One of the biggest complaints gamers seem to have concerns what we loosely call "errata". To that end, several companies have been pushing their games as "errata-free", perceiving that to be the ultimate selling tool. That leads one to the conclusion that games with errata are received poorly, are quickly tossed aside, and never get anywhere. Hogwash. (We'd use a stronger expletive, but we're trying to corral the family crowd these days.) Most designers (and companies) know that any new system, especially one that attempts to examine a given area in some detail, will rarely get it right the first time out. (Cf. such system-oriented series as ASL, GBACW, GBoH, La Bataille, et al.) Too many variables, far too little opportunity to discover them … until the public gets ahold of it. Yes, companies could hold back designs until they ferreted out every blip on the screen. However, by the time they got to that level, they'd be out of business. And, the reality is, they don't have to do this, because the public, if they perceive the innate value and fun-level of a system, will gladly wait while the designers work out the kinks. And nowhere is that more evident than with the remarkable successful TCS games from Dean Essig and The Gamers. The Tactical Combat Series is a WWII tactical system, featuring battalion through division sized battles, highlighted by a system of written orders. The series name is actually something of a misnomer; the scale and focus of the battles offered to date have more of a grand tactical, or even a low-level operational, feel. On a turn-by-turn basis players must think tactically. But to win the game, they must think like division commanders. There have been nine TCS games to date, including the latest entry, GD '41, which features, for the second time in the series, the Grossdeutchland motorized infantry regiment in action. The series' rules, at least those common to each game, cover the basics of command, movement, fire and morale. Each game comes with special rules that cover what is unique to the situation presented. Except for Omaha (which, with its four maps, is the largest game in the series and has a variety of special amphibious invasion rules), those special rules are mercifully brief. With battles covered in the series ranging from The Bulge (Bloody 110), to Germany in 1944 (Objective: Schmidt), to Normandy (Omaha), to France in 1940 (GD '40), to the Pacific (Matanikau), to the Mediterranean (Leros, Hunters from the Sky), and to Russia (Black Wednesday, GD '41), the relative brevity of the game rules is a strong testament to the soundness of the basic system. However, that basic system has undergone quite a few revisions. The first edition, which appeared with Bloody 110, was, frankly, a real mess. Choppy editing, poor organization, and pages and pages of fire and artillery tables made Bloody 110 appear to be a very eclectic and dead-end design. The second game, Objective: Schmidt, came with second edition series rules which, while not representing major changes from the first, were much "cleaner" than the first edition. The system was now more comprehensible, even if the mechanics remained cumbersome. Still, the game was fun to play and gave a refreshingly new take on small unit actions. Then, with Matanikau, came the third edition rules. Version 3.0 completely (and with many prayers of thanks from the series adherents) overhauled and simplified the artillery system. Finally, with Hunters from the Sky, came Version 3.1, the same rules which appear in each of the last four games (Hunters, Leros, Black Wednesday, GD '41) along with promises from the Gamers that they will not change from here on out. This version of the rules is excellent; if you have any interest in tactical World War Two games and have not given TCS a look, 3.1 is an open invitation. The sequence of play in 3.1 is rather simple and consists of joint phases. Both players perform together, in order, the Command, Aircraft, Action and Clean-up phases. In the Command phase players roll for implementation of orders, write new orders and sometimes check for variable reinforcements or random events. In the Aircraft phase both players check for availability of aircraft and then execute air attacks. In the Action phase, a die is rolled to see who goes first, and that player moves and fires his units and launches artillery barrages in any order he pleases. The first player's actions may trigger "overwatch" fires. Then the second player moves and fires. During the clean-up phase players remove and adjust markers. The Action phases are the heart of the game, especially since artillery, which in previous editions had its own phase, now fires here. As they stand now, the artillery rules are amazingly easy to implement. There is no plotting and only two tables to consult. The player simply identifies his firing battery, deducts ammo, and rolls 2d6 on a spotting table that takes into consideration range (from the spotter to the target) and nationality. The Americans have the best row on the table, and the Russians hold down the worst. While there are a few die-hards that prefer the older (and rather convolutedly endless) artillery rules and its "effective fire sheaves," I think the new rules are much more playable, and with no historical sacrifice. The Command rules - The Gamers' somewhat infamous signature mechanic: Written Orders - have undergone the fewest changes, mostly because they are actually quite simple. Units can only act when they have orders to do so. Players use the operation sheets that come with each game to show where their forces (usually one battalion per op sheet) will move or attack. Once orders are written, they must be implemented by rolling 2d6 on the "command prep" table, which cross references each side's command prep rating with the size of the unit and the type of order issued. As the turns go by, the chances of implementation rise. Thus the side with the better command prep ratings gets their orders implemented faster (on average). These rules very elegantly (and with very little work) show how smaller, better trained units can operate against, and out-maneuver, larger, clumsier forces. Essentially, the command rules force each player to deal with a lag between decision and action: units without orders can do very little. For those of you turned off by the orders system, Hunters from the Sky is the game where units do not require orders to operate. Another strength of the TCS system is the way in which it handles the "simultaneity" problem. At some point, every tactical game must deal with the problem of simultaneous movement and fire. The move-fight sequences common to operational and strategic games don't work in tactical games. Ever since Panzerblitz was diagnosed with a severe case of "Panzerbush" (the habit of friendly units jumping from woods to woods without the opponent being able to fire at themin between), tactical game designers have sought out various methods for simulating simultaneous action. Squad Leader introduced the defensive fire phase, and ASL introduced residual firepower and machine guns with rate of fire capabilities. Panzer Leader introduced opportunity fire. GDW's Sands of War and Blood and