Three 22"x34" maps and one 17"x22" map, 840 counters, 17 Play Aid and Scenario Charts, 2 Rules Books. Boxed; $55. For many wargamers, any new Eastfront/WWII game is worth buying and playing. And that is probably a good thing for GMT, since an early version of Vance von Borries' Blitzkrieg in the South was published just a few years ago by 3W. BitS was based not only on the same topic as Barbarossa: Army Group South, but it also used the same basic system. 3W is defunct, and the gap in quality between BitS and B:AGS is a testament to why GMT is still in business (well, sort of) and why 3W is not. B:AGS is essentially a two player game on the German invasion of Russia in 1941. The game features the southern theater, and the map covers the area of operations for Germany's southern army. The Rumanian army is also included, and the play area extends from the initial border to Odessa in the south and Kiev in the north. Unlike Army Groups North and Center, Army Group South was probably under strength for the mission it was assigned. The Russians had so many more tank divisions that it is a wonder the Germans ever broke out of the frontier. This feature makes B:AGS a good, balanced first choice for the series of Eastfront games that started with Typhoon! Every wargame designer, at some point early in the design process, must decide on a time and unit scale. This decision is usually driven by the realities of publication. But practical requirements do not save the designer from having to decide on a scale that allows for an interesting and historically meaningful action-reaction flow of play. Since paper on table wargames require that one side move while the other sits and watches (regardless of the sequence of play, at some level play is always sequential), it is therefore important that a game allows for players to make meaningful moves while restricting players from doing too much without giving the other side a chance to respond. Zones of Control are integral to this problem. In traditional ZOC games, like The Russian Campaign, players stack units in every other hex, using the "grain" and their ZOCs to hold a rigid line. In other games, most notably those from XTR and The Gamers, the nearly complete lack of ZOC rules means that players will spread their units more thinly, hex by hex, in order to hold a line. For B:AGS, von Borries decided upon 2 day turns, mostly divisional units and a map scale of 5 miles per hex. The result is a game that plays a little more slowly, some might say sluggishly, than your "average" Eastfronter. Another carefully considered item that characterizes Von Borries' technical approach is the stacking rule. The stacking limit is 10 points in most terrain, where German infantry divisions are worth 6, and their panzer divisions are worth 8. The Russians, meanwhile, are more variable and generally smaller, with their divisions ranging from 4 to 6 points. The difference is not subtle; generally the Russians will be able to stack two divisions per hex, while the Germans will usually be able to fit one full division per hex. I have some reservations about the turn scale. If I had designed this game, I would probably have chosen 3 or 4 day turns to relieve the players from having to micro-manage every move, and to allow for more exciting play within each turn and to shorten the length of campaign play. That choice surely would have created other problems, especially in allowing players too much freedom of movement before the other player reacts (the reaction phase would be very different under a 4 day scale). Given von Borries' experience with the system, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that this option had been playtested and discarded. The ZOC rules fall in the middle ground: they are not overly sticky or restrictive, but they do stop movement, block supply, and to some extent, force attacks. The combination of scale, stacking and ZOC rules create a carefully structured design. All of these elements reflect a great deal of consideration by the designer, not to mention the number of iterations the system has undergone (Mr. Von Borries also designed, in addition to this series, a host of North Africa games using essentially the same system). The most significant twist of Vance's system is the "asymmetric" sequence of play. The Germans get a standard move-fight-mechanized move while the Russians are stuck with a mechanized move-fight-move. Just before both combat phases there is a reaction phase, but it is limited. Both sides are limited to 1/2 movement in the mechanized phases and reaction phases; furthermore, reaction can only be made in response to declared attacks and the Russians require an operational HQ. This halving makes B:AGS play rather differently from other games. The mechanized movement phase is more like a glorified advance after combat (for the Germans) than it is a full-blown second movement phase. This, coupled with the combat system, determines the speed and flow of the German attack, while the sequence of play prevents any massive Russian counterattacks. The combat system is standard, featuring the usual array of odds computations and terrain modifiers. The combat results are mostly step losses and retreats. There are asterisked results which, depending on a variety of circumstances, may mandate an armor loss or simply an additional step loss. The combat table essentially provides a sliding attrition scale, the better your odds and modifiers, the less likely you are to take a loss, and the more likely the opposite will happen to the other guy. Surprising Result The result of all this is somewhat surprising, even for the veteran gamer. Units move relatively slowly across the map (due to the time scale), and have some difficulty engaging in combat (due to sticky ZOCs). Both sides get to add in air, artillery, and, possibly, special orders (no retreat). Infiltration movement (from one ZOC to another) is a capability given to only certain German mechanized/motorized units, and for the Russians, only a few pathetic bicycle