Frank Chadwick's First Battle tactical boardgame series, which started in 1987 with Team Yankee, finally came of age in 1991 with Sands of War (see BROG #3). After much waffling in the earlier games of the series, this simple but sophisticated rules set was finally mated to a map/time/unit scale that made sense. Blood & Thunder now takes this overhauled system to the Russian Front. Twenty-four scenarios present snapshots of German vs. Soviet combat from 1941-1945, with extensive historical notes. Happily, if you have played Sands, you will be able to jump into B&T about as quickly as you can punch the counters. The only significant changes to the system mechanics are an improved treatment of same-hex combat, and the re-imposition of a one-turn delay between plotting indirect fire missions and their impact (a tactical wargame convention which Sands had dropped, with interesting, nay, breathtaking effects). On the down side, it appears that a Mad Hacker was loosed on the Sands rules text file. While the sense and wording in B&T is substantially unchanged, the organization and paragraph structure are completely different. There was nothing terribly wrong with the way the Sands rules were put together, and there is nothing particularly better about the new format. Change for the sake of change? A big plus is that the maps and counters are fully compatible with the earlier game, as well as with the Sands Expansion Kit. All components show the usual fine GDW production quality, with multicolor, backprinted, information-rich unit counters. All the charts and tables fit on the two sides of a single sheet of cardstock. As in Sands, the terrain can be interpreted differently depending on the scenario instructions: slopes can be gentle or steep, and the streams can be anything from ravines to canals or rivers. Variable terrain is a nice feature which broadens the utility of generic, geomorphic maps of this sort. I am not asked to pretend that hills drawn on the map are NOT THERE for this scenario. If you are not too distracted by the phenomenon of streams which meander from one hillside, across a valley, and up the opposite hill, you can use these maps to create a great variety of terrain configurations. And since they are compatible with the Sands sets, you can have 30-plus geomorphic maps to play with. The game system features 15-minute turns, 200 meter hexes, and platoon-size units, all well within the usual, familiar tactical-game profile. Combat is ranged, with a single odds-column combat results table with the usual modifiers for terrain, weapon, and target type. Spotting is quick and dirty: if it's in concealing terrain, you don't see it until either it fires or you have a unit adjacent. Line of sight rules gratefully abjure the straight edge, charts, algorithms, and spotting dice mechanics favored by those who enjoy setting the clock in their car. In spite of the generalizations, lack of chrome, and the trademark brevity of the rules text, most of the essential aspects of modern tactical combat get at least a nod. The system is easily learned and its play has an intuitive element I like a lot. Most of the mechanics are simple enough so that you do not spend a great deal of play time with your face buried in the rules and play aids. You can play quickly, focusing on tactics and not on the chore of translating real world concepts and assumptions into yet another designer's version of reality. This is an elegant system, conveying the essential elements of weapon-target relationships and the hardware comparisons beloved of wargamers, all in a game that still plays in real time. Consider the abstraction of tactical detail which this time scale suggests; the players' focus is upon command and morale considerations to an extent uncommon in games on this scale, and I find that refreshing. So, why am I yawning? Blood & Thunder's scale and period are among my favorites. I share BROG's respect for Chadwick's design talents, and I have preferred his earlier tactical rules (Assault, Command Decision) over all the competition. The treatment is what I have been asking for: fast-playing, command-oriented, accurate in effect if not in naturalistic detail. Even with all that, I still find myself groping for the remote control halfway through every scenario. There is, somehow, a sort of blandness, a white-bread feel to the entire, First Battle system. It is just not what we, in the hobby, have come to expect from a "tactical" scale wargame. Its sparse treatment of technical and tactical detail hurts it in comparison to both its ancestors and contemporaries, no matter how praiseworthy are its command focus, simplicity of play, etc. When I'm pushing platoons around on 200m hexes, I like to roll around in stuff like rate of fire, ammo selection, step reduction, separate rolls to hit and to penetrateetc. If I can't have this stuff, I need some compensation in the way of operational scope; if I can't game the situation from a Captain's perspective, I'm going to want the Colonel's. For all the system's innovation and elegance, its pre-designed scenarios model small-scale battles with insufficient detail to really hook you. The player has little sense of why he is on this ground, with these forces, at this time. His world will end on the last turn of the scenario, his performance measured by a rather limited and arbitrary set of victory conditions. The game lacks the depth, the tactile texture, of more detailed simulations which can make such a narrowly framed firefight interesting in itself. Still, thesegames have a niche which no others, past or present, fill nearly so well, and that is to serve as a bridge between the tactical and operational levels of war. If used in conjunction with the Campaign rules outlined in the Sands Expansion Kit, or some analogous operational-scale game system, they allow us to model in acceptable detail the consequences of operational-level decisions upon battalions and brigades, and (this is important) the effect of battles upon the outcome of a campaign. Campaign rules would let the players first make the decisions which generate and shape tactical scenarios; and then use B&T and its companion game sets to fight these battles. Since finding its proper application, I am happy as a clam with Blood & Thunder. The time and energy I save from the interminable die-rolling, modifier-chasing, and record-keeping of more detailed systems are spent, even as I play a scenario, in considering how to shape this battle to the ends of my campaign. First Battle games do not provide detailed models of firefights; but they do provide all the detail a division commander (you!) should have on the effects battle has on his battalions. The quickness and simplicity of the game system ensure that you will not lose the forest for the trees; unfortunately, it is your job to provide the forest. CAPSULE COMMENTS: Graphic Presentation: Excellent. Playability: Sparse rules; you thrash out answers to the scores of detail questions that arise in play. It's a straight, broad and level road, but you can break an ankle in the potholes. However, once you flesh it out a bit, you'll be happy with its ease of play. Not bad solitaire, either. Replayability: Multi-scenariod, so good. Historicity: Pretty good if you don't split hairs. Creativity: A nice solution to the almost overwhelming detail of other systems. Comparisons: Simpler and more accessible than, but less absorbing or meaty as systems such as Advanced Squad Leader, MBT, or The Gamers' Tactical Combat Series. Overall: If you relish fine-grained, minute-by-minute tactical detail, B&T is not for you. If you are willing to use a campaign super-structure to generate tactical scenarios with feeling, than I recommend Blood & Thunder most highly. from GDW Eight 11" x 17" geomorphic maps; 800 counters; charts, Rules & Scenario Book; "Jump-Start" rules booklet. Boxed. GDW, $36. Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 11 Table of Contents Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1993 by Richard Berg This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com