the franco-prussian war - Strategy & Tactics

I.D. will be used to plot the movement andcombat for that ship that turn.[10.121 In the next block(s), place one attackcode (if the ship is to attack in that turn) andindicate the Unit I.D. of the target ship. If aship is to make both gunnery and torpedoattacks in a given turn, then two attack blockswill be required.110.131 Following the blocks in which attackshave been recorded (if any) plot the movementof each unit, recording each hex to be enteredby the unit in this turn. If the unit will expendmovement points turning in a particular hex,place a circled number in the block with thehex number to indicate how many movementpoints were expended in turning. See (6.0)Movement for details on how to move.I10.141 After all of the movement points of theunit have been expended, in the next block,place the final speedifacing of the unit, i.e., thespeed facing after completion of all turning,acceleration, deceleration, etc.; this becomesthe initial speedifacing for the next turn.I10.21 ATTACK CODES[10.211 An attack code written in a block with aUnit I.D. commits the given ship to make theindicated type of attack on the indicatedtarget. The attack codes are "G" for gunneryattacks and "T" for torpedo attacks. Attacksare made subject to the limitations ofsection (7.0).[10.221 Decisions regarding combat are final.No changes in attacking units or target unitscan be made after the end of the OperationPlot Phase.[10.31 SECRECY AND HONESTYEach player's Simultaneous Movement PlotChart is to be hidden from the other playeruntil the end of the game. If there is anyquestion about the other player's orders, thePlayer is advised to write them down andcompare them with the SMS Plot Chart at theend of the game. A player who secretlyviolates the rules to gain an advantage in thegame, forfeits that game.[10.41 SIMULTANEITY OF COMBAT[10.411 All combat is considered simultaneous.For this reason Combat Results are noteffective until the Combat Results ApplicationPhase. Then they are applied to all units thatsuffered them.[10.421 A ship that suffers a Combat Result in agiven Combat Resolution Phase must engagein combat in that phase if ordered to do so bythe SMS Plot Chart without any considerationof the Combat Result. The Combat Resultdoes not affect the ship's combat ability in anyway until the Combat Results ApplicationPhase of that turn.[10.51 SIMULTANEITY OF MOVEMENTAll movement is also considered simultaneous.Both players execute all plotted movementduring the Board Movement Phase. All plottedmovement must be executed; ships may neveralter their movement in response to enemyactions.l7.61 SMS NIGHT TIME SPOTTING[7.61 I Most scenarios in "CA" take place atnight. There are special restrictions upon firingat ni~ht Shins may only fire guns or torpedosat target ships that are "spotted."[7.621 Spotting occurs in three manners:(a) Whenever a ship uses its Gunnery Strengthin a turn, place a spotted marker on it. Torpedoattacks do not cause spotting.(b) Whenever a ship is within eight (8) hexes ofan enemy ship, place a spotted marker on it.(c) Whenever a ship has been the target of agunnery attack in a turn, and fulfilled theconditions (a) or (b) above, it remains spottedfor the following Game- Turn only, if it is againunder under gunnery attack, even though itdoes not fulfill the requirements of (a) or (b).I7.631 Spotting is determined only in the SightDetermination Phase. Ships which fulfill thesighting requirements in that phase, and shipswhich make gunnery attacks (see 10.31) arespotted for that turn. Because spotting is onlydetermined in the sight determination phase,the initial contact between two ships may bemade at less than eight hexes.I7.641 Spotted markers are removed at the endof each Game-Turn.Those are all the rule changes necessary toplay "CA" in Simultaneous Movement. Forthose players willing to put up with some slightadditional complexity, the SimultaneousMovement System can be used to add acrucial factor to the game - the simulation ofpreparednesslalertness, which is crucial in allnaval combat, but is particularly important atnight. The method for doing this will bediscussed in a later article if feedback responsewarrants it.Shown, is an example of how to fill out theSMS Plot Chart as indicated in the rules.SPI SIMULTANEOUS MOVEMENT PLOTTING CHARTi.r*gnl 1973 snn~utn~-.amsknr ~.r rolr. NVUNIT MOVEMENT PLOT ,YE, J-Indicated is the first turn plot for the AlliedPlayer in Scenario 1A. In this case, the first hexof placement is written down because the twocapital ships expend their Movement Pointsturning in this hex; otherwise this hex wouldnot be written down, as the information isgiven with the scenario The two capital shipsattack the IJN BC's, though the combat isineffective because of the range (it is merelyincluded to show the mechanics). No torpedoattacks are made this turn. The Allied Playerincreases the speed of all his ships, andmaneuvers to close the range.Qp$'JQAddingThe "CA" article was a relatively well donetreatise on the fighting around the Solomons.Unfortunately, there were a large number oferrors in the article and associated descriptivemodules, some trivial, some technical, andsome just downright erroneous research.Other than the following items, the articlecovers a subject too often overlooked andconsidering what you attempted to do with thegame, you achieved a fair measure of success.ERRA TA:A. MAIN ARTICLE1. Pg. 12. Although IJN training exercises wereconducted under much more rigorous andrealistic conditions, their quartermasters wereno less parsimonious about lost torpedoesthan were ours. Cmdr Hara, Japan's leadingtorpedo expert, states that due to the cost andsecurity considerations, units would spendmany hours searching for just one straytorpedo and that practices were often calledoff due to bad weather and fear of losing anerrant torpedo.2. In the same paragraph, mention is made ofsinking obsolete warships. The USN alsoconducted exhaustive tests, sinking theuncompleted 4th unit of the Maryland Class(USS WASHINGTON 8847) off VirginiaCapes 25/11/24 as well as OSTFRIESLANDand numerous other warships. These testswere quite meaningful and aided considerablyin the design development of subsequentvessels.3. In numerous discussions of the Japaneseand their cruiser development, critics parrotMorrison's sentiments that IJN heaviesexceeded treaty limits by gross amounts thusproducing such superior ships. In fact, the first4 CA's, Hirago's Aoba Class were well belowtreaty limits, the Myokos displaced 10,940 tonswhile the Atogos were only 410 tons heavier.Now these figures certainly do not indicate anygross attempt to circumvent treaty obligations.Now after the treaty expired in 1935 all fourMyokos and two of the Atagos wereextensively rebuilt bringing them up to 13,380and 13,400 tons repsectively, but this was onlyafter the treaty expired. Noting that after allthese many years the facade of our 35,000 ton"treaty" battleships has been finally lifted, itwould not surprise many people if exhaustiveresearch into US treaty cruisers' actualdisplacements might also reveal some eyeopening information.4. Pg. 16. Another mistaken notion which hasbeen perpetuated by numerous writers is increditing Imperial Navy Headquarters with thefirst widespread acceptance of the carrier asthe capital ship of World War II, which is reallynot the case. Kido Buntai was an untriedweapon system whereas Senkan Sentai werethe acclaimed Queens of the Sea. In fact thecarriers were considered more expendablethan battleships early in the war. It was notreally until after Midway that Rengo Kantaiwas willing to begin to accept the precept thatthe "decisive battle" would be fought in the airover the ships and not by the battle line. In facta special paper entitled, Reserach On StrikingForce Tactics, written by Yokosuka Naval AirGroup in May 1943, makes considerablemention of this as if they were trying topersuade higher headquarters as to the deathof the battleship as capital ship. At any rate theobjective of Pearl Harbor was to remove thePacific Fleet as an obstacle to the conquest ofthe Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. . .an objective which in EVERY way was fulfilled.The original strategic plan was to occupy thenecessary territories, consolidate an outerdefensive perimeter and then sit back and waitfor the US to spend itself on the outer portionsof that perimeter. As our good fortune wouldhave it, "victory fever" set in causing theJapanese to overextend themselves and as aresult being defeated at Coral Sea andMidway. Had they struck to their original plan

the chances of obtaining a negotiated peacewould have been greatly enhanced, as isevidenced by the Solomon Island Campaignwhich took better than 1 % years to advance amere 400 miles toward Tokyo. [Note: thehighly successful "leap frog" techniques usedlater on was only possible due to complete airand naval superiority, superiority which wewould not have been able to mount nearly soreadily had it not been for Midway, et al.).5. Pg. 16. Java Sea was a battle of severalphases which took place over a seven hourperiod, not three as is stated, from 1615 whenthe first broadsides were exchanged to 2350when DE RUYTER and JAVA were torpedoedby NACHI and HAGURO. The Japanese didnot use their training or torpedos to their full,often firing long lances at impossible rangesand improbable angles. It was only the chancelucky hit on EXETER which threw the alliedbattle line into the path of Tanaka's torpedoes.The two heavies did not redeem the fleet thatnight with their attack on the allied cruisersthough.6. Pg 76 (again): What carrier attack on theMarianas??? The extent of the early war raidswere Kwajelien (ENTERPRISE 1 Feb 42).Rabaul (LEXINGTON 20 Feb 421, and. Lae-Salamua (YORKTOWN 10 Mar 42). Anyraid into the Marianas would have been met byMihoro Air Group (36 G3M 8iG4M) and 2ndAir Group (48 A6M2) plus some assortedsearch units of Yokohama Air Group.7. Pg. 16 once more. People have a tendencyto attribute human qualities to inanimateobjects. The US CVs were not fearful of airattacks, Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher was verymuch so. The strain of constant combat fornine months was showing very much, andhaving had two carriers sunk from underneathhim in as many months certainly did not helpthings along. No, if you must put the blame forthat little piece of lunacy, which cost 1024lives, put it on F.J.F.8. Pg. 18. The discussion of Cape Esperanceshows a singular lack of understanding of that: action. Scott strictly forbade the use SC radari by those ships that had it, Intelligence reportshad indicated that the Japanese had a radardetection capability (a device similar to theGerman Naxos) which could sense metricwave length radar. He had planned to useaircraft (4) but those that finally got airbornewere forgotten about in the heat of the battle.Only HELENA had SG radar which picked upGoto at 28,000 yards. . .the only problem wasthat this was not reported to Scott until therange was down to 12,000 yards, at whichpoint in time the US column was in the processof making a 180° turn. It was only pure luckthat LAFFEY continued through the turnrather than following DUNCAN after Goto, forhad she and the remainder of the force doneso, it would have been almost a mirror imageof the 13 Nov action with both lines rammingeach other head on. As it was, Scott was soconfused that he thought he was firing atfriendly ships (as did Goto) and ordered ceasefire repeatedly after HELENA opened up. It1 was luck more than anything else that carriedScott through that action. As far as Japanesetorpedos not being very effective, both AOBAand FURUTAKA were knocked out very early,FUBUKI was smashed as she was turning tounmask her tubes (sinking in three minutes).KINUGASA and HATSUYUKI had turned toport which gave them a trailing shot throughwater occupied by their own flagship, although Other Warships. Morrison credits a torpedo hittorpedoes from KINUGASA passed ahead of on FURUTAKA by either DUNCAN orBOISE at midnight. On top of that the force FARENHOLT during Cape Esperance, whichcommander was killed and there was no helps to save face for our DDs in thatdirection or control for coordinated torpedo campaign, albeit only slightly.attacks. At any rate, the main point is thatradar played little part in Cape EsperanceTabulation. South Dakota carried a 12-inchexcept to help HELENA to be more aware of main belt' 18' This was a mythwhat was going on than anyone else, including perpertrated wartime propaganda whichwas not dispelled until 1970 when BreyersScott' Also' map Of Cape Esperance Schlachtschiff und Schlachtkreuzer publishedshows the lead making the the accurate figures. Note also that Janes forKINUGASA, the trailing CA actually made thatthe year that NEW JERSEY operated off Vietturn' leading turned Nam rated her at her proper belt thickness, i.e.,starboard.310mm (12%"1.The same data can be found8. DESCRIPTIVE MODULESin the revised edition of the Lenton seriespocketbook.1. Ships of Guadalcanal.BBs. If as claimed, the Japanese fastbattleships were unsuccessful in their nightbombardment role, then 14 Oct 42 must havebeen the work of some very strange force.Actually KONGO and HARUNA conducted a1 '/i hour long shoot, placing 918 projectiles intothe Henderson field area with what can only beconsidered devastating effect. Some differenceof opinion exists as to whether the ammoused was type 0 high capacity or type 3incendiary, but the fact remains thatHenderson lost nearly 60% of its aircraft thatnight and six transports unloaded threebattalions off Tassafaronga. The myth of ourPT's driving off the bombardment group isanother bunch of hogwash that is oftenperpetuated (although not by your article). Forboth bombardment missions (14 Oct and 13Nov) the Kongos carried 60 rounds per gun forthat purpose making a total of 960 shells.Simple mathematics indicated that by the endof the second pass by Henderson there wereonly four broadsides of these rounds left so theshoot was ended.CLs. All Japanese destroyer squadrons had alight cruiser attached as flotilla flagship. This isthe reason for the size of Japanese lightcruisers, ships large enough to pack aconsiderable punch when backing up adestroyer flotilla and yet not so large as tobecome an expensive liability that commanderswould not be willina to exDose to danaer.Probably one of the besfexamples of this Gpewas the Dutch TROMP class which wereOnly two of the Takao class CAs were rebuiltalong lines shown (ATAGO and TAKAO).MAYA was rearmed in 1942 with twin 5/40cal AA replacing the single 4.7's but still carriedonly 8 tubes. Chokai was never rebuilt andcarried 4~4.7" and 8x24" TT to the day shewas sunk. This can be referenced in Watts &Gordon's The Imperial Japanese Navy.Tenryu class were never armed with 24" tubes,carried 6x21" (Type 81 torpedo) with noreloads. YUBARI also did not carry anyreloads.2. Naval OrdnanceSomewhere someone has his wires crossed.AP shells pass through unarmored shipswithout exploding. . .(Coggins is wrong). . .HC shells have contact fuses (as do incendiaryshells) which explode instantaneously todamage thin skinned vessels. AARON WARDsurvived only because she was hit by AP whichpassed right through her without exploding,much the same as FANSHAW BAY at Leyte fwhen she took a 16" AP hit from NAGATO '..which passed right through the engine roomwithout detonating. During the 13 Nov battle,Adm Abe had eight minutes from first sightingof the US van to the time he opened fire, duringwhich time he was able to change over frombombardment to AP, although 'they did usesome during the action.No Japanese CLs carried a 6" gun. OnlyOYODO carried 6.1" artillery, and those wererelatively cheap and expendable, as cruisers the9th and 10th turrets removed from the firstgo, and yet which was nimble enough asset to two Mogamis. The Aganos carried a hand .;any destroyer flotilla which she served. loaded 5.9" weapon.ORDNANCE:Some corrections to the gunnery figures:-iapolis and earlier 1

TORPEDOES:Mark/Model Dia - - wt - -- Wrnd - -Performance Utilization-< -MklO steam 21" 2100' 415 3500136 -Subs ----'Mk13 steam 22" 1921 600 3000136 AIC, PTMk14 ste, 2: 500 4500146 Subs9000132Mkl5steam 21" 2215 660 4400148 Surface shlps880013215000126.5I403. TorpedoesA relatively good discussion of the difficultieswe faced with our torpedoes, the only problemis that both the Mk 10 and Mk 14 types listedwere submarine torpedoes. The standarddestroyer torpedo was the Mk 15 which was aBliss-Leavitt model using the same MI C pistolof the Mk 14, making it equally as unreliable asthe Mk 14. Also, the standard rack mountedtorpedo for the Higgins type PT boats was the22" Mk 13 aircraft torpedo, although the Elcoboats carried the Mk 15 in tubes. The Mk 15was a fairly good weapon once the bugs of1942 were ironed out. At any rate it wasreplaced in 1944 by the Mk 18, an electrictorpedo copied from the German G7e-FATelectric. The accompanying table may help toplace them in perspective.While looking at torpedoes, the main Japanesesurface ship torpedo was the Type 93, butmany of the older DDs and CLs as well as allsubmarines carried the Type 81, a 21" steamjob (YUNAGI and TENRYU did at Savo).Japanese aircraft and MTBs carried a 1760 Ib.18" type with a 440 Ib. warhead which mayexplain why it took five to sinkCHICAGO although fewer would have probablybeen sufficient had they been in rapidsuccession rather than two followed by threemore some 20 hours later. This carries over tothe Hit and Hit Hard area and may explainsome of the differences in warship resistanceto torpedo as well as other damage.4. Hit and Hit HardWhat ship is the BENTON? Please pass thisinformation on as apparently you havediscovered a destroyer even the USN did notknow existed.Morrison credits WASHINGTON with onlynine 16" hits out of 75 rounds fired atKIRISHIMA. They were all that were necessaryto save SOUTH DAKOTA'S bacon for, in spiteof the fact that her engineering spaces werestill intact, she had lost one 16" turret and wasa blazing pyre that was attracting 14" shellslike moths. It would not have been too muchlonger before her luck would have run out andshe, too, would have suffered a critical injury.5. Who Won.Again, in the discussion of Cape Esperance itshould be noted that the Japanese achievedtheir objective, Sumiyoshi landed with hisartillery and tanks safely.C. "CA" GAME RULESA fair number of errors are in section 12.0, ShipCharacteristics.1. So DakotaIN Carolina 38,000 tons2. Iowa 48,500 tons- 7DD/sS - -- ""--"'"3. Maryland only 3 units (4th, WASHINGTON,sunk 1924)4. Baltimore 13.600 tons5. Omaha 5 units CL-1, 5 type CL-26. Atlanta 4 units 16x5" 8x21"TT4 units 12x5" 8x21"TT3 units 12x5" 0 TT7. Sims DD 12 units 4x5" 8x21"TT (extramounts removed 1941)8. Craven 22 units9. Benson DD-5 should be Bristol Class10. Benson 2 1620 tons1. Agano 6~5.9"2. Akatsuki should be DD-23. Asashio should be DD-44. Hatsuharu should be DD-3a (6x24"TT)5. CHOKAI should be CA-2a (4x4.7"AA.8x24"TT)6. MAYA should be CA-2b (8x5"AA, 8x24"TT)7. Tenryu 6x21"TT8. Mutsuki 2x4.7"DP, 6x24"TT9. Kamikaze DD-la 3~4.7". 4x21"TT (YAYOI)This seems to be about all I wish to cover atthis time. Please do not interpret what hasbeen written here as anything other than someconstructive criticism. I noticed that there wasno listing of source materials, but it appears asif you rested heavily on Jack Coggins' TheCampaign for Guadalcanal which is a fair workbut tends to perpetuate many of the mythsthat more thorough researchers have disproven.It would be to you advantage to havesomeone with a reasonable knowledge of thesubject check the accuracy of future endeavorsin this area. At the risk of soundingpresumptious, may I suggest that someone likemyself be utilized in the area of naval and navalair fields. I have a relatively extensive technicaland descriptive library on the subject and havewritten an article on Guadalcanal in Conflict,plus collaborated with Dave Dickson on his IanAllen series book on the Philippine Sea battle. Iwould like to offer my services on the abovescore if you feel that they may help to providea more accurate publication.The following is a response to Mr. Hafting'scomments by David lsby, author of "CA."A. MAIN ARTICLEKEYED TO HARTING'S COMMENTS1. Pg. 12. Agreed that the Japanese did notrun over the Pacific firing off expensiveordnance, but their torpedo training techniqueswere still more realistic than theAmericans, as I'm sure you would agree2. While the U.S. also disposed of someobsolete warships by sinking them, these weremainly by air (OSTERFRIEDLAND, VIRGINIA,and others) or by other means, includinggunfire (WASHINGTON). My comment was,however, in relation to torpedo use. It shouldbe noted that the Americans stopped thispractice once the immediate surplus of shipsresulting from the Naval Treaties had beenexhausted.3. All ships tend to be designed "underweight"and gradually flesh out, through building andreconstruction, to a much larger displacement.That the AOBA's were designed to stay withinthe Treaty limits is obvious, and quite possiblythe others too, but I feel you could not get thekind of armament and protection of ships suchas the ATAGO on 10,000 tons. Your commentsabout the U.S. Treaty crusiers is interesting.4. As should have been clear from the article,the Japanese had their battleship Admirals,who remained unconvinced, in some cases,until YAMATO went down. However, therewere enough of the "Carrier Admirals" in theright position at the right time to have shapedJapanese opening strategy. The Japanesewere definitely disappointed in not havingpicked up the carriers at Pearl, but I feel theideas expressed in the article find amplegrounds in the Japanese use and deploymentof their battlewagons (squadrons of battleshipsbeing Senkan Sentai) in the first sixmonths of the Pacific War. Also, from thewritings and interviews with Japanese Navalofficers in the U.S. Naval Institute's TheImperial Japanese Navy in World War /I and inthe Strategic Bombing Survey's Naval volumes,especially those with Admirals Toyodoand Fukudome and Capt. Fuchida.5. The fighting at Java Sea lasted some threehours, the rest of the time being used for theABDAFLOT and Japanese to sort themselvesout. These "wild" torpedo shots wereprobably deliberate and kept the ABDAFLOTforces from moving in closer, where their 6"and 5.9" guns would be more effective.6. "Marianas" should read "Marshalls" -refering to the "Big E's" strike on Kwajelein.The abortive relief of Wake Island - whichwas unsuccessful partially because of themiscalculations of Jack Fletcher, could also beconsidered in this category.7. If the American carriers could haveemotions, I'm sure that they would have beenfearful too. The "mistake" was Fletcher's, but Icould hardly term it "lunacy." Fletcher wasquite capable of making big mistakes, but I fearat Savo only hindsight makes him wrong.What would you have done if you were JackFletcher on that night? If I were in his shoes,I'm afraid I might very well have donethe same thing.8. Your account of Cape Esperance differs inone point from Morrison's official history, fromwhich may account is largely drawn. I believeHELENA informed Scott of its sighting byusing TBS (Talk-Between-Ships Radio Telephone)soon after.2325, while you have thisaction taking place some five minutes later.When one deals with such fine tolerances insomething such as a night naval battle,something is sure to get lost in the translation.The logs of the ships involved would often notmesh by as least as much time. Scott hadintended to countermarch when he did,

