Original Design:
Yom Kippur by Al Sandrick and Dean Essig
Crisis: Sinai by John Prados, with Kevin Boylan and Gene Billingsley
It seems to be a Great Truth of Life that famous people die in threes and game companies publish games on unusual topics in twos. Having not seen a game on the Arab-Israeli War of 1973 in almost a decade, and with a rather brittle peace trying to worm its way into a millennium of hate, we now see two games on the war at once, sort of like one of those Wrigley’s gum commercials.
For me, it was a welcome arrival, as Middle East military history has always been a favored subject of mine. My first two designs covered this war and the ‘67 war. Hence, it was with some interest that I opened the first BROG-sent box, although I needed a crowbar to do so. Seems that Mr. Berg cheaped out, cramming Yom Kippur into a box probably meant for Gumpian chocolates … demonstrating, once again , his ability to get 2 pounds of game design into a 1 pound bag. Sinai was packed somewhat more felicitously, perhaps owing to its more serious nature.
This simulation double-header is a rare opportunity to examine two different approaches to the same situation, The Gamers have opted for their Standard Combat Series approach for Yom Kippur: a balance of low complexity, high graphics and enough history to let you know where you are, while GMT has chosen to have Sinai follow in their modern-war “Crisis” series, a system that examines the nuts-and-bolts of operational warfare. So, the subject matter is exactly the same - the maps can almost, but not quite, be overlaid; the level of approach is what differentiates the two. In essence, it’s a direct confrontation between Design for Effect and Design for Cause. Luckily for everyone out there, they both come out winners.
One of the key criteria to any game on the ‘73 war is its ability to portray how the Russian-equipped Egyptians were able to neutralize the Israeli army’s centers of gravity: their air and armor components. Historically this was done with advanced Surface to Air missiles (SA-6’s primarily), and Anti Tank Guided Missiles (the Sagger AT-2 with RPG-7 ambush teams).
Yom Kippur, wherein Al Sandrick uses Dean Essig’s basic, and highly popular, SCS system, handles these factor, cleanly, with two mechanics. At the beginning of the game the Egyptian player (and to a lesser extent the Israelis) deploys SAM units, which have a range of 12 hexes. Israeli air units may not fly within range of a SAM unless it has passed into the SAM Zone Box through a SAM Suppression procedure. Israeli air units that were used for SAM Suppression augmentation are unavailable, whereas air units that make it into the SAM Zone Box can attack anywhere on the map. This is Design for Effect at its best, handling this critical dynamic neatly, and with aplomb. What you don’t get, though, is a sense of the extraordinary air losses the Israelis took on the first days of the war… but that’s what’s usually lost with design for effect mechanics.
With the Israeli air force thusly “SAMstrung”, the Egyptian player makes his critical first turn: the all important Canal crossing. Again, we have another situation well handled, with the subtleties imbedded in the design. The sequence of play uses a variant of the Panzergruppe Guderian move and exploitation design which is still the sine qua non for twentieth century armor games. The turn moves along quickly and doesn’t bog down in what could be a procedure-intensive game turn. I found the level of decisions and the game mechanics to flow in a comprehensive and smooth manner.
Having crossed the canal, the Egyptian army now brings us to the other critical dimension; the all important Sagger-versus-armor interaction. The Yom Kippur mechanic is simple, whereby any time during the first 3 game turns that a pure Israeli armor unit is involved in combat with an Egyptian infantry unit there are special star (*) results that inflict an additional step of armor loss. This nicely simulates the inadvisability of making armor charges, à la Pickett, against Sagger armed infantry. The only problem I had with this rule is that it expires at the conclusion of game turn 3. The Israeli player, using perfect hindsight, will avoid armor attacks on Egyptian infantry for those game turns and obviate the historical dilemma which the mechanic is intended to impose. I chose to use a house rule here, whereby the effect lasted until the Israeli’s had taken 4 armor step losses from this type of interaction. The Israeli’s only discovered their vulnerability to Saggers through practical experience, which the house rule is intended to simulate. I don’t know if 4 steps is the right amount, since the scale of an Israeli armor step is unspecified, but the amount seemed to play about right. Overall I think the mechanic is well done, but it’s too easily sidestepped in the game’s current configuration.