units. This largely prevents the standard wargame tactic of "oozing" and makes attacks more difficult to pull off. Couple this with the stacking rules, and you usually get attacks pitting 2 German divisions, plus a few independent battalions, against 1 or 2 Russian divisions. The usual wargame tactic of piling up high odds attacks (we all know those players who draw a magic line on their favorite CRT and refuse to attack at any lower odds) occurs very infrequently in B:AGS and the result is, turn by turn, a lot of heavily attritional combat. Breakthroughs, when they occur, will be limited by the one-half movement restriction in the mechanized movement phase (for the Germans) and by various combinations of enemy units and ZOCs, terrain and weather. (This is Russia folks, so the mud may linger.) The real beauty of B:AGS is not found in the subtleties of turn by turn movement and combat. Those systems work extremely well, but as in most detailed games, they become tedious after awhile. What is most interesting then, is the larger flow of the campaign game play. Players have to implement their plans, incorporating necessary attack supply, managing their attritional losses, and manipulating the map situation in order to meet their victory conditions, which lay largely in points for cities and optional reinforcements. Supply is especially critical for the Germans, who have limited rail repair assets and, as they travel east, less and less supply. The result is that players spend most of their time contemplating the grand strategy, a high and rare gaming compliment these days. The system is detailed and yet nicely uncluttered, enough so that players spend a lot of time formulating and re-formulating strategic approaches. For the Germans, this usually means deciding on axes of advance, which will almost always be funneled along the major road networks, allocating air and supply assets, and generally deciding how hard to push and how many losses to take. The Russians must decide when and where to stand and fight, how best to avoid encirclements, and when to counter-attack. The Russians are neither strong enough, nor flexible enough, to mount any seriously harmful offensives. However, they are blessed with a number of high attack factor tank units that can really "lay a helmet" on a careless German player. The game has additional, interesting features, including variable reinforcements, very simple overrun rules (minimum odds required), two complete sets of air rules (one moderately complex, the other quite simple), a host of special units and functions, including engineers, armored trains, bridging units, rail repair units and the like. For the most part, both sides' OOBs contain only major combat units. The exceptions are, for the Germans, a host of independent assault gun and tank battalions and army support troops. The Russians get a variety of NKVD units, border guards, independent infantry and tank brigades and HQs. The Russians are also blessed with a relative abundance of replacements, fieldworks and fortifications. Surrounded Russian units may surrender, depending on how far removed they are from the front lines. For someone who gets a little crotchety at the sight of an entire counter sheet of construction engineer companies, B:AGS has just the right mix of historical detail and playability. In style, the graphic look of B:AGS is very GMTish. The Rodger MacGowan box art, Joe Youst map graphics and counter art should be familiar to GMT game owners. However, the overall standard seems to have been raised several notches, and this is no small compliment considering that game art has always been one of GMT's strengths. B:AGS also comes with an amazingly huge array of player aid and setup cards, all in the usual GMT style. One minor grievance I have is that there is only one copy of the major game tables, and it is printed on gray stock that also features gray shading, and many tables are shrunk to improbably small sizes. All of this is a little difficult to read, and worse, downright impossible to photocopy. Finally, unless your eyes are made of entirely different stuff than mine, it is often difficult to distinguish between swamp and marsh hexes, and minor roads often disappear momentarily in the mix. Otherwise, the maps are aesthetically and functionally very well done. The time and effort that went into the production and development of B:AGS reveals a degree of professionalism that is rare in our hobby. The development is outstanding; players will appreciate the many small improvements that Tony Curtis made since Typhoon!, especially in the overrun rules and in the Soviet headquarters rules (yes, a Typhoon! refit kit is available). I cannot think of a recent game that I would recommend more highly than B:AGS. Despite its complexity, B:AGS is, ultimately, a player's game, and a highly realistic one at that. CAPSULE COMMENTS Graphic Presentation: Exceeds usual hobby standards by leaps and bounds. The charts need rethinking. Playability:As good as can be expected for such a big, long game. Replayability: This is a game that deserves to played over and over, depending on what sort of life you lead. Creativity: Like most von Borries games, an amalgam of proven mechanics to which he has added an inventive sequence of play. Historicity: Extremely high in detail, although I have a minor quibble with the combat system, which favors attrition and makes breakthroughs and encirclements difficult. Wristage: Low Comparisons: Much more playable than the Winter Storm series, and also much better than its systemic evil twin, Spires of the Kremlin. This is certainly a different approach than that taken by The Gamers' "OCS"; players who dislike that game will probably find what they are looking for with B:AGS. Players who like OCS will definitely find GMT's game a very enjoyable change of pace. Overall: A real gem, a delight to play and discuss, and definitely one that I'll go back to. Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. 2 #27 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