In the 30-plus years of commercial wargaming, few designers have shown more ingenuity than John Prados. Although Prados certainly lacks the tunnel vision of say, Danny Parker, he has done his fair share of WWII European Theater games, from Third Reich, Prados' magnum opus, to the S&T game, Monty's D-Day, a design which shone brightly despite the ever-present, baleful eye of publisher TSR. Perhaps most interesting was the versatility John showed with Spies!. An intriguing effort, the design attempted a playable game on the espionage aspects so crucial to the years immediately preceding WWII. Most remarkable about Spies! was its minimalist rules book, which, combined with the Risk-like graphics, gave the game a Milton Bradley look which predated Axis & Allies by four years. That the design contained some surprising play-balance flaws could be overlooked because of the multi-player aspects, along with the brisk level of play. Despite its success, the potentially fertile field of "the war of secrecy" lay fallow. Prados has now decided to combine the seemingly disparate styles of Spies! and Monty's D-Day into a new game. Bodyguard/Overlord simulates the Allies’ deception about where the D-Day landings would take place. A fascinating concept, it is mildly surprising that it hasn't been tried before, and doubly so that it is a new company, Spearhead Games, who first puts their toes into the water. It's certainly hard to argue with the supporting cast. Fledgling Publisher, John Vanore, has been around as a reviewer and game developer since the early days of F&M. The development team was headed by Peter Perla, author of “The Art of Wargaming” … and all-around great wargame kinda guy. The Graphic Team is something else, though. The first hint that all is not well in D-Day land is the map. Quite frankly, Kevin Zucker's map should convince even his most ardent fans that he should go back to designing Napoleonic games. After all, this is the man who gave us the map for House of Sa’ud, one of the legendarily loopy visual disasters of wargaming. The counters are functional, fairly typical WWII stuff. The laminated cards are neat, but the agent on the back looks as though someone should upgrade their Mac to something with a bit more color. The rules are also typical WWII, and therein lies part of the problem. Overlord is not your standard wargame; it might actually appeal to a broader, cross-over audience. So why are the rules so stiff? More than one passage, if taken literally, can lead to problems from the start of the game...and rules lawyer will have a field day worthy of the best posturing of the venerable Monty himself. Nowhere is there an example of play, for which I would have gladly traded the entire Study Folder. Designer's Notes are fine, and when used properly, can illustrate the designer's intentions. But instead of thoughtful, spare notes throughout the text (as in, say, a Jon Southard game), we get seven pages of history followed by the Development team slapping each other on the back. Now, this is all pretty tastefully done and can be defended as a new company trying to reach out to its audience. Still, the best advertisement is a good, clear, enjoyable product, and, for most gamers, Overlord will be a frustrating experience. After setting up the initial forces (somewhat of a chore because of the surprisingly vague rules), players will eventually find that Overlord has fairly simple mechanics. The Allied player chooses which month he will invade in, and then determines code phrases for both Partisan activity to increase and for the actual invasion. A chit-pull system is used, wherein the German player may discover the Allied plan by picking the proper markers. A typical turn consists of the Allied player moving units to port in preparation for the invasion, flying recon missions, and raising Cain with partisans. The German counters by moving agents and repositioning forces on the continent to meet the inevitable assault. Both players draw Intelligence Cards, which have a variety of effects on agents, troops and partisans, including handing the German player the game (by telling him the Invasion site, provided he has penetrated England). Prados makes good use of that old Dunnigan standby, dummy markers, with everything moved face-down, properly confusing the enemy. Reconnaissance becomes crucial, as it should be, with agents, partisans, and aircraft running around the board to grab as much info on enemy positions as possible. Remember how in Third Reich, only the Germans had submarines, and only the Allies had bombers? In Overlord, only the Germans have Agents, while only the Allies have Partisans and Planes. Must be some sort of Prados Giveth and Prados Taketh Away syndrome. On the surface, this seems fine, except that the German agents are fairly easily turned to the Allied side whenever they try to penetrate into England or North Africa. The Germans have limited opportunities to attack the partisans… and no air units at all. While D-Day could never have happened without massive Allied air superiority, it seems hard to believe that the Germans had no air recon ability, especially once the Allies were ashore on the continent. The argument is easily made that these abstractions are there to effect a friendlier, quicker game. Once learned, the play is brisk indeed. But one has the uneasy feeling that the game almost plays itself, despite the cloak-and-dagger trappings it wears so proudly. I never got the visceral thrill from turning an agent in Overlord that I did from sanctioning a spy in Spies! or by a crucial low-odds attack barely succeeding in Monty's D-Day. Perhaps the biggest disappointment is that the combat system is so bland as to offend the palate of even the most eclectic of gamers. Once the Allies are ashore, one turn will end the game, with either the invaders thrust back into the sea or the Reich faced with imminent doom. With any recon, there is really no suspense, since all combat comes down to whoever is bigger, winning. All that odds matter for is figuring losses. Without so much as a die-roll, even the most casual of gamers will wonder what effect they have, and, ultimately, what is the point? I welcome new and different combat systems, such as in Mark Herman's We the People, but Overlord's left me cold. This is a real shame, because Overlord does some things very well. The deception routine is elegantly handled through the chit system, and the Intelligence Cards do offer some uncertainty. But the victory conditions are inherently wasted, because of the overly simplistic combat system, and the rules are confusing both for the veteran and novice gamer. Bodyguard/Overlord ends up as a great idea for a game which somehow lacks that essential spark. CAPSULE COMMENTS: Graphic Presentation: Serviceable but decidedly bland. Playability: Easy, but curiously confusing in spots. Replayability: Depends on how much you like the system Wristage: Not that much Creativity: Nice ideas, but unchanneled. It doesn’t lack Creativity; it lacks Zip. Historicity: Pretty good Comparison: Not as good as Spies, but probably better than stuff like Twilight Wars. Overall: It’s all in place, but it doesn’t come together. Bland. from SPEARHEAD GAMES 22” x 33’ map, 300 counters, 36 Espionage/Event Cards, 2 Player Aid Cards, 1 Rules Book, 1 Study Folder; boxed. Spearhead Games, Burke, VA. c.$35 Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 15 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