Arctic Storm by DAVID RITCHIE from GMT Games A Winter War by GARY STAGLIANO from GR/D In late November, 1939, Stalin, after failing to talk the government of Finland into forking over half their country, sent his army in to "complete the negotiations". It looked easy - half a million troops, 200 tanks and 2000 pieces of artillery against 140,000 Finnish infantry - and it probably should have been. The Finns, however, combined their ability to withdraw-and-confound with the Soviets' disastrous lack of winter-fighting expertise, to produce some startling Finnish victories. Despite horrendous losses, though, the Russians simply regrouped and retrained and, in February, launched an attrition-oriented massive assault that simply bled the Finns dry. By March, 1940, they were forced to surrender, ceding much land to the Soviets and catching the Western allies still "discussing" the problem. Gaming a situation which includes initiative, courage and gross stupidity, all in large quantities, is always risky. That the Russo-Finnish war is such a difficult subject can be seen from the fact that, since S&T's almost ancient Winter War - a highly popular game in its day - no one has attempted anything further… until now. While A Winter War is aimed at the Europa crowd, although it is playable alone, Arctic Storm is a stand-alone item that uses random events and the type of unit differentiation the Europa system does not allow. Neither version succeeds completely, but AS does a better job with the war, itself, while AWW is one of the best additions to the "Europa" set. Both games have uniformly excellent components, with AS's bordering on great. The GMT/Simonitch map is a beauty, with the rough, forested and ice-covered Finnish landscape evocative and easily distinguishable. What isn't easy to distinguish are the hex numbers, which are hidden almost as well as the ski battalions. There are also lots of charts and play aids placed strategically. The AWW map is more muted and a bit smaller, including somewhat less area (16 m/p/hex, against AS's 24 m/p/hex). It is all map, though; no charts, etc. And its hex numbers, too, are hard to read, making set-up a real pain. As an aside, I note that most of the terrain goes unused (and, perhaps, realistically so), with the largest concentration of units - by far - coming in the Karelian Isthmus (the famous Mannerheim Line), across from Leningrad. AS's scale makes counter crush a game event, a problem AWW's corps-level units relieve, but only somewhat. The counters are nice in both games, with those in AWW sporting the familiar "Europa" look. AWW's units are divisions, with some regiments, and lots of air and naval guys. The added unit types provide much variety, within the "Europa" scheme of things, although they do not exactly fit the winter war situation. You do get counters and OoB's for units from Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. AS's counters are "prettier", and they represents Soviet divisions and regiments, with the Finns ranging from division all the way down to battalion. The latter is a major AS advantage, as it allows the Finns to cover more territory while giving them a few more play options. No naval or air counters, though. As to their accuracy, neither designer listed sources so it's tough to tell. There are some interesting differences, though. For example, AWW says that the 24th, 40th, 70th and 100th Soviet divisions were their best; AS gives them ratings from 5-8-3 to 6-9-3, and leaves out the 40th entirely. The best AS Soviet division is the awesome, 7-10-3 54th, which AWW gives the stamp of mediocrity. And so on, although not disturbingly so. If this type of design question intrigues you, drop a line to the companies/designers, ask for their sources and makes your choices. An amazing fact. The clear, readable AS rules book produced not one pre-play question!, and very few during. That, my friends, is exceptional. (Ed. Must have been the developer.) The two play-aid charts, though, are flimsy and differ in some information from the rules. But, overall, rate this one excellent … with a big thank-you for the historical commentary and design notes. AWW's book isn't quite as clear in some areas - mostly the "Europa"-based air system - but it is still far better than most. It also includes a separate OoB booklet and a TON of charts, all thick and well-printed. This plethora of charts can be a pain getting used to, but "Europ-eans" will have a dearth of trouble with them. Above all, both of these games extremely well-produced games are complete and instantly playable, with straight-forward rules. Both use a similar sequence: supply check, Soviet move/fight, followed by Finn move/fight. AS, however, adds a Random Event phase at the start, and throws in Soviet armored exploitation and Finnish reaction, the latter allowing those valuable ski troops to plug some of those holes. These additions are a good way to highlight the better Finnish leadership and initiative, something the generic, Europa-frozen sequence can't handle as well. Movement is familiar, although, because it uses one week turns, AS's units tend to crawl, with the ski units getting the terrain breaks. This allows them to stay just out of range, which, for most of the country, is an acceptable, albeit "cowardly", strategy. AWW uses two-week turns, with accompanying larger movement allowances. Both games have the usual weather rules which slow movement up north to a (frozen) snail's pace; historical and realistic, but plodding. However, AWW does not give the Finns a major movement advantage; just more ski units. This results in tremendously different play strategies between the two games. AS also has the advantage of a rule which I feel should be standard: units cannot enter an enemy city - and each city has an inherent defense strength - except as a result of combat. Great rule! AWW counter-punches with its Stacking rules, using stacking limits as a "training" indicator. As the game progresses, and Soviet training becomes more effective, Soviets can increase stacking. This is a painless and effective way to show this often ignored facet of warfare. Outstanding! Combat is odds/ratio in both games, but there the comparison stops. AS modifies the basic odds with leadership, air points, armor, surprise and terrain. The player rolls two 10-siders if supplied, only one if not, with the better results in the higher numbers, to be sure. Those results are numbers that can be taken as step losses or retreat hexes, although certain bold-face numbers require at least one step loss, a requirement the Soviets apply to all results for the first four turns, a good way to simulate the rigidity of early Soviet doctrine. This system results in such war-realistic results as having two Soviet divisions attack a Finnish ski battalion, obtaining a 1/1 result, seeing half a Soviet division disappear as the Finns retreat into the woods. 