sighting or no sighting. The SC was eventuallyswitched on on other ships after 2325, as SANFRANCISCO made a sighting with hers. This,coupled with the facts that "Gotowascompletely surprised" - Morrison's wordsshows that radar was important at CapeEsperance; Goto's last words to his staff -"Bakasaro! Bakasaro!" ("stupid bastards,stupid bastards") deserves to be one of thegreat naval quotations. The rest of yourappreciation of Cape Esperance is , of course,quite correct.B. DESCRIPTIVE MODULES1. I consider the Japanese BB's successful inthe bombardment role, as they only really hadone good night (the 14th of October). Yet theCHOKAI and KlNGUSAand then MYOKO andMAYA, which bombarded on subsequentnights, threw almost as much explosive as thetwo battleships (1,552 &inch and 500+ 5-inchshells). As for all Japanese destroyer squadronshaving leaders, I would hate to commitmyself to such a categorical statement,especially after Guadalcanal. But if not all hadthem, then almost all. Your example ofTROMP as a good destroyer leader issomewhat unusual, as TROMP could barelymake 32 knots, thus making it difficult for it tokeep up with destroyers in a calm sea. It wasdesigned not to lead destroyers, but to sinkdestroyers, especially the FUBUKI class oneswhose appearance caused TROMP'S construction.The first time TROMP ran up againstone of these destroyers, however, it wastorpedoed and had to limp off for repairs, thusending its career as a destroyer-destroyerbefore it started. What made the JapaneseCL's so good as destroyer leaders was (amongother things) their high speed, which theycould sustain. I doubt that DUNCAN orFAHRENHOLT hit anything at Cape Esperance.They were too busy saving their ownskins and claimed FUBUKI as a cruiser, sonaturally their ideas would be a wee bitinflated. As for the belt on Americanbattleships, you are correct, although I haveheard it said that the 12" belt was soconstructed to give the protection of 18". Inmy files, I have a notation that TENRYU,TATSUTA, and YUBARI were refitted withType 93 torpedoes. Neither, as you said,carried reloads.2. Naval OrdnanceOne thing I don't think most people havepicked up is that the Model 0 rounds carried bythe BB's on 13 November (at least some of it)was air-fused, so that it would burst aboveground and perforate the airplanes in theirrevetments. A contact HE would probablyhave exploded. That AP does go through thinships is, of course, correct. It also happened toHOEL and/or JOHNSTON at Leyte, accordingto Theodore Roscoe. Your statement on theammunition used on 13 November is interesting,but most of the American accounts(Morrison, and especially Coggins) make muchout of the Japanese using HE. It must beremembered that the BB's decks were piledwith hE shells which were deep-sixed as soonas the AKATZUKl's searchlight came on.As for your corrections to my table. I have seenseveral different charts of this sort, and mineis a synthesis of many. So I would be hesitantto say who is right on anything. I was,however, ignorant of the difference betweenMark 9 and Mark 10 8-inchers. Live and learn.Your statement on torpedoes is also interestingand amplifies the data given on the text.The Mk 10's and Mk 14's were little differentthan the torpedoes used by all surface ships. Ihave read several contradictory statementsabout Japanese aircraft torpedoes.As for "Hit and Hard Hit, "contrary to wartimepropaganda, I don't think SOUTH DAKOTAwas in that much danger. With WASHING-TON hitting KIRSHIMA, she had little to worryabout from that quarter, but if one of thecruisers or even destroyers had gotten a fewtorpedoes off at that halted, burning target. . .These are not the only errors in the article,some of them due to typographical error andomission due to lack of space.In the text, on page 8, the Japanese whoproposed a "battleship solution" relied on astrategy of "attenuation," having come upwith the dubious formula that a fleet loses 10%of its effectiveness for every 1,000 milesadvanced from its bases. The Japanese alsohoped to whittle away American strength bysubmarine attacks, but as the Japanese wouldalso divide their fleet, the success of this planwas also dubious. So the use of airpower, bothland and ship based, became more attractive.The module "Hit and Hit Hard.. ." is itself atypo; its correct title should be "Hit and HardHit," a quotation from Kipling's The Destroyers.In this module, "BENTON" should be"BENSON" and in the chart at the end, 12"shells should read 16-12'' shells. Theuncaptioned photograph heading of the NavalOrdnance Module is the 16" guns of a Nagatoclass BB.Other casualties to editing were the followingpieces of information, indexed to the "CA"article:"The Strategic Overview"-p. 6. While the baseat Pearl Harbor was established in the 1920's,much of the American Pacific Fleet remainedat San Diego and Seattle until 1940, but PearlHarbor was always envisioned as theirwartime base."Evolution of the Naval Battle" - p. 17. Thefirst and last paragraph of the comments onthe Battle of Cape St. George are editedversions of "The War Goes ON," a module onthe Naval fighting after 1943 that we couldnot fit in."Hit and Hard Hit. . . " - p. 12 the followingexamples were cut: The CL Sendai was sunkafter being hit by two torpedoes and six 6"shells. The destroyer TERUZUKI was sunk byone torpedo, while the destroyer FUBUKI tookfour 81' and 6" shells. The Helena, an AmericanCL, sank after being hti by three Long Lancesamidships and the destroyer Kearny survived a21" torpedo hit amidships.Main text, p. 19: One of the most obvious ofthe stereotyped "textbook" maneuvers usedby the Japanese was the "Neptune's Trident"formation of three parallel columns. Althoughit had proved unsuccessful at Cape Esperance,it was retained and proved disastrous for theJapanese at the 2nd Battle of Guadalcanal andthe Battle of Empress Augusta Bay, and it wasone of the causes for the Japanese defeats inthese two battles.In reading the letters by the learned gentlemenwho wish to add further detail to theinformation appearing in the '%A" article, Irealized that these were people who were wellversed in the subjects I covered and thus couldoffer detail from their own knowledge. Thismaterial is welcome - that is why we arepublishing it in MOVES, but I should like topoint out that the "CA" article, like the game,was not aimed at the naval enthusiast. It wasaimed at the average reader of Strategy 8Tactics who, as the Feedback and personalcontact shows us, has no great or deepprevious knowledge of naval matters, especiallyin the myriad technical details that makemodern fleets specialists rather than seamen.So I wrote an article stressing the maincurrents, instead of details. I worked the detailsand examples in as well as they could beintegrated, but it remains that "CA" is not anit-picking article. I can pick nits with the bestof them, as some may say this articleillustrates. Yet this is not to denigrate thosewith a deep interest in naval warfare, forwhose benefit the preceding comments haveappeared, along with fulfilling our dutytowards our readers for complete, correctmaterial!Designer% Notes (continued from page 3)least one game-in-development each issue.This one will have have a lot of uniquefeatures. Not the least of which is the generalignorance outside of Manchuria about justwhat is going on over there. It wasn't toodifficult doing the terrain analysis of the area(which results in the game map). Physically,Manchuria is not well connected to the rest ofChina. Most observers and "experts" agreethat Manchuria would be the major, anddecisive, battleground in a Russo-Chinese warin the 1970's. Manchuria possesses only about8% of China's population but, more importantly,nearly a third of her industry. Inaddition, Manchuria contains many irreplaceableraw materials. China is therefore forced todefend Manchuria. It is commonly felt that theRussians would quickly "blitz" the Chineseright out of Manchuria. This is one possibility.There are many others. This will be one gamewhere you will be given numerous scenarios.And then be free to chose the one that seemsmost likely. It will be largely a matter of taste.Or what YOU think will happen.For the Russians it is not exactly a "cakewalk."They can converge from three sides. Butwherever they come from they will have tofirst deal with formidable physical obstacles. Ifthey come from Outer Mongolia they will haveto cross the Greater Khingan Mountains. Usingtactical nuclear weapons they could blast theirway towards Peking and thus cut off all ofManchuria. But this would gain them little inthe short run as the numerous industrializedareas of Manchuria (along with their militia andregular armies) would have to be reduced. Ablitz across the Manchurian plain from the eastwould take them across the Lesser KhinganMountains (which are "lesser" in name onlyfrom a military point of view). And, just tocomplete the ring, along the Yalu (the NorthKorean border) are the Chang Pai Mountains.Real messy stuff. The scale of the Map is 55kilometers to a hex. The map covers an area of1.3 million square miles. In other words, aboutthe same area as the United States east of theMississippi. Not a very tactical game. Unitsrepresent corps or "armies" of two to fourdivisions. Also represented are Soviet airarmies and amphibious forces (Marines and(continued on page 13)

12AIRCRAFT ANALYSIS(I) F-104: Many players prefer this planeover all others. It can climb better than anyplane at any speed. The YO-YO method ofattack works best with this plane. The trickis to get above your opponent (which isn'thard with the 104's climbing ability), getbehind him, set your altitude just right anddive. While diving, go to maximumacceleration. At the end of your dive, fire amissile and on your next turn, climb likecrazy (you may get a second shot).(2) Mig-21: Maneuver is the key to thisplane and it is my favorite. To survive, keepyou speed down. This makes you a moredifficult target and maximizes your turningability (your greatest asset). Your mosteffective maneuver is the "Climbing Turn."It makes you hard to corner and allows youto reverse direction and attack withsurprising quickness. If, after all you'vedone, your opponent still can get aboveyour ceiling altitude: Go Homel Nothingmore can be done. Remember, with theMig-21 you have to strike fast.(3) Mirage Fand IN: These have the definiteadvantage of long range, radar missiles.They are the only planes which caneffectively fire at planes flying at a higheraltitude. My experience with these planeshas taught me to keep my speed up for afast getaway and at all times; keep mydistance!(4) F-14 and 15: These two monsters areheavily armed and have lots of "blackboxes." When using these two, rememberthat you can always out-run your opponent.You can also turn as you verticallydive with the F-15. Lastly, when all elsefails, Climb! You have with both planes thehighest operational ceiling in the game.(5) F-4 Phantom: This plane is called for inso many scenarios that I felt it warrantedsome closer inspection. Everything aboutthis plane is mediocre with one exception.It has a high operational ceiling. So, keepyour altitude up and don't be afraid to fireoff a wild shot with a missile once in awhile. You've got plenty!AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY-F-4EF 5EA 7F 14ArftF 15AF 104F 111LightnlnqM~rage FMlragr IllSu-7Su 11Mtg-21Mtg 23- u "'"-12 2:151381621162116161612181419C x16to251 Jto179to1017tc2722t2817to2722tc3117to2417tci2617to2713.to2019to27315I

13SUGGEST -ED ADDI' TIONAL S 'CENARIO,gets 1 point fc ,r each A. .7 that gw ts back (#3) PC ;e scenaric 3'sThe follow ing scenar-.10s were a dded to ttIe from the targe t area and I 1 point fc Dr each are intrucgame ~y some Trfends ana ml F, -. "..L-& A F-- -LI-LI snor aown. ror rnls scena--.- . -..Mlg-no you3 F-104's or three British Li ghtnings i are(#I) 2P hantoms p ~rotecting : 2 A-7's on a had l better plan your moves far in ac dvance. interceptitactical bl ombing n nission. 3 Mig 21 's One false move can benginterceptin9.Special Rules: In! stead of the norr nalc----*:--Intruder_secrer~y cnooses a11 area w~rr~ I 2 Phantoms try to protect ct bomber ..-- A C___&I__ _L.IUIIII~LIUII, uae r GaiU-7's. Tt ley,--I'..",,V."F -.radius of six hexes in a hex pal Tern no le! atter npting the rescue of a downed pilot. 3 arrive at level 5 and speed 5. ~ney maythan 24 hexes (center measure 21's try to prevent t move in any manner the player desires, but!merit) fro1 m Mig-he rescue and soany board edge. This is the ure the pilot. they must move in formation (i.e., all planestarget are, a. captimust make the exact same maneuvers atA-7's (which may not fire) enter me ~oal-. O,.+hp ""ul I players stake out a target area wn-z rn8-zin Scenar'- ' ":- is staked the same time). No fire is allowed from theat level five and speed five. These drop 1 to one 10 1. l 111s out inSU-7's unless the formation is reduced tozero altitude and disappear in this "Target tl# blanl k counters #. Neither : side is cor sider redone plane. Victory conditions are the samearea (drop below the cloud cover) for or le the intruder 1 'or spottir rg or mo lvementas normal point defense (1 Mig-23 pilot isturn. The A-7's then reappear at "C reasc 31-15. inex~erier --"altitude and attempt to leave from sam be 2 ~ h antoms , arr ive at the South edg e of themap edge they arrived on.map at 2 les s than level maxin ium atMirage Ill'Phantoms enter the board at le\ re1 "15 at 2 level 10.interceptiA -.A -0. e+ -3." :- -1,-less than level maximum speeuIU LI s airive -.J IVI2 turns later ileave the board before game's en d. maxi imum speed and level 10 (#5) 3 F-5 Tigers intruding.Phantoms are bound by intruder sightir lg boar d edge).regulations and follow a preplanned fligl3 SU-11's defending (SU-11 may not usepattern until they sight a Mig-21. ht Vict( pry Conditions: The Mig-21 player radar missiles).recei ves 2 points for each Mig-21 thatMig-21's E trrive at a ny map e ~dge at arBoth plal (ers have 2 inexperil enced pila ltS.!: reacl nes "0" altitude in the target areaaltitude dc asired one turn afte !r the A-7This sce nario is very tricl ty and i In-(gett in? back makes no difference).arrive.predictab le.Mig- 21 s are obliged, however, to attempt-- A-vrcrory ~ona~oons: I ne lnrercepror player ru return -. to the north edge. The "':-' IvIIy-A I(#6) 3 A-7's intri ding.receives 2 points for each intruder A-7 he player also receives 1 point fo r eachshoots down before it reaches the target Phantom shot down. The Phantom r player 3 SU-7's ng (just fc ~r fun).area. He receives 1 point for any other plane gets 1 point for each Mig-21 shot down. This- -.scen.ario is real ly wild anc I reminds me(including returning A-7's). The intruder This scenario is difficult for either player. ot k~ytng C~~PIIS ,.,-,.LDesigner3 Notes (continued from page 10)others). The Chinese have ADM's (AtomicDemolitions) with which to slow the Russiansup. For example, a 50KT ADM, properlyplaced, would create a hole in the ground 1100feet wide and 340 feet deep (enough for athirty story building to fit comfortably). Not tomention the general destruction for a few milesin all directions. The Russians may also usestrategic nuclear weapons, which makes theoperation less a war and more a form ofgenocide. All in all, a potentially veryunpleasant situation. Unfortunately, the actionspresented in this game may well be thefirst act of World War Ill.Another gaming oddity arose recently. Whiletesting Warin the East our systems analyst gottired of doing all the paperwork associatedwith Russian production and army/air forcerebuilding. His work was made more tediousbecause he was also trying to develop anoptimum "building" strategy. An obvious jobfor the computer. A few hours devoted towriting the program, a few more hours testingand debugging and, there it was. War in theEast (or part of it, at least) was computerized.Now we were able to test various buildingstrategies (as well 3s which arms andpopulation centers the Russians could affordto give up). The idea of using computers in thedesign of games has been around for a longtime. More complex "machine" gamesactually require the use of a computer.But the type of game we produce (knownin the trade as the "manual" game) isstill more art than science. We have kickedaround variousideas for using the computer indeveloping our games. We already have somepretty definite concepts in mind. We also haveour own computer. But the biggest stumblingblock is, again, money. Any computerapplication requiring more than ten or so hourswill cut into our regular computer work (ofwhich we presently have more than we canhandle). This Warin the East application was afortunate coincidence. Perhaps in 1974 we'll beable to afford some "standard" programs touse in games. A "standard" computerapplication (or, rather, a "family" of applications)which could be used to aid thedevelopment of most games would cost a fewthousand dollars to produce. And part of thisR&D work would be true "risk" work (some ofit would probably have to be thrown out aftercostly development). This at least showsthat we're moving in the direction of usingwhatever means available to develop more andbetter games.While an article on Seelowe (Sealion, theplanned German invasion of Britain in 1940)appeared in S&T 40, our game of the samename won't appear until April of 1974. Thiswas a result of the change in publishingschedule brought about by our unexpectedsuccess introducing our games to the retailmarket. The general slowdown in ourpublishing schedule also allowed us toimplement some long needed game developmentprocedures. The main one is what we call"end testing." This involves actually doingall the artwork for a game and then, beforeprinting, making photostatic "prototypes" ofall the game components. We then test thegame again. We test it rather intensively at thisstage. What happens is most unusual. Flawswhich escaped the most rigorous "preartwork"testing of the game now becomeobvious. We can only attribute this to the factthat, when a game is put into its finalorganizational format it becomes much easierto "use" the game. This increased "ease ofuse" enables flaws to be more easily spotted.This "end testing" procedure requires muchmore time (and money) than we have hadpreviously. But now that we don't have toproduce so many new games just to keepahead of ourselves we can take theseadditional pains. Moreover, our R&D staff,after having produced over three dozen gamesin the past two years, has become ever moreexpert at what they are doing. This may not beall that noticeable to anyone who has beenwith us all the way. But if you "step away"from it all in your mind (as we have done) youcan see the changes. We try to explain someofwhat goes into producing these changes. Butthis is difficult because the myriad elementswhich go into game R&D are not easilyexplained. In future issues of MOVES we hopeto start a series of articles showing muchmore detail on this subject.Four more games are in the preliminary(research and "concept") stages of design.First, there is the Civil War. A strategic levelgame covering the entire war. Will probably usethe same sort of system as the World War 11game. This game will published in SBT 43(March, 1974). Our game of tactical warfareduring the age of sail, Frigate, will appear inJune, 1974. This one will follow "CA" in manyparticulars. In August 1974 we will publish theAlpha CentauriCampaign. A futuristic game ofstrategic space warfare with many unusualgame features. In October 1974 (if not earlier)we will publish Patrol. An outdoors Sniper1with improvements in the Sniper! gamesystem as well as new design features(continued on page 27)

14THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WARby Omar DewittOmar DeWitt is the president of AHIKS, asociety since 1966 for those 21 and over whoare interested, primarily, in playing wargamesby mail. AHIKS offers a rules booklet, a Judge,two publications, and an opponent-matchingservice, among other things. More informationcan be obtained by writing DeWitt at 78Wickham Drive, Williamsville, N.Y. 14221.Lately, with so many titles being published, it isnot always easy to notice the really good ones.This is a good one. If for no other reasons thanthe several unique features of The Franco-Prussian War, it is an excellent game andshould belong in the library of all seriouswargamers.The French start the game with 11 counters onthe mapboard (plus 3 EB - RR units). The 11counters may include from one to six dummycounters, depending upon the order of battle.The Prussians start the game with 18 counters,one to ten of which may be dummy counters,plus an unlimited number of EB units.All counters are inverted during set-up and, inthe Standard game, remain inverted duringplay. In the Basic Game, all units are face up,and most of the unique features of the FPWare not used. Although it is a good way tobecome' familiar with the mechanics of thegame and is therefore useful, it does not havethe interest the Standard Game does. I will beconcerned mainly with the Standard Game.Although the idea of dummy counters hasbeen around for some time (Victor Madeja inthe General, Nov. 1964, the FPW is the firstgame, to my knowledge, that actuallyincorporates them. "Dummy counters," readthe rules, "represent the atrocious intelligenceavailable to both sides during the originalcampaign." They might be small groups ofenemy soldiers, rumors, or a Boy Scout troop.The inverted dummy counters are treatedexactly the same way as inverted combatunits.The only way to determine if an enemy counteris a dummy or a combat unit, or to tell thestrength of a combat unit (they vary in CombatStrength Points from one to ten), is to attackit. Another unique feature of the game, theHasty Attack, allows a counter to attack withonly part of its total strength, thereby gaininginformation with possibly lower losses (eachunit can take losses one Combat StrengthPoint at a time).Dummy counters that are revealed, andtherefore eliminated, are returned to play in thefollowing turn by being stacked with anyfriendly unitk). The result is that the dummycounters can be quite a potent weapon. Even ifa laver is certain that a articular counter is ad;mmy, that counter st111 exerts a Zone ofControl that ~nh~b~ts movement and cutssupply lines. And ~f a player is not certainwhlch are dummy counters, which is morelikely, the possibility of stronger threatsmust be met.At the beginning of the game, not knowing thestrength of the inverted combat units issomewhat of a problem. After combat begins,it is less of a ~roblem; even thouah the unitsare inverted after combat, an av&age Bridgeplayer should be able to keep track of which iswhich. Although counters can stack togetherat the end of a turn and disperse the followingturn, this rarely happens because the Frenchhave too few units to bunch them up, and thePrussians are too busy maneuvering. Thedummy counters returning to the game areeasy to stack, and so the problem remains,which are combat and which are dummy. Withenough dummies returning to play, it takesmore than an average Bridge player to keepthe possibilities straight. For those who areconcerned about it, play balance could beaffected by adding dummy counters to theweaker player's side.Fortification Units pose an interesting problemfor the offense. Since these units exert a Zoneof Interdiction affecting supply lines, and sincethe French forts exert this Zone over thenorthern half of the mapboard, the Prussianhas to decide whether to mask these Zoneswith units or to destroy the Fortification Units,which takes time and Combat Strength Pointsand therefore Victory Points (five VictoryPoints are earned for each Combat StrengthPoint eliminated). The forts cannot be ignoredif any penetration beyond Thionville is to bemade. If the French are weak in the Thionvillearea, the Prussian has a desire to push on whilethe pushing is good; but in the long run hemight give himself too much rooe. If there aresignificant French in the area, ihe tendency isto attack them for the Victory Points (there areno Victory Points for eliminated forts) and theforts remain intact. The problem is aninteresting one. On defense, the fortificationsoffer help, but the question of putting combatunits inside or outside or in what combinationof both is a good one.Prussian involvement in the south-east sectionof the mapboard is almost purely defensive,since there are no Victory Points forpenetration to be earned in that direction.However, it is the natural place for Frenchoffense: it threatens the Prussian lone supplysource, and it is the most obvious area to earnpoints for penetration into Prussia. Perhapsthis area poses a problem that is one of thelittle beauties of this game. How much shouldthe Prussian spend in this isolated area fordefense while the points are to be won halfwayacross the board? If one French unit inStrasburg at the start of the last Turn has aIgood chance of winning 50 points, whatof a threat would another unit be?The Victory Points Chart is clear and sereasonable. However, it does not sreasonable for all possible combinationFrench and Prussian OBs if the Optional Rtused. For instance, with OB "F" the Pru:gets only 41 Combat Strength Points towith (as opposed to 72 if the Optional Runot used) and gets only 20 morereplacements (against 13). In French OB75 Combat Strength Points are availimmediately (as opposed to 57 if the OptiRule is not used). If the game is playedthese two Orders of Battle, the result in VicPoints should be quite different. I wsuggest, therefore, that different Victory FCharts be used for different combinalof OBs.The accompanying table is based onassumption that a force twice as stagainst a given enemy force would earntimes the Victory Points (plus or minus apoints for the time of arrival of the reinfcments). The figures in the table representpoint spread in which a draw would occurinstance, if OBs A and J were used, a (would be obtained if the result in VicPoints were anywhere from 101 toinclusive (this is the same as the Victory FChart printed in the rules). If OBs D and Hused, a draw would result if the Victory Ftotal was 36 to 65 inclusive.Of course, the Victory Point total will usfall into Marginal, Substantial, or Decisive.Marginal range would run from 1 througpoints greater than the higher draw numb€the Prussians; French Marginal would run1 through 20 points less than the lower (number. German Substantial Victory wrun from 21 through 69 greater than the hidraw number; French Substantial Vicwould run from 21 to 40 less than the 11draw number. German Decisive Victory woccur when the Victory Point total was at70 points greater than the higher draw nunFrench Decisive would occur when the VicPoint total was at least 41 points belowlower draw number (These are the same 1spreads as in the chart printed in the riFor example, assume OBs E and L wereand that the Victory Point total was 89.higher draw number is 50, so the resultVictory Points above the higher draw nunwhich means a Prussian Substantial VicVICTORY POINT SPREADS FOR A DRAW WHEN USING OPTIONAL RULE OBSPrussianFrench OBG H J K L M101- -125 - lll-140v86-17B--141-170 136-165 141-170 136-165 151-180 126-155- - . -- - -C 101-130 96-125 101-130 96 86-115-- D --_-_-.41 -70. -- 36-65 41 -70 35 26-55*" - -- -E 11-40 6-35 11-40 6-: - 4-25 - -F 0-30 -525 0-30 -525 10-40 -15-15-.a"

