In the July-August issue of Panzerfaust magazine, there appeared an article by John Michalski entitled "Some Thoughts on CRTs", an analysis of the playability and realism of 'whole unit loss' combat results tables as opposed to 'step reduction' tables, and an argument for a single CRT applicable to all battle games. Not an unreasonable essay, and I agree with much of what he says.

I especially like his remark that using wargames to study history is mostly ". . . somthing to be used in defense against hostile wives and wary outsiders." For all their complexity and simulation of events, these are games, things to be played and enjoyed as just that. But even as games, there is a lot of room for discussion and disagreement concerning the two arguments--the old standbys, realism and playability--that John brings up.

According to the article, loss by whole units is at least as realistic as by step reduction. Let's examine his arguments. He talks about "relative combat effectiveness". That's what is computed and quantified to arrive at a combat strength expressed in factors, which is also what units lose when they take casualties in battle.

Michalski states that step reduction is often defended by people ". . . confusing ... combat factor with simple head count" rather than combat effectiveness, then he makes that very mistake in an example. According to Michalski, if a 12,000 man division rated four combat factors takes 3000 battle casualties, you might expect it to be reduced (by step CRT) a quarter of its strength to three factors. But, he says, the losses come from the front line troops, leaving 9000 "engineers, artillerymen, truck drivers, cooks, colonels, and clerks," which would reduce the unit to zero relative combat effectiveness rather than three. That amounts to the same result as an elimination, so why bother with step reduction?

But the point he misses is this: step reduction is concerned with the combat effectiveness of the front line troops. I won't quibble about the ratio of combatants to noncombatants, that has nothing to do with it. If the line troops number 3000 and 3000 casualties are taken, it might as well be eliminated. Don't worry about the "cooks, colonels and clerks"; the support elements won't amount to much. However, the effectiveness of the "rifles" can be reduced by steps as they suffer more losses in successive battles.

And that's what happens. In WWII, divisions were seldom eliminated in a single action. In the event of massive losses, they can be reflected by especially high step losses. Surely this is more representative of battle results than having 'elim' rolls which wipe out all participants on one side while leaving the other unscathed. 'Exchanges' remedy this somewhat, but with total destruction of one side.

This is a glaring weakness of Afrika Korps. The 7-7-10s of the 21st and 15th divisions can make dozens of attacks at 5-1 or better and destroy dozens of Allied brigades while not losing a single tank themselves. Step reduction can correct this by assuring that sometimes, even at the best odds, the attackers will suffer some casualties.

Realism is a variable; everyone sees it differently. I like to quote Selim's Maxim: "The important thing is not realism, but what people will accept as realism." And so it is with CRTs. Most players will accept the original Tactis II type of whole unit elimination as a playable abstraction of actual battle results, but to call it more realistic than step reduction is unreasonable.

Michalski's second objection to step reduction is on playability grounds. He feels that the sorting and replacing of pieces required by factor-by-factor losses is too cumbersome and slows the game too much. Granted, this is a problem. Almost no one wants to wade knee deep through spare step reduction counters to get to the board. There have been a number of solutions to this problem, none of them entirely successful. Let's examine some ot the alternate methods of reducing unit strength.

War in the East: The more powerful units are back-printed with kampfgruppe/battlegroup strengths, When the CRT calls for elimination, the unit is flipped to the reduced strength and remains in play. A half way approach to the concept of partial losses, but it solves the problem of sorting and storing substitute counters. (This technique was originated by us in ALEXANDER and DUNKIRK, DSL).

Blitzkrieg: Unit losses are computed in factors and the piece suffering casualties is replaced by one or more weaker counters of the same type from the substitute pile. This accurately recreates step-by-step losses, but has the disadvantages of piece shuffling, replacing one strong division with two or more weaker. brigades, and necessitates (in the old rules) a Waterloo type stacking limit based on factors.

Guadalcanal: The original units remain in play and factors lost in combat are marked off the roster sheet, much as damage hits are recorded in Midway. It is a pain in the neck to keep comparing the unit on the board to its strength on paper when contemplating attacks.

Quebec 1759: The units are wooden blocks with varying strength in dots along each edge of the face. As casualties are taken, the block is turned so that the proper combat value faces upwards. Not a bad idea, but too clumsy for use in games with high piece density.

Anzio: Each piece is replaced on a unitfor-unit basis with a reduced strength counter. True step reduction, but this could involve a huge number of pieces when fighting a large campaign with ton-factor panzer divisions.

