Two 22" x 33" maps, 1060 counters; Rules Book; Scenario Book; 5 Player-Aid folders; Boxed. AWE; in US, order from Boulder Games 1-800-299-6565 $34 It is one of the sadder facts of Wargaming Life that, today, much of the energy, enthusiasm, and creativity is emanating from western Europe, particularly France and Spain. (Well, "sad" if you're one of those "We're #1" jingoists, but disturbing nonetheless.) Not only are we seeing more interesting - and better - designs from such as SimTac, AWE and even Vae Victus magazine, but individual boxed games tend to sell more copies (relatively, if not absolutely) in France than they do in the entire USA. Something with which to conjure. While many of the French companies are happy with reworking previously designed US games, such as Barbe Noir from Descartes, or Oriflam's SPQR (just to name a few), the graphically splendiferous French company, Azure Wish Edition, has entered the market with a line of their own games (for the most part). They made quite a splash a couple of years back with Europa Universalis, a game so overwrought with detail that playing it was the cardboard version of untying the Gordian Knot. Still, it was quite an opening number. Since then, they've released three games (at least), all with an English language version, and all of which have covered subjects rarely covered here in the provinces. Certainly, two of the more important political and social events of the last 200+ years are the French and Russian Revolutions. Interestingly, and despite their inherent gameability, there has been little from the hobby on either of these two subjects. You surely can't say they're too obscure, especially when we see major efforts coming in on Eastfront battles that only three people ever heard of (two of whom speak only Latvian), the wonders of turn-of-the-century capitalism in northern Mexico, even such "who cares?" Victoriana as the First Afghan War. Well, the Paris-based AWE folks have set out to remedy that. Actually, they set out about 18 months ago, but sometimes these things don't filter down to us provincials as rapidly as we'd like. Probably the most successful of the bunch - the other two are La Revolution Français, a re-issue of La Patrie en Danger, and Hispania, or "Britannia takes an Iberian holiday" - is François Thomas' Rossyia, 1917 … and that despite the somewhat askew choice of title. The familiar blue AWE boxcover boldly states that this is a game of "la revolution Russe"; not so. The game starts in 1918, and it covers not the revolution, but the subsequent Civil War, which is a whole 'nother thing. (My French friends do insist that the word revolution" includes civil wars; then again, the French also insist Jerry Lewis is a genius … so where does that leave us?). Luckily, for both Thomas and, more importantly, you folks, the Civil War is a much better gaming subject than the actual revolution. However, don't let that, or the oft goofy, albeit understandable, English translation of the rules - units attached to General Wrangel are "Wranglers" - stop you from getting your local soviet together for some heavy gaming, because R-17 is one fun game. You get a lot of roar for your ruble in R-17, if alone from the package, even if it is not as spectacular as some of AWE's other games. The two maps are pleasing and readable, although identifying the rivers by name would have been a nice touch. They also use lightly-laminated heavy paper, which retains both glare and folds. At 25 miles per hex, it does manage to "leave out" some "fringe" areas to the east and north, something about which the purists may cavil; however, there being only 17 purists still extant, they won't create too much of a disturbance. The counters - also laminated - are likewise handsome and easy to read, using NATO iconography along with some pleasant color schemes. The various factions of Whites are color-"shaded" to both retain their white base while standing out from their oft-irascible brethren. I also note that the map uses light glazes of red and gray atop the base colors of the terrain, to delineate the power bases of each side. Interesting touch. However, while the play-aid folders are helpful (a larger font could have been chosen for the charts and tables), the rules book looks like it came from the Rwanda branch of Kinkos. Mine had 4 extra pages interspersed with the other pages, while several entire columns got reprinted a page or so later. That the translation is a bit crude doesn't help, either. However, don't let that scare you off; the game is not overly complex, even if every rule does seem to have some obscure exception, few of which are gathered together in a coherent listing. Keep a pad handy. While R-17 is easily, if somewhat lengthily, playable by two - or even one - it is best played by 3: one Bolshie, and two Whites (divided pretty much geographically, north/south). Each faction of Whites also includes a bunch of foreigners, whose entry is random and variable, from the Bessarabian-seeking Rumanians in the south, to the Baltic troika (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) in the north. The Reds have position and, eventually, lots more men. The Whites have better units and, at least initially and locally, the better numbers. It's downhill for them after that, though … or at least it should be, which is the game's sole drawback.… as we shall soon see. The system is accessible, although it takes a few turns of play to get the hang of what works best. Players alternate Military Phases, with each player moving the units of one HQ, followed by his opponent. This tends to give play an evocative, fractured approach, as there are about a dozen, separate armies running around at any given time, although the rules are totally opaque as to who gets to go when more than one player is on the same side. This appears to be the approach to the problem of how to handle the fact that the Whites fought among themselves as much as against the Reds, to their great, and everlasting, detriment. