Two 22" 33" maps; 400 counters; 6 Player Aid Charts; Rules Book. Boxed, from GMT Games; 1-800-623-3111. $39
Ed. Note: The following manuscript was found pinned to the somewhat decomposed body of a white male, age approximately 30, found floating in the Bronx River. Clutched in his left hand were two dice; in his right hand was a note, of which only the last few words were legible: "Thanks, bro. Your friend. Ty."
Those of you who spend time browsing the BROG folder on AoL know that I'm not generally a fan of critics, GMT games, Richard Berg designs, or even BROG itself. However, at least for the first category, I can be bought by a free game [Ed. To paraphrase Lenny Bruce, Ted, we've established what you are; we're just haggling about the price], so I now find myself writing a review in BROG of a Berg design published by GMT.
Now there may be some amongst you naive enough to believe RHB was showing courage in tossing his latest African Epic, Battle for North Africa, into my cage. But, of course, Richard is in a No-Lose situation. If I hate the game, it's just Ted being Ted. On the other hand, if I love the game...well, never mind the other hand, since, for me, BNA is another in a long series of Berg/GMT disappointments.
I suspect most BROG readers are Berg buyers, and, rest assured, if your idea of gaming heaven is being stranded on an island with The Master's oeuvre, BNA is one more you'll want to toss into the lifeboat. On the other hand if, like me, Berg's games remind you of Steven King's last dozen books, good ideas in desperate need of an editor - [Ed. Being a generally evil editor type, I allowed Ted's misplaced modifier to remain intact; then again, maybe Ted does liken himself to the last dozen King books.] - BNA won't change your mind. As in most of Richard's work there are some wonderful things in BNA. But there is also a lot of grit in the tank treads, and, after a few hours of playing, I realized I had broken down in the desert, with neither Bogart nor von Stroheim in sight. I thought perhaps the counter labeled "Desert Rat" would be of some help. Upon closer inspection, however, it proved to be a counter for none other than the designer … and rather over-rated at that. How nice of Richard to give us a counter for himself while leaving out 4 Activation Markers. I felt better placing him underneath the treads of one of those Italian Light Tank units.
Covering up for those missing AM is handled in the errata. So how much errata is there in BNA? The name "Tobruk" is left off the map - no doubt it is floating in some alternate universe, along with the missing "Chateau Thiery" from both (my own) 1914 and Great War in the East games - a couple of counters are misprinted, and there are three pages of rules omissions, set-up misprints, etc. While it's enough to send some players, and Mike Bennighof (but not me), to their local pharmacy for some anti-apoplexy pills, they are not enough to keep anyone from playing the game.
The counters are standard GMT: nice but very busy. They come in two sizes: large for divisions, HQs, regiments and brigades; small for assets (artillery, anti-tank, and recce). While this makes the two types easy to distinguish, it makes them bloody hard to stack. Organization cards are provided to alleviate this problem. Though, ostensibly, the Gameplayers series (of which BNA is the second, after Glory) is meant to emphasize playability, the organization cards and the two maps laid end to end (some 5 feet in length) mean BNA takes up the room of your average monster. So, if space is an issue, accessibility becomes relative. There are two one-map scenarios.
Speaking of maps, BNA's, though generally attractive, are not up to Joe Youst's best work. Beyond minor annoyances (the two maps overlap in a way that slightly covers up either the Resource Point Track or the Turn Record Track) the important desert tracks (the kind you run tank units instead of markers across) are very hard to read. With polls showing our hobby aging, eyestrain is something we don't need. Then again, those suckers were hard to find in the actual desert, so maybe it is Reality overcoming (Visual) Perception.
BNA begins with an Introduction which explains, "In the Gameplayers series, the emphasis is on accessibility and playability...Given a choice between playability and historicity, we have tended to err on the side of the former." Putting aside the dubious proposition that playability and historicity are incompatible (what Berg calls historicity I would call "detail"), this is a neat preemptive strike against any complaints concerning the game's simulation value. But if Berg's "process" flank is covered, his "effects" flank remains vulnerable, and indeed my complaints are less about BNA as a simulation than as a game. [Ed. Ted is right; I did mean "detail".]
The system itself uses Richard's now familiar Activation Markers. Activation Markers must be purchased with Resource Points, and, after the player currently holding the Initiative chooses the chit he wants to play first, the others are randomly drawn from a cup. Now this is a neat idea which, in theory, allows you to model both the chaotic mobility of battles like Crusader, and the logistical problems of the desert campaigns simply and easily. In fact, here is where that "Stephen King Syndrome" comes into play. Richard can't help mucking up elegant design mechanics with dirt… petty "little" rules that add little to play, are hard to remember, and keep you returning to the rulebook time and again. It seems that RHB's favorite words are "however," "but," and "exception."