AN EXAMPLE OF ACOMPLETE VICTORY POINT CHARTWHEN OBS " E AND "L" ARE USEDNetVictory Points Level of Victory-20 or less French Decisive Victory-19 through 0 French Substantial Victory1 through 20 French Marginal Victory21 through 50 Draw; neither player wins51 through 70 German Marginal Victory71 through 119 German Substantial Victory120 or over German Decisive VictoryNot surprisingly, I have not playtested these 25different Victory Point Charts, but I think theyare a bit more in line with what one canreasonably expect from the opposing forces.Although one might not suspect it, the sixFrench OBs are unique: no two have the samecities in their set-ups. Therefore, the Prussianplayer, by spending a little time checking, candetermine which OB the French player isusing. Actually, this parallels the originalconflict, since the Prussians did have muchbetter information about the French than theFrench had about the Prussians.One wonders how much this advantage for theastute Prussian would affect the Victory Pointtotal. If it is felt that this information gives thePrussian too much advantage, I would suggestthat the cities listed in only one of the OBs (say"J") be used for all French set-ups.Whenever an EB unit attempts to cross a riverhexside for the first time, a die must be rolledto see if the crossing is effected. At first, onemight wonder if two EB units were stackedtogether, would two dice be thrown. However,since any number of Prussian EB units can bebrought into play and stacked on any squarecontaining another EB unit, and since anynumber of die rolls are quite likely to turn up a1, 2, or 3, it seems obvious that only one dieroll is intended.It is possible for the Prussian to have EB unitson both sides of a river hexside (say, one inMetz and one in St. Privat) trying to cross. Inthis case, I would assume that two die rollswould be allowed.Yes, The Franco-Prussian War can be playedby mail. It should be played, however, betweentwo people who know each other well, andwho trust each other, because it is possible tocheat. Normal OB sheets (see MOVES #5,"Playing Wargames by Mail" for an explanationof the normal PBM process) cannot beused, since the identity of the units is notdivulged. Movement is indicated by writing, forinstance, "MM-38 to GG-33."Combat is a little more complicated whenHasty Attacks are made while trying todiscover dummy counters. Contingencymoves must often be included: "If L-26 is aDummy, then move. . .If L-26 is not a dummy,then move. . . ." This can be a fairly longprocess in some instances, but the fact thatthere are so few units in the game does notmake the process burdensome.The official AHlKS grid coordinates for theFPW are: Place the mapsheet so that west isat the top and letter the rows from top tobottom A through WW. The numberedcolumns run from SE to NW and begin in theupper lefthand corner. Column "4" runsthrough hexes numbered 176 and 177. Thecolumns are numbered 1 through 58. Checkpoints are: Langres is M-8, Metz is X-32, andKaiserslautern is 00-46.The Franco-Prussian War undoubtedly is notthe ultimate wargame, but it is one of the bestto come down the pike lately.

Footnotes is a collection of the many small bitsof information we receive from subscribers. Asyou will see, most of these comments are toosmall to be considered full length "articles."Yet many of these comments are good just asthey are. And they would either not be muchimproved by expansion or, quite often, theauthor hasn't the time or inclination toexpound at greater length. We hope you enjoyFootnotes.*Storing YourSPI Games and MagazinesIf you are like me, you value your SPI gamesand magazines and search for ways of storingthem neatly and conveniently. Like manyothers, I have found that the SPI StandardGame Boxes are not the answer. For one thing,they are too large, it's almost like carryingaround a tombstone. Secondly, even with thenew counter trays, which are admittedlymakeshift, it is blind luck if you manage toretain all the counters in a particular game.Finally, the price is unusually high, $7.50 beingthe minimum price you must pay to obtainthem (you do get six for this price, but what ifyou only want one?) Fortunately, for myself Ihave perfected an attractive (and inexpensive)means of storing my games and magazines.This I will now share with my gamingcolleagues.First, visit any reasonably well-stocked ,stationerystore. Ask for their "Duo-Tang PocketPortfolios." These are simply colored pasteboardfolders containing two large pockets.Purchase as many as you have games (theycome in a variety of colors which will enableyou to tell your games apart). They will run youfrom 10-20 cents each. Then buy some 4 518"by 6 314" No. 25 manila envelopes. They comewith a metal clasp and can be used to storeyour counters. Two per game should besufficient. I store two months worth of S&Tand MOVES per folder.Using my system you will be able to store ayears worth of MOVES and S&T's for arounda dollar not seven and a half. I'm not saying mymethod is perfect, but it's better than fair andcheap in the bargain. What more could theaverage wargamer ask for?- James M. DickeyA Geography LessonThis is about geography and its importancewith respect to conflict simulations. It isgenerally recognized that a CRT is used toreflect the prevailing methods of combat andcasualty infliction in a game. Combat factorsare used to give a reasonably accuraterepresentation of relative strengths of opposingforces. When combined in a game they willgive a fair representation of what would havehappened in a particular set of adversaries hadmet on the battlefield. To turn this game into asimulation, it is necessary to place these armieson a map board which gives an accuratepicture of the relevant and important geography.It should be obvious that any geographicalfeatures which can have an appreciableaffect on the movement or fighting ability of aunit must be represented. Geography doeshave a decisive effect on where and when abattle is fought.A mountain pass, a river, a railroad junction, ora combination of these or many othergeographical features will influence where anarmy will go, how fast it will get there, and itscombat effectiveness once it arrives. If thesefeatures are misrepresented on a game board,all of the effort expended on orders of battle,combat factors, etc., will result in a game,maybe even an interesting and "realistic"game, but it will not be an effort at simulationand will not result in such. Wars are fought todestroy the opposing army andlor conquerterritory. If the game accurately describes theopposing armies but not the geography, thejob is only half finished and it remains a game,not a simulation.It is true that the geography shown on acertain map board may be affected by theorganization of the armies and the seasons. Ifterrain features do not affect an army at aparticular time, they should not be present on amap board. However, if they can affect anarmy they must be shown. Another importantconsideration is that when a particular type ofterrain is adjudged relevant, it should beconsistently represented over the full mapboard. This is especially true of the road andrail networks.Roads and railroads have a decisive effect onthe operations of armies in modern war.Railroads are the primary source of long rangeoverland supply, and as such are extremelyimportant objectives to be attacked ordefended. The importance of roads since theintroduction of mechanization is obvious.Depending on scale, which roads to put on amap board is a crucial design decision. If theroad net is well developed, representation ofindividual roads may not be needed. However,if scale or limited road net require it, showingindividual roads is a necessity.The following are a few examples of poorjudgement in the use of geography in wargames.(A) NORMANDY is an example of how not toshow a road net in a war game. The roadspresented on this map are all treated as beingthe same, but were in fact of very differentwidths and construction. The Caen area isoverloaded with roads, while the same classroad in other areas seem to have disappearedin the bocage. The choice of which roads wereto be shown on the game board seems to havebeen dictated by an attempt at "balance," not"realism," much less simulation.(B) BREAKOUT & PURSUIT has a map boardwith a problem - in 1944 most of the forests,rivers and canals seem to have disappearedfrom France. These features presented problemsto both sides, but only a few show up onthe map. The board is untluttered, but it is agame board not a map board.(C) KURSKsystem eastern front games have areal problem with railroads. In many cases theyare fictional, and when they are nearlyaccurate, they are not in the same locationswhere two boards overlap. On the easternfront, railroads were prime objectives, and theiraccurate placement on map boards wouldseem to be a prime objective of gamedesigners now. The changing organizations ofthe armies and the seasons may hinder the useof the railroads, but will not move them 10, 20,50 kilometers are they are in these games. Theuse of fictional railroads in these claimed"situations" is strange and the reasonsunclear.These are but a few examples of notrecognizing the importance of geography. Anarmy's combat and movement ability, and thevictory conditions in a particular situation, arelargely affected by geography. It is true thatweather and army organizations will determinewhat geography is relevant and important. Notenough attention has been paid to this in thepast. Geography deserves more attention.Hopefully this letter may foster some change indesigners' and players' attitudes towards theimportance of geography. -Mark HamiltonThe Words Between the StatesMr. Canipe has written a letter in response toMr. Nofi's article entitled The GettysburgCampaign (SBT 381. The letter is representativeof a number of others. The letter ispresented unchanged. Mr. Nofi's rebuttalfollows.Really1 The caliber and standards of S&T aretoo high to have space wasted on suchjingoistic tripe as the moralizing sarcasm thatAlbert Nofi has wrapped in historical distortions.Such statements as, "But there was oneparticularly objectionable activity which theArmy of Northern Virginia indulged in. The'gallant' Confederate troops engaged in slavecatching. . .the troops were supposed toround up and ship South any fugitive slavesthey encountered. . .This activity, better thanany other, clearly illustrates the 'cause' of theSouth: something more nearly akin to that ofHitler's Germany than Mannerheim's Finland."Indeed, Mr. Nofi makes cynical commentabout "unofficial" looting by Southern troopsand leaves the derogatory connotation that thePennsylvania countryside was raped by acontemptible hoard of despicable bare-footConfederate soldiers. But despite the connotationof Mr. Nofi's historical fabrication, thedistorted picture depicted by him is mostsignificant because of what he did notsay.. .and it was this that probably had themost impact on undiscerning and indiscriminatereaders.For example: General Lee issued stern ordersagainst pillage and specified that suppliescould be seized only by commissary andquartermaster officers, who must pay foreverything taken; the invaders behaved withsuch remarkable restraint that some foreignmilitary observers were impressed enough towrite about the remarkable behavior; only asmall percentage of Southerners were slaveowners- in fact, three famous Confederategenerals (Robert E. Lee, Joseph E. Johnstonand A.P. Hill) found slavery so repulsive thatthey freed their slaves years before theAmerican Civil War; very few Southernerswere fighting to perpetuate slavery, rather theywere fighting for economic and politicalindependence of the South. With theexception of isolated cases, the ConfederateArmy, in general, did not loot, but insteadforaged for basic needs such as food andshoes. And it might be noted here that theConfederate soldier (always hungry) foragedfor food even within the C.S.A.

Certainly the Confederate solider was no angel biased towards the Communists, was very Rebuilt M60IM60A1 tanks are excellent withunless one wishes to make a comparative objective. . .yet, it offended many naive and/or the exception of the fact that 3 to 4 years ofanalogy between thesoldier of Lee'sarmy and nationalistic readers and unfortunately you storage between rebuilt and issuance doesthe soldier of Sherman's armv. It is indeed orinted an editorial of a~oloav. tend to cause the rubber (such as road wheels.remarkable that the Southern soldier behavedwith as much restraint as he did while in thelush and rich Pennsylvania country, consideringthe pillage and rape of Northern Virginia bythe undisciplined mob of potpourri optimisticallycalled the Army of the Potomac. TheIt is absurd to think that a historical writer canplease everyone, but it is not absurd toencourage a historical writer to tell the truth -especially when the truth helps nationalharmony. - M. E. Canipeseals, etc.) to deteriorate.MTOE for Europe is 90% of the full TOEauthorized for use by Army units in time ofwar. At the present time most units are closeto the full MTOE. However, a year or two agomust units were 70-85% of MTOE.Army of Northern Virginia had (humanemotions being what they are) every reason forA.A. Nofi responds:The 8th Infantry Division does indeed have fiveseekina venaeance while invadina Pennsvl- The first impression one gets from this letter is tank battalions, broken down as follows: 1stvania. tompared with Sherman's introduc$on that Mr. Canipe ought to go back and read Brigade-2 airborne infantry battalions-soonof "total" war and destruction during his "The Gettysburg Campaign" in SEtT 38. 1 say to be converted to mechanized infantry; 1march throuah Georaia and the Carolinas and this because his objections to several of my airborne infantry battalion, which is in Italy; 4ththe destruct& of thYe Shenandoah valley-by comments are based on incomplete reading of Battalion 69th Armor-formed in 1972; 2ndanother Northern military mind, the Army of the article. For example, where he says Brigade-3 mechanized infantry battalions; 1stVirginia was a model of generous behavior "cynical comment about 'unofficial' looting" and 2nd Bns 69th Armor; 3rd Brigade-1towards the land and people of Pennsylvania. andso forth, he demonstrates that he failed to mechanized infantry battalion; 3rd and 5th Bnsread, three or four lines further on, "And of 68th Armor, as well as the divisional cavalryThe not so subtle Northern chauvinism of Nofi course looting is a perennial disease among squadron which is attached for administrativeis obvious in many other places of his work as soldiers." Similarly his comments about my purposes. - L.F. W. Beck, Lt, USAwell as bewildering contradictions. He would evaluation of Sherman and other Federalhave us to believe that there was not much generals as being the equals or superiors of thedifference in the soldiering qualities of Johnny Southerners also betray a lack of carefulReb and Billy Yank but that what differences reading, for I noted several times that the really Sniper! Free-For-Allthere were ". . .were most evident at still good U. S. officers were all out in the West athigher ranks, in the corps and the army that rime. But this is mere nit picking, and Mr. Sniper! ha,s been played in many variations atcommands." It is rather perplexing from a Canipe seems to have tried hard to find nits to SPI. The one that has been most durable andpoint of logic to then read that "Men such as pick. The real issue is one which he has been responsible for more 5 AM SaturdayGrant and Sherman were probably the equals approaches obliquely: he objects to my play than any other has been an every-manofLee as army commanders. . ." and that unsvmmthetic approach to the Southern for-himself f ree-for-ail.. . . .". . .Jackson was one of the top corps cause. The rules are simole. First out some Sni~ercommanders of the war, probably surpassedMaybe Lee and the slave- counters into a cup. Ten riflemen, 5 MP'S,only by Sherman and Sheridan." Mr. Nofiholders, southerners 3 sa sand a couple of MG's make up the bestfinally concludes that "Sherman may well have fighting slavery, but for balanced mix. Then someone holds up the cupbeen the finest officer on either side." the economic and political independence of and everyone picks one. Try not to smile tooConsidering the aforementioned statements of the South. Fin. But let us not forget that the much Or everyone will that you pickedMr. Nofi and considering that the population of economic system of the South was rooted in UP the Machine gun.the Confederate States of America was slavery and the ~olitical~roblem which led the Divide the map edge into as many sectors asoutnumbered 10 to 1 and that she had a veryprimitive base, then why did the SouthSouth to demand independence was the factthat the rest of the nation was becomingthere are players. Decide who gets whichsector. All counters enter from his respectivesucceed in surviving for five years against such increasingly hostile to the ';oeculiar institu- ma0 edae.overwhelming odds and forces? It is neitherremarkable nor surprising that she lost the war- that was inevitable - but that she survivedas long as she did.The United States won by attrition. If hersoldiers had been more or less equal and hertop generals equal or superior to those of theConfederate States, then a war of attritionwould not have been necessary. I believe thatthe superior 'material resources and manpowerof the North certainly outweight anyhome-ground defense advantages that theSouth enjoyed.Be that as it may, Mr. Nofi did not write withhistorical objectivity in mind. Such antiquatedapproaches towards the emotional issues ofthe war per se (which he played on) are anoffense to readers seeking objective andquality works. Such writing belongs to theemotional period of the Northern Press (circa1860) and not on the pages of Strategy &Tactics 1973.My critique of certain aspects of Mr. Nofi'swork will probably be a "cry-in-the-dark" and Iwill be considered as just another indignantand irate Southerner still fighting the war.Therefore, I am prepared to be ignored. Irealize that most of Strategy 8 Tactics readerslive in the North and West - consequentlythey will probably be pleased with the article. Ibelieve in letting the cards fall where they mayregardless of reader sentiment and prejudice. Ivividly recall your printing of the superb worktitled "Year of the.RatM by John Prados; thecourageous work, to the contrary of beingtion." Lest we forget the ultimate cause of thewar we should recall that Longstreet issuedorders to capture all fugitive slaves and returnthem to their masters. And remember FortPillow, where Southern troops gallantly shotdown surrendered black soldiers, their whiteofficers and many of their wives and childrenas well. [lncidently, the commander of theseSoutherners was Nathan Bedford Forest, wholater went on to greater things as the founder ofthe Ku Klux Klan.1 Then of course we have a100 years of L ynchings to top it all off. I ratherthink Mr. Canipe 's remark about encouragingan historian to tell the truth in the interests ofnational harmony is rather amusing, as heseems to prefer the fairy tales which willassuage Southern feelings rather than anythingelse.*RS/WS and the Paper TigerThe Red Star/Whire Star errata in S8T 38prompted me to make these few comments.The article was very well researched andwritten. I would not dispute your conclusionsin "USAREUR -The Paper Tiger" but I wouldlike to point out that the 8th lnfantry Divisionhas made two division sized field trainingexercises (FTX's), one in February 1972 and ariver crossing in May 1973 as well asparticipating in the V Corps FTX with the 3rdArmored Division in Decevber 1972. Ofcourse, some realism was definitely lost due todamage control considerations, but practice inproviding logistical support and controlling theunits involved was gained.All Counters are face down at the start. Youonly see what kind of weapon a man iscarrying if you can see him according to thenormal Sighting Rules. When a man fires hisgun then everyone gets to see what he has,but turn him face down again after thatGame-Turn. You never know, someone mightforget.Don't use any markers, so no one knowsanything he shouldn't. Of course, it helps toplay this game with people who are fairlyhonest. Whenever there is a question ofwhether or not someone is peeking (sighting)through an aperture, all questionable parties(and a game like this usually is) should writedown on a corner of their plot sheet (orsomeplace else if you run out of corners)whether or not they are sighting and reveal itto whomever could potentially see their man.Well thats about all you need to know,so go to ...You might want a few tips on tactics. Onegood ploy that nearly all good players will useis to go to a stairwell and stay there a few turnsrolling a die. Everyone else won't know ifyou're climbing or preparing a rifle grenade.This is good to do if people don't know whatyou have, even if you really have a MachinePistol and can't prepare a rifle grenade, theydon't know, and half this game is psychingeach other out.Another standby maneuver for some players iSto go up on a roof with a loaded rifle grenadeand wait for a suitable target. In fact, grenades

