One 17" x 22" map; 140 counters; 8-page rules/scenario book; boxed. Avalanche Press, Ltd., P.O. Box 4775, Virginia Beach, VA 23454. $29?? It's not often that a wargame reminds me of chess as much as Brian Knipple's Operation Cannibal , Avalanche's game about the logistics-oriented campaign run by British Commonwealth forces against the Japanese in western Burma in WWII. As one "on-liner" described its entry in a WWII atlas, first there is a British arrow moving north to south down the peninsula, followed by a Japanese arrow moving south to north, throwing the Brits back behind their start line. The first chess-like impression arises from the fact there are not a lot of words in the rules, but they are sure full of ideas. The play is driven by Avalanche's signature chit-pull system, with the number of chits placed in the cup each turn determined by a weather die roll (which could give you a monsoon and no activity at all that turn). Chits come in four varieties, each of which determines your level of activity. The trick is that you never get to put all your chits in the cup, and, of course, the Japanese player has an advantage in the number of chits he may place there. Add to the mix mechanics for artillery, road construction, fort construction, the use of boats, jungle-capable units (most of the Japanese but only one Commonwealth unit), supply lines and logistics constraints, and Commonwealth amphibious capabilities, and you have lots to think about. Then, as in chess, there are only a few units in play, so each unit becomes important enough so that you think twice about risking it. In addition, many units have special capabilities which you have to learn to exploit to the fullest. Engineers are critical to both sides: the Commonwealth engineers build the roads that allow the Brits to advance down the peninsula; the Japanese engineers build the forts that can allow the outnumbered defenders to halt the drive just short of its objectives. The Brits have a tank unit which can provide some limited combat help before it breaks down. HQ are essential for tracing supply, a particular problem for the Commonwealth forces, whose supply lines are essentially road bound. And of course, there are the jungle capable units, who may infiltrate and otherwise use the large amounts of jungle terrain to their advantage. That brings me to the third similarity, the small playing surface. The playing area covers roughly half the already small mapboard, the remainder being taken up with well designed charts and tables. And a good two-thirds of what map there is is covered with jungle, which severely retards movement and creates a serious problem for the British on the left flank of their advance down the coast. The similarity to chess is a two-edged sword for Cannibal. When I played serious chess, I was a slasher, a proponent of the old school of attack and counterattack. But Cannibal shows a decidedly more modern take on the game. It is positional chess, requiring care, patience and precise play. One badly positioned unit, one plan not thought out far enough in advance, can cost you the game. It also results in long struggles, as each player seeks to accumulate small advantages. There are a total of 54 game turns - each representing 3 days - in the campaign game. Like positional chess, it can take a long time to finish a game of Cannibal. In the end, and as has become a habit with me of late, I started out hating the game when I first played it solitaire, but still curious enough to think there must be something more to it. Playing against an opponent, my old nemesis, Ed "The Attacker" McGrady, I discovered more of its charms. It is nicely crafted, has many interesting ideas, and can be a welcome change of pace from head-banging monsters. However, Cannibal is really not my cup of tea, I fear, despite its interesting bits. Too slow, too deliberate for me. But, if you like logistics-oriented campaigns, you might find this fun. CAPSULE COMMENTS Graphic Presentation: Nice. Good use of color. Playability: Very good, perhaps a little more challenging than its size might indicate. Replayability: Solitaire very low. But against different opponents, probably okay. Wristage: Not much. Creativity: Lots of interesting ideas. Historicity: Beats me. Does Errol Flynn's "Burma Road" count as archival research? Comparison: The only "opposition", GDW's old Operation: Burma, is beyond memory. Overall: Definitely not for panzer pushers. For logistics buffs, challenging. Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. 2 #26 Table of Contents Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1998 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