At Last we have a game from Rand that signifies the arrival of another powerful force in wargaming. Rommel; The War for North Africa is by far their best simulation. It's number nine, the last offering in Command Series 1, and the best. The previous eight offerings were, at best, mediocre, and hardly worth the attention of a serious wargamer in a time when new simulations are saturating the market. The most that can be said of Command Series I is that they delivered nine games in one year as their initial advertisement stated, (see Panzerfaust 63 for a review of two other Rand games).

Rommel is a game for the wargamerhistorian. It is the type of simulation that one can sit down with and run through tlie written accounts of the battle. Rommel passed the "ultimate" test, as far as I'm concerned, for a wargame. It "hooked" me enough to get out my well worn books and magazines on the North African campaign. It is the type of game that encourages a study of the period and for that alone it is worth the purchase price.

Rommel is a small game both in the number of counters and size of map. Despite its physical limitations it contains many subtlies and employs ingenious uses of conventional rules to produce a triumph in the field of North African wargaming. It's best compared with S&T's Panzerarmee Africa and is a valuable addition to the numerous North African games pressently being produced. With this game, and the recently arrived Vicksburg and Manstein, Rand has established itself as a solid, productive company, well worth the investment of the gamer's time and hard cash.

Rommel incorporates several unique features, the most interesting of which are the "boxes" and minefields we read so much about. This is the first game that captures the feel of these items while retaining simplicity. Many of us are familiar with El Alamein which degenerated into a tiresome contest between minefield counters and the player's perseverance.

In Rommel we have printed on the mapsheet itself an attractive minefield and box motiff. Adopting S&T's variable terrain concept, the rules tell you exactly which fields are "active" in the scenario you are playing. A unit in a friendly box is doubled on defense and a minefield surrounding a friendly unit, causes the attacker to add two to his die roll. A minefield alone triggers a plus two to an offensive player's die roll, in addition to severe movement penalties. For all practical purposes a unit must begin its turn either adjacent to, or several hexes away from the box position to attack it in the same player turn. It costs an armor unit five extra movement points to cross an enemy hexside which is mined.

The penalty for crossing an enemy mined hexside is constant, no matter how far to the rear the defensive player had retreated. It is imperative for the offensive player to clear a mined hexside or suffer movement and supply penalties the remainder of the game. Crossing or breaching an unoccupied enemy minefield costs five additional movement points but although the breaching allows a unit to trace supplies through the hexside and retreat, the five movement point penalty is never removed.

We are given markers to indicate which hexsides are cleared but they tend to clutter up the map and it might be more useful to jot down the hexside coordinates on a paper to avoid overload. The game rules leave it unclear as to whether a vacated box can be rendered inactive. If the box is subsequently retaken by the original inhabitant is it still active, as are the fortified lines in Kursk or (SPI's) Stalingrad?

Rand has a knack for taking rules and innovations from other game systems and converting them into refreshingly new techniques that pale their original source. For example, they employ a rule entitled Operational Supply which we've seen many times before, albeit in different forms. In order for a unit to attack it must have available to it operational supply points.

These are not physical items- but are instead noted on an adjustable on-map scale that can be adjusted to reflect the differing levels of supply available. The importance of supply in the North African campaign can be readily seen in this quote from the German General Von Mellithin who states:

When he first came to Africa, Rommel showed little interest in supply problems, but he came to realize that this question was absolutely fundamental.

Each side is given a certain number of ops at the beginning of the scenario and the schedule of points per turn. In the Gazala scenario, for example, the German ops is dependent upon the roll of a die each turn while the British receive a set number each game turn. Each unit that attacks consumes two supply points no matter what type it is. Each player must be extremely careful not to squander his precious ops on attacks by weak units or attack with too many units.

The game teaches one to study the given situation and figure the exact number of units it will take to achieve the hopeful result. Throwing in a couple of extra units just "to make sure" will spell disaster in the end.

A second consumer of ops is the exploitation or mechanized movement we are so familiar with from the ilk of Kursk, Destruction of Army Group Center and France 1940. In order for an armored unit to make a second movement it must expend one ops for each unit moved. All units have the option of doubling their movement in the first movement phase by expanding an additional ops in a type of movement known as redeployment. Ops's also make it possible for units to "breakout" of enemy encirclement or be supplied by "night convoys" that played such an important role in the fighting around the Free French position of Bir Hakim. Units that successfully destroy their opponent are given three ops and may find he is making attacks with an eye to the obvious purpose of acquiring additional supply.

