For the Allied players in a game of Third Reich or World in Flames, the fall of France is a given. The only real questions are how long will it take, and what will it cost? Yet in 1940, the Allied Commander, Gamelin, greeted the initial Nazi invasion with gleeful optimism, while the German High Command had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the era of Blitzkrieg. Such ironies may make thumping good history, but all too often the games which seek to simulate them disappoint. Paradoxically, the more accurate the simulation, the more boring the game. In order to model the clash of disparate military systems, and the shock and surprise of the losing side, most games depend on rules which hamper, constrain, and ultimately force a player to repeat the historical outcome. As Marx (Karl, not Groucho) noted, when tragic events are repeated, the usual result is farce.
The historical scenarios in Dave Ritchie's Victory in the West are, indeed, farcical. This operational treatment of the German invasion of France includes three, all too accurate historical scenarios. The Cape, covering the invasion of Holland, serves as a learning scenario that only a Gouda-phobe would want to play again. In The Sickle and The Blitz, the cream of the French Army, along with the potent BEF, is forced to spend the first 2 turns madly rushing into Belgium. The rules prohibit movement by the bulk of the Allied army, blithely sitting behind the Maginot line. By turn 3, when Allied movement restrictions are lifted, the Germans will be dining in the cafes of Calais and Boulogne-sur-Mer. Ritchie gamely - or perhaps lamely - suggests the use of optional rules to salvage the historical scenarios. But what use is French and British Blitzkrieg capability, and lots of neat armored units, if they're all milling around Antwerp and Liege, while "Clever Heinz" is crossing at Sedan? A farce is a farce, no matter who the actors are.
Fortunately, VitW escapes consignment to the Closet-of-Once-Played-Games by including a fourth scenario: Alternate Histories. AH, more an historical tool kit than a single scenario, abolishes the movement restrictions which simulate the Allied Dyle-Breda plan, allows free set-up, and presents the Allied player with a five-star menu of 18 different play options. These historically valid options allow a player to make grand strategic changes in the Allied War Plans. Want to brave public protest and bulk up your poilus? Select More French AA Guns, More French AT Guns, and Better French Morale and Training. How 'bout implementing DeGaulle's plan for an elite, mechanized strike force? With Charles in Charge, you'll want French Cavalry Mechanization, French Armored Concentration, French Blitzkrieg Doctrine, and No Maginot Line. This ability to pick and chose liberates players from the mere repetition of what was, allowing a peek at what might have been.
Physical production of the game probably caused more than a few gray hairs at GMT. The case of the missing Origins counters is well known, but the game also seems plagued by little glitches such as disappearing units on the historical set-up card (3rd Colonial Infantry, a key division of 2nd Army), missing city names on the map (Belfort and Cambrai, to name but two), and misaligned map edges. Nothing fatal, but enough to make one suspect the infamous Rush Job. Despite flaws, the map is quite attractive, rules layout is superior, and the gamer is blessed by typical GMT generosity in supplementary materials: charts, historical/design notes, and 4 page example of play. The counters are clean, clear, no-nonsense efforts, brightened up by color-coding army designations.
Ritchie's system initially seems quite familiar. The basic sequence of play is move-fight-exploit, with limited post-combat reaction thrown in. Infantry comes in divisions; armor, in brigades and regiments. Ritchie makes the right choice on scale; his 2 day turns and 11 km hexes allow time for reaction to an opponents move. As the excellent Designer's Notes point out, there were certain unique elements of the campaign which require equally unique rules. And for that assignment, David Ritchie is a natural.
From the dazzling Ares magazine game, Albion, to the impressive, if developmentally wrecked Barbarossa, Ritchie has shown a rich and varied imagination. He excels in devising ingenious little mechanics, games within the game, which focus upon neglected, but important, aspects of his subject. In VitW, some of these are quickly spotted: refugee counters which clog allied movement and panic troops; Efficiency Ratings, which measure a unit's ability to withstand the shock and stress of Blitzkrieg; and Coup de Main, which enables the German to seize bridges. But the most intriguing subsystem involves rivers, bridges, and bridgeheads.
In most campaigns of World War II, rivers proved to be less than effective barriers to a determined attacker. Given the length and looping quality of most European rivers, the problems in defending them are obvious. Most wargames treat them accordingly: defender doubled, but only if all attackers attack across a river. There usually aren't enough units to cover all the hexes, the attacker crosses somewhere, and it's bye-bye defender doubled. But the German invasion of France was different. The frontage was narrow, the unit density high, and the Germans were on a very tight schedule. Arguably, events hinged on a few river crossings. When Guderian crossed the Meuse at Sedan, and Reinhardt at Montherme, the campaign broke wide open. The Germans waltzed across France, while the Allies, unable to keep pace with the Teutonic tempo, pretty much sat it out. A proper simulation of the campaign should find the both players obsessed with bridgeheads.
