Rorschach Test time for the Hill Men again: in which direction are they heading this time? There are more multiple personalities calling the corporate shots at Harford Road these days then a whole week of USA Network movies. Are we going mainstream, á la History of the World? Are we trolling for novices (with large bank accounts) with We The People? Or is it still Hard-core History … which is what we have here with this fourth incarnation of the Storm Over Arnhem system, this one covering D-Day, et seq. Then again, what's wrong with trying the Shotgun Approach … if it's good - and they buy it - who needs Policy? They're still publishing wargames, although certainly like in the Food Old Days, and some of them are crackerjack efforts. Breakout: Normandy is the fourth game to use the system introduced by Don Greenwood in Storm Over Arnhem, and followed by Thunder at Cassino and Turning Point: Stalingrad. (Sounds like a series on meteorology.) Actually, the word "Breakout" somewhat misleading, as the game covers the D-Day invasion and the following three weeks of bitter, pounding combat as the Allies tried to secure and enlarge their French foothold. No free-wheeling, Patton-like thrusts here. What you get is lots of hard slogging over the bocage and through the rubble of Caen. B:N's box promises a game of "Moderate" complexity. Well, don't believe everything you read. CNA it ain't, but there are a couple of elements here that are sure to trip the unwary and mystify the inexperienced. The basic system eschews hexes for irregularly-sized areas, with each area representing a distinct - and notable - piece of terrain, such as Caen, Cherbourg, the beaches, etc. Each are is given a terrain modifier to reflect its defensive suitability, ranging from, say, Caen's "+5" to the "+1" given the open ground around Sword and Juno beaches. The areas are often divided by rivers and flooded ground, so that control of bridges becomes crucial as play progresses. Area movement is usually better suited to such situations as urban fighting, as in Storm Over Arnhem. I was, originally, skeptical, about its appropriateness to campaigns in relatively open country, but I think it's quite effective in simulating this area and level of combat., most of which is conducted by regiments and brigades, with a few battalions putting in all-too brief appearances. AH long ago mastered the art of tailoring a game's components and graphics to reflect its intended market. ASL is a complex game, so they load up on counters with all sorts of numbers and then throw about fifty terrain types into every hex on the map. Breakout is meant for a less involved audience, so the counters are nice and big, with easy-to-read NATO symbology and large type. In that respect, they follow XTR's lead, although the typefont doesn't have that Send-Me-To-Weight-Watchers look XTR flaunts. The maps are sturdily mounted, colorful without being garish, and with plenty of charts and diagrams around the edges as play aids. Off-map zones, an AH "trademark", prevent an edge-of-the-world mentality. A tightly written rules book, with plenty of illustrations and historical notes, rounds out the package, which meets the usual, high AH standards. The most important aspect of the B:N system is its Sequence of Play. It is also the trickiest. Turns span one day, during which players alternate impulses, each impulse activating one area, whose inhabitants may then move, fight, repair/blow bridges, etc. Units become "spent" after activation, limiting them, generally, to one impulse per turn. However, mixed in with the impulse is a dieroll to see whether the sun has set, thus ending the turn! The longer the turn goes, obviously, the greater the chance night will descend. The kicker is that the first Allied dieroll in each impulse doubles as the Sunset dieroll against which the whole mechanic is measured, so that the more actions the Allies perform, the shorter the turn will last. This is not an easy process to get the hang of, and I suspect many a novice will be somewhat nonplussed by all this randomized orbital activity. Despite some reservations, I think this impulse-based sequence is a good way of simulating the ebb and flow, attack-counterattack nature of WWII land combat. The doubts that do arise come from the clunky method of randomly determining the end of the turn, exacerbated by a poor description of just how the Sunset Dieroll works. I was never quite certain I was doing it correctly. The rest of the game, though, is fairly simple. Combat is resolved in each area at the end of the impulse for the units that were just activated. Each side picks one unit and determines a combat value by adding that unit's combat factor to a host of modifiers and a