Airpower is employed with a system that is both uncomplicated and fairly accurate. There is also an example of step reduction that goes far to make this realistic dev playable. Each counter is printed on both sides and you may flip a unit over to reflect a 1/2 defender elim or its many similar companions on Rand's three combat results tables. Replacement can be added to flipped over units, restoring them to full strength flipping them back.

Zones of control metamorphized into a system called "range of influence" which enables a unit to inhibit movement in the six hexes surrounding it. Several of the box positions employing this rule, are able to control sizable chunks of territory and deny it to the enemy for movement or sup purposes. A nice touch is the dual system of unit symbols. For the allied counters we have the familiar rectangular boxes with "x's" for infantry etc., while the Germans and Italians we are given unit identification actually employed. At first, these unusual counter markings n be confusing but one soon grows accustomed and finds them a refreshing chang. Rand continued this practice in their Command Series II game, Hitler's Last Gamble: The battle of the bulge. Those who haven't had the opportunity to read a copy of the outstanding armor enthusiast magazine, AFV-G2 would be advised to pick up issue 12, volume 4. In this issue tl have a detailed report on Axis unit symbols.

The game may be used in several ways. First, of course, as a conventional two- player or solitaire simulation. Secondly, it may be used, by the military historian, as a tool to study the movements of the three scenarios protrayed. Using the scenario's initial disposition one can follow through the description of the various written accounts by moving the units in accordance with the particular account you happen to be studying. The internal symmetry of Rommel system is an outstanding vehicle an understanding, on the brigade level the events that transpired in the North African desert from Gazala to east of Sollum in 1941.

One unfortunate aspect of Rommel is the fact that we are given only three scenarios. The game was probably intended to be only limited in scope, the last of a series, and this is reflected in the sparsity of counters as well as scenarios.

The first scenario involves the British defeat at Gazala in May-June 1941. Despite the numerical superiority of the English they failed to keep their armor concentrated and were defeated by the Nazi forces. In Rommel we are given no British idiocy rule as was included in Panzerarmee Afrika but the fact of the original English troop disposition and the actions of an insightful German player might give them a chance to duplicate Rommel's victory. In the actual battle the British were driven back toward Tobruk and Egypt. The German player receives on his first move a bonus of four movement points.

This bonus may be the designer's attempt to introduce a plus for the outnumbered Germans. The Axis player might find himself doing exactly what Rommel did at the opening of the battle-hitting the scattered brigades of the 7th Armoured Division. The overrunning of the 3rd Indian Motor Brigade is a logical first turn choice for the German for the destruction of this unit will leave the Allied Gazala defensive line outflanked to the south. More importantly, it will place the Germans behind, to the west, of the main British positions. Of course this puts Rommel in a precarious supply situation, for unless the fortified Free French position at Bir Hakim is eliminated the range for operational supply will increase four to five hexes, a great deal in a game whose supply line rules extend only 15 hexes.

With Rommel the importance of the battles in the "Cauldron" on June fifth and sixth can be readily seen to reach a British minefield so that a supply line can be opened up. Attacking enemy units enclosed within a "box" and minefield is, perhaps, the most difficult operation in the game. Units so protected are designated as being in a "fortified" place which forces the attacker to use an unfavorable combat results table. One also learns the importance of attacking with mixed armorinfantry against almost any target. The full problems confronting an attacker would look like this: first the unit is behind a mine field which entails at least two turns for a distant enemy to attack. In Rommel an attacking unit must pay the cost in movement points of the hex the target unit is in. it costs a unit five additional movement points to cross an enemy minefield so a unit moving into attack position against a minefield defended unit would be forced to expend six movement points to attack.

It costs no additional movement points just to move next to the unit. One only pays the additional points when attacking-, it costs no additional movement points to move next to a unit and not attack. This movement delay enables the defender, if he wished, to reinforce the position. Second, the attacker must add two to his die roll and third, as already mentioned, he must use a more unfavorable combat results table.