9,000 men lost to push 600 skiers a few miles back. Given the war's almost unbelievable 10-1, Soviet-to-Finn, casualty rate, this type of results hits the target dead on. The Soviet Player must keep his eye on the prize, ignoring, for the most part, early heavy losses. AWW's combat system still uses a single, six-sided die, for resolution, with modifications for terrain, winterization, Finnish woodsmanship, and armor (optional). Results are basic, Europa-mandated retreats, eliminations and exchanges. Not much variety, and, with the game having "larger" Finnish units, combat is far more deadly to them than in AS. Another system problem is the Europa Overrun rule. Remember that Soviet 10-1 attack thwarted by the canny, heroic Finnish ski battalion, above? Well, he, and two more of his friends (remember, AWW uses regiments), is Stahlandskian history in AWW, with the Soviets steamrollering on. This is a major difference in system approach, and an equally major difference in effective (or non-) simulation. AWW is stuck with that generic, Europa-style combat system that hamstrings much of what Europa intends to simulate. What works in the Russian steppes is not what's going to do it in the Finnish lake region … or the North African desert, for that matter. Anybody interested in supply? Well, you ought to be, as it had a major effect on the war, as both games relate. AS uses their Finnish leaders and Soviet HQ's as channel-like funnellers of supply, which - and much like The gamers' Stalingrad Pocket - makes those Soviet HQ's nice, juicy targets for the mobile Finns. AS designer, Dave Ritchie (remember him from the old SPI, and TSR/SPI days? risen from the dead, as it were) also throws in rule which severely penalizes the Soviets for being surrounded: "motti". Motti is the Finnish term (and the game actually has a brief, but interesting list of Finnish words!!) for those isolated pockets of Russkies they just loved to annihilate. As with combat, AWW supply is more generic and, as the results of lack thereof are only halving of movement/combat capabilities, cutting supply is a much more effective strategy in AS. Then again, the AWW air system is far more detailed and mission-rich than the planeless, pretty one-sided version espoused by AS. Both games use lots of special rules to provide flavor, most of which are mentioned above. Both games also have a "naval" section, with AWW's sporting Europa-level, individual ship detail. AS has only a Soviet amphibious assault rule, although use of such can create havoc behind Finnish lines. Overall, AS is more successful at using the special rules to capture the feel of the situation, especially with its Random Events and first-two-turn surprise rules. AWW is, again, somewhat straight-jacketed by its Europa-system approach, and, for some reason, the designer chose to ignore the Russian surprise attack by allowing Finnish ski units an even greater chance of retreating the first two turns. As for winning the game, both use the Soviet land gains minus casualties approach, and, while there are some differences, they are minor. Both fit the situation well. Interestingly, and in a very large sense, both games play about the same. Both systems allow the player to realize that the "best"way to get the job done is - you guessed it - the same way it was tried historically: right through the Karelian Traffic Jam. Just about everything else is a side show. In AS, though, that side show has some bite. The smaller Finnish battalions provide more frontier coverage and, with the Soviet's historical set-up, a couple of nasty options, including an ability to cut-off some Russian supply sources! Given AWW's unit size limits and victory conditions, this "counter-invasion" strategy is not viable. As for the Karelian Isthmus, both games simulate the fighting there pretty well: straight-ahead stack bashing.The attrition-style CRT in AS makes the "Karelian Bash" a long-term affair, with both sides being worn down. Soviet HQ's, and early air points combined with armor and surprise bonuses, give them a leg up … but losses will still be Big. The limited CRT in AWW makes for more of am all-or-nothing affair; one Ex or DR could easily force the Finns to counterattack or have their line ruptured. The Europa CRT is most unrewarding to low-odds attacks. It is obvious from all of the above that I feel Arctic Storm does a better job in simulating the Winter War than does A Winter War. This is to be expected, though, as Mr Ritchie was focusing only on that, while Mr. Stagliano has all of Europe on his mind. AWW still has some excellent aspects, but the Europa-standard unit size just doesn't allow for that David-Goliath feeling the early part of the war evoked.AS's use of varying unit sizes allows the Finns far more options, as well as simulating the grotesque differences in casualties between combatants. Depressingly, neither game is a lot of fun to replay. The lack of major strategic options for either side hurts, and it makes each game pretty much the same. There are variables, to be sure, and there is always the "solve-the-puzzle" aspect, but the situation is still not that engrossing. If a good simulation of the Russo-Finnish War is what you want, Arctic Storm gives it to you in a very nice, tight package. If all of this is just a sideshow - translated: if you are a Europa fan - AWW will be an excellent, and welcomed, addition to your larder. CAPSULE COMMENTS Graphic Presentation: Both games excellent; AS's map is beautiful. Playability: Very good for both. Readable, tight rules; outstanding work here. Playing time runs a long evening, and solitaire playability is high. Replayability: Somewhat better for AS, because it has more variables, but the overall situation deadens desire here for both games. Historicity: Both credible, but AS's attention to specific details gives it the nod over AWW's Europa-induced generic approach. Comparisons: Read the review. Both far better than the old SPI Winter War. Overall: Arctic Storm is an excellent simulation, combining high-level production with an interesting system. A Winter War is solid, but will see more use as a Europa extender. Congratulations to both GMT and GR/D for top-level production. AS: 22"x34" map; 200 counters; Rules Book; Player Aid Chart; 2 10-sided dice; boxed. GMT, 310 West Lacey, Hanford CA 93230. $23. WW: 22"x34" map; 200 counters; Rules Book; Player Aid Chart; 2 10-sided dice; boxed. GMT, 310 West Lacey, Hanford CA 93230. $23. Back to Berg's Review of Games Vol. II # 7 Table of Contents Back to Berg's Review of Games List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1992 by Richard Berg This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com