dieroll. The lower value loses and takes losses - disruptions - equal to the difference in combat values … or retreats voluntarily. Three disruptions will eliminate a unit. Now, one of my major dislikes in wargaming is a combat system in which only one side suffers casualties, as if it were a game-ending shoot-out in hockey. Nor do I think such a system reflects combat in Normandy, which quickly became a war of attrition. In B:N, combat is essentially one unit vs one unit, with any friends in the same area sitting around like cheerleaders. A strong defending unit in tough terrain can hold out against a horde of attacker nigh indefinitely, especially as it is taking no casualties. Why can't the attacker bring more than one unit to bear … even if only as an "in support" factor? In correcting certain problems in the original Storm system, AH appears to have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction. Whatever, the combat system is easy to learn and quick to resolve. Supply takes a hand by setting a limit to the number of units per turn that can recover from Disruption. A player may stockpile unused Supply Points to provide extra impulses in the ensuing turns, an effective method of allowing armies to build up for a major offensive. This felicity is then counter-balanced by a rule that seems to be favored by people whom no one can ever find: the Repeat Dieroll. Despite any claims to the contrary, such a rule, which allows a player to says "King's X" with a dieroll and throw the ivories again, thereby passing such "advantage" to his opponent, has absolutely no basis in reality. It is more at home with D&D, or cheating at Sorry. It smacks of an inability to come up with a mechanic that truly reflects the "shifts of momentum" and "stockpiling of supplies" that the rules maintain it simulates. Hogwash. It's just lazy - and rather childishly inept - designing. The game plays well, despite the aforementioned artificialities. The situation is a good one, and "one" is the number of the scenarios. The "basic" game covers the events of June 6-13, which time frame can be extended with a series of rules and checks. The Allies land with ease, but they are badly separated. This leaves the Germans with a number of tough choices - always a prime indicator of a good game: does he use his precious panzers to isolate the beaches and drive the British into the sea; or does he simply consolidate around Caen and Cherbourg and fight a battle of attrition? Most invasion games tend to be solitaire affairs, as the good guys roll ashore, but the alternating impulses of B:N allow the German player to be more than just an interested spectator during the landings. The Allied dilemma is just as acute. Does he/she unite the beachheads, or press inland quickly to relieve the beleaguered airborne troops? You're never quite sure when the turn will end, so much nailbiting ensues as players try to solve every crisis before the sun sets. I think the system tends to favor the defender, so, in this case, the Allies have a hard time making any headway beyond the beaches. The Allies should definitely be handled by the more experienced player. Solitaire play eliminates much of the feint/attack edge, relegating an individual play-through to historical inquisition. In this, the fiftieth anniversary of one of the most amazing - and successful - invasions in military history, there have been a fair number of D-Day oriented games. None have been ad, some have been quite successful. But, for playability and play excitement, Break: Normandy appears to be the best beach on which to land your dice. CAPSULE COMMENTS Graphic Presentation: The usual, solid AH job. Playability: Tricky at first, but much smoother after a few turns. Replayability: A strong point, because of the variable turn length. Creativity: More of a polishing of an accepted system than anything else. Historicity: Players get a good feel for the situation. Comparisons: Assuming you're not about to try the more detailed an challenging Atlantic Wall or The Longest Day, it is far meatier than D-Day; more accessible than Westwall; and less tedious than Omaha (which is, admittedly, on as different scale). Interestingly, it uses the same impulse approach as XTR's Victory in Normandy, but at least this one doesn't take 45 turns to get going. For playability, the best Normandy game available. Overall: A refreshing sign that AH can still put out good "wargames". Breakout: Normandy from The Avalon Hill Game Co. Two "22" X "16" mounted game-maps; 364 counters; three Set-Up cards; Rules Book. Boxed. $30 from Avalon Hill, 4517 Harford Rd, Baltimore MD 21214 Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 12 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