Avalon Hill is sold out of Anzio, and will make no more.

Almost from the start, there was talk that the game was a commercial failure, and its discontinuance should not come as a surprise.

Why Did Anzio Fail?

Probably most wargamers could be broadly divided into two groups: Those who stress realism, and those to whom playability is paramount. I do not believe either group is "right," just as I disagree with those who argue the superiority of Diplomacy, or miniatures, vis-a-vis board wargames. It's a question of individual taste and preference. Surely there is room for all.

The "realist," if we may call him that (some would say he is anything but!), enjoys the experience of reliving history through a game, or at least the illusion of doing so. He wants everything to be "just right." Geographical errors bother him (many have pointed out the inaccuracies of the Afrika Korps map, for example). An inaccurate OOB is a source of annoyance. Complex and extensive rules are tolerable, even welcome, if they seem to add realism. He likes big maps, and a potentially long game.

The "player" on the other hand, is more interested in a manageable, enjoyable, game, wh;ch can be learned in a few hours, and played in the same. This is not to say that mastery of the game results from such a small expenditure of time. Chess, presuming one excludes checkers, is probably the most playable, and least realistic, wargame, but its complexity is legendary, its study the work of a life-time. I recall a headline from the New York Times chess section: "Bobby Fischer never fails to astound. " Few wargames retain unplumbed novelties after extended play, although in my opinion Anzio is one such.

Of course, no wargamer, almost by definition, is entirely in one camp or another. My descriptions are stereotypes. Without some interest ingeography, and/or military history, few people would retain their interest in the hobby. On the other hand, sheer lack of time is a sharp constraint on even the most fanatic realist, that, and the lack of suitable opponents! I savor the recollection of a 26-hour marathon Anzio session, my victory snatched on the last turn made all the sweeter by the reality of "battle fatigue," but few are the opponents who would make such an ordeal possible, or the wives who would permit it!

So, some might say that Anzio failed because Avalon Hill misjudged the balance between realism and playability desired by the average player. It seems to me more complex than that.

But first, let's consider the game itself

Our hobby has changed considerably since 1969, in great part due to the prolific creativity of Jim Dunnigan and his associates and emulators. His group has been responsible for the greater part of the game explosion of the last few years, the tempo of which they seem bent on increasing even more. But thinking back to 1969, perhaps the single most popular topic among wargamers was variants, with "perfect plans" a close second. There were only a handful of really popular games, all analyzed ad infinitum. To what end? To add realism, mostly.

The Germans in Stalingrad couldn't begin to do what the real Germans did. The solution: All sorts of variants designed to add realism. Even most of the schemes to even the play-balance through seemingly unrealistic rules, like reducing Russian replacements, sought a goal true to history: Give the Axis a chance to come as close to winning as they really did in 1941-2.

The OOB in Bulge was partly inaccurate, so improve it, refine it, make it more true to history. The same was done for Afrika Korps, etc. , and is still being attempted.

This would make an article in itself, but I doubt if anyone familiar with the hobby magazines of that era would dispute the point.

So Avalon Hill can be forgiven if they presumed that what was wanted was more realism: A really accurate map with all important terrain features, a comprehensive and historically true OOB, and complete rules simulating most important aspects ofthe campaign involved. I think that even the many wargamers who either dislike or are indifferent to Anzio would concur that they succeeded to an unprecedented degree.

To me, the proof of this has always been the lack of variants to Anzio, since in the past, neither complexity nor unpopularity kept any game from generating at least a few. Unlike Afrika Korps, Stalingrad, or even Anzio's also-complex predecessor, 1914, it's all there, with little room for change, at least as far as adding realism goes, although there is room for expansion. The Anzio map excludes the extremities of the peninsula, as well as the adjacent island. Drumco has made up a Sicilian campaign game, playable independently, or integrated with Anzio. I believe someone has made up the missing toe and boot. A fascinating possibility would be integration with the earlier campaign in North Africa.

In so far as complexity and realism are concerned, Anzio followed the pattern set by 1914, also reputedly unpopular. The fact that Avalon Hill followed this trend past the first example may be attributable to the lack of maneuver and strategic opportunity in the First World War, whereas I understand that their hopes were high for Anzio, based at least in part on its similarity to the proven formula of multiple invasions, successfully followed in D-Day.

When neither game set the sales charts soaring, the complexity they shared seemed the obvious culprit. It's an interesting question why 1914 still survives. Perhaps the title has more sales appeal. At least that was the attraction to an elderly lady I encountered in a toy store once, buying a 1914 for her 11 year old grandson. I tried to steer her to Afrika Korps, or Stalingrad, but they were unfamiliar. She liked that title, 1914. I've always wondered how the boy liked the game!

Variants

Returning to the subject of variants, although they still appear, interest has waned to a degree. Who has time to play all the games gushing forth these days, let alone work out variants? Simulations Publications would probably bring it out anyway. But when Anzio first came out, variants were all the rage, so it is a testimony to the ability of its designer, Dave Williams, that the fertile imagination of the wargaming public could add nothing. In my opinion, it is a pity, when first-class wargame designers seem to be so rare a breed (witness the last two games Avalon Hill has generated internally: Guadalcanal and Kreigspiel), that we have nothing new from Dave Williams, whose inventiveness I at least would rank second to none. There had been some thought to making Anzio a two-level game, strategy and tactics, with a mini-board of at least the Anzio area included.