Selim's system: Selim (who invented the maxim) has been experimenting with cheap, disposable unit counters that are marked with their combat factors according to a series of dots which can be erased or drawn in. This can tend to be sloppy and hard to keep track of.

As yet there is no optimal system of step reduction from the standpoint of playability. Consequently, I'll have to agree with Michalski's preference of whole unit losses on those terms.

Returning to his article, the heart of it is concerned with establishing a standard CRT for universal use, with specific opposition to multiple CRTs used at different times by different sides in a single game, as in War in the East. Let's look at the second part of the argument first.

He claims that the War in the East system of CRTs is a gambit to cover a failure of design, and also prevents the player from exercising all of his strategic options because of this tactical impact, forcing the game into a repetitious rut: the identical, historical outcome constantly replayed. "The designers simply decide when it is time for one side to win or lose, then change tables at the chosen time to insure it." But he does recognize the changing nature of the war in the earlier section about step reduction, arguing that 1955 German divisions, although reorganized and chewed up for four years, still had the same firepower (and combat factor) as they did in 1941. "if they accomplished less, look at the nature of the opponent they now faced-"

Exactly. Times changed. In '44 the Soviets weren't the patsies of '41. Their new respectability reflected the years of experience, new and improved weaponry, reorganization, better leadership at all levels and vastly improved tactical doctrine. Which is to say that a Soviet unit that survived the early years of battle and remained at reasonable strength, was no longer the same unit in terms of relative combat effectiveness. They caught up with the Germans.

So what is to be done?

The increased capabilities of the unit can be shown several ways, chief among them either replace it with a correspondingly stronger piece, or alter the CRT, Mr. Michalski allows neither. Such unit substitution involves ". . . puttering more than the playing. . ."

Changing the CRT is ruled out. "The CRT must be an objective standard." Well, the Soviets could be doubled, or the Germans halved in battles as the strengths begin to equalize. But that seems an arbitrary solution. You could multiply the number of units available to the Soviets. Of course, this happens anyway. But if you add to the newly created divisions, the new pieces arriving to show increased effectiveness of existing formations-now that's wading 'wasit' deep through spare counters. The whole problem is a little more subtle.

There are too many factors affecting combat effectiveness other than the obvious headcount and firepower. Weather, disease, situation, tactical leadership and doctrinal training, operating among a hostile populace, and very importantly, morale, are of the variables. Even if someone come up with a universally accepted (unlikely), it seems like an enormous task to quantify all the variables in all the signs the CRT would cover, to produce continuity and interchangability that a table would require.

For example, would the same division perform identically in a game where it was part of an advancing army as it would perform on a front where it was part of a routed army? Would the same division be as effective in the North African desert as on Russian steppes?

Probably not.

But it would have to be quantified at a single strength in each case, unless there were substitute counters to represent its capabilities on each front. This is the sort of problem it looks like Europa could run into.

Beyond that is the difficulty of simulating complexities of flesh and blood with cardboard and ink, and reducing the vast uncertainties of combat to a few simple out. I've always thought that five different battle results (A ELIM, A BACK, D BACK, D ELIM) were far too few: there are only six possible solutions to each (rolling 1 through 6). There should be more possible results, including greater losses on both sides and simultaneous retreats and advances of varying length, the possibility of both sides retreating.

There should be "contact" and "engaged" as in Battle of the Bulge. What's there should be a wider range of le results with each throw of the dice. I'd like to see a two-dice CRT ranging from 11-16, 21-26, etc., which allows 36 possible (at equal probability) for each battle. This would present a much broader mix of at results. There might be a chance in that the attackers would be repulsed in a battle, for example, or that they would regain the position at 1-6 odds.

There are simulations and there are games. They can be defined by realism and playability, which in both cases is a strictly personal point of view. To some people, Europa (I'm not trying to knock it) may be the epitomy of wargames. But I look for a more equitable balance between the two extremes. Nor do I care for the way some games are reduced to single-solution puzzles to be solved once and put away. But given the historical framework on which the games are designed, there has to be some allowance made for the circumstances for the individual campaign, which makes it difficult to construct a single CRT for all battles. Unless you want to design a Tactics II or Blitzkrieg.

I just can't accept Michalski's arguments that the standard CRT is as realistic as step reduction, though it is more playable. Nor could I accept it, or probably any other table (including the 'wider' one above), as the universal CRT.

Some phenomena cannot be reduced to a single, simple solution in games of simulation.