in general are a lot of fun, and useful too. Forone thing, they are the only way to find outwhat floor someone is on who isn't sighting. Ifthe grenade goes off in the same room at thesame level as a man, he must reveal whetherhe has been wounded or stunned (everybodyhears him scream). The one problem withgrenades is that they wound people a lot moreoften than they incapacitate them, andsomebody else can often get to the woundedman first, finish him off, and thus claim the kill.Speaking of which, I forgot to mention thatyou should treat all lncapacitated results asKills, as there is no sport in killing an alreadylncapacitated man. And while I'm rememberingrules I left out. . .no one Panics. Usingthe Panic rules would make this too much agame of luck.Another fun thing to do is go into a stairwelland go down. It will really freak everyone elseout. They've probably never seen anybodyactually go into the basement before. They'llthrow grenades at you on every floor and you'llnever be on that floor. It will drive them mad.On the other hand, you won't get to killanyone, but it is a great goof.. .once.Games of this free-for-all variety can varygreatly in how long they last. If everyone isover cautious, the game can last an hour and ahalf. Of course, with everyone playing AudieMurphy the game can be quite short. One timewhen we were playing with six people,everybody entered at the edge of theirentrance sector. Everyone was within fourhexes of someone else. Eberyone was sighting.Everyone was dead by the end of Game-Turnthree. The only known war game every playedand finished in ten minutes.One last thing. Everyone puts up some money.Say a dime. You get the dime from anyone youKill or Incapacitate.-Hank ZuckerFurther Civil WarGame Design Suggestions(see MOVES 8)One extremely valuable book for any gamedesigner for the CSA organization would beThe Confederate Soldier in the Civil War firstpublished in 1895 and available in many publiclibraries. It contains the complete orders ofbattle for many of the major CSA forces downto regimental and battery level. It also containsmost of the major battle reports of the principalleaders, naval as well as land. It lists all vesselscaptured by the CSN, all Confederate generalsand their commands, all CS Military Departments.It contains a very lengthy article by BrigGen Josias Gorgas, Chief of Ordnance, on theConfederate ordnance effort complete withmany statistics.Another recent source is The Civil War Day byDay which besides giving the daily occurrencesthroughout the war, has some veryinteresting and useful appendices. One ofthese lists the population by state and race in1860. Another gives total immigration to theNorth during this period - which is importantwhen you understand the very large scaleforeign recruiting conducted by the FederalGovernment. It also lists the sizes of theopposing forces at different periods.I do question Mr. Banasik's use of the figure of971 men for the total average enlistment in aConfederate regiment, and 1050 for the Union.Confederate tinits tended to send replace-ments to their established units raising a fewnew units after 1862. The Federal units on theother hand continually raised new units ratherthan fill up the old ones. Just using some of myprivate sources gives the following data. TheNorth Carolina rolls show 22 regiments withover 15,000 men, some with over 1800.6th N.C.-1,851; 20th S.C.-1,657; 1st Texas- 1,302; 4th Texas- 1,251; 5th Texas- 1311;3rd Ark- 1,500; 1st Tenn Vol- 1,500; 5thTenn- 1,300. The closest to Mr. Banasik'sfigure was the 2d Kentucky with a totalenrollment of 975. Naturally the boarderregiments would have a more difficult timerecruiting with their homes behind enemylines. I have more examples, but that wouldbelabor the point.The table listing the number of regiments, etc.,in Federal service would also require someexplanations for any game designer. Most ofthe western organizations, i.e., California,Oregon, etc., were used against the Indians.Some were used only briefly against Sibley'sinvasion of New Mexico and in the case ofColorado units against Price's invasion ofMissouri. The U.S. Volunteer infantry were thegalvanized yankees used only against theIndians, not against their own comrades inarms.A glaring mistake made by Avalon Hill in theirgame Getrysburg and by other tactical levelCivil War games, is the use of the division asthe major tactical unit. Especially during thisphase of the war, the brigade surely was themost important unit. In the opening action ofGettysburg, General Heth only used two of hisbrigades, much to his later regret I'm sure.Anderson's assault on the Union center failedbecause he only used three of his brigades, notusing Mahone and Posey, two of his strongestunits. Because of the terrain, the battle ofChickamauga was almost totally fought on thebrigade level. The same is true of the SevenDays.Chickamauga was one of the few well balancedbattles fought in the war with many militaryand political implications. This would be anexcellent subject for a game.ORGANIZATIONS IN THE SERVICE OF THECONFEDERATE STATESFROM EACH SOUTHERN STATEState Cavalry Infant~y Arti7Iery TotelRgt Bn Rgt Bn Rgt Bn Rgt Bty Bty Rgt Bn Btypart part~t HVRng RngAL 5 - 3 55 11 16 63 11 16AR 6 2 - - 35 12 - 15 - 41 14 15F L 2 1 - - 1 0 2 6 - 1 2 3 6GAll 2 1 168 17 - 28 2 80 22 28LA 2 1 1 - 34 10 2 26 - 38 11 26MS7 4 2 - 4 9 6-20-581020NC1 5 - - 6 9 4 - 9 27011 9SC7 1 - - 3 3 2 128 141 428TN21 11 1 - 61 2 1 32 1 83 14 32TX28 4 - -22 5 - 16-50 916VA22 11 1 - 65 10 1 53 90 21 53Bdr 9 5 - - 21 4 - 11 - 30 9 11C S 6 - - - 7 - - 1 - 1 3 - 1RegThis table is from The Confederate Soldier inthe Civil War. This does not include regimentswhich served a short time only (one yearregiments such as the 1st Kentucky),disbanded or consolidated regiments, Statemilitia, Junior Reserves, Senior Reserves,Home Guards, Local Defense regiments, andseparate companies. There are also somediscrepancies in this chart if you compare withW.J. Tancig's handy little book, confederateMilitary Land Units. This book lists most CSAunits except CS regulars, Indian units, andsome miscellaneous units such as Herbert'sArizona Cavalry Battalion; Thomas Legion(N.C. Cherokee). Tancig, and various Orders ofBattle, for example, list six regiments of NorthCarolina cavalry, not one; eleven regiments ofFlorida infantry, not ten; over twenty regimentsof border cavalry from Missouri andKentucky, not nine.-Roberr Roser, CPT, USAFSuggested Rules ChangesFor NAW and BorodinoI. ARTILLERY -A. Has a three hex range. Its Combat Strengthattenuates with increased range as follows:1st hex-printed Strength plus one;2nd hex-printed Strength;3rd hex-% Strength (fractions roundedupwards, e.g.: A 7-3 unit becomes a 4-3 unit).B. Can fire defensively -1. -before other combat when being attackedby a cavalry or infantry unit. The artillerybombards with a doubled Strength. If theattacker survives, the artillery unit is eliminated(by survival is meant the infantry or cavalrydoes not suffer an "Ae" or "Ar." An exchangewould be computed with the artillery asdefender). If more than one Cavalry and/orinfantry unit attacks, the defensive fire isconcentrated against one hex only - the otherunit(s) automatically eliminate the artillery. Thedefender has the option of defending only atnormal odds in which case the battle isresolved without this rule.2. -when artillery bombards artillery -a. at the defender's option after resolution ofall other combat in that phase,b. units surviving on the hex they began thatphase can return the fire (bombard) an artilleryunit that attacked the defender's unit.c. supporting a cavalry attack againstinfantry causes the odds column to shift upone column in favor of the attacker. Forexample, a 1 to 1 attack becomes a 2 to 1attack. The Cavalry and artillery should eachbe at least one third of the infantry Strength.II. Cavalry, when attacking infantry-A. -is attacking at half 'Strength whenunsupported by any other class of unit.B. -can co-operate with artillery according torule 2-C.REASONS FOR SUGGESTED RULESCHANGES FOR NAW AND BORODINOI. Artillery was often the decisive weapon to adegree not reflect in the current games.A. While its effectiveness was considerablyreduced, artillery smoothbores could, and did,engage massed targets a kilometer away.Again, 400 meters was considered point blankrange.B. Artillery could literally blow away a forceadvancing against it with grape shot at closerange. Also, a black-powder cannon cannotconceal its position once it has fired. Counterbattery work was a usual part of a heavilyengaged battery's job. !C. A battalion or brigade square againstcavalry presented a perfect artillery target.IUsually, only a few salvos were required toannihilate the hex.

II. Against disciplined, trained infantry undereffective command (anything else is eliminatedin these game mechanics) cavalry, by itself isimpotent.SUGGESTED RULES CHANGESFOR BORODINOI. French Infantry, when attacking, receive abonus of one Combat Strength Point per unitof infantry involved in the attack.II. Guard Units may be committed at will, buttheir loss is effectively double the loss of otherunits. They count twice in determining victorypoints. If the French "Old Guard" iseliminated, the French lose the benefitof rule #I.Ill. Victory conditions for the Grand Battlegame are based on the ratio of destroyedStrength Points as modified by rule #2. Thetable is as follows:French RussianKilled Killed Victor Level and ConditionsRussian Decisive-if holding Borolinoand 2 Redoubt hexes.- . -- . . -"-.%1-2 1 Russian Substantial-if holdingGreat Redoubt.-- 1 1 FrencR Marginal-if holding Borrdino and 3 Redoubt hexes.17-1 3 + - -Frencli Decisive-if holding Boro-mdino and all Redoubts.IV. French units exited off map on or betweenthe two roads east force the removal c?f doubletheir Combat Strength in Russian units. TheRussian units are counted as lost.V. Russian optional militia is used as 1-3 unitsunless Russian player is markedly inferior.RA TIONA L ESI. French infantry was still at its peak ofoffensive training. This bonus helps restore thesuperior strength for attack the French actuallypossessed. In a historical situation whereFrance had half again as many men, the gamegives the French 172 CSP and the Russians144 CSP in their field force, plus 15 CSP inredoubts, plus an optional 33 CSP in the militia(a force wh~ch historically would have beenshattered by half its numbers in regulars). Allthis in a situation where the Russian is oftensafe in taking the offensive, makes a Frenchvictory unlikely in the game.II. I think that the considerations leading tocertain decisions should be given preferenceover forcing the player to accept someoneelse's decision.Ill. See comments on rule #l.IV. The thought of Napoleon between themand holy Moscow would have driven mostRussian units east as fast as possible -without orders - at the time of the battle.V. Historical .variants should be accuratepossibilities or admitted attempts to achieveplay balance. The strength given to the militia(much of which was still mustering) gives thembetter logistics, leadership, and training thanseems possible.*-Arthur Pigg"They Can't Capture Me,I'm The General!"There has lately been much debate concerningwhether or not most wargamers suffer fromthe "Rommel Syndrone." There has also beens.much talk about those who do suffer from thisaffliction. It seems that if a gamer wants toplay Rommel, let him; but make him put acounter on the board that represents himselfand one for his Headquarters (HQ), or pick aunit to be designated as the HQ unit. TheCommanding General (CG) unit would havethe Movement Allowance of the fastestfriendly unit. If an air speed is used, use that ofa fighter or a scout plane: no bombers. If a newunit is added for the HQ, it shall have the speedof the fastest land unit; but it must use about25% of its movement to "set up" its lines ofcommunication et. al. It may, however, keepmoving and not set up. Add the followingrules:(1) The HQ Et CG units do not count forstacking and may not attack.(2a) Objectives and routes of attack must bewritten down for all groups of units, areas ofthe campaign, etc. The exact units must belisted on the orders. (b) These orders may bechanged at any time the CG is in a set up HQ.(c) Any unit not having written orders maynot move.(3a) If the CG is in his set up HQ, proceed asnormal. (b) If the CG is not in a set up HQ hecan only command a five (5) hex radius notthrough enemy ZOC or every unit he can comein contact with (including the HQ to changeorders, but it must spend half its movementthere). For this the Movement Allowance ofthe CG can only be that of the fastest friendlyland unit. (c) All units not under his commandshall continue as per their written objectives bythe specified routs; and upon reaching themthey will dig in to await further orders. (dl If agroup of units, not under command, is pressingon toward its objectives but through combathas been reduced to the point where it isfoolish to continue, it may dig in there orretreat to the nearest defensible position.- I((4a) The presence of the CG affects thecombat effectiveness of the troops in that hex.Soldiers do fight better under the eyes of theircommander. The die roll, whether attacking ordefending, is changed by plus or minus one,depending on the CRT used. (b) The unitsstacked in that hex, if forced to retreat due tocombat, instead have half their strengtheliminated. If there is .only one unit presentbesides the CG it is eliminated, but the enemymay not advance into that hex and does notcapture the CG unit.(5a) The CG unit has no ZOC and is notaffected by those of the enemy. (b) If alone, itmay retreat if possible to refuse surfacecombat. The enemy may then move into/through that hex as if it had not been occupiedat all. (c) If an enemy unit is forced to retreatinto a hex where it stands alone, it is alsoforced to retreat; if it cannot it is destroyed.(6a) If destroyed, the HQ unit may not bereplaced until one Friendly Movement andCombat Phase have passed, at which timeanother unit at least five (5) hexes away fromthe nearest enemy unit or stacked with the CGunit is designated to be the new HQ. (b) TheCG unit may be capturedldestroyed. If it is, theplayer has lost (though another player maytake his place and continue from there) andthat is all, Erwin, m'boy!-David L. Porter~tegic simultaneousmovement system that does not, requlre a judge for either face-tofaceor play-by-mail play..A n multaneousmovement system designed foruse with existing SPI and AHgarries inat use I nalmechanics.Games with maps and rulesutilizing the latest in new designideas.?xploring the ideas of amateur gameuesigrlcn game design, game reviews, gamevariants ana occassionally games. Articles are supported by maps anddiagrams. Grundsteit is published in a newspaper format utilizing theoffsetSEND FOR A FREE SAMPLE ISSUE TO: GRUNDSTEIT12 S. Chenango St.Greene. N.Y. 13778!eit

WARGAME REVIEWS by Martin CampionThe reviews in this article are a continuation ofa project begun in S&T Guides, nos. 1 and 2,MOVES #4 and MOVES #7. This additionbrings the list of games in print up to thosegames that arrived in my office before June 1,1973. As usual, the list is limited to games that Ibelieve are in print and immediately available tobe shipped to people who order them. But thegames of some organizations go out of printwith bewildering speed. Some of the games 1have seen have gone out of print before I had achance to include them in the reviews.Therefore, some of the games included heremay be out of print by the time you read this.In these lists, I have attempted to review allwargames in print. I have failed not onlybecause some go out of print too fast, but alsobecause I had difficulty getting some games,and I ,can't review a game unless I can see it.Right now I am working on a supplementarylist of out of print games (with designer,publisher, original price, and a little otherinformation when available).Another project is to design a workable gamecataloging system. I began assigning numbersto games in S&T Guide # 1 in order to make iteasier to refer back and forth between games.At first the numbers were to apply only to thegame for that issue. However, it soon becameapparent that the numbers assigned should bepermanent. Now the whole system iscollapsing in a pile of rubble as it has beenbombarded with an unprecedented barrage ofnew games. So I am working on a permanentlyexpandible classification and filing scheme.Each game 0% the "in print" and "out of print"lists will be assigned a number. Eventually allwargames published will be fitted into thesystem which can be used by anyone toorganize a large wargame collection.I want to thank the following for theirinvaluable assistance: the members of theKSCP Historical Games Club, particularlyRichard Rydzel and Charles Maxwell, and thestudents in my classes in War in WesternCivilization and Historical Games and Simulations.Correspondence relating to this and previousarticles may be sent to:Martin C. CampionHistory DepartmentKansas State College of PittsburgPittsburg, Kansas 66762AMENDMENTS, CHANGES, ERRATATo the information in MOVES #4:War Games:015. Decline and Fall now has a new edition.011. Alexander :he Grear now costs $4.00, and092. Dunkirk now costs $4.50 and they now comewith gummed paper maps in envelopes instead ofwith hard boards in boxes.187. Wehrmachr is now out of print, probablyforever.PEACE GAMES:021. New Town now has an all new edition, price$8.95.To the information in MOVES #7:CWC Cobra Wargaming Club is now defunct as apublisher. -016. Hannibal: new name for publisher is Histo 093. Guerre a Ourrance is 'out of print untilGames (Hi).sometime in 1974 perhaps.035. Spirir of '76 is out of print. 204. Barrle Plan: prices should be $0.35 for the rules036. Minureman is out of print and will not beand $0.50 per play the game.republished when reprints of the magazine are made, The publisher of 1944 (221) is The Courier, 45 Wilsonbut a new, designer approved version will be Street, Brocton. Massachusetts 02401.published somewhere else.WAR GAME PUBLISHER Mor Tony Morale, Box 53, N'ark,AND ABBREVIATIONS New York 11040.--- ...ADA American Designer's Association, 17 Pa Robert Partanen, IW WecTurner Street, Greene, New York 13778. San Jose, California 95123.wive,AH Avalon Hill Co., 4517 Harford Road, PzP Panzerfaust Publications, : C,Baltimore. Maryland 21214. Belfast, Maine 04915Bb Blutbad Enterprise, c/o Tyrone Bomba, 405 mu;dtions Design Co rporation, 3347Fireline Road, Bosmanstown, Pennsylvania 18030Court Suit e B, San C liego, Califc xniaBGC Balboa Game Company, P.O. Box 81021,. . - ..-San Diego, California 92138. -. . rulat~ons rubl~cat~ons, lnc., 44 tast 23rdStreet, New Y0rk:N.Y. 10010. SPI has two linesCGC Conflict Games Company, P.O. Box 2071.of games, Simulations games which are sent viaWest Lafayette, Indiana 47906, is a new publisherUnited Parcel Service, and:of high physical quality games. Its wargame mapsare plastic and multi-colored; its counters are S&T Strategy 8 Tactics games ~hich aredie-cut and glossy; and its games ; 3re boxed. published in that magazine. The price givenFurthermore, it intends to sell mainl ly through includes a boxed game plus the issue of SBT inwholesalers to local retailers.which the game originally appeared.DC Drumco, P.O. Box 1421, Colle~ le Station, Sp Loren Sperry, 1014 North 4th Street,Texas 77840. Sheboygan, Wisconsin 53081.DDI Dynamic Design Inc., 1433 No1 .th Central Spa Spartan International, 5820 John Ave !nue,Park. Anaheim, California 92802. Long Beach, California 90805.. .-- ...De Decalset, 16 Davenport Road, Sic jcup, Kent TMI Third Millenia Incorporated. 465 WoodlandDA 14 4 PW, England.Hills, Philadelphia, Mississippi 39350, produces aline of wargames and promises games on otherGG Guidon Games, P.O.ast, Mainesubjectsas well. They fall somewhat short of SPI04915.in physical quality. The maps are reminiscent ofGR Games Research lnc.In Avenue, SPl's but a little crude in the artwork. The die-cutBoston, Massachusetts a ,.counters are unevenly cut, not as badly as hasHI Histo Games (formerly Laurence Rusiecki), been the case with GG games ;, but still I need34 Sharon Street, Brooklyn, New York 11211. trimming,Lo Richard F. Loomis, 8149 East Thomas Road, 98736,TTA Tl 'A Enterpri: ;es. GE Co I., APO Se attleScottsdale, Arizona 85251F.UTR U'- . .L W Donald 1 .own/, P.O.ln tnrerprlses, 617 14th Avenue S.E.,Box C, Bell 'ast, MaineMinneapc >lis, Minnesota 55414.04915.WRG V1 Jargames Research Group, 75 ArdinglyLA^^^..^ 4,-L A..--..-Ma Alfred R. ~vlallyus, 1345 East 27t11 nva~~uw, Drive, Gc )ring-by-Sea. Sussex. Enaland.-Anc aska 99504. Zo Lou Zocchi, : 388 Montaville,Mi Harry M. Mishler, tLa Mesa, California 92392.Cal ifornia 9204 .I.The following publis hers are de.-:-- CI..LMO DIUC;~ IVIUU~~, YLI cas~ r~or~aar_nver~ue,CWC Cobra Warga~~~l~~u LIUUSal idy, Utah E 14070.Do Terr01 la. Alexander's Orher Barrles (1972, PzP, $3.00).by Gary Gygax, graphics by Julie Lowry, deals withthe battles of Granicus and Issus, in which Alexanderdefeated the first Persian forces to be sent againsthim, and the battle of Hydaspes; his last battle, inwhich he defeated the Indians under King Porus. It isa supplement to the game, Alexander the Grear (01 1)and is useless without the parent game. For Granicusand Issus, the game uses the same system asAlexander, which features a complex morale systemwhich alters combat effectiveness and a system ofrecording casualties by flipping two-sided counters.Granicus and Issus, however, are smaller battles thanArbela, the Alexander :he Grear battle, and theytherefore offer an easier game. Hydaspes has moredifferences. Here the opposing sides begin bymaneuvering, with semi-hidden movement, on astrategic board covering a large territory up anddown the river. When armies or detachments meeton the strategic board, they reveal themselves andare lost on the tactical board. It is a good concept butthe relationship between the two boards is uncertainand making the transfer depends on having a friendlyworking arrangement with your opponent. Furthermore,the time relationship between the two boardsis unclear and this in a game which is supposed to belimited in its number of turns. It is a valuablearrangement in spite of the uncertain development ofthe rules at this point.018. Granicus (1972, order from ADA, $1.50), byStuart Schoenberger, is an unusual treatment of oneof Alexander's battles, his first in Asia against a forceof Persian cavalry and hired Greek infantry. Granicusis actually more a game sketch than a fully developedgame. There is no board and no unit counters.Instead there is a description of a board that wouldhave 20 squares by 20 squares and only one terrainfeature - the river Granicus which separates it intoto parts. The units are listed with their combat andmovement factors but they, like the board, have tobe home made. The rules themselves are very simple.Unfortunately, several of them are incomprehensible.There are two combat results tables, one apparentlyfor missile weapons but poorly explained; the other,apparently for melee, is much like the old AH CRT.

