules completeness) 144. M (then and now) 138. F (balance) 145. N (money's worth) 139. G (lengrh) 146. No question

CITADEL (GDW) 147. A (mapsheet) 154. H (set-up t~me) 148. B (rules) 155. J (complexity) 149. C (counters) 156. K (realism) 150. D lease of play) 157. L (overall) 151. E (rules completeness) 158. M (then and now) 152. F (balance) 159. N (money's worth) 153. G (length) 160,161. No question

METAMORPHOSIS ALPHA (TSR) 162. A (mapsheet) 169. H (set-up t~me) 163. B (rules) 170. J (complex~tyi 164. C (counters) 171. K (real~sm) 165. D (ease of play) 172. L (overall) 166. E (rules completeness) 173. M lthen and now) 167. F (balance) - 174. N (money's worth) 168. G (length) 175. No questlon

THE ARAB-ISRAELI WARS (AH) 176. A (mapsheet) 183. H (set-up time) 177. B (rules) 184. J (complexity) 178. C (counters) 185. K (realism) 179. D (ease of play) 186. L (overall) 180. E (rules completeness) 187. M (then and now) 181. F (balance) 188. N (money's worth) 182. G (length) 189-1%. No question

SCENARIOPLEX Submissions: In the next or subsequent issue of MOVES, I'm going to institute an experimental two-page section called Scenarioplex. This will be two solid pages of new scenarios for various games. If you wish to submit scenarios for publication in this column, f o l l ~ w the normal instructions (on page 27) and be sure to use no more than two double- spaced typewritten pages per scenario; start each scenario cn a new sheet; write the scenario in the style of those in the parent game; TEST your scenarios before submitting them and indicate your historical sources at the end of the scenario. The object is to get a wide selection of scenarios from many different games (SPI and non-SPI). You may write more than one per game, but only one per author will be published in an issue. Con- centrate on games that don't have many scenarios associated with them. Be concise. Honorariums will be $5 in credit only, per scenario published.

Circulation - Strategy & Tactics Pressstrategyandtacticspress.com/library-files/Moves...

Documents

Transcript of Circulation - Strategy & Tactics Pressstrategyandtacticspress.com/library-files/Moves...