In the area of historical research, and despite its insistence on (relative) simplicity, Yom Kippur has no need to atone. The order of battle appears to be about right, no mean feat as the Israelis have never really published exactly what their order of battle was. The Egyptian order of battle, about which there is less controversy, also appears to be on the mark. If I have one quibble it is that the terrain on the map appears to be a tad more open than I remember. One of the features of this area is that the sand dunes severely limited off-road movement. During the first days of the war this made it possible for the Israelis to hold the line with limited forces, since a tank company could block a route of advance with little worry about its flanks. Early in my Defense consulting career I worked on an assignment where I did an analysis based on the U.S. military survey team reports on how every tank in the war was destroyed. The road-bound nature of the Sinai, except near the canal, was quickly driven home. The map captures most of this, but the Israeli player could be surprised by early aggressive Egyptian play, especially in the Southern sector, based on the design’s terrain interpretation and his limited force mix.
Another area that Yom Kippur handles well is the use of Egyptian reserves, a factor that could have significantly affected the conflict’s outcome. Historically the Egyptians were partly surprised by their own success and became cautious, until Syrian pressure forced their hand. The game handles this with large armor contingents in the Egyptian Exploitation and GHQ reserves. The Exploitation reserves are released on a die roll (9 or better), whereas the GHQ reserves are let loose when the Israeli’s cross the canal. These two factors tend to force the game into its historical path, while playing without these restrictions should expand the games replayability. In my second playing of YK, using more aggressive (non-historical) play, the game showed itself to be a tense contest. There is also a nice Cease Fire mechanic, with potential Superpower intervention, that makes the conclusion of the game unpredictable … always a big plus. Regardless of all of this, the Egyptians need to hit hard and early if they are to win this game, either historically or ahistorically.
Overall, Yom Kippur is certainly a “tribune” for the House of Design for Effect. The design allows the players to experience two very differently organized armies and how these asymmetries interacted on the ‘73 battlefield. It is a game whose system and excellent graphics keep saying “play me”, and you won’t be disappointed when you do.
You get somewhat the same feel with the equally excellent, albeit different, visual look of John Prados’s Crisis: Sinai, although the counters have a somewhat spare look most unusual in modern games, mostly because of a dearth of numerical information … also unusual in modern games.
I first saw Sinai back in the late 80’s, when it crossed my desk at Victory Games. The design and historical content were good, but we turned it down because I felt that the market wasn’t looking for a game on the October War. Eight years or so later it seems that both The Gamers and GMT feel the time is right; one only hopes that sales back that view. The game I saw back then was the modern equivalent of Prados’ excellent Panzerkrieg (OSG). Like a symphony where the main melody is often re-introduced as a haunting theme, GMT’s Crisis: Sinai possesses a few elements of that original design, but great improvements have been made, mostly through the overlaying of Billingsley’s air system combined with heavy developmental work by Kevin Boylan in up-dating the mechanics.
The game uses a 4km map scale, which I think is an optimal one for modern games, where direct fire combat is subsumed within the ZOC rules. The map is an excellent piece of cartographic analysis and a useful aid to understanding much of what happened, even without playing the game. It becomes quickly evident that terrain usage is channeled because of the ubiquitous sand dunes and other rough terrain, Sinai desert features, features that dominated most of the key maneuvers during the campaign. You get to discover how terrain enabled small Israeli forces to stop Egyptian maneuvers once they moved outside of their SAM umbrella. When compared to the map in Yom Kippur, you can quickly perceive the greater attention to detail.
The main difference between the two designs is obviously the level of simulation. Whereas Yom Kippur is meant to be played, Sinai is more designed to provide insight. Sinai uses vastly more detailed procedures to simulate how the Russian equipped Egyptians were able to neutralize the Israeli army’s air and armor components. Thus, whereas Yom Kippur is an excellent example of design for effect, Crisis: Sinai is the corollary for Design for Cause.
Sinai captures the defensive use of Sagger armed infantry through an Anti-Tank fire step within the Ground Combat procedure. It is here that Sagger fire slices and dices the Israeli armor steps, unless they have been properly supported by combined arms and suppressive fires. It is here that the intricacies of why you should use combined arms are revealed. The Israeli player will find himself very short of mechanized infantry throughout the game, but never more than when confronting a powerful Egyptian infantry unit on the defensive. The game gets even higher marks for its treatment of Egyptian commando RPG-7 units. This is an area that has been glossed over in all previous designs on this topic. In Crisis: Sinai the use of elegant ZOC and ambush rules gives this dimension of the war adequate coverage for the first time.