This game represents some effort in assembling anorder of battle, assigning combat factors, androughly designing a battlefield, but the rules areterribly inadequate and players will, on the whole,have to figure out their own.018a. Pharsalus (1972, order from ADA, $1 50). byStuart Schoenberger, deals with the battle of 48 B.C.in Greece between Caesar and Pompey in whichPompey was decisively defeated. The treatment isvery much the same as that of Granicus: a 30 squareby 30 square map is roughed out and an order ofbattle with combat factors is provided, but not actualmap or unit counters. Pharsalus has many more unitsthan Granicus: Pompey has 112 combat units andCaesar 42. There is a great disparity of force betweenthe two sides, but some of Pompey's troops may bedropped to balance the game. The rules are morecomplicated but also even more incomprehensible.The combat system is very much like that of thestandard Napoleon at Waterloo 1046). The ADArecommends with this as with several of theirofferings, "Buy this game if you want to know hownot to design a game."018b. Thapsus (1972, order from ADA, $1.50). byStuart Schoenberger, deals with the battle betweenCaesar and the Senatorial forces in North Africa in 46B.C. It was Caesar's last battle. It is done in the sameoutline fashion as the other two (018 and 018a), butsince the game is more complex, the problems arecompounded several times. The map is suggested,but since the terrain is very complex, it is quiteuncertain how to make the board. Caesar has over100 beginning units, some of which can be brokendown somehow according to extremely unclearrules. The Senatorial Forces have only about 80 unitsbut also have the benefit of walls of Thaosus. The-game involves naval forces and siege units as well asland combat, but all is described in a set of rules thatare truly remarkable for their disorganized incomprehensibility.Again, ADA recommends, "Buy thisgame if you want to know how not to design0 n0mP "~ . ~ - ~ -019. Decline and Fall (2nd edition, 1972, WRG,$9.50 including postage by surface mail), by TerrenceP. Donnelly, is basically the same game reviewed inMOVES #4 lp. 14, 015). The main changes arephysical: the board is now mounted and printed infour splendid colors; the counters are laminatedcardboard, already cut and with attractive symbolsand colors, and the whole is in a box (too weak a boxas yet, but the publishers are attempting to get newones). The game is still an excellent and historicallyinformative game for four people who must combinewargame skills and diplomatic skills to survive or towin. Some changes in the rules have been made:ambiguities in the sea movement rule have beenresolved with an example of such movement; theconflict resolution table has been altered slightly; theretreat after combat rule has been changed to makeit more unlikely than before that an enemy piece canbe destroyed by forcing it into an unfriendly zone ofcontrol. A few new optional rules are added whichwould have the effect of increasing the eventfulnessof the game and its element of chance. The gameshould still have a strong appeal to historians,wargamers, Diplomacy players, and admirers ofgames which are fairly simple in their mechanics butcapable of a wide variety and sophistication in play.032. Breitenfeld (1972. order from ADA, $1.50, byStuart Schoenberger, deals with the decisive battlewith which Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden burst intothe Thirty Years' War. It is not to be confused withanother game of the same name and subject (S8TGuide no. 1,032). Like the other games in this series,this comes without board or counters but with roughinstructions for making both. There is nothing wrongwith the idea of a do-it-yourself game, but this is avery bad example of that idea. The sellers, the ADA,confess, on their list, "Buy this game if you want toknow how not to design a game," and that is thetruth. The rules are unbelievably vague, incompleteand ungrammatical. There is very little attempt toreflect the warfare of the period and the wholepackage of 5 typewritten and duplicated pages isfantastically overpriced.033. Musket and Pike: Tactical Combat, 1550-1680(1973, SPI, $7.00), by John M. Young, graphics byRedmond A. Simonsen and Manfred F. Milkuhn,deals with the tactics of the period including the CivilWars in France and England, the Revolt of theNetherlands and the Thirty Years' War. It was aperiod of great confusion in tactics because of theincompatibility of the two main infantry weapons,the musket and the pike. The soldiers of the timefound that both were unnecessary, but constantlystrained to find a tactical system which wouldcombine them without destroying thevalue of one orthe other. This dilemma is neatly reflected in thestacking and other rules of this game. You can mixthe two kinds of units this way, but no matter whatyou do it will be wrong. The game also shows thepower and weakness of pistol wielding cavalry, but itprobably gives the Swedish cavalry a little too muchpower. The game is smooth and simple to operate,the map is not overly cluttered with terrain. The rulespresent few difficulties with one major exception: theoptional (but really necessary) rule for using infantrysquares is nearly useless. There are 18 variedscenarios. There has been an attempt to describe thetendency of each scenario as favoring one side or theother or being evenly balanced, but I found thesepredictions to be very dubious. Nevertheless, it is afine and valuable interpretation of the warfare of.the period. [Note: The above was written before Ireceived the errata sheet for the game. The sheetclears up several things including the squareformation rule.]037. American Revolution (1972, SPI, $7.00). byJames F. Dunnigan, graphics by Redmond A.Simonsen, is a game of grand strategy dealing withthe entire war, four moves to a year, from Spring1775 to Winter 1783. The total is 32 moves. Thecounters represent Continental or Militia forces forthe Americans and Regular and Tory forces for theBritish. This loses many distinctions. Cavalry andartillery are averaged in with the infantry. Hessiansare subsumed into the British regulars. The map isdivided into movement areas with some designatedas wilderness which is more difficult to move into.especially for the British. But rivers and lakes play ndpart in the game except as they were used as thebasis for designating areas. The map also containsregions (one to five movement areas each), fromwhich the American draws his recruits and which areworthy victory points to the occupier. The Britishplayer wins by occupying and holding, with ananti-militia garrison, 51 points worth of territory, i.e.,Canada and a little over half of the 13 states orcolonies. There is a system for the entry of theFrench into the game after a major American victory.Meanwhile, the British, who have overwhelmingstrength during most of the game, are dependent onrolling good numbers on a die in order to move theircounters according to any plan. The rules arerelatively simple and the game is easy to learn andplay. However, most of the task of the Americanplayer is rather dull, since most of the time the onlything he can do is get out of the way. So far, indeed,it appears that the American player has little chanceto win. It is possible for the British player to movecautiously so that he never takes any chances ofbeing attacked by the Americans, at least until verylate in the game. The only chance the Americanshave is to avoid all battles involving Continentals untilnear the end of the game.042b. 1812: The Campaign of Napoleon in Russia(Strategic Game) (1972, SPI, $12.00 with grandtactical game), by John Young and Phil Orbanes,graphics by Redmond A. Simonsen and Manfred F.Milkuhn, is an innovative, valuable and evenfascinating game on Napoleon's fateful invasion ofRussia. Unfortunately it does not quite work. Thereare several problems: Battles, for which a matrixsystem is used, are either too potentially disastrousor too inclusive. Although the matrix system iscomplex, it still does not allow enough choices.Forced marches are much to chancy to be tried bymore than one or two units per game. Then thesupply rules, when understood by the French player,work to his advantage. The French player can movehis units in groups of three corps anywhere in Russiawith a depot and supply unit and never suffer for lackof supplies, while the Russians do not have the depotunits to pull that trick. So the game becomes a puzzlewhich can be solved by the French player while theRussian player either looks more or less helplessly onor tries a succession of desperate gambles in aneffort to stop the process. Most often the Frenchplayer will win with this relatively simple formula:fight no battles unless necessary; attempt no forcedmarches unless you are going to lose the unitanyway; concentrate enough to force Russians toconcentrate and deplete their supplies; then marchthrough depleted Russia with expeditionary forces ofthree corps each; do not try to take Moscow; justtake everything else. These remarks, of course, referonly to thecampaign game (Scenario 1). Scenarios 2and 3 start after the French have made mistakes.Thus, in Scenario 3, the French situation isimpossible, while Scenario 2 might be the closest to abalanced game.042c. 1812: The Campaign of Napoleon in Russia(Grand Tactical Game) (1972, SPI, $12.00 withstrategic game), by John Young and Phil Orbanes,graphics by Redmond A. Simonsen and ManfredMilkuhn, is the companion of the other 1812, but isbased on the veteran Leipza system for marchingand fighting. This allows a little more freedom inforced marching than the strategic version and muchmore certainty in battles. Now the French player canseek a battle with more confidence while the Russianwill avoid all clashes with the French main force. Thesupply and several other rules are virtually the samefor this version as for the strategic. Thus small forcesof French troops can march around with depots andsupply units without suffering while the Russianarmy gets progressively worse off. Again there arethree situations or scenarios with the game: Scenario1 (the campaign game), heavily favoring the French;Scenario 3 (with the French beginning in Moscow)virtually assuring their destruction; and Scenario 2being a little closer to a balanced game.0453. Waterloo 1 (1971, ADA, $1.00). by StephenMarsland, is not to be confused with Waterloo 1(045). and is not recommended even by its author. Itdoes not attempt to deal with the actual battle ofWaterloo. Instead; it is supposed to represent theconditions of warfare of the period in a situation thatis vaguely reminiscent of Waterloo but is made up.The game is very poor physically. The unmounted,uncut, typed and hand-drawn counter sheet is alsopoorly colored and needs to be nearly all recopied.The mapsheet is small and unattractive but usuable.The rules contain several unnecessary complexitiesbut are for a basically simple game with fewdifferences among the three arms.048. Napoleon (1972, ADA, $4.00), by StephenMarsland, is a hypothetical situation reflectingNapoleonic warfare on the grand tactical level. Theunits are infantry and cavalry divisions and artilleryunits; the French player chooses from among 41possible units, the Austrian from among 28 units.The mapboard represents "someplace" in Germanyapparently, but the hypothetical scale is notannounced. Basic movement for French infantry is 4hexes for a two-hour move. The game is quitecomplex so it is fortunate that there are relatively fewunits. It would be much better to operate the gamewith an umpire, although the rules are written in theassumption that the game will be played by twopersons who are not only scrupulously honest, butalso painstaking in their bookkeeping. Bookkeepingcomes from complex movement and combat rules.The counters on the board ordinarily are "strategiccounters" which represent up to 9 divisions. They aremoved only according to orders that have to bewritten one turn before they start to take effect.When opposing strategic counters meet, they areremoved and their constituent units are deployed onthe board according to simultaneously writteninstructions. The Combat Results Table uses twodice and has eight different possible results, some ofwhich are combined. Then the results have to bekept track of for three or six phases. Victory is basedon a complex point system. The game is certainly notfor everyone. It is well-thought out and subtle. It hasnumerous difficulties in its innovative rules, but itoffers command problems not met with in morepopular games. Physically, the game is uninteresting,with a hand drawn map on an SPI hex sheet, spiritduplicated rules, and crudely drawn countersmounted on uncut cardboard. But is a valuablesimulation of some aspects of Napoleonic warfare.

Ma. Austerlirz (1973, SPI, $7.00), by John M.Young, graphics by Redmond A. Simonsen, is a fairlyaccurate representation of the fateful battle of 1805in which Napoleon destroyed the Austro-Russianarmy and thereby became Europe's chief mapmakerfor nearly 10 years. The game board shows the areaof the battle and lasts for 13 turns or 13 hoursstarting, I presume, shortly after sunrise. Except for afew units which arrive on turn 2, all the units have anassigned place on the mapboard. So the allies arepoised to launch their attack on the French rightwhile the French are massed opposite the allied rightcenter. If I am right about its accuracy, the gameshows that the allies had lost the battle before it evenbegan. At least I have not seen them win the gameyet. The allies have few large units. The French havemany more and faster though generally smaller units.But some stacking is allowed so the French canconcentrate when they want to. However, thecombat system is basically the same as that ofNapoleon at Waterloo which saves its richestrewards for those who surround enemy units. ThusFrench speed is worth much more than concentrationanyway. The game gives points to the allies ifthey can put men off the board to the west (if theybreak through the French right) or if they bring menoff to theeast (if they retreat). I've seen few go off ineither direction. It is possible that the best alliedaction is to retreat the fastest units and sacrifice therest of the army to safeguard their retreat, but I'm notsure if that would work either. The game is fast andeven a little tense at times. The rules like those ofNAW and Borodino are nearly perfectly clear.049. La Grande Armee: The Campaigns of Napoleonin Central Europe, 7805 to (1972, SPI, $7.00). byJohn M. Young, graphics by Redmond A. Simonsenand Manfred F. Milkuhn, is three games in one: the1805 campaign against Austria and Russia, the 1806campaign against Prussia, and the 1809 campaignagainst Austria. The game uses the Leipzig system ofmoving and fighting. That is: the units are armies,corps and divisions, which can build up and breakdown into each other; the combat results table hasseveral sets of odds between 1 to 1 and 2 to 1;attacks from different stacks cannot be combinedand retreats are allowed through zones of controlwhich tends to result in battles of one large stackagainst another; leader counters are used to affectthe offensive or defensive.value of the combat units.The major new element in the system in La GrandeArmee is that it is now possible to use up a supplyunit and accomplish a double forced march safely.Otherwise, double and triple forced marches arerolled on a table which can result in elimination,disruption or safe arrival. Another difference is not adifference in the system but a difference in thecounters. In Leipza the opposing armies are identicalin all but numbers and leaders. But in La GrandeArmee the differences between the Napoleonicarmy, the Frederician Prussian army, the ancienregime Austrian army of 1805, the new modeledAustrian army of 1809, and the cumbrous but toughRussian army are all reflected in different countervalues and systems of building up as well as indifferences in numbers and leaders. It makes for amuch more interesting game. The three scenarios, orgames, are very well put together, with some of thepolitical factors included by such provisions as apossible Prussian intervention in the 1805 campaign.In all of the scenarios, the French have the edge, ofcourse, but they also have the burden of theoffensive.052. Rifle and Saber: Tactical Combat, 1m- 1900(1973, SPI, $6.00). by John M. Young, graphics byRedmond A. Simonsen. deals with company levelbattles of the mid- and late-19th century, with 17scenarios from the Sepoy Mutiny (18571, Austro-Sardinian War (1859). American Civil War, the SevenWeeks' War (1866). Franco-Prussian War (1870),Russo-Turkish War (1877). War of the Pacific (1879).Spanish-American War (1898), and the Boer War(1899-1900). The game contains three different setsof infantry and artillery counters to show the rapidtechnological changes in weapons during this period.The action is fast paced, the playing system isfortunately simpler than that of Grenadier. There isan ingenious road movement system which showsroads at closer to their time tactical value than inmost games. Unfortunately, the game as a wholedoes not work. Almost all of the most importanttactical conditions of the period are distorted or evenreversed. Artillery is nearly useless on the defensivewhile it is fairly useful on the offensive when it shouldbe deadly on the defensive and only mildly useful onthe offensive. It is advantageous for all units tobunch up most of the time. Cavalry charges andbayonet attacks are devastating while rifle fire isrelatively innocuous. A highly ambiguous set of rulesfor retreats, ambiguities in special rules for thescenarios, an erratic optional morale rule, anincomplete order of battle which renders Scenario#10 useless, all add to the confusion. The gameshows the result of much research and thought, butit definitely needs more work on translating researchinto game mechanics. [Note: The above was writtenbefore receipt of the game errata sheet. Unfortunately,this sheet does nothing to save the game as awhole, although it does clear up the problem ofScenario # 10.1054. Wilderness Campaign: Lee vs. Grant (1 972,SPI, $7.00). by John M. Young, graphics byRedmond A. Simonsen and Manfred F. Milkuhn,deals with the two-month campaign (or one of themonths) which brought Grant from the Rapidan tothe gates of Petersburg in May and June of 1864.The units are generally Union corps and Confederatedivisions. The Union army has larger units and agreater total strength, but the Confederate has moreunits and is therefore difficult to outflank. Victory isbased on a variety of criteria: territory and casualtiesgive assorted amounts of victory points. By thecriteria of the game, the original General Grant lostthe original campaign by a good margin, and it isdifficult to see how it can turn out otherwise here.However, the Confederate must try to win in .adifferent way than Lee did - it is difficult to see howhe can hang on to the Shenandoah Valley or how hecan make any attacks at all. The game has a numberof good points: the command system based onGrant, Lee and Early Counters with units outside of"command influence" being required to roll a die formovement does reflect the difficulties of communicationsand the cussedness of subordinates in theCivil War; entrenchment rules demonstrate the habitthat the armies had fallen into by 1864 - a habitwhich made attacks increasingly costly; the supplysystem and the Union sea movement are workableand faithful to the spirit of the situation. The gamehas a semi-hidden movement system which adds avital note of uncertainty to the movements of theopposing army. But there are also some oddities ofthe game: the "Wilderness," the important terrainfeature after which the campaign and the game werenamed, is not on the map; and the rivers, because ofthe operation of zones of control, are a source ofweakness to units trying to defend behind them.There are a number of difficulties brought on mainlyby hidden movement and command rules. It is atense game and a variety of "what if" scnearios,which are included, might make it a closer game.062. The Marne (1972, SPI, $7.00), by John M.Young, graphics by Redmond A. Simonsen andManfred F. Milkuhn, deals with the action northeast,east and southeast of Paris from August 30 toSeptember 15, 1914. Each move equals one day sothe long game is 17 moves, a shorter game dealingwith the German advance is 7 moves, and the gamedealing with the German retreat is 10 moves. Theunits are mostly divisions and with 6 allied armiesfacing 4 German armies, there are a very manageablenumber of units on both sides. Stacking up to 3 unitshigh is allowed but less practiced than in most gamesbecause the front line is long in proportion to thenumber of units and because special advantages aregiven to flank attacks. The game is unique in SPl'scollection for its sequence of play: each player hastwo combat phases as well as the two movementphases that are quite common. In the second,set ofphases, units which did not attack in the first combatphase may move again and attack. The result of allthese factors is a much more fluid game than oneusually thinks of in connection with World War I. Infact it is so fluid that the disadvantaged player (theallied in the first week, the German in the second) haslittle choice but to run like hell for most of the week.The game is also unique in that both sides in thecampaign game or the first week scenario enter theempty map from the same map edge. This results insome tricky situations which are not fully covered inthe rules but which are adjustable. The Germansalways move first but have to "pass" on the first turnsince they don't have any units on the board. Victoryin any of the games hangs by a point system whichweaves together the destruction of enemy units, theoccupation of specific towns and the exiting of unitsoff the map. There are an assortment of what-ifswhich alter the victory conditions and the Germanorder of battle. The game mechanics are quite simpleso the game could be used to introduce new peopleto wargaming.072. Tannenburg lsicl (1972, ADA, $4.00), by GuyHail, is not to be confused with the early PoultronPress (now SPI) Test Series Game, Tannenbergwhich may someday be republished. This Tannenbergdeals only with the situation around East Prussiaand requires the Russians to attempt their fatalinvasion. The Germans must only retain Konigsbergto win. The game is starkly simple. There is, forexample, no supply rule. The combat systemeliminates chance, and attacking is voluntary, so it isunlikely that those combat results which hurt theattacker will be used. Terrain affects the "combatnumber" and also changes the part of the table usedin the attack. Defenders are always separated for theattack. The game is interesting and demands skill. Ithas a little to do with the original situation, but it isnot very realistic and even though it is simple, therules are so undeveloped that numerous interpretationproblems arise in the course of a game. Thegame map is hand drawn very adequately on acut-down SPI blank hex sheet. The counters are justadequate, but the nubmers have to be darkened byhand in order for them to be used with ease. Theywere mounted but not cut. The rules are on two spiritduplicated pages.073. PBI (1972, TMI, $4.00). by Vernon JayStribling, is a simple infantry game which presentssmall actions from World Wars I and II. The titlestands for "poor bloody infantry" and the subject issquad to squad fighting. Each counter represents asingle individual and the only weapons in the gameare rifles, submachine guns, automatic rifles,machine guns, knee mortars, grenades, and flamethrowers. The mapboard represents an indeterminatearea across which a rifleman can run (indefinitely) atthe rate of 5 hexes per one minute turn(approximately). There are four simple scenariosfurnished with the game and the promise of more tobe published in Battle Flag magazine. The scenariosinclude the soldiers of several nations and times andhavea very few rules to represent these differences.The map is well drawn but the terrain is poorlydefined in the rule book. The playing routine is quitesimple; the firing routine, using simultaneous fire,involves adjustment for cover, movement of thefiring unit, position of target, but not for themovement of target. The rules say that more thanone man may occupy a hex, but the rules do not sayhow many. This and a few other problems make thegame uncertain in spite of its basic simplicity. It canbe compared with Move Out (159). which issomewhat more complex in allowing for individualdifferences among the infantrymen and whichcontains many more situations. PBI, however, isbetter presented physically with a printed map sheetand printed counters, die-cut but faultily so.096. Battle of Britain (1968, Zo, $5.00, without box,soon to be raised to $7.00 with box), by Louis B.Zocchi, is available again. It was reviewed in S&TGuide no. 1 (092). It is a good game but a lot of workand only fairly reflective of the actual campaign.096a. Battle of Britain Revision Kit (2nd ed., 1971,Zo, $3.00), by Louis B. Zocchi, is a necessary additionto the original game. It was reviewed in S&T Guideno. 2 (095). The revision complicates the game andmakes it more realistic in several particulars, but itstill does not reflect the actual situation.102. Sink the Bismark [sic] (1971, Sparta, $4.001,by Tony Morale, deals with the foray of the Germanship Bismarck into the North Atlantic in May, 1941.Partly it is a revision of Avalon Hill's now extinctBismarck, but it is more sophisticated and realisticthan that effort. It is played with a strategic boardvery much like that of the earlier game, but now the