This gave rise to Anzio Beachhead, printed in Strategy & Tactics over a year ago. Also the work of David Williams, it incorporated unusual but playable movement rules which are the best workable approximation of simultaneous movement that I know of. After this came his last game, so far as I know: Battle of Moscow, also in S&T.

Besides the physical realism of board and units, Anzio incorporated or refined novel play mechanics. Although not new to Anzio, the step-reduction system of combat results was used there to greater effect than before, or since. I think the fact that a better solution for certain wargaming problems has not yet been found is shown by Simulations Publications touting step-reduction as an advantage of one of their latest games: 1870 (Franco-Prussian War). Before Anzio and 1914, a unit could be in combat every turn ending the game as fresh and unscathed as on the first turn surely the height of unreality. Or, a big 8 factor armored corps might be wiped out to the last cook and clerk in a 4-1 attack, if exchange were rolled.

Called the "perfect battle game" by prototype testers, Anzio offers you the best of all the exciting design concepts found in the most popular Avalon Hill battle titles. Those who enjoy the scope of Stalingrad and Afrika Korps will relish playing the various mini-game versions - games that can be played within 2 hours.

The SRT (Step Reduction Table) changed all that. No combat, whether a 1-4 soak-off, or a 9-1 automatic victory, assured either attacker or defender of emerging without loss, but this loss was usually gradual attrition, not all or nothing. Moreover, attrition forced each player to pull units back in reserve, to rebuild lost strength. Reserves were also mandatory both to make subsequent invasions, and to guard against them. Unlike so many other games, not every unit could be in the front line.

Breakthrough

Another problem Anzio helped solve was that of the breakthrough. Suppose that in Blitzkreig or Stalingrad you annihilate the enemy on-a broad front. Do you pour through into his rear, wreaking havoc as you roll up the flanks? Of course not, because your turn is over, so he can calmly plug the gap right back up again! Anzio's automatic victory rules make breakthroughs and continued combat possible in a realistic way: not often, but often enough to allow interesting situations to develop.

But, as so often happens, no improvement is free from problems. In this case, the unrealistic situation that it is sometimes preferable not to defend a geographical barrier at all in Anzio, rather than defend it lightly. A paradox is created that is found in many games: a river, for instance, can be crossed faster by victory in battle than unopposed!

Another innovation in Anzio was "retreat through zones-of-control." Watching your opponent's biggest division dwindle to cadre strength as it loses another two steps careening through your encircling zoc's must be one of wargaming's most satisfying moments!

Something else that I believe was new in Anzio was the use of a special rule frankly designed to duplicate a situation otherwise impossible to transfer from history to game. In the basic game, the "First Turn Surprise Table" allowed the Allies to recreate their historic 1944 break-out. In the advanced game(s), special airstrikes accomplished the same result. Surely Stalingrad is not the only pre-Anzio game that could've benefitted from something similar to the "First Turn Surprise Table."

So with all this going for it, why did the game fail?

Several reasons:

1. Some people took one look at that colorful mapboard and were immediately put off - too many colors, hard to look at, units blend in with the map, etc. It is true that the map could've been much more carefully drawn and printed. Personally, I like geography, and love maps, preferring an Anzio or Bastogne-style map to the current S&T style, in which the majority of hexes are vacant, with only a few highly important features named. These diagrams (one can hardly call them maps), must be very much easier to produce, and no doubt perfectly acceptable or even preferable to many.

Jim Dunnigan recently said that the very intricate map for Bastogne was his last effort of that sort: more trouble than it's worth, or words to that effect. Perhaps so. Perhaps maps such as Anzio and Bastogne are overdone, but is the opposite extreme preferable? Can't we have both?

2. These same people didn't care for so many units. Bad enough to have 4 different colors for Axis units, with 8 colors or shades representing different nationalities on the Allied side, but many found that having 10 different counters all in some way or other part of the Herman Goering division was just too radical a departure from the good old days when a given counter was a given unit, and that was that! I'll never forget how long it took me to figure out my first Anzio PBM turn! At that point, I think quite a few people just closed the box and put it back on the shelf.

3. To many, the mechanics of step-reduction were too steep a price to pay for the realism gained thereby. Take off a 4-7-12. Hunt around somewhere for a 3-5-12. Don't put it in the wrong place! Where the heck is it? Oh, down here with the regimental counters. Some counters of equal strength, and nearly equal appearance, could be a decimated division, or a full strength regiment. I doubt if anyone who has played Anzio much hasn't had the experience of discovering two counters from the same unit incorrectly on the board simultaneously. Perhaps a magnifying glass to read the tiny numbers revealing which was which should've been included in each box!

So why not use the UECRT (Unit Elimination Combat Results Table) and forget SRT? And why not use it with the basic game, or why not play one of the several mini-games?

I don't believe Anzio played this way is good enough to survive alone. No doubt the game's discontinuance is the proof of that.