The rules do a fine job of simulating the importance of rivers and the cost of attacking across. The Germans have neither the time nor the manpower to slug their way across all the rivers in France. They must seize bridges. For an attacker who can seize them, bridges accrue numerous advantages. Attacking across bridge hexsides on major rivers merely halves, rather than quarters, attack strength. Supply problems are eased. But most importantly, armor can attempt to overrun bridge hexsides in a Coup de Main. Once it does, it forms a bridgehead, a nifty mechanic that Ritchie likens to a hex within a hex. Bridgeheads, which can also be gained by inflicting a Panic or Retreat result on a defender, allow German and Allied units to coexist in a hex. Units in a bridgehead ignore Retreats and Panic, but can only attack or overrun units in the same hex. The bridgehead units even risk being put out of supply, should their bridge be destroyed by enemy bombing. It is a testament to Ritchie's design acumen that he is able to employ such a sophisticated mechanic, without straining or overburdening the basic framework of the game.
VitW incorporates a number of other interesting features as well. Stacking limits are in effect at all times. While this gives the German a feel for the problems of debouching through the Ardennes, it does lead to some oddities in retreat situations (i.e., watch unit stacking in the second line, or your front line troops die when they retreat). The rather abstract air rules include a number of nifty activities, including the less than Politically Correct Terror Bombing, which produces refugee counters. When Blitz capable mech units attack in conjunction with tactical air points, the result is properly devastating: a 2 column shift per air point, and a +2 die roll modifier. Ritchie also polishes the chrome with rules for paratroops, neutrals, Rommel's Ghost Division, Dunkerquian evacuations, and the "We'll Always Have Paris" rule for diehard Bourbons. Once past the tedious choreography of the historical scenarios, there is plenty of paté to sink your teeth into.
Most of the troublesome questions about the game which arise also relate to the Alternate Histories scenario. Why must the attacker commit HQ bonuses and Air Points for Ground Support before the defender? When the Allies have a piddling number of airframes, as in the historical scenarios, this is not that big a deal. But when playing with the Expanded French Air Force Rule, the Allies have the final say in some pretty heavy column shifting. The rules for Neutrals imply that Belgian units can start in Luxembourg when using free set-up, an historically dubious proposition that could have far reaching effects on play. In his Designer Notes, Ritchie frets that there are some combinations of Options which "utterly trash the game". A good candidate might be French Blitzkrieg, with increased AT and AA guns, rendering the French mechanized forces vastly superior to the panzer boys. Maybe we should call it The Ed Wimble Variant?
The game is a winner. The rules are quickly learned but will surprise you the more you play. And, providing you avoid the step-kick-turn of the historical scenarios, play is smooth, tense, and engrossing. VitW not only demonstrates what happened, but also provides insight into why, as well as what might have happened. And since the earliest days of wargaming, isn't that why we play these crazy things?
CAPSULE COMMENTS
Graphic Presentation: Despite a few gaffes, typical GMT: attractive, yet functional.
Playability: Familiar structure makes the game easy to get into. None-the-less, read the rules carefully, as there are some new wrinkles therein.
Replayability: Tons of options + tons of different defenses + tons of avenues of attack = Heavy Duty Replay Value.
Historicity: Right on the Money. But, please. How 'bout a Bibliography!! Whaddya think,we're not MAN enough to read those big, heavy, books fulla numbers 'n stuff? Huh? HUH?!!!
Creativity: One of the hobby's more creative minds at work.
Comparison: Dunnigan's France '40 had lots of options, but the game is passé today. GDW's Fall of France is Europa at its worst: the time scale is all wrong, and the effects of the blitz are crudely rendered. There have been several, interesting magazine games that are no longer around. Barring nostalgia, VitW is the only game in town.
Overall: If you want a good game with some clever twists, or you want to explore some historical "ifs", VitW/1940 is highly recommended.
from GMT Games
One 22" x 34" map, one 22" x 17" map; 720 counters; 5 player aid cards; 32 page rules booklet, Example of Play/Historical Commentary booklet, Designer's Notes booklet.
GMT Games, POB 1308, Hanford, CA, 93232; 1-800-523-6111. $35.
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 (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com