German ships have a reason for being out in themiddle of the ocean - they are stalking nine Britishconvoys attempting to go across the board duringthe time the Bismarck is out. As in the AH game, thetwo players move on separate boards and then locateeach other or fail to do so with a calling out system.The major difference is in what happens when thetwo sides find each other. Then instead ofproceeding to the very abstract combat of the AHgame, the players here take out their cut out deckplans and proceed to a convenient floor to fight aminiatures-type naval engagement, using the sameor virtually the same system as Mr. Morale used inFlighr of rhe Goeben (Tactical Game) (082) andVictory at Sea (212). This system is moderatelycomplex in ship to ship actions and very simple for airattacks on ships. The strategic game includes aprovision for both sides refueling. The rules includethree hypothetical situations ("what ifs"), all ofwhich give the Germans more ships to sally out with.115a. Salerno (1972, TMI, $4.00). by Vernon JayStribling, is a battalion-level game of the first landingon the mainland of Italy. The action takes place on aninvasion turn followed by seven days of two turnseach. The game is basically not difficult, but the rulesare in a disordered state and several areas are fully ofambiguities, especially the use of artillery. The victoryconditions are also ambiguous. There are no rulesregarding supply. It is a mildly interesting game, butanyone who plays it will have to spend some timediscussing and deciding on an interpretation of rules.The mapboard is black and white, reminiscent of oldPoultron Press (now SPI) games. The counters areattractive and die-cut but with a slight flaw in thecutting, so that each of the counters has to betrimmed to present a neat appearance. The game$includes many kinds of pieces (infantry, armor,reconnaissance, engineers, assorted artillery, commandos),with a few different powers. Thecommandos can land in special areas; the engineerscan move faster on roads (I'm not sure why); theanti-aircraft artillery can protect against air attack;the other artillery can fire at ranges from 6 to 14hexes. The game has some value, and is no doubt abetter effort than the other Salerno (115, MOVES#7), but it is still more unfinished than mostpublished games (again reminiscent of the old SPII.117. The Invasion of Sicily (1972, PzP, $4.00). byHarold Totten, graphics by Julie Lowry, is a 12 movebasically simple game dealing with the conquest ofSicily in July and August 1943. At 4 days per turn,the game lasts two turns longer than the originalcampaign. Taking the island is not sufficient for theallies to win the game since victory is determined bya lengthy point table. Most of the units are regimentsand each unit has two steps. The loss of one step isindicated by turning the counter over. There are sixwhat if situations which allow different set ups,invasion beaches, and reinforcements. The mapsheet is in four pieces which can be assembledwithout much trouble. The counters are, I believe,die-cut, although I have only seen a set with papersheets unmounted by the publisher.118. Rommel: The Campaign for Nonh Africa(1973, Sp, $5.50). by Loren Sperry, is a basicallysimple, but in its campaign form, quite a lengthytreatment of the war in Libya and Egypt. The gamebegins in September 1940 and proceeds, at the rateof 3 turns per month, to December 1942, for a total of84 turns in the long game. The game begins at thetime of the Italian invasion of Egypt although theAxis player, since he knows true value of his army asprinted on his unit counters rather than theirapparent value in numbers of men, will usually startretreating on his first move. The units are divisionswhen possible, otherwise brigades or smaller units.The game uses a step reduction and rebuildingsystem which resembles that used in Anzio withseparate counters representing replacements. TheAllies have a constantly changed order of battle asunits are withdrawn and reintroduced. There is asupply system for attacking and defending, but lackof supplies does not prevent but only slightlyweakens the attack. Oddly, there is no way to deprivea unit of what is sometimes called "general supply."A unit will continue to move and attack at fullstrength even when completely surrounded. Combatsupplies, like replacements and reinforcements,arrive according to a schedule printed on the timerecord track. Also, both sides get some air powerfrom time to time. The struggle is faithfully portrayedin that the game turns into a see-sawing battle fromEl Alamein to El Agheila, unless a player is foolishenough to try to stand against a much stronger force.During many of the game's turns nothing muchhappens as the exhausted armies wait for newstrength to arrive on the field. In most ways, it is animprovement over AH'S Afrika Korps, except in thewriting of the rules which leave several large areas ofambiguity. For those who don't have time for thelong game; there are four short games: on the Italiandefeat (15 turns), Rommel's first offensive (10 turns),the Crusader battles (12 turns), or the Battle ofGazala (6 turns). All of these have separate victoryconditions and are quite playable and sometimesmore faithful to the original situation.119. Kasserine Pass (1973, CGC, $8.95). by JohnHill, presents the twelve day battle between Rommeland a mostly American force in Africa in early 1943 atthe rate of one turn per day. It is a game much likeBattle of the Bulge, except that since there is nosupply rule, the allies must stop the Germans headon. It is very difficult to do; impossible for the firstfew days as the German player enjoys theexhilaration of conducting a real blitzkrieg attack.Victory is decided by a simple point system. Theunits involved are mostly battali8hs. There areseveral kinds of units involved and a few functionaldifferences between units. There are also nationaldifferences: American and Italian infantry haveweaker zones of control than the other units. Artilleryfires at ranges of 2 to 4 hexes and can support a unitbeing attacked (as in 1918, another similar game).The game allows several different lines of strategy tobe applied, and therefore, it is difficult to tell so earlywhether one or the other side has the edge. But JohnHill prides himself on producing evenly balancedgames and so far Kasserine Pass seems wellbalanced here. The board is attractively printed inthree colors on a light plastic board which isguaranteed forever by CGC. The counters (and ofcourse the hexagons on the map) are larger thannormal, well printed and die cut. The game is wellworth looking into. In addition to its other virtues itcontains a two die combat results table which allowssome very unlikely things to be included in thepossibilities, for example, on the roll of a 12 (1 out of36 chance), a 1 to 2 attack will produce a defendereliminated. Of course, the chances are much betterthat the result will be attacker eliminated orsomething in between (contact, engaged, as in Barrleof the Bulge, retreats, or exchanges).137. Desrrucrion of Army Group Cenrer: The SovierSummer Offensive, 1944 (1973, SPI: SbT #36, $7.00for the boxed issue-game), by James F. Dunnigan,graphics by Redmond A. Simonsen, is for a time atleast the last of SPl's eastern front series which takethe war from The Moscow Campaign through TheBattle of Sralingradand Kursk (the three having beenpublished in reverse chronological order) and now tothis game which begins on June 22, 1944, andproceeds by two-day turns to July 11. The gamemechanics follow closely those of the other games.The units are German divisions and Russian corps,but there are no air units on either side. The twoimpulse system for mechanized units is used to allowthe possibility of breakthroughs or to force a defensein depth. The territory is large: from Vitebsk in theEast to Warsaw in the West, and the advancingRussians have to cope with moderate to severesupply problems; but the objective in the game is toacquire points by killing enemy 'units not by takingterritory. This is fairly simple for the Russians in thehistorical game in which the German is set up in hisoriginal salient and is required to obey Hitler's orderto stand fast (for the first turn). So a number of"what-ifs" are brought in to balance the game: theGermans can pull out of the salient before the gamestarts or at least respond to the Russian attack moreintelligently. The result is varied. The Game is a littleeasier to work than the other games in the series andcan be mildly recommended to historians and garnersalthough the situation simply lacks the dramainherent in its predecessors.151a. The Invasion of France and the Barrle ofGermany (1972, Hi, $5.00). by Laurence J. Rusieoki,deals with Western Europe from June 1944 to March1945. In order to win a tactical victory the allies mustpenetrate into Germany past the Rhineland on theRuhr. To win a strategic victory, they must penetrateinto central Germany, which is off the board. Eitherone is a very difficult task. The game is played mostlywith infantry corps and armored divisions. In manyways the game resembles Barbarossa. Each move isa month but a two-impulse movement system andthe ability to overrun small forces allows thepossibility of deep penetrations. These can beprevented only by a defense in depth. Forces notfighting can be shifted anywhere on the boardbehind friendly lines. Attacks need supply counterswhich are sometimes scarce for the allies. The gameis different from Barbarossa in that its combat resultstable is relatively bloody, but the bloodiness isbalanced by a high replacement rate which keepsmost of the allied units on the board most of thetime. The German replacement rate is not quite sogenerous, but they get many new units. This was oneof the factors which caused the allies to lose most ofthe games we played here, but they always lost by sonarrow a margin that we couldn't be sure it wasinevitable. Almost all of the rules, including, ofcourse, rules for paratroops and two invasions, areclearly stated. Tactical air power restricts Germanmovement and allows the allies extreme advantagesin attack and defense, but only from June toSeptember. The Germans in our games were notfoolish enough to use the lack of allied air power (oranything else) as an excuse to launch a Decemberoffensive. This was another reason they were so hardto push back. But in spite of this difficulty, 1944 is asmooth, fascinating game. Two "mini-games" areincluded which offer the possibility of a 1942 or a1943 invasion (with altered victory conditions). Themap is multi-color, nearly as attractive as some SPImaps. The counters are professionally designed,thick, glossy and die-cut.152a. Omaha Beach (1972, Spartan 4, Sparta,$2.501. by Norman Beveridge, Jr., is a supplement toPanzerBlitz enabling the owner of that game to fightthe D-Day sea and airborne landings. The playerneeds PanzerBlirz, from which he uses the boardsand the German counters. The kit furnishes eightmap sheets (each one half the size of a singlePanzerBlirz map section), six are beach areas, onefeatures a large flooded area, the last features a largenumber of hedgerows, which are also present on thebeach area maps. These are combined with thePanzerBlitz boards to form the terrain for ninescenarios which cover every area of D-Day action.The Allied units are on two 8 x 11 sheets. Most of theunits of course are infantry, paratroops, engineers,mortars, rangers; but there are also someself-propelled guns and tanks, some of which areself-landing and others of which are equipped withflails for clearing mines (with a little luck). There are afew extra German units: dug in forts, minefields, andseveral kinds of long-range guns. The rules used arethe same as those of PanzerBlirz with only a fewextra rules to cover the new terrain and weapons,beach and parachute landings, and naval and airsupport for the landings. This is a very carefully donekit which shows a great deal about the D-Daysituation. Of course it is primarily an infantry andartillery grapple - there are only eight Germanarmored fighting vehicle units in all nine scenarios.Nevertheless, this kit ought to be enjoyed by anyonewho appreciates PanzerBlirz.1533. Overlord: The Normandy Campaign (1972,CGC, $8.95). by John Hill, is a 28 turn game, in whicheach turn represents 3 or 4 days. At the beginningthe allies are already on the beaches and must fighttheir way inland and off the board. The board coversan area of about 120 miles by 90 miles including theinvasion beaches, Cherbourg, St. Malo, Avranchesand Argentan. The breakout from this area tookplace historically just after August 1, 1944. The gamegives the allies much more time, to the end ofAugust. The time will most often be necessary sincethe Germans are fortunately not subjected to a Hitlerrule to require impossible holding actions and.counterattacks. The campaign in the game is atough, closely fought, step by step advance through

terrain that is more difficult than most wargame terrainsince the effects accumulate: attacking acrossa river into a city halves the attacker and triples thedefender. The units in the game are regiments andbrigades. There are several kinds of units but there isonly one distinction among the different kinds ofunits: the armor has a particularly tough time withswamps. Since the allied paratroops have alreadydropped when the game begins, there is no specialrule for them. The CRT is about the same as theclassic AH CRT although there are two slightlydifferent tables: a July-August CRT replaces theJune CRT to show the increasing battle fatigue ofthe two armies. There are simple rules for supply,tactical and strategic airpower, naval gunfire andweather. In fact, all the rules are simple and fairlyclear. The mapboard is printed in 4 colors on a plasticflexible material which is guaranteed to last forever- yes, forever. On the whole, Overlord is awell-balanced, simple game, good to introducepeople to wargaming and moderately historical giventhe limits of the classic game format.153b. Breakout and Pursuit: The Battle for France,1944 (1972, SPI, $7.03, by James F. Dunnigan,graphics by Redmond A. Simonsen, deals with thebattle from July 25, by which time the allies had afirm lodgement in Normandy and had takenCherbourg, Caen, and St. Lo and were ready to try tobreak out completely, to September 10, by whichtime the original German forces were reduced towhat General Bradley called "a disorganizedcorporal's guard." The game follows the fortunes ofthe main Allied armies in northern France throughthis time. The minor effect of the invasion ofSouthern France is ignored. The level is divisionalwhich means that ordinarily each side has amanageable number of units. Theexception to this isat the beginning of the campaign when theNormandy are is so packed with sometimesinterlocking units of friend and foe and the alliedtroops are in three high stacks three deep behind theline. Even people normally endowed with serviceablefingernails go insane trying to manipulate thesituation. I am not so endowed and I am practicallyhors de combat for this particular game. Fortunatelythe campaign game using the fixed historical set-updoes move beyond the stacked area, and there is aset of scenarios built around the last 2% weeks ofthe whole period - the pursuit instead the breakout.I can only speak in any detail of two of the scenarios:the historical campaign scenarios with either free orfixed deployment. The trouble is that the conclusionseems to be foregone in either case. With the fixeddeployment, several important German units areimmediately trapped and it is little trouble to keep itup to better than duplicate the original allied feat. Butwith a free German set up the Germans can presentthe allies with what is virtually an impenetrable wallof units. Perhaps a more interesting game is to befound by working the large assortment of what-ifssupplied with the game. Many of the game's rulesand mechanics are quite fresh and realistic;particularly those on supply; but the whole is mildlydisappointing at this point.157a. Westfronr PanzerBlitz Variants (1972, Sparta,$4.001, by Norman Beveridge, Jr., is an excellentaddition to anyone's PanzerBlitz game. It isimportant to note that it is no more than that - youneed to have the boards, the German units and therules from the parent game WPBV supplies four mapsheets (the equivalent of two sections of thePanzerBlitz board and compatible with any of them),a sheet of US counters, a few new rules (covering airpower and crossings of the rivers that are includedon the new map sheets), some backgroundinformation, and 12 situations dated from July 31,1944 to December 24, 1944, from the breakout to theBulge. The situations are done pretty much in thestyle of the original, but most of them contain morearea because of the availability of more boards.However, most of the situations come in twovariations: with historical forces, or with lessnumerous forces of convenience. The counter sheetis well done but unmounted. The map sheets areuncolored but quite readable and also unmounted.This is a game that everyone of those who keepvoting for PanzerBlirz as their favorite wargameshould have. It does not correct any of the faults ofPanzerBlitz, but it adds to it greatly. It is the gamethat many people expected Combar Command to be,i.e., it is compatible with its predecessor.162. Bataan, The Battle for the Philippines (1972,BGC, $4.50), by George Munson, deals with the laststand of the American-Filipino army on the peninsulaof Bataan from January to April, 1942. The mapshows only Bataan and Corregidor. The unitsinvolved are mostly battalions and regiments, with afew scratch units for the allies. The Japanese haveup to 23 units in the historical scenario, while theallies have 46. The invaders are no stronger than thedefenders, but lack of supplies weakens the combateffectiveness of the allies beginning with the 6th turnand starts to slow them down on the 7th turn. TheJapanese player has 14 turns to virtually wipe out theallies. Meanwhile, the Japanese player has theadvantage of movement over mountains which areforbidden terrain to the allies and full artillery supply.The Japanese player seems to be heavily favored,but several what-ifs give the players a chance tobalance or overbalance the game. The rules of thegame are basically not difficult, but there are a fewpuzzles. Some of the procedures are timeconsuming. Setting up the game is quite tedious forthe Allied player as he has to put specific units onspecific hexes. The artillery is hard to handle withassorted ranges from 4 to 9 hexes not printed on thecounters (but after a short time, I wrote the rangeson the counters myself). The components areprofessionally drawn and printed and the countersare die-cut, but the map is sometimes difficult to readbecause the terrain features are too subtle. In all,however, a good representation of a hopelesscampaign.167. Suribachi: The Battle for Iwo Jima (1972,Spartan 3, Sparta, $2.50). by Norman Beveridge, Jr.,is. so far, the last published of Beveridge's excellentPanzerBlitz variants. It is the most self-containedsince it includes all necessary maps and unit counters(on unmounted sheets), and uses only the rules fromthe original game. The map sheet contains the wholeisland of Iwo Jima drawn to the 250 m. per hex scale.But the counters furnished only represent about onethird of the available forces - "only," that is, 93Japanese units and 249 U.S. Marine units, and thesedeployed on an area somewhat smaller than half thePanzerBlitz board. So even with the reduction offorces, the board is crowded. The author furnishesfigures and victory conditions for fighting thehistorical battle, but he doesn't recommend theexperience and doesn't furnish the huge number ofcounters necessary. Otherwise, there is a "basicgame," consisting of one day, the fourth, startingwith the difficult process of landing over, or a"tournament game," starting with the first landingsand going for four days. There are extra rulescovering the landings, air power, naval firepower,firing without spotters, and optionally, banzai attacksand a few others. Mostly, however, the game isplayed like PanzerBlirz but with a much differentsituation than any of PanzerBlirz situations. The dayis only 10 moves long on the reasonable assumptionthat the vast majority of a man's time during thebattle was spent on just staying alive. The game iswell worth the price. It is a realistic and bloodyreflection of the actual battle.174. Year of the Rat (1972, SPI: S&T #35, $7.00for the boxed issue-game), by John Prados andJames F. Dunnigan, graphics by Redmond A.Simonsen, deals with a 13 week period in the war inVietnam in 1972. The North Vietnamese begin theiroffensive and carry it on to the end of June. Theobject is to acquire towns, bases and provincesworth points. The object of the South Vietnam playeris to hold the enemy to a few gains. One of the bestfeatures of the game is a half-hidden movementsystem. The North Vietnam player operates his unitsupside-down with a few dummies while the SouthVietnam player's units are always out in the open.This is apparently an accurate reflection of theintelligence situation in the war. The North has theadvantage of secrecy, of getting in the first blow, andof more tactical mobility in rough terrain. The Southhas the advantage of the defensive, of greaterstrategic mobility with its airmobile units, and mostlyof American airpower which regularly blasts apartconcentrations of Northern troops. The game seemsto tend toward a draw since each side has moredisadvantages than advantages. Therefore, sincestalemate seems to be the nature of the real war, thismight be an accurate simulation. There are assortedhypothetical situations for those who tire of thehistorical situations.188. Invasion (1971, ADA, $1.00). by StephenMarsland, is a very slight game showing ahypothetical World War II type invasion of a sectionof German-held coast line. The units are regimentsand the forces are 12 allied divisions opposing 12German divisions. The game has very few strategicdecisions in it. It has no supply rule and few thingsaffect the strength of units. The task of the invadersis simply to take cities and destroy defenders. Thegame offers little challenge and no historicalinstruction and does not even carry the endorsementof its designer who recommends it only as a badexample.188a. Armored Assault (1972, ADA, $2.00). by GuyHail, deals with an imaginary World War II typesituation, with some oddities, and on an indeterminatescale. The units are battalions, the forcesinvolved are one armored division, one armoredinfantry division and supporting units against oneinfantry division and its supports. But the distanceand time scales, if any, are not stated. The offensiveside adopts varied objectives and the defender triesto prevent their seizure without knowing exactlywhich objectives are being sought. There is anattempt to take into account a variety of differencesin styles of fighting between different kinds of units.But tank guns, anti-tank guns and field artillery aregiven equal range, and tank guns are given morepower at this range, while anti-tank guns and fieldartillery are exactly equal. Thus the functions ofdifferent kindsof units are confused and the attemptto make them different is based on wrong premises.There is no supply problem and very weak zones ofcontrol so the battle can get very free wheeling. Thegame has a few good ideas, but they should havebeen developed more thoroughly.195. Alien Space (1972, Zo, $4.001, by Louis B.Zocchi, is a fast-moving representation of warfare inouter space. There are eight large counters, eachrepresenting one star ship. The game is played on afloor with at least a 12 foot diameter of cleared space.Each person in the game pilots one ship andtherefore up to eight may participate (but morepeople need more room), playing either free-for-all ora fleet action. All of the ships have engines capableof generating a certain amount of power which canbe used in movement, defense or offense. Thetrickiest part of playing the game is deciding how touse your energy. If any attack is made, the playermust state the compass bearing at which he is firing(a compass is printed around each counter). Then astring is laid out from the center of the firing counteralong the bearing. If it intersects the drawing ofanother ship, that ship is hit in that place (but hisdefenses may be strong enough to prevent anydamage). Each ship has special weapons with a largeassortment of different capabilities. The rules aresimple but occasionally debatable. Much recordkeeping is necessary, but it is made simple by recordsheets which are to be encased in plastic and writtenon with a grease pencil. The game is enjoyable andthe fact that the battlefield is actually twodimensional rather than three dimensional does notdetract from the illusion created by the game.196. Spacewar (1972, TTA, $10.00), by Erwin S.Strauss, is a unique wargame involving 2 to 20spaceships fighting in a solar system. If they go tothe center of the system (board) they are destroyedby. the sun; if they go to the edges, they aredestroyed by aliens. The board and charts in thegame make up what is practically a paper computerfor figuring movement and fire. The board has 10,000spaces each identified by the intersection ofnumbered lines (some of these spaces cannot beused because of the sun and alien threats). Eachspace has two numbers in it indicating thegravitational effect on a coasting space ship ofbeginning a move in that space. Each ship can haveone of 12 headings. So the player decides whether tochange his heading (by one either way) and whether(continued on page 26)

WARGAWE REVIEWS CHmn IN~MM C R SA TA PB PT N G01. ANCIENT MISTm"'harsalusm8b. Thaps019. Declinm. RENAISSC032. Breitenfeld033. Musket ant037. American F04. NAPOLEONIC WAR042b. 1812 (Strategic)042c. 1812 (Gram04%. Waterloo l-048. Napoleon048a. Austerlitz009. La Grande Armee05. AMERICAN CIVIL Y052. Rifle and SaberWilderness CamVORLD WAR.he N----VORiannenourg sic'BI. . - - . - . . . . -EXPUNA7RN OF THE WARGAME CHARTThe wompmnying chart is in a brm that makra itlook like tha moat obiith oart. but is actuallv the.most subjective. In eider to'rednd the r e d rhetthb reprerents mainly the opinion of the editor, Ihaw used thfdlowina - subiactiva - amla - for mcat ofthe columns:A = Excdknt B = Good C = Fair D = PoorNA = Mot ApplicableIn two of the columns I use numbers to deal wkhmaasurable things. In all of the assemmnts, a widarange of numben or grsdea indicner that the gamehas revera1 diffemnt situations or ~etr, of rules. Themeaning of ewh column is thkC Complexity refem to the' number of importantrules and the difficulty of undemtanding thoae ruler.Sometimes aslo it rekn to the numbor of piinvolvedin a game and to the number of cdcubtionsnecessaw to play a game. It is rated on a 10 pointscale.R Clarity and Completeness of the Rulaa issomething that is very desirable and uwnetlringdeceptively difficult to achieve.SA Strategic Accuracy is also desirable, forstrategic level games. It refers to the way in whichthe game handke the m m n t and combat ofunits over a large area and for a long pariod of the.TA Tactical Acwracy is *able for tactical kvdgames and also fw stmtsgic gamea if it does Mtinterfora with the point being made. It en to t!oway in which en actual battle or firsfght m handled tnthe game.P6 Play Balance ia the phrm used to indicatewhthar both sides in a game have an eaual chamto win. Since in most warwmea, the tnio sib aia&libara(elv uneaual. the victorv conditions have tobe carefulk drak up to -'a close game of it.PT Raying Time is measured in hours. But the timagiven here assumes that the players already knowthe game and do not have to keep looking up rub.RECOMM€NDATK)WS: In an attrmpt to give asuccinct winion of each game. I have imaeid theexistence of four ideal ty$k of wargarner, ind triedto aive each a momnwndation baaed on hi smciolIV The Plovico wants a game that will ba e ~g. tounderstand, for its type, and that will lead himnaturally into OW games of the same type.G The Gamer is intemsW primarily in a gama thatcan ba played in a single ahrrnoon or evening, thatwill lead to no diKfbultisr over the interpretation ofnever end in a draw.SG The Supergsmer is in love with numbers ofunits and long g-. He like8 to sea large numbersof units surging across continentsH The H i i games that will drmonsbstesome worthy Mndcal inturpretalion. Hepr&n games that can come out as the originalcampaigns came out, and for similar rogorra.COMPONENTS: Theae two columns anempt tosummarize the phyrical quality of boards andcountam. The rating codes are:Bd. BardP: PrcfesoionslAmp: A m r ~ I P ~wwlly r ~ e i n gthat is amatuudshly drown and wofemwmllvprinted).Am: AmateurC flawedCbt: Counterssame as above mrcept:Counters ere not furnishad reedy to play; that i8,not mounted and die-out or already cut by the he.

