Publisher: Simulations Publications, Inc
Designer: James F. Dunnigan
Graphics: Redmond A. Simonsen, Manfried F. Milkuhn

COMPONENTS

Board: Produced on high quality stiff paper, flattens easily with one folding. Four color reproduction with seas a blue, boarders and roads a dark brown, rough terrain brown, and clear terrain a buff.

Counters: Are the usual high quality produced by SPI.

Overall graphics receive a big tip of MY hat. Steady, quality components are the standard for SPI productions. This department's track record is excellent.

PLAYABILITY

Things go down hill rapidly. Good comments end abruptly. Below are listed a number of glaring errors that should not have been in a commercially available and play-tested game. I have taken them from the 1973 Scenerio since it is also my intention to compare this game to Conflict Game's BAR-LEV at a latter time.

1. No Arab Air Force I seem to recall several photos in Time Magazine and reports from the front of the damage caused by this (at least SPI) nonexistant Air Force. The rationale that the Israeli Air Force was able to handle the Arab Air Force would not hold in this scenerio. I can find no reason not to include an Arab Air Factor.

2. Combat Results system This is the worst element in the whole game. The results are based not on a combat comparison as we are used to (3 to 1, 1 to 2 5 to 1. etc.), but on an "Attack Superiority." If 5 factors have combat with 1 factor, the results are determined on the +4 part of the table. This is another idea of SPI that I said "great" too, until I thought about it for awhile. It seemed to settle once and for all the 1 to 1 or 2 to 1.

But then I tried to put it on the battlefield and came to the following startling realization: If 55 factors go against 51 the results will be the same as if 5 factors go against 1 factor. To my mind the result will be the same if and only if 50 factors on each side decide not to participate. Not going to happen on the battlefield!

3. SPI has done again something they do more and more as time goes by. They have put something on the board that we are supposed to accept as true. In this case they have placed a "one-way" track in the Sinai area with no explanation of why it is "one-way.,, Some one with more knowledge of geography has got to explain this Phenomenon before I accept it without question.

4. Both Sides have an unusual combat trait that I admire, yet can find little support for. When surrounded they double their defense factor! All right, once in a while I could probably accept this, but to make a hard and fast rule is ridiculous.

5. SAM (surface to air missiles). With no ground offense factor, these units have the unique effect of quadrupling the defense factor of ground units within two hexes. If this is true, I would suggest that the US Army consider another reduction in force and replace the men dropped with more SAMs for the front line troops thus phased out. After all with our technology we could even increase the range and the combat effectiveness of our missiles.

BALANCE

Now with these minor deficiencies noted let us proceed with an estimate of true playability. There is no such thing in this game. Below is what it takes for each side to win:

ARABS: Egypt crosses the canal and holds the Bar-Lev Line. To guarantee this victory it is necessary for Syria to withdraw and that Egypt advance no further than the SAM umbrella mentioned above.

ISRAELI: Pray for the Intervention of Jordan!

The Arabs should win this game. They get points for occupying territory. If they advance no further than their SAM protection they will have 33 hexes at 5 points per hex or 165 points. They also get 2 points for each Israeli combat factor destroyed.

The Israeli gets 2 points per hex for 16 hexes in Syria for a total of 32 points. They get 1 point for each Arab factor destroyed. If Syria withdraws (and no points are given for withdrawn units) Israel can't get any points for killing. If, and only if, Jordan intervenes can Israel hope to get any points, with plenty of Jordan for hex points and plenty of combat factors to munch.

SUMMARY

All in all one of the worst designs from SPI in some time. I question it from both an historical and a playable standpoint. You would receive more than the additional 98 cents-worth of game if you spent your money on BAR-LEV.

COMMENTS

I said in my review of "KASSERINE PASS" that I would not discuss the quality of SPI games. But in this instance, I feel inclined to make a few comments which I accept full blame or credit for.

SPI receives 75% of the credit for the growth of our hobby in the last five years. For this I am grateful.

It is time that we cease facing east when discussing SPI and begin to demand a little more from the recognized voice of our hobby. SINAI is an example (and I grant you, it is the worst) of the tendency of SPI to publish games of little quality and realism just to get them on the market. When the hobby was growing from infancy to adulthood quantity was needed to maintain the interest of beginners. With an estimated 200,000 qamers, we should not continue in the quantity-only production. Quality should be demanded.

I question the playtesting facilities at SPI. I question them from two different directions. Direction one: how could errors as I have listed in this review have gotten by any panel but yes men? Direction two: MOVES magazine is packed with errata that should have been caught during playtesting!

I could be wrong but I get the impression that when a "warp" in the rules appears, a "counter-warp" is created to correct it. I first noticed this in Mod-Blitzkrieg. I still get the feeling in most SPI games.

There was a television program some time ago titled "The Selling of the Pentagon." I am reminded of this each and every time I read my latest S&T program.

As I said before in an earlier review, I am an old-line Avalon Hill gamer and it could be I am old-fashioned. But if so, my circle of competitors agree with me. End of editorial.