If he is so unfortunate as to force a retreat he may advance after combat but on his next turn he will still have to pay the five- movementpoint penalty to move out of the Alla Round mined hexsides, The ability of German units to stack four in a hex enables him to, by far, wield the most formidable force on the board. The British failure to concentrate his armor is reflected in the stacking limitation of three per hex. Von Mellenthin says of this English tendency:

The decision to commit the 21st Panzer division was far more risky than we realized at the time ... the whole of the 7th armored division was grouped in the areas, (Gabr Saleh) and if this force had remained concentrated it could have inflicted a very serious defeat ... But mercifully for us General Cunningham ... had decided to split up his armor ... and the various formations went off in different directions.

The wargamer, with benefit of hindsight, can rectify the various errors the actual commanders committed at the time and may profoundly influence the historical outcome. Rommel might be improved by the addition of some sort of "idiocy" rule for it becomes clear immediately that the British player has such an overwhelming numerical advantage in both units and supply that it would be difficult for the German to repeat Rommel's victory.

While Rommel contains many features that mark it as an outstanding simulation there are several improvements that could have been added. One such item would be the inclusion of separate counters for antitank units. Time and time again British units were prevented from following up a successful battle because the German armor remnants withdrew behind a screen of 88's or their smaller, less lethal cousins.

Barring the extra expense in creating such counters the greater power for defense could have been incorporated in separate attack And defense strengths. GDW introduced an interesting concept in Chaco that might have been incorporated here. A divisional unit has the ability of detaching a "patrol" counter that is able to operate independently of the mother unit. The anti-tank strength, now abstracted into an all encompassing "combat power number" could become detachable counters. Several new North African wargames have recently been announced and it will be interesting to see how they handle this problem.

I've nothing but praise for Rommel's step-reduction system. Fiddling with stepreduction counters can be a disheartening experience, one which detracts from play. Here it is handled in an easy but motivating manner. (Note: Guidon Games introduced this system four years ago! PSL)

It is a far cry from 1914, (the greatest sleeper of all times, I won't be surprised that in years to come 1974 will be seen as the one game that had done more to fire up wargaming than any other), and Torgau's step-reduction schemes. These two games employ extensive unit counters and charts to accomplish their goal but their scope and magnitude is far beyond that of Rommel.

One area where additional counters might have helped would have been the addition of air strength point counters and I would suggest the player make them up for his own use. Along with this a consideration of portable supply counters, ala Drang Nach Osten, might be of use. A player could haul limited supply with him at the expense of lowered movement allowance. Using these a player could attempt bolder outflanking maneuvers behind enemy lines.

One set of rules deserves a more detailed explanation. The concept of force composition shows the advantages of combined arms actions. Despite the title of a recent S&T game we were not given a simulation that demonstrated this vital concept. Here in Rand's offering the concept becomes a playable device. There are three combat results tables in Rommel.

The first is the most advantageous with the third being the least. Unlike several other of their games you do not choose the table that would be the most advantageous. The choice of table is dependent upon an Attack Analysis Chart. Here you compare the attacker's force composition with the defender's and read which table you're to use.

There are three possible attacker forces and four possible defensive ones. The first is an armor force which consists of " . . . two thirds (67% or more) of all attacking or defending units in a combat are armor . . .". Second is an infantry force which is identical to the armor except the percentage must be in infantry units. The third, and most effective, is the mixed force which is defined as "a mixed force must be composed of at least one third (33.33% or more) infantry units and at least one third (33.33% or more) armor units."

There is a fourth type of force that exists only for the defense. This is a Fortified Force and consists of any type of unit or units emplaced within a "box" or perimeter hex. This is the toughest nut to crack and the German commander may find himself hung up on the wire and mines as individual Allied infantry brigades hold up the might of massed panzers. It becomes instantly clear why Rommel choose to go around.

Many of the rules pioneered in Rommel reach maturity in Hitler's Last Gamble: The battle of the bulge. I would strongly recommend acquiring this game also, as there are further extensions of the system like ranged artillery and air interdiction plus a host of other rules. Rand has come of age and now that they've associated themselves with the Morningside Game Project we can look forward to a succession of games worth playing. The most recent arrival, Von Manstein, is one of the most exciting east-front games to come along in years. It contains many improvements on the S&T east front system and I'm convinced that it will come to be in every gamer's library once the word gets out.