If there's one subject area which entices the largest number of Dice Potatoes, it is most assuredly The Eastern Front in WWII. Games on the subject abound; they also run a wide gamut of popularity and creativity, from the dreary wooziness of TSR's Barbarossa, through the butt-numbing detail of the "Europa" version, to what will now -- at least until the next one appears -- be the "Basic East Front" game, Ty Bomba's massive "issue" game for Command #27, Proud Monster. XTR should be given several rounds of plaudits for this one, if alone for taking a major marketing risk in publishing a "magazine" game -- sorry, Chris -- that is not that far, component-wise, from what GMT has in Caesar. Two full maps and 960 counters is almost a year's worth of issues … and the play value of the game, itself -- with some reservations -- is on the same level of worthiness. Perhaps the least felicitous aspect of PM -- say, if one plays this too long, does one get PMS, Proud Monster Syndrome? -- is the title, itself. The phrase, "Proud Monster", rates truly high on the Snicker Meter, as Scott Johnson has observed, rather visually herein. I'm informed Ty gleaned the title from a novel … one wonders what the novel was about. Graphically, the beast is crisp and professional, if not overly eye-catching. The Mark Simonitch map is, well, a Mark Simonitch map, virtually undetectable from any half dozen of his works without the game's title printed thereon. This is not, one hastens to say, A Bad Thing; it's just that one does hope for a little variety in life every once in a while. One does wish, though, that the terminology for the non-hexed areas of Western Europe would have matched that used in the rules; we spent far too much time trying to find exactly where -- and what a -- ZOMO was. For a few minutes we were convinced that ZOMO was actually a minor god from the "Ghostbusters" pantheon. The counters are utilitarian, with easy to read, NATO symbology. I think that, in terms of playability, travelling this familiar road was the best route to take. Eastfronters, unlike their counterparts from, say, the Classical or Napoleonic eras, have never been overly impressed by the visual aspect of their games. If they were, Europa would have disappeared a decade ago. And, as usual, the rules are presented in readable, findable format, reinforcing the XTR "trademark" of accessibility. In discussing Monster with several other gamers/industry people, I used the term "Important Game". Now, let's face it, none of this stuff is important in any way other than in providing entertainment (although the number of radio interviews Gene Billingsley has done lately, based on his Korea '95, may give lie to that proposition). However, for those of us who care, PM is an Important Game. It is a highly playable, enjoyable, fairly tense game on the first few months of the German invasion of the Soviet Union that, while managing to impart the feeling of massive manpower and effort, still can be played with relative ease and surprising rapidity (especially if your partner is playing the Southern Front like it was the Crimean War). That it is more a game than a simulation is simply to be aware of what XTR wants to do, and what its constituency wants. That PM is a mirror that reflects what happened, sometimes by twisting reality to some strange lengths, rather than a magnifying glass of introspection is to, once again, tread trepidatiously into the quicksand of Game vs Simulation. So why is it important? Because it gets people talking, and then it gets them playing. It's fun and it works; quite a few of us could care less about the rest. I, unfortunately (as XTR is sure to notice), do. I was somewhat reluctant to tackle PM as a review because WWII is not an area of expertise (to say the least), and I have long been an advocate of Design for Cause over Design for Effect. And there is plenty of the latter herein. PM uses an easily recognizable system, to which is added a few interesting filips. Essentially, it's Igo-Hugo, with Mobile Assault rules thrown into the movement section. Each turn consists of two rounds of this, with some air power thrown in for good measure. The German units are pretty big monsters: numbers like 14-12-12 for panzer divisions and 6-8-6 for the boys on foot are not unusual. Against this, Uncle Joe's men have … "?" units, hundreds of them, like six hundreds of them. This was the Panzergruppe Guderian rule adopted by XTR for When Tigers Fight that proved so popular and worked so well for the Chinese. Here it works somewhat less well, in game terms, although it does tend to reflect the total lack of certainty about the Red Army in the opening weeks of the war. You see, what happens is that, except in rare - very rare - instances, it matters little what the strength of Soviet units is, until you get to the latter stages of the game, by which time you've pretty much flipped every one over to its revealed side. The reason is twofold: one, German strength is so overwhelming they simply blow away most Russians regardless of how strong they are; and secondly, the important "strength" a unit has in combat is really not its Strength Points, but in how many steps it can absorb before it gets removed. While this is a nicely elegant reflection of the reality that size often has little to do with effectiveness, in play terms it means that, with virtually all of the Russians having only one step, their Pile 'o Dead becomes rather large, rather fast. The end result is realistic, but why do you need "?" units to do this, given the minimal amount of tension it provides? Play actually proceeds along historical lines, with the terrain and the German objectives pretty much channeling the attacks. This is one of the features of Barbarossa games that I have found to be a drawback, more than anything else. There is a sameness to what is going on, a mindset that emphasizes the puzzle-solving aspect of simulation gaming, with little left over for exploration. Then again, this doesn't seem to have upset too many gamers over the last 40 years, and it surely won't here. I do note that the German objectives change each turn, in that each turn he has to get more points to win than the previous turn. Other than that it makes for some interesting -- and, as a positive note, very aggressive -- play by both players, I'm somewhat at a loss as to the "historical reasoning" behind such a mechanic. Yes, it does reflect that the campaign became tougher and tougher for the Germans as it stretched on. On the other hand, does anyone realistically think that Stalin et amis would have rolled over if Hitler had taken a handful of western Russian cities by July? History says otherwise; just ask Napoleon. PM has a rather nice supply rule which lets the German Player make a rather important strategic decision. There is a line on the map beyond which German supply is rather problematical. However, if the German player slows down his pace and doesn't attack for a few turns he can ignore that line. The reverse side of the coin is that such delay allows the Soviets to regroup, and given that the Ruskies get some 100+ units on turn three/late July (the Manpower Manna from Heaven Turn for the Reds), this can be a rather tricky, and interesting, decision. However, while this aspect of Supply is rather evocative, supply, as a whole, brings into focus what I feel to be the major question concerning the game's system: Zones of Control … or, rather, lack thereof. XTR, and Chris Perello, have soliloquized most enthusiastically over the To ZOC or Not To ZOC question, coming down fairly strongly, if not unequivocably, on the side of No ZOC is Best. Many of their arguments are most cogent, and I am not so foolish to believe, as do some, that XTR totally abjures ZOC's. However, they have done so in PM. There are no ZOC's; units control the destiny only of the space they inhabit. To venture "next door" is to evoke visions of "Ees no my job!" To some extent, particularly in implanting a "cannon fodder" mentality in the mind of the Soviet player, this works well. Not so, however, with the telling aspect of supply, where the non-use of ZOC's is Design for Effect at the Nadir of its Rationality. This was brought home most stridently when the German Player, in what was admittedly somewhat of an unusual geographic circimstance, traced a Line of Supply past seven straight hexes full of Soviet armor and mech units … 150 miles of running the gauntlet of modern-day, fairly mobile units. To say that units would not even slow down to proceed cautiously under such circumstances is to sweep a whole lot of stuff under Playability's rug. We also had several instances of almost-pocketed Soviet rifle divisions tracing supply right under the noses of several panzer divisions. I'm sorry, I just don't buy either the rule or the rationalization, whatever it may be. It completely ignores what the simulation meaning of a ZOC is. Even more so, when you note that the ensuing Command issue-game, Like Lions They Fought (reviewed herein), uses fairly rigid ZOC's for a British army that had the mobility of a ten ton statue, it is difficult to see what rationale can be brought to bear, other than simply to state, " … the game was more fun that way." That I'll buy; everything else is pure Moose Mush. That bit of philosophy have been disposed of, The Bottom Line is that this is a good game. It's only play drawback is that it takes a bit of time to set up, and, once played, careful sorting and packaging of the counters is a sine qua non. But it does deliver on XTR's promise of providing a good, competition-oriented get-together. That it doesn't aspire to being much more is something the potential buyer should consider in terms of his/her personal tastes. Within those parameters, it is a product of which XTR, and Ty, can be justly Proud. CAPSULE COMMENTS Graphic Presentation: Yeomanlike and emminently usable. Playability: Very high. Despite long set-up time and large numbers of counters, game moves along right smartly. Should work reasonably well solitaire, too. Replayability: For Eastfronters, extremely high. For the rest of us, depends on how much you like puzzle-solving aspects of gaming. Wristage: Given the number of combat resolutions per turn, not too bad. Creativity: Nothing special; you've seen it all before. In delivering what some gamers want, most creative. Historicity: More fun than insightful, with the non-ZOC's and supply raising more than a few eyebrows. All works out in the wash, as often occurs when you Design for Effect. Comparisons: Hooh boy, a roomful of pretenders and defenders, many of them Dead Meat by this time. Certainly one of the better games in this rather wide field. Overall: This is going to be a very popular game, and rightfully so. from XTR and Command Two 22" x 33" maps; 960 counters; rules book; Chart cards. Command #27 magazine game, XTR, POB 4017, San Luis Obispo CA 93403. c.$30 Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 14 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