For starters, there are several different types of activation: Primary, Secondary, Independent, Combined, and Reserve. All use basically the same mechanics, with just enough differences to make it to easy confuse them. And, although the latter rules are basically exceptions to the mechanics of Primary Activation, they all have their own further exceptions embedded within them.
Now part of the problem may be simply excessive love of numerological reference. Rule 4.45 for example, is a genre classic. In a single four sentence paragraph there are references to rules 4.44, 4.52, 6.14, 4.41, 4.12, and 9.24, ending with, "However, see 9.53."
But the real problem seems to be that Berg can't shake the need for process (detail), regardless of what rule 1.0 says. While the Activation/Resource Point system rids the game of the need to shuffle supply counters, the Line of Communication rules insist that you remember that infantry trace 5 movement points to a road/track, while motorized units trace 10 MPs, but with no more than 12 hexes along the road between friendly villages, the entire LOC being no more than 55 hexes long. In what should be a pretty straightforward rule, the player now has to remember 5 and 10 movement points, and 12 and 55 hexes. Not to mention the rule that prevents the British from moving past Mersa Brega in 1941. [Ed. Don't blame me; blame the British Home Office.]
Now each of these rules undoubtedly has its reasons (the 55 hex limit is clearly intended to make the Axis take Tobruk before visiting the Pyramids), but elegant it ain't. And there are many other examples of this kind of design dirt. A single unit may never activate more than 3 times in a turn, while the Long Range Desert Group is limited to two activations. Units never have to attack, except for the single attack allowed during Secondary. Isolated units have their Combat Strength, Artillery, and Armor points halved, rounding down to a minimum of 1 for Combat Strength, except Artillery and Armor points, which round to zero. Stacking limits are different for different terrain. The limits imposed are 3, 7, or 10 stacking points. If you simply must have 3 levels of stacking, why not 3, 6, and 9!
The combat system is another example of doing less with more. There are relative armor, artillery, and (optionally) air points, which are used to provide die roll modifiers. Armor points, for example, may give a maximum modifier of plus or minus 2, except, of course, when the maximum allowed is plus or minus one. There are many different combat results, allowing Berg to distinguish between plain old advances, more serious advances (with further combat) and counterattacks. All of which is a lot of tactical detail for a game whose scale is really operational and strategic.
Now Richard will probably respond that this level of process teaches you about the relative merits of armor, air, anti-tank, and artillery in desert warfare. But, even if you didn't already know these things (and most BNA players probably know more about North Africa at this point than Rommel did [Ed. … or I do, to be sure]) whatever lessons it teaches are surely absorbed after the first 20 or so combats. But you still have to continue to go through each calculation for each combat for the rest of the game, and every game played after that. Is it hard? No. But it takes time, nowadays a wargamer's most precious resource, and gives little back in return. [Ed. I'm trying very hard to understand the gist of the complaint here ….]
Now, all you BROGnards who recite OCS rules in your sleep and play campaigns of 3DoG between rounds of Europa, will no doubt find my complaints nit-picking at best. To you, BNA will present few problems, and it should provide enough action and history to keep you smiling. The basic system is sound, there is a nice Random Events optional rule, there are a number of scenarios, the errata is available, and GMT will no doubt print up the missing counters.
But, for those whose minds rebel at having to remember numbers seemingly picked at random and who don't want to devote a weekend to a campaign you can play several other versions of in a day, BNA will be just another Near Miss.
CAPSULE COMMENTS
Graphic Presentation: Good, even with those fade-out tracks.
Playability: Easy to use, but just enough grit in the machine to be annoying.
Replayability: If you like it the first time, you'll want to play it again. Just don't ask me to join you.
Creativity: Variations on a Berg Theme.
Historicity: The 1940 campaign game is likely to unfurl somewhat ahistorically, because the DAK arrives even if Mussolini is grooming his white horse outside Alexandria… a problem endemic to most designs at this level. Starting with Rommel's arrival, though, things develop as expected … although you won't really learn anything new. Some people have complained about the cohesion ratings of the South Africans: should the '4' be a '5'?, etc. If that sort of thing bothers you, get a life.
Wristage: About the usual.
Comparisons: A lot to choose from here, very little of it bad, as North Africa is a hard situation to completely muck up. I still prefer The Gamers' Afrika.
Overall: Like Rommel, Richard has fallen short of reaching the Promised Land.
Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. 2 #25 Table of Contents
Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1997 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