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. When it is his turn, a player first decides how much supply he has - the railroads, as they were historically, are all-important here - and how much he wants to allot to that turn's operations. Obviously, the more supply he uses, the more he can do. What he can do is move and fight. However, one of the interesting mechanics is how you fight. There are two combat segments: normal and reserve, the latter usable only when expending sufficient supply points. It is the use of the reserve Segment that provides the players with most of his tactical decisions. Units in Reserve may move and attack after all other movement/combat has been resolved. Because of the way the combat system works - many units with multiple step reduction and a seemingly forgiving CRT - this is about the only way one player can eliminate enemy units. And eliminating units is the name of the game. Intertwined with this are the somewhat unusual combat unit ratings. Most of the units are infantry and cavalry and, aside from having differing numbers of steps, they all contain one combat strength rating. Some, however, have an additional rating: Shock. Units without shock capability are cannon fodder material, as only units with Shock capability can effect the kinds of results that force an opponent to retreat. This is because the CRT results are treated differently for straight attacks as opposed to Shock attacks. Both sides have some pretty heavy dudes out there, but use of Shock capable troops does create problems. White losses do not return easily, and a Red Shock unit eliminated is gone forever … although, Lord knows, they sure have enough other units lying around, their major strength. Add to this the artillery units, which have some rather strong, if specific, capabilities. Not only do they double their combat strength (heavy artillery gets tripled) when attacking a city, but they get to double their shock value when doing so across a major river. I wish someone had explained the why of the latter, as it did raise some unanswered questions (and several defender complaints) during play. The result is that, for example, the Reds are really stretched to hold on to Rostov in the opening months of the game, especially when Denikine's Southern Whites, with 5 artillery units, team up with the Cossack Hetman in the Caucasus. A pleasant, secondary gaming result, is that combat in the open, steppe areas, is totally different in tactical approach. Thrown into all of this are the Political Chits, highly reminiscent of the method used by Ted Raicer in Great War in Europe. Each player has his own set of "Political Options", which he draws randomly each turn. Implementing what he has is his choice, which, again, creates a problem in multi-player games, as there are no instructions as to who gets to choose. The options, though, can be most powerful. The Whites get to bring in the Romanians, Finns, Poles, Turks, et al, all by chit. The Reds get stuff like World Revolution, allowing them to invade the Baltic states, a host of treaties that enable them to escape with their skin in bad situations, chits which force enemy withdrawals, allied mutinies, etc. In and of themselves, the events are fun; and they are certainly historical. However, several of them are far more than tangential, and, as a whole, the political events do tend to drive much of the game. Whether you consider this a Good Thing or a Bad Thing depends on why you play these things. Didn't bother us too much, except that we did note the very deus ex machina approach it created. What we also noted was how much fun we had playing R-17. Whatever its flaws - and, while it has very little errata, it does have some design problems, as we shall soon see - this is the type of game that draws players in. There is lots to do, the game situation changes with enough regularity to keep even the most put-upon player on his toes, and, once you have assimilated the rules, it moves along right smartly. Understand, that a full game of R-17 will not be completed in one (or even two) sittings, a function more of monthly turns covering 3+ years, but you will not be bored. And about how many games can you say that? Player Hindsight However, and as I've been hinting, despite all the fun, there is a problem: player hindsight. One of the - but not the only - reasons the Reds emerged victorious was that the various White armies, and their Allied supporters - how many Americans know that there was a sizable contingent of US soldiers fighting in this war? - spent as much time fighting among themselves as they did against the Bolshies. The result, historically, was that the Whites operated only fitfully, and in short spurts of energy, rarely, if ever, combining forces, and the Reds could, as a result, and because they were on interior lines, concentrate where needed. None of this applies in the game. Even with 3 or 4 White Players, they all know who the enemy is. (I don't care what the victory conditions say; this is a visceral reaction.) Of course, in the usual two-player version, the White army, while scattered over the endless countryside, has the remarkable ability to stretch the Redmen thinner than cheap cellophane. The result is that, without some sort of historical speed bump, the Whites simply punch huge holes in the undermanned Red defenses in 1918/early 1919. This means that the White Player can plan, something the Whites could never do in the real war. It also reduces the Bolshies to frantic reaction, and praying for some real help from the political events. Yes, he will get far more replacements than the Whites, but they may come far too late. When I played R-17 a second time, which I did solitaire (I totally randomized the political chits) what I did was to reduce the number of White armies that could operate in a given turn to a single 10-sided DR. As the Whites start with 8 separate HQ, this produced sufficient reduction in capability to make the game a bit more historical. Now, this means the White player has to decide who will go and who won't (I did it randomly), but that should make multi-player games a bit more heated … and fun. And Rossyïa, 1917 is a lot of fun. It's a great situation, with a host of variables, all under a system that, while not perfect, provides enough meat to keep the game moving along. As such, it is easily the most interesting game of the last six months. CAPSULE COMMENTS Graphic Presentation: Excellent, although the rules are sloppy. Playability: Very good, albeit long. Replayability: Could get formalized, as it lends itself to "Best Opening Move" thinking. Wristage: Nothing overwhelming Creativity: Good, with some nice mechanics. Historicity: The patina and tactical feel is excellent, but the ability of the Whites to operate coherently is a huge historical hole. Comparison: The only other game on this subject, Jim Dunnigan's Russian Civil War, was a mite too "generic" for my tastes. R-17 is certainly not generic, although it takes about 10 times longer to play. Overall: One of the better games of the past year. Not without flaws, but nothing that will stop you from having more fun than a whole steppe full of Soviets. Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. 2 #24 Table of Contents Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1996 by Richard Berg This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com