Thunder used systems similar to PB/PL, but they also introduced command and the "firing position" requirement for opportunity fire. For the TCS, Dean Essig has devised an ingenious system of "overwatch" firing. Any moving vehicle in LOS, any moving infantry unit in LOS and within 3 hexes of a spotting unit, any road moving infantry unit, and most firing units "trigger" an overwatch fire. There are two overwatch sub-sequences, both of which are limited to one exchange (preventing infinite overwatch loops). If I move, one stack of your eligible units may fire overwatch and then one stack of my eligible units may fire in return (but only at your firing stack). "Eligible" here means basically units that aren't "suppressed" or "fired" marked. Fire combat has two basic results, step losses (a full platoon of infantry has 5 steps) and morale check. Possible moral results are suppressed, paralyzed and "save yourself retreats." If I fire as part of an SFA (Suppressive Fire Action, basically the equivalent to ASL's prep fire), you may fire one stack in return at any of my firers. In the earlier rules editions, the overwatch triggers had many iterations. The latest overwatch rules, like most of the other sub-systems, are much cleaner and (dare I say it) more realistic. The result of all of this is really quite elegant. With very simple and understandable rules, the game has a very accurate and simultaneous feel. Even better is that these simpler rules create no loopholes. There are no tricks for avoiding overwatch fires or sneaking up on an enemy location. Units tend to square off in bloody exchanges of fire; when you order a battalion into action, it will take losses. The fire table allows for step losses (which can never be recovered) even with very poor shots. Even seemingly easy maneuvers can, and will, draw fire. In fact, that is the net effect of the overwatch system: units that sit tend to be ignored by the other side, while units that are on the move, or have their guns blazing, tend to draw attention to themselves. A very realistic (and bloody) feel for this level of tactical combat. The series also has lots of tanks and guns, too; counters represent individual tanks, anti-tank guns and infantry guns. They each have a separate fire table that has kill numbers listed for various ranges and gun/armor differentials. Version 3.1 introduced some chrome into the armor, including "buttoning up," but in, general, the armor system, while accurate and smooth, is a little bland compared to ASL. But at this scale (125 yards per hex, 20 minutes per turn), the bread and butter armor system presented in TCS makes more sense than the avalanche-of-modifiers approach in ASL. The TCS inevitably invites comparisons to ASL. TCS has many advantages. The maps are historical, and the full game scenarios represent a significant 1 to 4 day action rather than single 30 minute fire-fights. You can also play and enjoy any one TCS game without having to buy any of the others. The attritional area fire table in TCS also encourages players to save their troops (morale declines as losses mount) rather than run them, willy nilly, at objective hexes on turn 8 or 10. In short, players of TCS can manage and view an entire battle. ASL is more detailed, especially in the armor game, and lends itself more to factor counting wargamers. It also does seem that TCS players tend to move and fight more intuitively, whereas ASL players tend to move more analytically (they are usually armed with those percentage tables printed in some old General). Each of you will no doubt judge for yourself which is better suited to your tastes, but I encourage ASL-ers to give TCS a try. My most recent run-thru of the TCS was with the early start of the campaign game for GD '41. I had the Germans attempt to flank the initial Russian mine line by attacking the 201 para battalion, which was defending the Russian left. Using two battalions gave me access to six mortars and so I laid down a heavy smoke line to guard my approach. But upon closing with the enemy I got hit by a murderous battalion strength artillery barrage. Eventually the 201 paras took heavy losses and withdrew. So the Russian flank was turned but two German infantry battalions had bloody noses. While they regroup for their next attack on point 231, the Russians are busy trying to implement orders to defend the hill. Among the lessons I learned this time out are (1) never take Russian artillery lightly (sure, it's clumsy, but when it hits you don't want to be all bunched up) and (2) how difficult it is to withdraw. Fully half of the Russian losses occurred after I decided to give up the defense and pull back. Each time I play TCS I seem to come away with new lessons, and that is very satisfying. The clean movement and combat mechanics allow for careful consideration of position and moves without having to worry about rules weirdness. If the TCS has any problem it is definitely in the area of "wristage." There is a ton of die rolling going on. Every area fire requires two dice and may generate a morale roll (two more) and/or a loss roll and then potentially an overwatch triggered fire. Artillery fires can require up to 7 area fires per battery (or 19 per battalion), plus the spotting and accuracy dice that precede the fire resolution. When two battalions are squaring off, the game can really slow down during fire resolution and unit marking. Fortunately, the system is "clean" enough so that individual fires are resolved quickly. And, aside from the fact that no one has yet to come up with a mechanic for resolving combat at this level of design, what exactly is so bad about rolling dice? For many gamers, it's the most exercise they get all month. TCS is an excellent game system that provides many insights into WWII tactical combat. More so than any other tactical game I have played (including ASL), the TCS demands realistic appraisal and execution from its players. There is no fancy rules lawyering, loophole inspired tactics, scenario balancing, or other gamey tricks. What you get with TCS is just straight up tactical combat, operational goals, outstanding graphical quality, and clean rules. The bullets and flak fly fast in TCS, and careless players will see their troops whittled to the bone. Despite its length and "wristage," the TCS is an exciting lap ahead of its competition, a testament to its original system and its designer's commitment to ensure its viability. CAPSULE COMMENTS Graphic Presentation: A major strongpoint now. Playability: Full games are long, longer, longest, but there are short scenarios for the faint of heart. Replayability: Except for the length, excellent. The command system makes you want to try new approaches. Wristage. High Historicity: Another major strongpoint. Creativity: Excellent, especially the command and overwatch rules. Comparisons: A full TCS game gives more satisfaction than the scenario driven ASL, which tends to be won or lost on a few turn 10 die rolls. TCS is more accurate and fun than the misguided (and now dead in the water) Sands of War/Blood and Thunder. Overall: The closest thing to - and certainly better than - really being there. 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