4. But if that's true, then isn't the campaign game awfully long? Potentially so, yes, but unless both sides are lacking in daring, agreat many games will never get into 1944. Since it's only a game, as Allies why not experiment with one of the riskier, but more northerly, invasion areas? Or, as Germans, why not try to push the invaders back into the sea in 1943? Neither course of action need detract from the game, on the contrary. Then, if you feel like a longer game, play with more caution. The length of the Anzio Campaign game can be greatly influenced by the boldness of either player. Nonetheless, probably the majority of wargamers prefer a game certain to end within, say, 3 hours.

5. Although the PBM-player seems deliberately snubbed by the many games out these days with no printed-on grid, I doubt that the popularity of postal play has lessened. If, as I argue, the version of Anzio is Number III, with all the optionals, then it certainly doesn't lend itself to PBM, although it can be done. Surely it can be done with far greater ease than USN, one of the few S&T gridded games. Nonetheless, here again, a negative point.

6. No doubt several more could be included, but I will just add one. It may seem unimportant, but I also believe that Anzio's unorthodox shape and large size have contributed to its unpopularity. By the time you set up that big board and all the stuff that goes with it, you're taking up a fair amount of room.

So does this mean that Anzio failed because the only worthwhile version, although considered by some to be Avalon Hill's finest strategy game, was just too complicated and hard to play?

Although basically true, I think there's more to it than that.

I do not believe that a game such as Anzio III with SRT and all the goodies can ever appeal to more than a relative handful of wargamers. Surely there must be a potential audience of 100 for something relatively easy to play and learn, yet demanding in its way, like Afrika Korps, for everyone who would rather play Anzio. I know there's at least one, since that's me!

Yet I do believe that a small minority would have sufficed to keep Anzio in print, had it not been for what I consider a fatal, and inexplicable, omission on the part of Avalon Hill: a few simple things to make the game easier to set-up and play. I just can't understand why they lavished attention on mapboard, rules, and units, while:

1. Not including any sort of organizational sheet for the myriad Allied units;

2. Including such a sheet for the Germans, but so jammed together, without any serious attempt at proper organization, that it is more a hindrance than a help;

3. Going to the bother to research minutely all the comings and goings of the units assigned to the Italian theatre at some time during the war there, but presenting these arrivals and departures in what is, in my view, a poorly organized way.

So you sit down to play Anzio. You have no place to set-up the Allied units, although you have to constantly refer to them. You have no place to put the Germans, either, as the AH sheet is so cumbersome it's useless. As the weeks roll by, you have to flip pages and consult charts like a librarian or a computer programmer, to find out arrivals and departures, not to mention substituting regiments for divisions, or changing units as casualties/reinforcements are taken. Inevitably, errors will result. So what do you do when you find that the panzer division that has been holding the Allies back at Cassino was supposed to have been in the Ukraine a month ago! What you do is not play Anzio, and that's probably why it's being discontinued.

What a few die-hards have done is either to ignore these inconveniences, or organize the game to their own satisfaction. It is possible to play the game with ease, if you have the tools to do it. I know, because I've done it, but it took me many hours of work. A game should be a complete game, not a do-it-yourself kit!

So here it is - finally - the game based on the most controversial theatre of any war of any era.

Wargames are hard enough for those new to the hobby to understand as it is, without unnecessary difficulties. When you read a letter such as that in the July-August General wondering if anyone has ever deciphered Waterloo, you wonder that Anzio lasted as long as it did!

I may be wrong. It could be that even if these needless complexities had been taken care of, there still wouldn't have been enough people liking that sort of game to keep it in print. I don't think we'll know the answer to that question until and unless something comparable comes out, but not designed for masochists only!

Anzio and 1914 seem to represent the peak of the trend towards historical fidelity and realism, and their failure have swung the pendulum a good way in the opposite direction, towards a certain sort of simplicity. By that I don't necessarily means games simple to play, but rather games in which the effort to simulate history has been only partial, with the mapboard and the OOB especially being neglected.

France 1940 is a good example. Anyone reading Harold Totten's interesting article in Panzerfaust #54 on "The French Army in 1940" realizes what liberties have been taken in the game with the true OOB. The variety of units the French had is interesting to me, as are the Anzio units, but in France 1940 all these units are standardized as 6-6's, and 2-2 Maginot Line units. Furthermore, this seems to be considered a good thing in itself.

In The Spartan # 2, Al Nofi of Simulations Publications says, "What we did was take all the French divisions, throw them into a hopper, boil them down and divide ... we did the same thing with the German infantry division -- we put them in a hopper, boiled them down and divided." I suppose that to turn out 30 games a year one does have to resort to a lot of boiling and dividing. Fine, but I, for one, hope that the discontinuance of Anzio does not mean that, with so many games being pressed out through the meat-grinder, one or two every few years could not copy the features that so endear Anzio to a few wargamers. Perhaps the long-awaited War in the East will be such a game.

Probably most serious wargamers like to dream about their ideal game -- "were there but world enough, and time" -- mine would be the whole European Theatre of World War II, a la Anzio III!