On the other hand, there is an annoying historical rule which prevents the Egyptian forces from moving more than 5 hexes from the canal until a long list of conditions are met, and, even then, little is allowed before the 11th of October. This rule jerryrigs the Egyptian player into restricted behavior consistent with the war, but I personally find this type of rule grating. I suggest that this rule be treated as optional, a position which GMT endorses.
One of the big differences between the two games occurs in the air. Whereas the air game in Yom Kippur is handled as an elegant mechanic, in Crisis: Sinai you get a full blown air war. Plagiarizing from itself, GMT has found a new home for its Korea ‘95 air module, wherein a whole host of operational air decisions are presented to the player. If I have one complaint, it’s that this excellent air system has been used now in two simulations where the outcome is rarely in doubt. The amount of effort required to discover that all those SAMs are a problem and the Egyptian air force isn’t that dangerous is way out of line with the end result. It’s like playing a 13-game series to discover that the Cleveland Indians are better than the Yonkers Hoot Owls. Hopefully this excellent air system will someday find a situation where either side can prevail.
Parenthetically, we do note that in Yom Kippur the SAM batteries could be re-deployed to the east side of the canal, something that historically did not happen. In Crisis: Sinai this option is not available, as the historical sites for the missile batteries are printed on the map. The result is historical, but the ability to ‘what if’ the movement of the mobile SA-6 batteries to the east bank in a more offensive posture is not available.
Crisis: Sinai does an excellent job of educating the player on why things happened the way they did. It accurately illustrates the asymmetries between the two armies and fully meets my evaluation criteria on what a game on this subject must accomplish. This strength is also its weakness. John Prados, a designer who does best when accompanied by a strong developmental team, people who will apply Occam’s Developmental Razor to the worst of John’s usual pedantic excesses, is well-served here. But, still, this is a game where Detail is the Pharaoh. The game’s strong historicity shows through at every turn, throwing its weight around like the proverbial china-shop bull. And Sinai is most definitely not for those gamers looking for an out-of-the-box afternoon of dicing and slicing. This is a game aimed mostly at those who have been enjoying Dean Essig’s OCS system games.
Personally, I like this type of game because it teaches history, which is why I got involved in this hobby in the first place. Although a Campaign game is available, the majority of gamers will find themselves gravitating to the five small, but playable, scenarios that cover all the key phases of the war.
If you like your modern games meaty and accurate, if you want to dig into “why” things occurred, then Crisis: Sinai is for you. If you like two swill some beer while munching on that knish and getting the historical big picture at the same time, then give Yom Kippur a whirl. Either way, you won’t be disappointed. Shalom.
CAPSULE COMMENTS:
Graphic Presentation: Excellent, clear and concise for both. YK a bit more sizzle, but Sinai is the steak.
Playability: Much better for Yom Kippur, which is designed to along smartly. With Sinai, you learn a lot, but you pay a price in time. YK also better in the solitaire department.
Replayability: Fair for both, the historical situation, not the design is the limiting factor here. I played it through twice and found that I had mined the game for most of what I was going to get from an historical viewpoint.
Creativity: Both Good, YK for its ability to simplify without losing flavor, Sinai for its interesting anti-armor combat rules, especially the Commandos, and the use of the Korea ‘95 air system.
Historicity: This is where Sinai wins, hands down, although YK has nothing to be ashamed of.
Wristage: More in Sinai, but not overwhelmingly so.
Comparisons: If you are looking to play out the war in a long afternoon then Yom Kippur is the way to go. If you want historicity and a game that teaches you why and are willing to invest the time, then Crisis: Sinai is your ticket. Previous entries, such as SPI’s Sinai which suffered from its lack of historical perspective (too near the event) and Bar Lev, both versions, which suffered from mechanical problems in its artillery tables, are no longer viable.
Overall: Both highly recommend, depending on what you want of the wargaming.
from GMT Games
22" x 34" map; 720 die cut counters; Rules and Play Book; 7 Chart, Table and Display cards; 5 Scenario Set-up cards; GMT Games, PO Box 1308, Hanford, CA 93232. $39
Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 18 Table of Contents
Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1994 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