PlaybackAnythingREADER REVIEWor better is considered "above average,"6.00-6.99 is considered "average"while anything 5.99 or less is considered"below average."Question A - What did you think of thephysical quality and layout of the mapsheet?Question E - What did you think of the"completeness of the game's rules [waseve~thing thoroughl~ explained?Question F - What did you think of thegame's play balance [was the game interestingfor bothQuestion G - What did you think aboutthe length of the average game?Question B - what did you rhink of thePlayback is based on reader evaluation of and of rules Question H - What did you think of thegames that is acquired through SBT andamount of "set-up time" needed?folder?MOVES Feedback sections. Readers havelhebeen asked to rate aspects of games on a Question C - What did you think of the~ : ~ ~ or ~ t ~ ~ . a t ~ ; ~ 2 y 0 uscale of 1 (poor) to 9 (excellent). After the physical quality and layout of the unitranking of each game there are a few counters? Question K - What did you think of thecomments from the SPI staff. Question D - What did you think of the game'The numerical ratings given the games game's "ease ofp1ay"Ihow well the game Question L - What did you think of thehave the following meaning. Anything 7.00 "moved along'?? game overall?Player Review: The MarnePublisher: Simulations Publications,New York .Designer: John Michael YoungSubject: Division level game of the 1914battle in which the German armieswere thrown back outside Paris.A-(mapsheet) . . . . . . .5.93B -(rules) . . . . . . . . . . .6.53C- (counters) . . . . . . . .6.69D - (ease of play) . . . . .7.08E - (completeness) . . . .6.55F - (balance) . . . . . . . . .6.29G - (length) . . . . . . . . . .6.59H - (set-up) . . . . . . . . . ,654J - (complexity) . . . . . .6.51K - (realism) . . . . . . . . .6.42Comments: We had 72 players reviewingthis game. 74% would still buy it knowingwhat they do now while 78% felt theyreceived their money's worth. An averagesort of game whose main claim to fame isits ease of play. The Marne deals with themost mobile and fluid battle fought duringWorld War I in the west. Unfortunately,interest in World War I has been at a lowpoint these past few years and The Marne,along with other WWI games, havesuffered accordingly. The Marne is available(boxed) from Simulations for $7.00.Player Review: Tactics 11Publisher: Avalon Hill, BaltimoreDesigner: Charles RobertsSubject: Hypothetical, divisional levelgame of World War II warfare.F - (balance) . . . . . . . . .7.15G- (length) . . . . . . . . . .6.27H - (set-up) . . . . . . . . . .6.14J - (complexity) . . . . . .4.88K - (realism) . . . . . . . . ,354L- (overall) . . . . . . . . . .5.28Comments: We had 262 players reviewingthis game. 54% would still buy it knowingwhat they do now while 70% felt theyreceived their money's worth. Another oneof Avalon Hill's earliest games (it waspublished in the late 1950's). It is one of thefew games left which use squares insteadof hexes. Balance and ease-of-play are thegame's two strong points. But overall, thegame shows its age too much. Avalon Hillhas recently released a new edition of thegame with cleaned up rules as well as asimplified set of "introductory" rules.A-(mapsheet) . . . . . . .5.380- (rules) . . . . . . . . . . .5.84 Tactics I1 is now their "introductoryC- (counters) . . . . . . . .5.83 Game." This review refers to the previousD -(ease of play) . . . . .7.07edition of the aame. Tactics I1 is availableE- (completeness) . . . ,630 (boxed) from ivalon Hill for $5.00.Wargame Reviews(continued from page 24)to fire his rockets, which can be done only 50 times inthegame before he runs out of fuel. His new positionis determined by combining the numbers for thegravity effect with the numbers for rocket firing withthe numbers defining his old . position. Aftermovement comes combat. If two ships have eachother in their field of fire, nothing happens. But if oneship is in an enemy's field of fire, the first isdestroyed. It is sometimes possible to directlyobserve if firing can occur, but a set of charts can beused to determine the situation more accurately, bythe numbers. The instructions are to mount theboard ("Gravity and Plotting Chart") on a bulletinboard material and use pins to indicate shippositions, but as this would eventually destroy theboard, it is better to put it under a plastic sheet anduse grease pencils. In either case, each ship is"followed" by pins or marks indicating its twoprevious positions to enable all to estimate itstrajectory. The game is equipped with outlines andship record sheets which facilitate the calculationsand it all plays much easier than this descriptionsounds. But it takes some practice to learn to pilotyour space ship to avoid alien space, sun space, andstill try to get the enemy. Even if you do the game isnot over since you have to survive 10 more turnsbefore claiming a victory.231. Norad (1973, SDC: Conflict #4, $2.50), byDana F. Lombardy, is a game reflecting the one-timepossibility of nuclear war in the 1960's. The Russiansattack the United Statesand Canada with long rangebombers and possibly a few submarine-bornemissiles. The Americans defend with fighters andground-to-air missiles. The Russians get a variednumber of points for each city they take out and winwith 100 points or lose with less. The only problemwith the game is that it is almost pure chance. TheAmerican player guesses which Russian units are realplanes and which are decoys, while the Russians tryto gtiess which cities are defended by missiles. Thereare variants which add more variables to the gamewithout changing the outcome very much. It doeshave the advantage of being nearly the simplestwargame around - just about as simple as the cardgame called "War" which is played by turning onecard over after another.232. Red Star/White Star 11972, SPI, $7.00), byJames F. Dunnigan, graphics by Redmond A.Simonsen, deals with the possibility of warfarebetween Russia on the one side and the UnitedStates and West Germany on the other. The level istactical - the units are mostly platoons andcompanies for the West and companies andbattalions for the East. The game is closely related toPanzerBlitz and Combar Command, and uses someof the rules of each with a scale nearer to that ofPanzerBlitz. The board gives more terrain tomaneuver over than the PanzerBlitz board and is notas cluttered with hills and woods. Furthermore, thewoods are not nearly as useful to the attackerbecause the movement costs are so high that mostunits cannot flit from one woods hex to another inthe same turn. In the ten scenarios, appropriately, theallies are on the defensive seven times. Generally, thegame is an excellent adaptation of and in many waysimprovement of its forebearers, with severalinnovations dealing with contemporary weapons.However, the game has several problems. If youplay it by the rules, the allies almost can't lose in mostof the scenarios. Now this may make the Pentagonfeel good, but it is likely to annoy the game player.What is the problem? One problem is a devastatingdefensive fire rule that enables U.S. artillery to set upa perfectly impenetrable defense. Fortunately, thereis an out. You can read the tactical notes section (anice innovation in presenting the game) and play bythe defensive firing rule that is implied there insteadof the rule that is plainly written in the main text. Ialso have to object to two other rules which aid theAmericans. The whole point of a wire-guidedanti-tank missile is that the target must be in sight,but the rules allow indirect fire with .AmericanTOWS. Finally, it seems to me that the restrictions onRussian indirect fire are too harsh. It seems likely thatthe Russians have made some improvement in theirartillery handling in the quarter-century since the end

Player Review: ArmageddonPublisher: Simulations Publications,New YorkDesigners: John Michael Young andStephen B. PatrickSubject: Tactical level combat duringthe "biblical" period (3OWBC to 500BC).A- (mapsheet).......5.99B-(rules) ...........6.57C- (counters)........7.09D-(ease of play) .....6.55E - (completeness). ...6.60F- (balance) .........6.84G -(length) ..........6.91H -(set-up) ..........6.42J - (complexity) ......6.27K -(realism) .........6.35L- (overall) ..........6.54Comments: We had 363 players reviewingthis game. 74% said they would still buy itknowing what they do now while 83% feltthey received their money's worth. Al:though from an obscure period (whichautomatically hurts a game in the general"acceptability" area) Armageddon is perhapsone of the "cleanest" of SPl's seriesof tactical games. Nothing outstanding, butgenerally high average ratings. Armageddonis available (boxed) for $7.00from SPI.Player Review: KriegspielPublisher: Avalon Hill, BaltimoreDesigner: Thomas N. ShawSubject: Hypothetical, division levelgame of land warfare.A- (mapsheet).. .....5.63B -(rules) ...........5.67C- (counters)........6.21D- (ease of play) .....6.85E -(completeness). ...6.17F- (balance) .........6.51G-(length) ..........5.62H - (set-up) ..........6.82J -(complexity) ......3.10K -(rrslism) .........2.28L- (overall) ..........3.56Comments: We had 262 players reviewingthis game. 15% said they would still buy itknowing what they do now while 15% feltthey received their money's worth. Kriegspielis apparently a flimsy, hastily throwntogether attempt at a "simple," "introductory"game. It is debatable if the gamesucceeds at this. The game has beenresoundingly rejected by regular garners.Although the game does have good pointswith regard to playability, its game value isapparently quite low. Kriegspiel is available(boxed) from Avalon Hill for $8.00.Player Review: La Grande ArmeePublisher: Simulations Publications,New YorkDesigner: John Michael Youngsubject: DivisionICorps level game ofstrateaic Na~oleonic warfare between1805 and 18d9 in Central Europe.A-(mapsheet) .......6.92B- (rules) ..........,694C- (counters) ........7.18D -(ease of play) .....6.75E -(completeness)....6.89F -(balance) .........6.54G -(length) ..........6.85H -(set-up) ..........6.53J -(complexity) ......7.01K -(realism) ........,690L- (overall) ..........7.17Comments: We had 127 players reviewingthis game. 89% would still buy it knowingwhat they do now while 90% felt theyreceived their money's worth. This is ahighly popular game using the same gamesystem as Leipzig. No single element in thegame really stands out from the others. Thegame is apparently just a well balancedwhole. La Grande Armee is available(boxed) from Simulations Publicationsfor $7.00.Player Review: GettysburgPublisher: Avalon Hill, BaltimoreDesigner: Charles RobertsSubject: Brigade level game of the 1863Battle of Gettysburg.A- (mapsheet).......6.19B- (rules) ...........5.80C -(counters)........6.47D - (ease of play) .....6.84E -(completeness). ...6.04F- (balance) .........4.83G -(length) ..........6.16H -(set-up) ..........6.74J -(complexity) ......4.97K -(realism) .........4.21L- (overall) ..........5.42Comments: We had 283 players reviewingthis game. 54% felt they would still buy itknowing what they do now while 61% feltthey got their money's worth. Actually,there are two distinct Gettysburg games.The original (and present) version whichuses squares and another version (nowunavailable) using hexagons. This is areview of both games. The game is an oldone, first appearing in the late 1950's. It haslong passed its peak of popularity. Balance,complexity and realism are felt to be thegames main weak points. Still, it is the onlybrigade level game available on this criticalCivil War battle. Gettysburg is available(boxed) from Avalon Hill for $7.00.of World War II. Changing these rules will bring thegame somewhat nearer a balance.[Nore: The above was written before I had seenthe RS/RW errata sheet. This document clears upthe two major problems of defensive fire and line ofsight for wire guided missiles. Furthermore, itincludes a new rule which makes it impossible to hideon the edges of woods and villages and this makesindirect fire much less important. I think that withthese changes, RS/WS now has much more of allthe things that made PanzerBlirz the all timefavorite game.237. Revolution (1971, ADA, $1.001, by StephenMarsland, is a little game for 12 to 35 players whichdeals with a hypothetical revolutionary situation in ahypothetical, newly-independent African nation. Theplayers are police commanders, army commanders,labor leaders, student leaders, etc. The idea,apparently, is to win as part of a successful coalitionrather than to win individually. Unfortunately, it isdifficult to tell what the idea is. The game is veryimaginative and innovative and the rules are verysuggestive. However, the rules are not descriptive.They do not finally add up to anything that can beplayed without the personal direction of the designer.This is another of those games not recommended bythe publisher who was also the designer, but it ismore interesting -than the others. aDesigner's Notes (continued from pege 13)specifically for this game. There are still anumber of "holes" in our game designschedule, mostly for S8T 44, 45 and 46. Wehope to have titles for all of these pinned downin the next two to four months. In themeantime we may be doing some "private"games. In the past few months we have beenapproached by the Department of Defense,the Forestry Service and the Marine Corpswith proposals to do "custom" training games.The Defense Department wants a game onmechanized warfare in the Middle East (fromLibya to Iran) on the brigade level. We toldthem we'd merely expand our Sinai game. Sothey're still negotiating. The Forestry Servicewants a game on fighting forest fires. Theypaid $84,000 for a game on that subject andthe game didn't work. We told them we coulddo it for $20,000 and it would work. They'veseen our output of games these past few yearsso they're convinced it can be done. TheMarine Corps wants a game to train juniorofficers in small unit tactics. They even sent amajor up to see us for three days and checkout various approaches. We showed himSniper!, which seemed to fill the bill as far asfighting in built-up areas was concerned. Themajor made up a Marine squad in the gameand, using Marine Corps doctrine and tacticsproceeded to play out the game. Whilecrossing a street he had one fire team throwsmoke grenades out while pouring fire into anenemy held building down the block. Anotherfire team then crossed the street. He forgot,however, that the smoke doesn't take effectfor a turn. So one man was wounded byenemy opportunity fire down the smokelessstreet. "Happens all the time," said the majoras he quickly re-read the rules for any moreunpleasant surprises. The Marines won thefirefight anyway.Although our games are not intended as such,they are used by the military for training. Wewere first approached by the Army InfantrySchool for help and Red Star/White Star wasthe result. If we can, we'll do a "special" gamefor nothing and publish it. If someone wants a"special" game that we feel we couldn't sellthen we'll charge $20,000 and do if for themprivately (it won't get published). This is not atotal loss to our regular customers as the(continued on pege 32)

CONSOLIDATED ERRATASoldiers and Normandy(as of August 1973)SoldiersAs a result of post-publication playtesting, thefollowing errata has been assembled to clarifyan~fcorrect various errors or ambiguities in theorisinal game components.This Soldiers Errata follows the sequence ofthe rules folder.UNIT IDENTIFICATION TABLE (Correction):The Austro-Hungarian Field Gun platoon isincorrectly identified. The Field Gun platoonhasan Attack Strength of (3). The sample unitpictured is, in fact, an Austro-HungarianHowitzer platoon. Also the Howitzer Battery isnot pictured.GENERAL COURSE OF PLAY (Correction):There are in fact fourteen rather than fifteenSoldiers scenarios.MOVEMENT(C) (Clarification): Road Movement is definedas movement from one road hex to anotherroad hex through a road hexside. The cost toenter a hex when usin,g road movement is 112Movement Point regardless of the other terrainin the road hex. Units entering a road or bridgehex from a non-road hex must pay the entrycost dictated by the other terrain in theroad hex.(H) (Clarification): A unit moving from anon-bridge canal hex to a non-canal hex mustexpend three additional Movement Points toleave the canal hex. Note that units with aMovement Allowance of "3" may only leavethe canal via a bridge hex. There is noadditional Movement penalty to leave abridge-canal hex. Exception: Undisruptedinfantry and dismounted cavalry units mayalways move one hex even if they do notpossess sufficient Movement Points to enter agiven hex. [This allows infantry and dismountedcavalry units with a MovementAllowance of "3" to leave a Canal hex. It doesnot pertain to non-infantry or non-dismountedcavalry units.]COMBATGENERAL RULE (Clarification): Direct Fire ispossible only when the firing unit can trace aLine of Sight into the target hex. A unit mayuse Observed Fire if it can trace a Line of Sightto (but not into) the target hex, and the firingunit must also be able to trace a Line of Sightinto a Friendly hex occupied by at least oneFriendly unit which can trace a Line of Sightinto the target hex. All units which can trace aLine of Sight to (not into) a target hex in BlockingTerrain may use Observed Fire against unitswhich fire out of the target hex(es) even ifthere is no Friendly unit which can trace a Lineof Sight into the Blocking Terrain target hexfrom which the Enemy units fired. Note:Artillery Case (0) is exempted from the normalrequirements for Observed Fire in that a firingHowitzer unit need not be able to trace a Lineof Sight to its target hex, although it must beable to trace a Line of Sight into a Friendlyoccupied hex from which a Friendly unit cantrace a Line of Sight into the target hex.(A) (Clarification): To determine the range,count the number of hexagons between thefiring unit (exclusive of the hex occupied bythe firing unit) and the target hex (inclusive).(8)(Clarification): This rule does not uniformlyprohibit tracing a Line of Sight into a Town orWoods hex. Units may trace a Line of Sightinto a Town or Woods hex from an adjacenthex. Units in a hex adjacent to a Town orWoods hex may fire directly into the Town orWoods hex and may serve as observers forFriendly Observed Fire into that hex.(C) (Clarification): This rule applies to unitsfiring on Enemy units on superior elevation.The numbers on the Crest hexes refer to thealtitude in meters. Units beneath a target hexat which they are firing can trace a Line ofSight into (but not through) a Crest hex. Unitsat the same height or above a target hex atwhich they are firing can trace a Line of Sightthrough an unlimited number of Crest hexes ofequal or less altitude.(D) (Clarification): It should be understoodthat the unit in the examplecannot fire into theTown hex.(E) (Clarification): A Line of Sight may betraced into a Canal hex from an adjacent hex, aCrest hex, or along a straight line of Canalhexes from another Canal hex.(F)(Clarification): A Line of Sight may only betraced into an Enemy occupied Town orWoods hex from an adjacent hex. If a Line ofSight can be traced to a Friendly occupiedTown or Woods hex, it can be traced into thehex.(L) (Clarification): Units on Crest hexes maytrace a Line of Sight into any other Crest hexof equal or less elevation anywhere on the mapregardless of any intervening lower BlockingTerrain.(M) (Clarification): Units on Crest hexes maytrace a Line of Sight into any Crest hex on thesame hill (exception: on peaked hill with Crestof 75 meters. A unit on the hill below the 75meter peak hex cannot trace a Line of Sightthrough that hex). Units may trace a Line ofSight into a target hex of an inferior altitude if:(1) The Line of Sight does not pass throughany Crest of hexes of equal or higheraltitude (excluding Crest hex from whichthe unit may be firing). (2) If there isBlocking Terrain on the Line of Sight it mustbe closer to the firing unit than to thetarget hex.(N) (Omission): Exception: see lmprovedPositions Case (Dl.td) (Omission): Exception: see lmprovedPositions Case (Dl.(R) (Omission): In a case in which a unit'sAttack Strength is to be both doubled andhalved, the doubling is always done first.(S) (Omission): Whenever the combinedAttack Strengths of several units are to behalved, the total combined Attack Strength ishalved, not each unit individually.INTERDICTING FIREPROCEDURE (Clarification): Interdicting Firecan only be applied against hexes which thefiring unit can trace a Line of Sight into.ARTILLERY(B) (Clarification): See Combat Errata forGeneral Rule. Note: even if a Howitzer unit cantrace a Line of Sight into a target hex, if therange to that target hex exceeds 25 hexes theHowitzer unit can only use Observed Fireagainst that target hex.CAVALRY(A) (Correction): The references in this caseallowing Mounted Cavalry to attack non-cavalry Enemy units should also refer to EnemyMounted Cavalry units. Note also that theCase should include the following information:"As a hex may only be attacked once in asingle Fire Phase, Mounted Cavalry may notattack a hex that has been fired on by otherunits during the current mutual Fire Phases."(C) (Omission): It should be noted that"dismounted" markers do not count towardStacking Limitations.IMPROVED POSITIONS(D)(Omission): If a unit ends its movement ina hex containing Friendly units in lmprovedPositions, it does not benefit from thelmproved Position. A unit not in an lmprovedPosition must be attacked separately fromother Friendly units in the hex which are inlmproved Positions. This is an exception to therule prohibiting more than one attack against asingle hex in a single Fire Phase. The results ofthe separate attacks against improved andunimproved positioned units affect only theunit attacked, and do not affect other unitsin the hex.STACKING (Omission): Stacking limitationsapply at all times including during the FriendlyMovement Phase.TRENCHES(C) (Clarification): Treat Trenches like Canalhexes for determining whether a Line of Sightmay be traced into a hex in which a Trenchmarker is located.(F) (Omission): Trenches may be deployed inany terrain unless specifically state otherwisein Scenario deployment instructions.RESERVE UNITS(B)(Correction): There is a typographical errorin the first sentence. The word "day" shouldbe changed to "die."SCENARIOSScenario #4Order of Battle (Correction): The nine cavalrysquadrons of British Reinforcements enter themapsheet Mounted.Scenario # 5Order of Battle (Correction): The German OBshould note that the two machine gun sectionsare horse-drawn.Scenario # 7Order of Battle-German Deployment ( Correction):The German deployment should beanywhere south of Wood "V" inclusive.Scenario #9VICTORY CONDITIONS (Correction): TheBritish Player wins if there are less than threeundisrupted (not unpinned) German units intown "B" or Wood "P" at the end of thegame.CREDITS (Correction): Lenny Glynn should becredited with Game Development rather thanGame Design.THE MAPSHEETTERRAIN EFFECTS CHART (Omission): If aunit is attacked from both higher and lowerterrain, the Defense Strength of the hex isalways "2." See Movement Errata fordefinition of Road Movement.IMPROVED POSITION TABLES (Correction):In the first sentence delete the words "andfiring iti the subsequent Fire Phase, i.e. a unitwhich enters an lmproved Position may fire inthe immediately following Friendly FirePhase."

COMBAT RESULTS TABLEEXPLANATION OF DISRUPTED RESULT(Omission): If a disrupted unit is disruptedagain, the two disruptions apply against theunit concurrently. Units which enter a hexoccupied by a disrupted unit become disruptedthemselves.GAME SCALE (Omission): Each hex represents100 meters from side to side. EachGame-Turn represents the passage of tenminutes of "real time."NormandyAs a result of post-publication playtesting, thefollowing errata has been assembled to clarifyand correct various errors or ambiguities in theoriginal game components.The errata for Normandy follows the sequenceof the Normandy rules folder.GAME EQUIPMENT (Omission): A completegame of Normandy should include thefollowing: one set of die-cut units, onemapsheet, one rules folder, one Allied Order ofBattle sheet, two Combat Resolution Tables,and one die.UNlT TYPE SYMBOLS (Correction): Thereare no Armored Infantry units in the Normandycounter-mix. The counter-mix does includeeight Allied Naval Gunfire Support Missioncounters and a number of Entrenched markersfor both the Germans and the Allies. The topnumber on the Naval Gunfire units is theattack-support strength. The middle number isthe defense-support strength. The bottomnumber is the range (in hexes) over which theNaval Gunfire units can support land combats(see naval Gunfire Support rules).MOVEMENT(C) (Correction): Units must be movedindividually, never in stacks.(L)(Clarification): It should be understood thatunits out of supply must move toward aFriendly supply source (area).(N) (Clarification): Armor units may alwaysmove one hex (even if they do not possesssufficient Movement Points to enter a givenhex) only if they are in supply. UnsuppliedArmored units must pay the normal cost toenter each hex. Unsupplied Armored units maynot enter a hex if they do not have sufficientMovement Points to pay the appropriate"entry cost."COMBAT(J)(Correction): Armor units may not attack, ifstacked solely with units which have a"defensive" only Combat Strength (see UnitType Symbols).NAVAL GUNFIRE SUPPORT(F) (Clarification): In effect, only one NavalGunfire Mission may support an attack ordefense of a single occupied hex. When asingle hex-group of Allied units is adjacent toand attacking more than one German occupiedhex, there is nothing to prevent the AlliedPlayer from allocating a Naval attack-supportmission against each German occupied hexexcept range considerations.EXAMPLE (Correction): In this example, if theAllied Player employs a Medium Naval GunfireMission his Attack Strength would be raised to51. If a Heavy Naval Gunfire Mission is chosenthe Allied Attack Strength would be raisedto 36.ZONES OF CONTROL(A) (Correction): There is an error in themovement example given in this Case.Assuming the Allied unit has a MovementAllowance of six or greater, the correctmovement expenditures are as follows: twoMovement Points to leave an Enemy controlledhex, three additional Movement Pointsto enter an Enemy controlled hex, and threeMovement Points to enter a Bocage hex (seeTerrain Effects Chart Errata also).ENTRENCHMENTGENERAL RULE (Clarification): An Entrenchedmarker should be placed on top ofentrenched units. Units may entrench in anyterrain except in fortification hexes. Entrenchedunits may disentrench and attackduring a Friendly Combat Phase.TERRAIN EFFECTS CHART (Clarification)The effects of terrain on combat are notcumulative, i.e., defending units benefit fromthe single most advantageous terrain effect.The combat terrain effect for River hexsides isonly applied when all attacking units areattacking across a River hexside. The forthexes # QQ 29 and RR 31 are also to betreated as Bocage hexes, i.e., armor cannotattack units in these hexes, and Bocage hexmovement costs are applicable in these hexes.Note: The cost to leave an Enemy Zone ofControl is one Movement Point for Allied unitswith a Movement Allowance of four or less,and two Movement Points for Allied units witha Movement Allowance of six or greater. Theword "additional" may be ignored.PARACHUTE INFANTRYGENERAL RULE (Correction): The AlliedPlayer receives eight (not seven) paratroopunits at the beginning of the game.(D) (Clarification): Paratroop units cannotmove or attack until they are brought intosupply. If attacked before they are brought intosupply they have their Combat Strengthhalved for defense.GAME-TURN 1 PLAY SEQUENCEGERMAN UNlT PLACEMENT (Clarification):The fort hexes # QQ 29 and RR 31 are notconsidered partially sea-hexes. German unitsmay be initially deployed in these forts.PARADROP (Clarification): Paratroop unitswhose drop zones are occupied by Germanunits must still consult the Scatter Table. Ifsuch units are scattered onto a non-Germanoccupied hex, or an unoccupied hex, they mayland safely. If, due to scattering, Alliedparatroop units exceed stacking limiations,invert the excess units. As soon as the stack isin supply, the excess units must move toconform to the stacking limits. If they can'tmove, they are eliminated. After moving off,they are turned upright and can functionnormally. [The non-inverted units may moveoff the stack instead, so long as the Stackingrules are obeyed by the end of the first AlliedMovement Phase in which the stack is insupply.] Inverted units are not counted in theDefense Strength of a stack, and areeliminated if the stack is eliminated, retreated,or involved in an exchange. In the case of anexchange, the inverted units are not countedby the German Player when maiching Alliedlosses. Note: This errata pertains only tooverstacking caused by Paradrop scattering.ALLIED FIRST MOVEMENT PHASE (Clarification):Allied units may not use the roadmovement rate on the first Allied Player-Turn.They may, however, use bridges to the extentof crossing bridged River or Flooded hexsidesby paying only the movement cost defined bythe terrain in the hex being entered.VICTORY CONDITIONS (Clarification): TheVictory Points awarded for exiting Allieddivisions (or division equivalents) off aparticular map edge may only be scored onceper map edge, i.e., there are no additionalpoints awarded for moving more than onedivision off a single map edge. Similarly,Victory Points are only awarded for the singlemost deeply penetrating Allied unit regardlessof the number of Allied beachheads.LEVELS OF VICTORY (Correction): An AlliedDecisive Victory is achieved if the Allies score40 (not 49) or more Victory Points.COMBAT RESULTS TABLEEXPLANATION OF RESULTS (Omission):DRIAR: Units may not retreat in violation ofStacking limitations (Stacking limitationssre ineffect throuahout the Combat. Phase). Unitswhjch retreat into a Friendly occupied hexwhich is subsequently attacked during thesame Combat Phase may not apply theirCombat Strength toward the defense of thehex-group, but are affected by the results ofthe combat.As of October 1973, errata sheets for thefollowing games are available:The American Revolution, The ArdennesOffensive, Austerlitz, Breakout B Pursuit, 1812(Strategic and Grand Tactical versions), ElAlamein, Franco-Prussian War, Grenadier, LaGrande Armee, Lee Moves North (new title forLee at Gettysburg), Leipzig, The Marne, TheMoscow Campaign, Musket & Pike, NATO,Normandy, Red StadWhite Star, Rifle 8Saber, Soldiers, Strategy I, and The WildernessCampaign.Games published in Strategy 8 TacticsMagazine:The Fall of Rome (SBT #391, CA (SBT #38),Scrimmage (SBT #37), Destruction of ArmyGroup Center (SBT #36), Year of the Rat(SBT #35), Armageddon (SBT #34), WinterWar (SBT #33), Borodino (SBT #32), FlyingCircus (SBT #31), Combat Command (SBT#30), U.S.N. (SBT #29), Lost Battles (SBT#28), Grunt (S&T #26), and Centurion(SBT #25).Errata for games other than those listed aboveis not yet available. As we make available newand/or updated additional errata sheets, anannouncement will be posted in either SBT orMOVES. Please wait until errata for a particulargame has been announced as being availablebefore requesting it. Requests for errata sheetswill only be answered when accompanied by astamped, self-addressed envelope (one SSAEfor each sheet requested). Other than thatthey are free.

FeedbackMOVES nr.11, published Oct./Nov. 1973How to Use the Feedback Response Card:After you've finished reading this issue ofMOVES, please read the Feedback questionsbelow, and give us your answers and opinionson the Feedback Response Card. The mostconvenient way to use the card is to hold itdirectly alongside the list of questions and thenwrite your answer-number in the response-boxon the card which corresponds to the questionnumber. Please be sure your answer numbersare legible, and be certain that the number ofthe response-box matches the number of thequestion you are answering.Please be sure to answer all the questionsssked. Cards which are incompletely filled outcannot be processed. When a question-numberhas "no question" after it, do nor writeanything in that particular response-box.What the Numbers Mean: Generally speaking,there are two types of questions asked in theFeedback section: (1) Rating questions and (2)"yes/no/no opinion" type questions.Raring Questions: When answering a ratingquestion (such as what you thought of aparticular article in this issue) write onenumber from " 0 through "9": "1" is theWorst Rating, "9" is the best rating, "5"means an average rating, and all numbersbetween express various shades of approval ordisapproval. "0" indicates No Opinion or NotApplicable.Yes/No Questions: When the qustion is a "yesor no" question, "1" means Yes; "2" meansNo (and "0" means No Opinion or NorApplicable).We hope you will use your Feedback ResponseCard as your direct-line to the editors.Questions:1 - No quesrion2 - No question3 - No questionSECTION AQuestions 4 rhrough 14 ask you to rate the articles inthis issue on a scale of 1 =poor to 9=exce/lent.4 - Designer's Notes5 - "CA" (overall)6 - Adding Realism7 - Adding Simultaneity8 - Adding Historicity9 - Foxbar and Phantom Game Analysis10 - The Franco-Prussian War11 - Wargame Reviews12 - Playback13 - Game Errata (overall)14 - This issue (overall)15 - No question.16 - Was this issue better than the last?17 - Assume that you don't subscribe to MOVES.Would the quality of this issue alone motivateyou to subscribe?18 - Your age: 1 = 13 years or less; 2 = 14-17;3 = 18-21; 4 = 22-27; 5 = 28-35; 6 = 36+19 - Your sex: 1 = Male; 2 = Female20 - Education: 1 = 11 years or less; 2 = 12 years;3 = 13-15 years; 4 = 13-15 years and still inschool; 5 = 16 years; 6 = 17+ years.21 -How long have you been playing GameSimulations: 0 = less than 1 year; 1 = 1 year;2 = 2 years; ......... 9 = 9 + years.22 - What is the average number of hours youspend playing Game Simulations each month:0 = none; 1 = 1 hour or less; 2 = 2-5 hours;3 = 6-9 hours; 4 = 10-15 hours; 5 = 16-20;6 = 21-25; 7 = 26-30; 8 = 31-40; 9 = 41 +23 - How many Game Simulations do you possess:1 = 1 only; 2 = 2-5; 3 = 6-10; 4 = 11-15;5 = 16-20; 6 = 21-25; 7 = 26-30; 8 = 31-40;9=41+24 - How many people besides yourself will haveread this copy of MOVES? 0 =only yourself;1 =one other .... 9=9 or more others.Ouesrions 25 and 26 should be answered only byMOVES subscribers. If you do not subscribe toMOVES, place a zero in boxes 25 and 26.25 - Which issue of MOVES is both (a) the earliestyou have read and (b) the one after which youhave seen all the later issues of MOVES, i.e.from which there was no break in continuity.1 =MOVES 1...9=MOVES 9.26 - What is your opinion of the change in overallquality (of articles and editorial format) sinceyour first issue of MOVES: O=no noticeablechanges; 1 =many changes for the worse;2=some particular changes for the worse;3 =slight overall change for the worse;4=slight overall change for the better;5=some changes for the better: 6=manychanges for the better.Ouesrions 27-25 ask you to rate the individual"Foornotes" on a scale from 1 = poor to 9 =excellent.27 - Storing Your SPI Games and Magazines28 - A Geography Lesson29 - The Words Between the States30 - RS/WS and the Paper Tiger31 - Sniper! Free-For-All32 - Further Civil War Game Design Suggestions33 - Suggested Rules Changes for NAW andBorodino34 - No quesr~on35 --"They Can't Capture Me, I'm the Generall"36 - No question37 - No quesrion38 - No questionQuestions 39-43 ask you to rate rypes of wargame"environments" [land, air and naval]. Rare rhe game'knvironmenrs" on a scale of 1 to 9: 1 = Dislike thegames in rhis "environment" to 9 = Enjoy very muchrhis game "environmenr. "39 - Naval Games40 - Air Games41 - Land Games42 - Pick the ONE subject area about which youwould most like to see games and articlespublished: 1 = Ancient (Rome, Greece, Bib-Iica1/3000BC-600AD); 2 = Dark Ages andRenaissance (WAD-1600AD); 3 = ThirtyYears War and pre-Napoleonic 11600-1790);4 = Napoleonic ;1790-1830); 5 = Civil War/Nineteenth Century (1830-1900); 6 = WorldWar 1 (1900-1930); 7 = World War 11 11930-1945); 8 = post-WW II (1945-present); 9 =the present and !he future (anything goes).43 - Our games come in three levels of complexity:"Simple" (e.g., Napoleon at Waterloo); "Intermediate"(e.g., Kursk, France '40); and "Complex"(e.g., USN, Strategy I). There are alsothree scales we use: "Tactical" (up to 500 menper unit, up to 1,000 meters per hex, each turnrepresents less than an hour of real time);"Operational" (up to brigade, or 10,000 men,unit size, up to 5 kilometers per hex, andusually one day per turn); and "Strategic"(everything larger). Choose below the ONEcombination of complexity and scale youMOST prefer in a game: 1 = Simple - Tactical;2 = Simple - Operational; 3 = Simple - Strategic;4 = lntermediate - Tactical; 5 = Intermediate- Operational; 6 = lntermediate -Strategic; 7 = Complex - Tactical; 8 = Complex- Operational; 9 = Complex - Strategic.44 - How may wargames have you bought in thepast twelvemonths?0=0, 1 =l, 2=2 ... 9=9+.45 - On the average, how many times do you playeach new game within a month of buying it?o=o, 1 =1, 2=2 ... 9=9+.46 - On the average, how many times do you playeach new game within three months of buyingit? O=O, 1 =l, 2=2 ... 9=9+.47 - What percentage of your "games played" aresolitaire (by yourself, without an opponent)?O=O, 1 =lo%, 2=20% ... 9=90+%.48 - What percentage of your "games played" areby mail games? 0=0, 1 =lo%, 2=20% ...9=90+%.The following articles are under consideration forpublication in MOVES. Rare each proposed article ona 1-9 scale with "7" indicating practically no inreresrand "9"indicaring considerable interest in seeing it inprint. Don't use 0 on anyrhing.49 - "The Versatile Weapon: Cavalry in Grenadiel"- integrating cavalry tactics into the gamewith hints and suggestions on how they can beused to the best advantage.50 - "Survivability - Eastern Front, 1942-45" - Acomputer simulation of armored vehicle andunit engagements with good hard-core data.51 - "Additional Units and Organizations forCombat Command" - adding British andCommonwealth units plus various otherAmerican units not included in the game.52 - "Improving Games with Homemade Equipment"- professed by the author to improvethe playability and realism of games.The following articles all use basically the sameformat. Each "article" is actually a collecrion ofanicles dealing wirh various aspects of the play anddesign of the game in question. Each "Profile" willdiffer mainly in terms of the game ir deals with.53 - American Revolution Profile54 - Austerlitz Profile55 - Breakout and Pursuir Profile56 - N Alamein Profile57 - Korea Profile58 - La Grande Armee Profile59 - Lee Moves North Profile60 - Marne Profile61 - Moscow Campaign Profile62 - Musket and Pike Profile63 - NATO Profile64 - Solomons Campaign Profile65 - Spitfire Profile66 - Sniper! Profile67 - Barbarossa Profile68 - Rifle and Saber Profile69 - Bull Run Profile70 - Wilderness Campaign Profile71 - Phalanx Profile72 - Year of the Rat Profile73 - Winter War Profile74 - Destruction of Army Group Center Profile75 - USN Profile76 - "Strategies for World War I/" - hints forplaying from the designer and SPI staff.77 - "Tactical Notes for 'CA"' - written to givemore insight towards better playability.78 - "Tactical Notes for Desert Waf' - suggestedtactics from the SPI staff.79 - In the past year have you actually "designed" agame (a complete game, with written rules,counters and mapsheet that was playable bypeople other than the designer)?80 - In the past year have you "modified" anexisting game to the point of writing upchanges in a manner understandable tosomeone other than yourself?The results of the following survey are used in ourPLA YBACK system. This sysrem reviews games byshowino rhe resoonse of the ~ eode who olav thegames.- ~uestions 81-93 and' 104- 1&5 are. pan ofPLA YBACK.

Before each game there are thitteen questions[lettered "A" through "N"1. Unless otherwise noted,these questions are answered with a "I"[poor1through "9" [excellentl rating.Question A - Whar did you think of the physicalquality and layout of the mapsheet?Quesrion B - What did you rhink of the physicalquality and layout of the rules folder?Question C - What did you think of the physicalquality and layout of the unit counters?Question D - What did you think of the game's'2ase of play" [how well the game "moved along'l?Question E - What did you think of the"completeness" of the game's rules [was everythingthoroughly explained?Question F - What did you think of the game's playbalance [was the game interesting for both sides]?Question G - What did you think about the lengthof the average game?Question H - What did you think of the amount of"set-up time"needed before you could begin playingthe game?Question J - Whar did you rhink of the complexityof rhis game?Question K - What did you think of this game'srealism?Question L - What did you think of rhis gameoverall?Quesrion M - Would you still have bought thisgame if you knew then what you know now about it?I1 = Yes; 2 = No]Question N - Do you think you received yourmoney's wonh with this game? [ 1 = Yes; 2 = No].We willask you to rate seven games. M you have notplayed these games, or have not pla yed them enoughto be able to evaluate them, then simply place "0's"in the boxes.MUSKET AND PIKE (SSG)81 - Ouestion A (mapsheet)82 - Ouestion B {rules)83 - Question C (counters)84 - Question D (ease of play)85 - Question E (completeness of rules)86 - Question F (balance)87 - Question G (length)88 - Question H (set-up time)89 - Question J (complexity)90 - Ouestion K (realism)91 - Question L (overall)92 - Question M (then 6 now) (yes or no only)93 - Question N (money's worth) (yes or no only)94 - No question95 - No question96 - No ouestion101 - No question102 -No quesrion103 - No questionSECTION BRIFLE AND SABER (SSG)104 - Question A (mapsheet)105 - Question B (rules)106 - Question C (counters)107 - Ouestion D (ease of play)108 - Question E (completeness of rules)109 - Question F (balance)110 - Question G (length)11 1 - Ouestion H (set-up time)112 - Question J (complexity)113 - Question K (realism)114 - Question L (overall)115 - Question M (then b now) (yes or no only)116 - Question N (money's worth) (yes or no only)117 - No questionAUSTERLITZ (SSG)118 - Question A (mapsheet)119 - Question B (rules)120 - Question C (counters)121 - Question D lease of play)122 - Question E (completeness of rules)123 - Question F (balance)124 - Question G (length)125 - Question H (set-up time)126 - Ouestion J (complexity)127 - Question K (realism)128 - Question L (overall)129 - Question M (then b now) (yes or no only)130 - Question N (money's worth) (yes or no only)131 - No question132 - No questionYEAR OF THE RAT (SbT35)133 - Question A (mapsheet)134 - Question B (rules)135 - Question C (counters)136 - Question D (ease of play)137 - Ouestion E (completeness of rules)138 - Question F (balance)139 - Question G (length)140 - Question H (set-up time)141 - Question J (complexity)142 - Question K (realism)143 - Ouestion L (overall)144 - Question M (then b now) (yes or no only)145 - Question N (money's worth) (yes or no only)146 - No questionDESTRUCTION OF ARMY GROUP CENTER(SbT 36)147 - Question A (mapsheet)148 - Question B (rules)149 - Question C (counters)150 - Question D (ease of play)151 - Question E (completeness of rules)152 - Question F (balance)153 - Question G (length)154 - Question H (set-up time)155 - Ouestion J (complexity)156 - Ouestion K (realism)157 - Question L (overall)158 - Question M (then b now) (yes or no only)159 - Question N (money's worth) (yes or no only)160 - No quesrion161 - No questionRICHTOFEN'S WAR (Avalon Hill)162 - Question A (mapsheet)163 - Question B (rules)164 - Ouestion C (counters)165 - Question D (ease of play)166 - Ouestion E (completeness of rules)167 - Question F (balance)168 - Question G (length)169 - Ouestion H (set-up time)170 - Question J Icomplexityl171 - Question K (realism)172 - Ouestion L (overall)173 - Ouestion M (then b now) (yes or no only)174 - Question N (money's worth) (yes or no only)175 - No quesrionBATTLE OF BRITAIN (Lou Zocchi)176 - Ouestion A (mapsheet)177 - Question B (rules)178 - Question C (counters)179 - Question D (ease of play)180 - Question E (completeness of rules)181 - Ouestion F (balance)182 - Question G (length)183 - Question H (set-up time)184 - Question J (complexity)185 - Question K (realism)186 - Question L (overall)187 - Ouestion M (then 6 now) (yes or no only)188 - Question N (money's worth) (yes or no only)189 - No question190 - No quesrion191 - No question192 - No question193 - No question194 - No question195 - No question196 - No questionFeedback Results, MOVES 9Rank ArticleRating1 Designers Notes ................7.152 Game Errata: S&T Games ........7.133 Game Errata: SSG Games ........6.774 Footnotes .....................6.725 Shiloh.. .......................6.436 Maxi-PanzerBlitz ................6.247 Playback ...................... 5.988 Simulation of Morale ............5.789 Strategic Air War ...............5.6010 Game Evolution & Revolution. ....5.5311 Pass in Review .................5.5212 A Tactical Module. ..............5.17This issue loveralll ...................6.10

SIMULATIONS PUBUCATIONS, INC.44 East 23rd StreetNewYork,N.Y. 10010RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEEDDesigner b Notes (continued from page 27)information and experienced gained doingthese games is often applicable for othergames (at least as far as unclassifiedinformation is concerned). We don't go out ofour way looking for these projects, but if theycome our way we take them. We'll keep youposted on the interesting RBD aspects ofthese projects.It is a fact that there is a lot of good gamedesign talent going unnoticed outside of SPI(and other game publishers). If anything, SPI isunusual in that game design and developmentpeople have been brought together on apermanent basis. The "traditional" methodwas to wait for independent designers to bringin something worthwhile and then publish it.All these "independent" designers are not onlystill around, they have probably increased innumber and quality. The number of gamepublishers has not increased on a proportionatescale. So we get numerous letters fromgame designers in search of a publisher. Alongwith suggestions as to what we could possibledo to alleviate the situation. .The suggestionsrange from our publishing a lot of non-SPIdesigns to our holding a "game designcontest." The idea of designers publishingarticles in MOVES on their games doesn't elicitall that much enthusiasm. People want theirgames published. This is the crux of theproblem. Publishing. The act of "publishing"consists of considerably more work than mostpeople are aware of. Not just "work" work burthe sort of "head" work that goes intodesigning the game in the first place.Originally, we not only wanted to use goodoutside designs, but actually did use outsidedesigns (to name a few, Flight of theGoeben/Strategic, Anzio Beachhead, WinterWar, Grunt, Flight of the Goeben/Tactical,Flying Tigers, Stalingrad Ill, Ba rtle of Moscow,T-34, Twelve O'clock High). That's ten games.And these ten games caused us moreproblems than any five in-house designs. Themain problem, we finally realized, was that thedesigner was not a day-to-day member of theRbD "team." This lack of integration causedco-ordination problems which made publicationof the game perhaps twice as expensiveand time-consuming as it should have been.To give more examples, PanzerBlitz andFrance-40, which we designed for Avalon Hill,were also developed by SPI. That is, we did allthe work up to and including artwork. AvalonHill people had nothing to do with the gameuntil the artwork was delivered to them. Atthat point all they had to do was pass theartwork on to,their printers and fill orders forthe game. Luftwaffe, which we originallypublished as Twelve O'clock High, wasdesigned by a non-SPI designer. We hadproblems when we published it and so didAvalon Hill. The designer was on the other sideof the Mississippi and thus not. constantlyavailable to take care of those numerous littleglitches which come up as a game gets closerto publication.Those are the problems. And pretty seriousones. Our solution at this point is to keeplooking for a solution. One part of the solutionwill be to publish some standards for preparinggames. Not just arbitrary "rules" for a gamesformat but helpful and proven formats whichmake for better and more easily handledgames. We have developed various "tests"that we submit games to. Also screeningprocedures to get all the bugs out. In order towork, all of these methods require a good teamof people. This is what a lot of solitary gamedesigners lack. And most are well aware of it.But we feel that these problems, to a largedegree, can be overcome. Starting (probably)in MOVES 12 will be a series of articles spellingout in great detail how we develop games.Hopefully, a year from now we will have solveda lot of the problems outlined above. We mayeven be able 'to return to accepting outsidegame designs. It's a shame to see all of thattalent languishing.The above discussion also brings up afrequently asked question. Just what goes intothe design of games. This, it is no secret, is thesort of article which is most in demand. Theanswer to the first question is quite simple.Quite a lot goes into the design of a game. Somuch goes in that it would require a prettymassive article to cover all the bases. We hopeto do much (but probably not all) of this basetouching by having local game testers writearticles on games they have worked on. Inthese articles there will be data they havecollected by talking and working with thegame designer and developer. To sum up, rightnow we have no pat solutions for the aboveproblems. But we are started on our waytowards solutions. It just takes time.About a third of MOVES subscribers (and 20%of S&T subscribers) are heavily involved innon-"war" games. From this group we receivea steady flow of questions regarding whenwe're going to do more (or any) non-warconflict games. We'd like to do them rightnow. But we are restrained by the use offeedback (not to mention economic necessity).However, there is hope in the hear future. Ourretail distribution of games gives us access to alarger group of non-wargame enthusiasts.Which means we have the means to sellnon-wargames in large enough volume tomake it economically possible to keep onpublishing games of this type. We have quite afew possible titles kicking around here. Forexample, a game on the "rise and falr' of theAmerican Indians upon their meeting Europeans.This game would have turns representinggenerations and would cover some prettyhairy "what if's?" We have a game concept onespionage and counter-espionage activitiescalled CIA. We have games on sundry otherforms of social, psychological and economic"conflict." All are just waiting for us to developways and means to get them to the peoplewho want them.